Loading...
BCC Minutes 07/16/1996 R REGULAR MEETING OF JULY 16, 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 9:11 a.m. in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: John C. Norris Timothy J. Constantine Bettye J. Matthews Timothy L. Hancock Pamela S. Hac'Kie ALSO PRESENT: W. Neil Dorrill, County Manager David Weigel, County Attorney Item #3 AGENDA AND CONSENT AGENDA - APPROVED AND/OR ADOPTED WITH CHANGES CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We will call this county commission meeting to order on the 16th day of July, 1996 with this invocation and pledge to the flag. MR. DORRILL: Heavenly Father, we thank you today and this morning for the recent time of rest that we have enjoyed and a time for the commission to be on recess. We thank you for the recent Independence Day holiday. Father, we also thank you this time of year for the opportunity that we have to go on summer vacations and to spend time in enjoyment with our family. Father, as always today it is our prayer that you would guide the deliberations and the hand of this county commission as they make the important decisions for this community that affect all of it's people. We'd ask you bless our time here together today, 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 a couple of changes to the agenda this morning. MR. DORRILL: Yes, sir, good morning. We do. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Shall we wait until the TAG meeting's over? Are you folks finished out there? Are you finished now? If you're finished we'll go ahead, but we don't want to interrupt you. Okay. Go ahead. MR. DORRILL: Mr. Chairman, I have one add-on item this morning. It is Item 8(E)(1) which is under public -- or county manager, rather. It is a TDC request to approve the final contract with the International Fireworks Group. It is for their festival. I want to call your attention to the backup material that we provided to you. There's a letter from International Fireworks Group there and the potential for a change in site location. And I had asked and held this off last week awaiting some written confirmation of their intent as it pertains to the site. And that letter was received yesterday, and so I have attached it, and representatives from International Fireworks Group are here and can address that at the proper time. Under 8(E)(1) that's the final contract for the use of the TDC funds. I have two items that we would like to withdraw, and we will reschedule only if necessary. The first one is under public petitions. Today it is being withdrawn at the request of the petitioner, Mr. and Mrs. James Lee, regarding certain noise in Golden Gate Estates from ATVs. They have asked to withdraw that. We'll bring it back if we can accommodate their schedule. Also I have an on the consent agenda we'd like to withdraw, Item 16(B)(9), which would be under public works. It's a recommendation that the Board declare property known as Lot 8 and Lot 9 in certain sections in townships in Collier County as surplus. Staff will bring that back. I have two items that we'd like to continue. The first is just for one week. It's Item 13(A) which was under advertised public hearings. There's a request to continue that for one week. It's petition A-96-1, Emily Haggio requesting an appeal of an approval of a boat dock extension. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Dorrill? MR. DORRILL: Yes, sir. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Do you know if the request for that continuance is because a settlement's in the works or because one party wasn't ready? Do we have a reason? MS. PEDONE: Advertising. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Oh, was it? Was it advertising? MS. PEDONE: Yeah. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. MR. DORRILL: The other item, Mr. Chairman, is 16(B)(4), which is also on the consent agenda under public works. It's part of our continuing agreement with the Florida Department of Corrections and in particular the Hendry Correctional Institute to provide inmate labor for road and bridge functions in the Immokalee District. We will bring that back again. There is no date certain, but we'll reschedule that. That's all that I have, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Commissioner Matthews, anything further? COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: No. I don't have anything. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I just have a question on 16(B)(4). When it comes back -- I know it's on the consent agenda -- can we just get a two-minute presentation on what that entails, because I get a lot of questions about inmate labor and how it's used and so forth? And either -- if we can meet ahead of time to save the rest of the board the time, that'd be fine but I'd like -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm interested in hearing that report, too, and I was wondering -- COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Why don't we just get a memo? COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. Well, I thought -- I also think the public might be interested in knowing. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: True. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm wondering if there -- if there's also something that we could do with the Collier County Sheriff's Office in that regard, Mr. Dotrill. I don't know that that's legally permissible, but I wish you would explore that as to, you know, adjudicated criminals. MR. DORRILL: It is. There was a change in the legislature in 1995. The sheriff always has a problem with the number of inmates that he classifies as trusties in terms of what it takes for him to get up and clean and run the jail every day, but we can ask Captain Smith to be here and explain to you what our inmate labor programs are. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'd like to -- nothing else. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: You do not have anything? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Two items. I wonder if we might -- excuse me -- remove 16(A)(3) and continue it the for one week and place it on the regular agenda? And -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: 16(A) (3)? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: 16(A)(3). Place it on next week's regular agenda. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Have you discussed that with the folks who are making the request prior to today? COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No, I haven't. I just -- I read this over the weekend so I -- there's been a couple of phone calls from other folks in that area just wanting to make sure that that's a public hearing, and regardless of what the board -- COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And 16(A)(4) talking about TECH and transportation disadvantage. It's been at least four or five months, I think, actually since January that we talked about looking at advertising for bidders so that perhaps we can get someone better equipped to do the TECH service and lighten up the -- perhaps we can take this item off and get the update at that time, but I want an update today. MR. DORRILL: We have one. I anticipated your asking that. I got that information yesterday and can give you an example of the process. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: So this is going onto the regular agenda? MR. DORRILL: You may want to hold that near the -- near the end. Maybe -- we'll just bring that back up under board communications. It might take a while. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: All right. Then we need a motion. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I have a question. Are we leaving 16(A)(4) on the consent agenda or taking it off? MR. DORRILL: No. It will be taken off, and we can add it under the Board of County Commissioners. My suggestion would be 10(D). COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Okay. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Motion to approve the agenda as amended. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have motion and a second. All those in favor signify by saying aye. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: It's been a couple of weeks, hasn't it? Item #4 MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF JUNE 11 AND JUNE 18, 1996; JUNE 19, JUNE 20, JUNE 24, 1996 BUDGET; AND JUNE 25, 1996 REGULAR MEETING - APPROVED AS PRESENTED CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Yes. We have several groups of minutes here. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I make a motion to approve -- do this in one fell swoop -- the regular meetings' minutes of June 11, and June 18, 1996; the budget meeting minutes of June 19th, June 20th, and June 24 of 1996; and the regular meeting minutes of June 25, 1996. COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: Second. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and second to approve the minutes. All in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? Item #5B EMPLOYEE SERVICE AWARDS - PRESENTED Service awards. Commissioner Mac'Kie. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: How wonderful to get to give these service awards. We have a few this morning. The first one is -- I am going to start with the biggie -- is 20 years in parks and recreation, Jose Herrera. You can come up and get your award. (Applause.) You started when you were 127 Now, someone who must have started when she was about 12, Barbara Cacchione, for 15 years with the county. She's in long range planning. (Applause.) The next award is for 15 years in road and bridge. It goes to Daniel T. O'Brien. (Applause.) MR. DORRILL: First workday I ever had about nine years ago Danny had me digging ditches on Solana Road. I've never been back. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: That's how our road system has changed in 15 years. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: For ten years in support services, Leo Ochs. (Applause.) Finally, for five years in the wastewater department, William J. Combs. (Applause.) COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: You're going for 20; right? MR. COMBS: I'm gonna try. Item #5C TAMI BUCHAN, PURCHASING DEPARTMENT, SUPPORT SERVICES DIVISION RECOGNIZED AS EMPLOYEE OF THE MONTH FOR JULY 1996 CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Our next item is one I always like to do. It's recognizing our employee of the month. We need to ask Tami Buchan if she would come up here. Is she here today? Would you come up here and face the audience, please, so that they can see you at home on television. Tami is a senior secretary coordinating the initial customer service response to incoming telephone and walk-in inquiries. While the level of customer traffic, especially on the telephone, can be overwhelming, Tami maintains a consistently courteous, friendly demeanor that tells our customers that she is ready and willing to help them. Additionally, Tami is a true team player. She willingly puts the needs of her coworkers within the department and the agency before her own needs on a daily basis. Tami has made a conscientious effort to help new employees be more productive and at home in their surroundings. Without any reservations she was nominated and seconded as employee of the month for July 1996. As you probably know, Tami, employee of the month means you get a letter for your file, your personnel file, and this letter says, Dear Miss Buchan, it is indeed a pleasure for us to announce your selection as Collier County's employee of the month for July 1996. This well-deserved recognition is for your valuable contributions to the county through your work in the purchasing department. This honor includes an exceptional performance plaque as well as a $50 cash award, which I am proud to present to you. On behalf of the Board of County Commissioners, I offer our sincere congratulations and also our gratitude for your dependability and dedication. (Applause.) Item #7A WALTER SOLOMON, DEPUTY SHERIFF REGARDING A WAIVER OF FEES - IHMOKALEE LANDFILL - TABLED UNTIL LATER IN THE MEETING Okay. We are ready for our -- we have a public petition? Walter Solomon. Mr. Solomon, I'm sure you're aware that the public petition process allows ten minutes for speaking, and the board, in all likelihood, does not take action today. Is Mr. Solomon here or is -- he's apparently not going to be here? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Okay. MR. DORRILL: I don't see him yet, Mr. Chairman. He is a sheriff's deputy in Immokalee, and we can ascertain if he's on his way. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: We will recognize him when he comes in. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I make a motion to table the item until Mr. Solomon can be here. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Second the motion. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second to table. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? Item #8A1 VERBAL REPORT BY GAYLE BRETT OF THE DEPARTHNET OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION RELATIVE TO LAND ACQUISITION IN COLLIER COUNTY - STAFF DIRECTED TO INVESTIGATE WHETHER THIS AREA SHOULD BE TURN OVER TO THE DISTRICT AND MINIMUM ACCESS TO MILLER BLVD. OBTAINED Our first item then will be 8(A)(1), verbal report by Gayle Brett of the Department of Environmental Protection. Miss Brett. MS. BRETT: Thank you. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners. I appreciate the opportunity to be here today to let you know what is going on in the state's acquisition process in Collier County. I brought some maps with me today, and I'd first like to kind of go over the maps with you so that we can take a look at the different areas that we're talking about here. As you know, Collier County is blessed with environmentally sensitive lands, and we do have several conservation and recreation land projects in this county. I'd like to point first to the map that's a satellite overview of the area, and it has the different conservation and recreation projects outlined. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Miss Brett? Okay. She's gone. I was just going to tell you to use that mike. MS. BRETT: Is this it? Okay. In this area is the Big Cypress National Preserve. The state is a 20-percent participant in the acquisition of this project. This area is the Fakahatchee Strand. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Excuse me, you said how many percent of that? MS. BRETT: Twenty. Twenty percent. The federal government is to buy 80 percent of that project. The state's to buy 20 percent and then donate the land to the federal government. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. MS. BRETT: This area here designated as Fakahatchee Strand State Preserve, that area, that's 79,000 acres. The state has purchased all but about thirty-five hundred of those ownerships. And that acquisition did begin in 1979. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Those thirty-five hundred ownerships make up how many acres? MS. BRETT: They average about 2 1/2 acres a parcel. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So all but '- MS. BRETT: Seven, eight thousand acres. The area here designated as southern Golden Gate Estates, and then we have the Belle Heade project which was recently added to the park list. And I believe today we want to focus on the Golden Gate Estates project, and so I have a larger map so that you can get more up close and personal with Golden Gate Estates. The distinction that we need to make here first of all, I believe, is the difference in what we call northern Golden Gate Estates and southern. The CARL project is only in what we call southern Golden Gate Estates. That part of Golden Gate Estates lies south of 1-75. I believe that some of their -- some of the areas that you're looking at include components for northern Golden Gate Estates as opposed to southern Golden Gate Estates. Also in this area there -- there's the platted which are these tiny little lots that you can see all over here. That's the platted subdivision of Golden Gate Estates. In addition, inside the CARL project is this area that's larger-acreage tracts that we nicknamed "hole in the donut." We've got this area here that's large-acreage tracts nicknamed "the boot." Then this area that's south of the platted Golden Gate Estates but north of 41 which we called "south of the border." So when we're looking at our CARL project, we're thinking in terms of this area, all of this area from Interstate 75 all the way down to 41. And I was speaking with Barbara Cacchione earlier yesterday, and she was telling me that you're only concerned with the platted area of Golden Gate Estates. And if that's true -- I know that I read the transcript of your meeting on March 20th, and I know that you did have some people speaking who owned property in some of these other areas. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: I think it would be fair to say that we're not only concerned with the platted area. That maybe the subject of our EAR discussions, but we are concerned with any state purchase program in the county where we feel property owners are not being treated fairly. So on that I'll set my personal opinion and extend that beyond the platted areas. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Absolutely. I'm sure that we all feel -- I mean, everybody nod. We all care about all of it and not just the platted area. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yes. In reference to the EAR that we're going through right now -- MS. BRETT: Yeah. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yes. The platted area is what's being referenced there, but I -- our concern goes beyond that based on our conversations. MS. BRETT: Okay. Well, this map depicts the entire area, as I said, and the yellow indicates the state ownership, the blue being the private ownership. Inside the platted Golden Gate Estates area we've purchased I believe it's -- the figure is 10,950 acres. In the entire project area here that we call southern Golden Gate Estates at the time that map was done, we had purchased 17,852 acres. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm sorry, but would you say those numbers that you just said again? MS. BRETT: Yes. Inside the platted area of Golden Gate Estates 10,950 acres, and inside the entire Golden Gate project it is __ COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: 17,852. MS. BRETT: That's correct, 17,852 acres. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Out of a total of? MS. BRETT: Well, we've got various estimates, but for years we've said that the platted area was 42,000 acres. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: The whole, though, is what I was asking. MS. BRETT: The entire project? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yes, ma'am. MS. BRETT: We estimate it at about 52,000 acres. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: So about a fifth? No. A little more than that? MS. BRETT: A little more. And the other thing I want to say is, too, this map was taken from a printout that was done by the Collier County property appraiser's office. So what this shows is what has closed, the deed is in the name of the state. In addition to that, we have another approximately 700 parcels and again they average about 2 1/2 acres each that are under contract to the state and are in the closing process right now. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I don't want to get ahead of the presentation. Are you going to talk about average prices paid and that kind of stuff? MS. BRETT: I can talk about some of the prices that we pay, yes. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'd like to have that information. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I'd like to get one question, too, before we get much farther down the road. When did the acquisition project begin? MS. BRETT: Okay. The Golden Gate Estates project began in 1985. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: In 19857 It's 11 years old. MS. BRETT: Yes. Yes. It was placed on the CARL list in 1985 and then finalized in 1986. At that time the process was to map a project for appraisal purposes before it went on the list. But the governor by proclamation put this, which is called Save Our Everglades Project, on the list in 1985. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Would it be fair to say discussions on this then started prior to 19857 MS. BRETT: Discussions of buying this property? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yes. MS. BRETT: Yes, discussions did start prior -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Like in the early '80s? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Just so I understand the process, officially the program began in 1985, and at the outset your intent was to purchase through voluntary purchases some 42,000 acres? MS. BRETT: That's correct. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: To date you have purchased, I mean outright purchased, how many acres again? MS. BRETT: 17,852. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: You have how many under contract at this point? MS. BRETT: I would say another about twelve hundred acres. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Along that line didn't you say ten thousand nine fifity or nine fifty-five are in the -- MS. BRETT: Platted area. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- southern Golden Gate Estates? So we're back down to just under 11,000. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. The last question I have to kind of get myself up to speed here -- when you began in 1985, did the program have an anticipated life? Did you expect to have your acquisition program completed by a certain date? MS. BRETT: What the governor's proclamation said was to own the majority by the year 2000. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: You're not going to make that it doesn't look like. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, let me understand this, though, because that goes to the point of what the remaining property owners have a concern with. To own -- a majority of your policies affect the balance and keep them from using what I would call a minimum of beneficial use of their land. That doesn't seem to me an acquisition program. That's kind of -- I mean, I don't think anyone anticipated a piecemeal approach in 1985 that you would end up with the northern part through the entire Estates. So it has never been a goal for total acquisition or expected to have total acquisition of the parcels but just a majority. Is that a fair statement? HS. BRETT: That was -- that was -- with the proclamation of the governor, and that's what our office has been working towards is to own the majority by the year 2000. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let me just make sure these numbers are right. I just checked them by our staff. The 10,950 that you said in this platted area, that makes up roughly 27 percent? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Of the platted. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yes. MS. BRETT: Yes. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And the dispute -- one of the disputed questions yesterday was under the numbers our staff had initially put forth that it would take roughly the 57 years to complete the program at the same rate. If we do the math on that, it would still take 41 more years to complete the program at the current rate. MS. BRETT: Okay. That's beginning in nineteen -- beginning in nineteen -- what year? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: '85. MS. BRETT: Okay. Well, the project was placed on the list in 1985. The appraisals were not completed until 1986, offers were not made in the area until 1987, and the bureau was not actually staffed to a level that's required for this many parcels until 1990. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I think the point, though, is not the exact number of years. The point is, whether it's 30 years or 40 years or 57 years, that is unacceptable to the people who own that property and would like to do something and are currently in limbo. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Something during their lifetimes. MS. BRETT: Well -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Why don't we let -- MS. BRETT: I don't understand the limbo part. What I'd like to say is that the CARL program carries with it no regulatory authority. Those people are free to do whatever with their land. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: That ignores the central point here, and I'm going to be a little blunt with you. Looking at that map you could see that what has occurred here is going to render the parcels that are still blue pretty much not useful to the property owners because of what has transpired up to this point. That practice in the real estate market, for example, is strictly prohibited by law. It's a practice called blockbusting. That's -- that's not exactly what you've done here, but it's similar. And all we're saying as a Board of Commissioners and as representatives of the people who own this land is if you want to buy it, fine. Get out your checkbook and buy it. But don't leave it like this for 20 years -- 10, 20 years. You know, it really doesn't matter if you thought of the program, put it on the list in '85, and you staffed up in 1990. None of that matters. You put a cloud on those peoples' ownership in 1985 when it went on the list. That's when the property was clouded. So all we're asking is simply do whatever you want to do but just do it. Don't leave these people hanging for 20 or 30 years. MS. BRETT: Sir, we didn't leave them hanging for 20 or 30 years. GAC left them hanging for 20 or 30 years. GAC came in the early '60s and drained the property. They built a canal system that effectively drained most of the county and dumped the fresh water into a saltwater system. GAC had these people pay a really good price for this land, then in 1979 they declared bankruptcy. They declared the bankruptcy not having fulfilled their promises to these people. They promised to put in roads, sewer systems, water lines, shopping centers, malls, tennis courts, golf courses. GAC left these people hanging. The state did not leave these people hanging. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: But -- yeah. Well, the state is leaving them hanging. MS. BRETT: The state is giving them an opportunity to sell their property. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: This is -- ma'am, the picture you're painting which is the state, the Department of Environmental Protection as the white knight on a horse coming in to save these poor schmucks who got taken in that land sale is -- is not accurate. What you have done -- I look at your criteria in purchasing this property. If Collier County came to the DEP and requested a 12-inch force main for sewer and a 12-inch water line straight down the backbone of that -- that area, would the DEP have a problem permitting that? MS. BRETT: I don't know. I'm not in permitting, sir. I'm in acquisition. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Well, I can answer that for you. They won't let us do anything. I'm sure you came down here with a point to make so let's let Miss Brett go ahead and make her point. I'm sure she has a point to make. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: We have eyes -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Miss Brett, if you would continue, please. MS. BRETT: My point is that the buying of Golden Gate Estates is a nightmare acquisition. I don't know if you've ever been in a situation where you're wanting to buy 18,000 pieces of land, but it's an organizational nightmare. These people bought this land in the early '60s when they were young. Now, they've grown older. They've moved all over the world, and it's a nightmare just to contact these people. And when we do get in touch with them, like I said, some of them have died, and it necessitates probate, and it's the -- there's bureaucracy, of course, in the land-acquisition process, and a lot of them just don't even want to deal with going through the land-buying program. So what we have done and what we have accomplished, when you look at it on parcel-by-parcel basis, is major progress. Each one of these little lines that you see on the map is a real estate transaction. It's searching these people out in Michigan, Ohio, Australia and going through an entire real estate transaction with them. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. Let me ask you, if I might, you say there's 18,000 and some-odd different parcels and it's very difficult to get ahold of them. How many individual parcels were there in 1985 when you started the program? MS. BRETT: The same number. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: My point. I mean, you should have thought about that at the outset and not complained about it and use it as an excuse -- MS. BRETT: Sir, I'm not complaining. I'm explaining the difficulty of the acquisition and how you can look at this map and you see more blue than you see yellow. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: My point is, Miss Brett, that that was a preexisting condition. You can't use that now as an excuse not to go forward with the project. MS. BRETT: We are going forward. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But, Miss Brett, I think -- I think -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I think that's the rationale why it's going to take 41 years, because -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: But -- but appropriately let's -- I'm trying very hard here not to shoot the messenger because I'm very grateful that you're here giving us a report. And I know that you weren't the one who signed that governor's proclamation or whatever it was that instigated this process. But we would be absolutely remiss in our duties if we didn't tell you that it's absolutely a failure. It is a failure. It's hurting people. And that's despite your very best efforts and some very difficult work that nobody's questioning how complicated -- I'm in the real estate transaction business. I know -- I can't imagine how complicated this would be to go through, and I'm sure you've done an excellent job with the resources you've been given, and I don't think anybody on this board here's yelling at you. It's just we're more frustrated than we can possibly express to you. We are more frustrated than we can tell you with this process, because you're too far away from the faces that go with those blue -- blue pieces of property to know how it has affected lives. And I know in theory it's not supposed to have and there's no regulatory blah-blah with CARL, but it's affected people's lives significantly and seriously and we have to communicate that to you and ask you to take that message back that this is not working despite your best efforts. MS. BRETT: I don't think there's anybody that's more in touch with the owners in Golden Gate Estates than I am. I do deal with them on a daily basis. I understand what's going on in their lives. And I did read the transcript from your March the 20th hearing and I would say that I only recognized about two landowners in Golden Gate Estates who spoke. The primary speakers seemed to be Mr. Clifford Fort who does not own in the Golden Gate Estates but owns up in the area we call the boot. The other speakers were Mr. Larry Fitzpatrick and Miss Reatha Valera. Those are people who filed a lawsuit, a rush condemnation lawsuit, against DEP and the county back in 1988. That lawsuit has been one of the major obstacles in the state progressing in this land acquisition program. So for many years the county's paid attorneys to fight this lawsuit that Mr. Fitzpatrick and Miss Valera have filed. And the reason that I had an opportunity to read the transcript of your meeting was because immediately after the meeting they had their attorney file it with the court of appeals in Atlanta as evidence for their lawsuit. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I don't believe -- I value what you've said because I think it's correct and you're defending a process and you are so embroiled in that process, involved in that process -- this board is not asked to go back 10 or 15 years and revisit every single decision that was made, but what has come home to roost is that this is taking a tremendous amount of time and a great amount of effort. In the process -- in the meantime a board in the '80s decided that we would comply with the state's request to not issue permits for improvements in the area to give the state the opportunity -- and I'm paraphrasing because I don't have this exactly in front of me -- to give the state the opportunity to purchase those lands, to do what the state said they were going to do. No one at that time said it was going to take 40 or 50 years. I think the assumption at that time is it would be a much quicker time frame than that. What has happened in the meantime is it's drug on for these owners, particularly those who feel that the assessment of their property's not fair, and I think it comes -- comes home in one point, in your assessment you look at the availability of water, sewer, and electricity to value the land. A homeowner down there can't get water, sewer, or electricity because another arm of your department stands in the way of that happening. The county in the past has allowed that to happen. What we're saying is we're not going to allow it to happen at the county level because we don't feel that the state has -- has pursued the acquisition program at the rate that was originally intended or presented to a previous board. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: If I can just add to that that brings -- for me that brings us to the question of price because in addition to the -- the slow pace -- I have some excerpts from some cabinet meetings from some minutes of cabinet meetings with -- that's -- that's Belle Heade CARL property, but the prices being paid there are like two thousand, twenty-one hundred. These are all in the Save-our-Everglades CARL, but here's one for $1,866 an acre but several excerpts here where I see property being paid about $2,000 an acre, and what I hear and I'd like to know from you is that the people who have been complaining to us are saying that they're getting offered $400 an acre when I see other property right here for 2,000 an acre. MS. BRETT: What our appraisers find in Collier County is that there is a market for large-acreage -- acreage tracts. But there is no market for 1 1/4, 2 1/2-acre tracts because there are 16,000 of them in Golden Gate Estates which virtually is more than the market can absorb. Therefore, the value of a subdivision lot is not equal to the value of a large-acreage tract. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: So something that the lawyers in the room who represent these people ought to think about is have them deed all of, you know, 50-acre tracts into your name as trustees so that you have a big parcel of land to sell. That's easy enough. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, the other thing is '- I'm not sure and I'm not the appraiser and I'm sure there's a science to it which perhaps is above me -- but I'm not sure I agree with the contention that there is no market for 2 1/2-acre parcels, because if you look at individual single-family-home permits in the year 1995 more were pulled for 2 1/2-acre parcels in the northern Golden Gate Estates than in any other part of the county, so clearly there's a market for that type product. MS. BRETT: Well, in northern Golden Gate Estates because there are facilities available there. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Right. And that goes right back to Commissioner Hancock's point that it was the state DEP's request that sewer and water and electricity not be allowed in the southern Golden Gate Estates. MS. BRETT: Well, have you been approached with a person who wants a permit to put in waters and sewers and electricity for all of Golden Gate Estates? COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Yes. We have been asked since -- since I've been on this board to extend the building permit of a person who wants to build in the southern Golden Gate Estates, now, each and every year, and we extend that permit because he cannot get a permit from the DEP or the corps to build his house. MS. BRETT: Because it's an environmentally-sensitive area. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: He's in an area where electricity is available, but he can't get a permit. MS. BRETT: Well, there are houses there. So -- COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I'm telling you that we extend a permit to this man every year. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: And by law minimum beneficial use of a piece of property is to ability place a home on it. And for someone who just wants to do that their inability to do so and the answer is environmentally sensitive ignores that minimum beneficial use which has been recognized in courts in the State of Florida from the Snyder (phonetic) case in South Carolina all the way down to takings issues as recent as last year. Now, all we're saying is that this process has taken such an extended period of time -- and I understand factors you presented to us today, and I don't argue any of them -- but it's taken such an extended period of time that I don't think this board chooses to be party to assisting in that process dragging on anymore. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah. And we've taken the position that we're not going to. And I don't -- I hope that there's not any change in that. I don't see -- sense any -- that -- that we're not going to continue to participate as a means of communicating the level of dissatisfaction with the way the program has been implemented. COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to pursue one more issue so that Miss Brett can carry this message back to Tallahassee. Is -- is there or is there not a study that's been done on the restoration of the hydrological period of -- in the southern -- southern Golden Gate Estates? MS. BRETT: There's been a restoration plan recently that I'll -- COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: A plan or a study? MS. BRETT: I'm not sure of the technical -- taken place. I don't -- COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I -- I -- I believe there is a study that deals with the restoration of the hydrological period in the southern Golden Gate Estates. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Developed by whom? COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: I think the basin board did it and -- and as a result of that study, and that's merely a feasibility study as to whether it's possible or not. But it seems to me what we're -- what is being discussed in that study is reflooding that property. Now, if the state's intention is to only purchase 50 percent of that property in the next 4 years, what are you going to do about the other 50 percent of the people who haven't yet sold the property to you but the existence of this study or plan or whatever is going to flood them? MS. BRETT: That plan or study, whichever it is, is based on the state owning all of the property and it has no time line with it. There's no time frame connected to the study. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: There's no price tag attached to the study either? MS. BRETT: No. And so it's -- it's based on when the state owns all the property this is what we'd like to see done. COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: But -- MS. BRETT: And in the meantime they're doing some interim things in areas where we do own the property. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: But these are all the -- all the things that we are hearing from our constituents -- and believe me all these people are my constituents because this is all a part of my district -- but they're saying all of these little pieces that the state is putting together from various corners of the area is what is depressing the property value. No one's going to buy property down here if they know the state has a plan to flood it. MS. BRETT: Well, what our appraisers say is depressing the market is the volume of the lots, the sheer volume of the lots, that it floods the market, so to speak. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: You know -- you know, I'm going to say this, and then I'm going to drop it, okay, but I -- I was up in Washington, DC, a year ago when Disney announced it had finally acquired -- had finally assembled a large enough parcel of land to build Disney whatever-it-was that -- right outside of Washington DC. They had been working on acquiring that property for five years, and nobody knew it until they finally -- one day they had enough, and they said, okay, we've got enough. Now, they didn't get it rezoned, and they haven't -- they've had to walk away from it, but they very quietly assembled the property that they needed. Couldn't the state have done something similar to that without clouding the ownership of all this property? MS. BRETT: Well, the state operates with public funds, and, therefore, the public has the right and wants the right to know what we're doing with their money. And also in an area that size I don't believe that you could go in and, you know, buy parcels without the neighbors finding out because, I mean, in the Belle Meade project where we've just begun, we're already having people call us and say, hey, my neighbor got an offer. Why didn't I get an offer? So, you know, word -- word travels, and I don't believe there's a way for the state to do an acquisition as large as this and, you know, keep it quiet. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let me try one more time on a question. You, again, said you think it's the sheer volume that is depressing the market, and I refer, again, to the northern Golden Gate Estates where there are thousands of properties of the same size and the prices are escalating because of the demand on the market and I use 1995 as the example. Your answer was then, well, there's no availability of services. And, again, that's not due to anything other than those requirements requested by the state. So if the difference -- I mean, if it's volume that's not a legitimate argument because the volume is available elsewhere and they are selling at much, much higher; if it is available services, people are trying to put those services in and aren't being allowed to by the state, so I don't see that as a legitimate argument. And then you mentioned environmental sensitivity. Well, I've got to assume the 50-acre parcels that have the higher price you mentioned before are every bit as environmentally sensitive as the 2 1/2-acre parcels. So the arguments don't wash, and it seems like when we bring up one then you're using the other as a reason, and when we respond to that you go back to the initial volume argument, and -- MS. BRETT: Well, the larger parcels are zoned agricultural, and you are able, I believe, to carry on agricultural, you know, business better in environmentally-sensitive lands and we are ableto -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Correct me if I am wrong, Mr. Dotrill, but in estates you can do ag. work anyway? COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Some ag. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Let's fezone it ag. if it helps to lift their property prices -- values up. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Commissioner Constantine, I'd like to make a comment on the municipal services or public services that you say are available in north Golden Gate Estates. I'd like to say there's no water or sewer available. There's only electricity, phone lines, in some areas cable. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Don't forget roads. That's one of the biggies. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: There are roads in southern Golden Gate Estates. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Correct me if I'm wrong, but we've been having a discussion for the last ten years about Sabal Palm Road. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Oh, yeah. Well -- COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I have one last inquiry -- just -- and this is -- I -- I have heard -- and this maybe is for the -- for the board's consideration, but I've heard that there is some -- there is a group that's trying to have the acquisition of this property transferred from the jurisdiction of DEP to the jurisdiction of South Florida Water Management District. Now, I don't know if that's the frying pan to the fire. The people who are trying to effectuate that think that the -- indicate that they have empirical data that South Florida Water Management goes faster and pays more. I would like to ask our staff to investigate that and to advise us on whether or not we should join in the request for the transfer to South Florida Water Management from DEP. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm just not sure whether water management district's going to do a better job. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Again, Commissioner -- COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Same -- save a pot of money. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I think -- I think the South Florida Water Management District added personnel to help with the research and the paperwork in this acquisition. If they had not done that, there wouldn't be 10,500 acres in ownership right now. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I think that they -- I think it's worth investigating if whether or not they might be able to help this go faster and get better prices and -- and if it's -- COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: I -- I know we have public speakers, and Miss Brett has presented her case. We probably need to try and -- MS. BRETT: Okay. I would like to make one -- one -- one comment. This -- I would like for you to take a close look at the people who are coming to speak to you again. The group that's, you know, behind the movement to remove the project from the DEP to water management district, again, are the people in the lawsuit. And these people have an agreement that if they sell these peoples' land, they'll get a 15-percent real estate commission. So these people stand to make a lot of money when this land is purchased. Now, there's nothing wrong with real estate commissions. I used to be one, and I know how important real estate commissions are. But they -- they represent a for-profit corporation as opposed to representing the owners of Golden Gate Estates. As a matter of fact, they've had several businesses in Golden Gate Estates, the first one back in about 1984 and 1985. Mr. Fitzpatrick formed the Golden Gate Homeowners Association, and you could pay $40 a year and become a member. And I believe he had six to nine thousand people that paid him the $40 a year. After that he -- he actually signed the application for Golden Gate Estates to go on the CARL list, after which he began writing to the people saying that the state's probably not going to pay you the money you want, but if you do want to sell, I've got a real estate company and I'll represent you to the state for a 15-percent real estate commission. But then he had formed another company. If you don't want to sell to state, if you want to sue them, send me $195 and we'll sue the state. And so he had approximately 3,000 people send it back -- COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm going to interrupt you because what you feel an individual owner is doing -- if you feel that these five people are a puppet government of a handful of folks down there, you're sadly mistaken. What is going on down there is unfair to every property owner whether they have a real estate license, or whether they live in Ohio, or Austria, or wherever, because actions by one arm of the DEP are depressing property values while another arm of the DEP is trying to low-ball. So, you know, this -- you can stop that line right there, because I'm not comfortable with you moving ahead with it. It's simply an insult. (Applause.) MS. BRETT: Okay, sir. I just want -- just let me say this: That when Collier County was in the lawsuit they were not in favor of, you know, paying extra money to settle the lawsuit. Collier County's not in a lawsuit anymore. And we don't feel like -- that the state -- the people of the state want to spend their money because somebody made a bad investment in the early '60s. We are moving forward. We're closing approximately a hundred properties a month. We -- we -- the program got off the ground in 1990. What has been done has been done in six years. And in another six years we can make significant progress. I just want to point out one more thing. The map that has the red -- those -- that's ownership of Avatar. Of this project Avatar owns about seventy-five hundred acres and about thirty-five hundred parcels. Avatar is selling to mainly -- they're selling their property in Miami to mainly Hispanic -- to Hispanics and they have about as high foreclosure rate as they do a sales rate. But Avatar we've negotiated with. They're not willing to sell theirs at this time. We continue to negotiate with them. But I brought this map just so that you could take a look and see the Avatar ownership, and if you overlay it onto the state ownership map and then see how in a lot of the areas where, you know, it would look like we haven't been very successful, that's a lot of the Avatar ownership. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Can you tell me about the rate of sales of Avatar? I mean, how many of those lots are they selling in Miami or wherever they're selling them? MS. BRETT: I don't have -- I don't have exact figures but another thing you can notice -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Do you have an approximate idea? I don't need an exact number. MS. BRETT: I don't think they're selling -- maybe 30 -- 30 lots a year, say. But see the -- the -- the line there is Stuart Boulevard, and you can see that 99 percent of their ownership is south of Stuart Boulevard. That's in the area that in the wet season it's most wet. So the fact that we've not been able to negotiate with Avatar has been, you know, a big factor in how much the state's been able to -- to buy. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. Dotrill, if you could call the public speakers for us. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Just one last question on that part. Do you have any idea what selling prices Avatar's gotten for those lots down there? MS. BRETT: They're selling for -- I believe it's about $3,000 an acre, and what they're doing is the same way GAC did. They're taking a small down payment, and they're taking monthly payments. And a lot of these people, I'm sad to say, also are still buying sight unseen just the way GAC sold back in the early '60s. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: But it's 3,000 an acre. MS. BRETT: Three thousand an acre, but, like I said, it's a little down and a little a month. The state makes an offer, it's a cash offer. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, I'm not sure the appraisers take into consideration how long it takes you to pay something. It should be what's the price that's being paid for it regardless of whether I pay it off -- pay cash for it or pay on in five years or pay for eight years. The sale is still for a particular price. In this case that's $3,000 an acre. MS. BRETT: Well, in the general real estate market, I think people think that when they pay cash they're entitled to some sort of discount. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Fine. But the point is there's -- the point is it's $3,000 not $400, and if -- if they choose to spread those payments out, that has absolutely no impact on what the value of surrounding properties are. MS. BRETT: Well, it's also not in an area where the state has bought lands for $300 an acre. It's been -- the land that Avatar sold for that price has been in the northern part of Golden Gate Es -- the northern part of southern Golden Gate Estates where the topography is much higher. It's not as prone to flooding as the areas where the state has paid $300 an acre. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Call the public speakers, please. MR. DORRILL: Mr. Rhoden. MS. BRETT: Thank you. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Uh-huh. MR. DORRILL: Then, Ms. Durrwachter, you'll be next following this gentleman. MR. RHODEN: Yes. My name is Donald Rhoden. I am a landowner on what they call the southern Golden Gate Estates. And I received this contract back in October of 1995. This is from the DET (phonetic) -- DEP an offer to buy my property. Okay. When I read it I really became infuriated. I mean, I really did. I said it was really an insult to me, I mean, to my intelligence because I knew more of what was going on out there. But -- and one thing that really aggravated me was that someone on taxpayers' payroll did all this. I mean, they actually spent time to put it together to send it out. That -- they knew that anybody with any sense wasn't going to take it. So after I read it -- and I thought it was real strange that I hadn't been even contacted by an appraiser. And when you go to the letter that's attached it says -- in paragraph two it says, Florida requires an appraisal completed by an independent real estate appraiser before an offer can be made to property -- purchase property by the state. The appraiser has to give the market value of the property. Your offer is based on the appraisal of market value. And one thing I've noticed in that paragraph that I don't know whether they omitted it or they just called it market value -- value, but it sure doesn't say fair market value. I've done some research in the county. I've done it on my own and on the deeds recorded to try to get some kind of idea what things are selling for out there. And believe me it didn't reflect what they sent me. In using a conservative 41 years on the buyout, I'll be about 91 years old if I'm still around now -- if I'm still around then. As a matter of fact, some of us won't be here in 41 years. Well, I had one suggestion. Oh, one good thing about this letter, too. I read, too, it says you do not have to come to Florida. The entire purchase can be handled through the mail, so I thought that was pretty interesting. You know, here I am in Florida and nobody's -- see that I got a -- they should at least have one for Florida residents, one for outside residents, make it a little more personal, you know? But anyway, the -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Hay I ask a question? MR. RHODEN: Yeah. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Two questions, actually, and you don't have to answer either one if you don't want to. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I hope one of them is what price are they offering. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah. I'm curious where on there, generally -- you don't have to point out the exact spot, but roughly where is your property? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Where he's looking tells me what I wanted to know. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That would be in the northern, more dry part that was just pointed out by the DEP representative. MR. RHODEN: It's Pine Island. Yeah, as a matter of fact some of the elevation there's higher than here in Naples. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Do you have any idea -- are you willing to disclose what they offered? MR. RHODEN: Yes, I have no problem with that. They offered me $1,250 an acre. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I guess it's just kind of interesting that three minutes ago she said in the northern dry parts Avatar's selling for 3,000 an acre and yet they're offering twelve fifty. So -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm sorry. This may be -- again, you don't have to answer, but how many acres do you have there? MR. RHODEN: I own ten acres. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It doesn't even fit in with that 2 1/2-acre lot excuse. MR. RHODEN: See, we're platted, too. We're platted for one per five. We're a rural subdivision so we can build one house per five acres. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: That's agricultural zoning. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And how old is the offer? MR. RHODEN: October 1995. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It just doesn't make sense. MR. RHODEN: You know, it's just bad when you get something like this that could be good, but when you've got one 32-cent stamp and you've got an offer from Ed HcHahon, where you'd send it to Ed HcHahon if you don't send it back to the state. That's quite an analogy but that's the way I feel about it. You know, they haven't treated people fair at all. Ed HcHahon's never done anything wrong to me. One thing I -- one suggestion I have for the DEP is -- they -- it is mind boggling. They're trying to get -- to buy about 18,000 individual parcels of property, and it is mind boggling. But this letter attachment that came with it has the signature of Mr. John Brown. I'm sure Mr. Brown is on the DOT -- or DEP payroll, and he writes -- sends out thousands of these a day, probably, and has no idea if any of them comes back, but if Mr. Brown was on a commission, instead of taxpayers' payroll, I guarantee you that 18,000 would go quick. In closing I'd like to thank the commission. I'm really, really impressed. And up to about three or four months ago until we got hit in this, I didn't really trust politicians, to be honest with you. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. Dotrill, could you give this guy another five minutes? MR. RHODEN: I really want to thank you. You all really impressed me. And I think that if somehow -- there are a lot of people out there that's not involved -- if somehow we could get people to come to see how ya'll conduct your business. I'm just really impressed. Thank you. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: If I could ask you -- and anyone else that steps up to speak -- do you have a lawsuit against the state or the county or are you a real estate broker? MR. RHODEN: No, sir. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Is that to both questions? MR. RHODEN: Yeah. Neither one. I'm just a -- just a landowner. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Thank you. MR. RHODEN: Thank you. MR. DORRILL: Miss Durrwachter. MS. DURRWACHTER: Sonja Durrwachter, Division of Forestry, and I manage the land after the state buys it. And we're really concerned about the people in Golden Gate, too. I'm in the field all the time, and I see them. And it -- are you going to direct your staff to, like, make recommendations to the state on how we can solve these problems, or what are you -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, I think this arose out of us modifying our growth management plan to say that we are not going to be party to what the state initially asked us to be party to anymore, and we're not going to stand in the way of residential development in that area. If I'm paraphrasing too generally, tell me, but that's -- that's pretty much the direction we've taken. The growth management plan's the tool we're going to use to send that message. MS. DURRWACHTER: Okay. I guess the only thing I'm really concerned about is -- you know, sometimes in the dry season, you know, you can't tell what's really wet and what's not and so what's -- you're gonna have people buying out there and then when they come back in August and there's this much water on their land, who's going to be responsible? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: They will. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I guess what we're trying to tell you is that if the state wants to buy it, get their checkbook out and come buy it now. Don't take another 40 years. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Fifty-seven, forty-one, twenty. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I understand your -- MS. DURRWACHTER: Is it -- is it -- and plus -- I guess when it gets right down to it the problem is the prices; right? I mean, basically because if the price were higher, then people would be jumping stumps to sell. Is that kind of, basically, the bottom line? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: The price isn't higher because you can't even get a power pole stuck in the ground out there. MS. DURRWACHTER: You can, but you have to pay a lot of money. I mean -- you know, a lot of money. And you're right; there isn't water in north Golden Gate either because I live there, and we don't have that. So -- but, like I said, I think we need to come to some resolution on this. So if we can't -- maybe if I can work with your staff or whatever that I can do to facilitate that, I would be glad to do that, and let's get this thing settled so we can go ahead and get on with all of our lives. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: That's a great offer. I like that. MR. DORRILL: Mr. Fort and then Mr. Fitzpatrick. MR. FORT: I'd like to say good morning to ya'll. My name's Clifford Fort, Broken Wing Ranches. First of all, I'd like to premise my presentation here by saying I have not sued the DEP yet, but after six years of begging the state to be condemned, because I knew that my property despite the fact that it has plus-14 elevation that it is pine flat woods, that 85 percent of it on the maps are shown as highlands despite the fact that a budding property was refused by the DEP for mitigation because it was a highland. It -- it boggles my mind today to hear some of the rationales that I've heard for what these people in southern Golden Gate have gone through. Now, I'm not getting paid a dollar, but I have been so infuriated by the injustice and the arrogance of the DEP and the type of attitude that we've seen reflected here today, I have vowed that I would fight to the very bitter end that we can get some justice. Now, the irony of this thing is there has been a solution all along. The DOT had no problem hunting down thousands of people all along 1-75. None. They did it in a couple years. I have a hard time understanding why it's taking the DEP so long. Think maybe it might be because of the price? Hiss Brett says it's a nightmare of acquisition. DOT had no problem acquiring it. When I made my presentation to the South Florida Water Management District -- and I think that board has done an excellent job, and they are recognized as being credible, fair individuals. Miss Valarie Boyd-Gargiulo stated in an open meeting that the DEP should use the DOT process of acquisition. And do you know what that involves? Acquiring the property preblight. The DOT came in and paid in the blink of an eye, paid me five grand an acre and paid up to two miles back up to $5,000 an acre for that land all across Alligator Alley, all across Alligator Alley. In 1986 I was cut a check for five grand an acre. DOT appraiser -- he had a DOT hat on, same appraiser comes back to see me in 1991 with a DEP hat on appraises my land at $900 an acre. It is unconscionable that we can hear these type of rationales, and that's why we're so angry, and we're telling you that we are fed up, and we will not take it anymore. And the attitude that's been reflected here today by Hiss Brett is putting the entire CARL project in jeopardy because what it says is that we can target and area. We can cut off access. We can take away water, sewer, and utilities. Now, Hiss Brett will leave you to think that I can develop my land. Well, she stated she isn't in the permitting process. She has contacted the army corps of engineer. She has contacted federal fish and wildlife. She's contacted department of forestry. She's contacted the Florida Game and Freshwater Commission and guess what? I'm the first guy that has ever been kicked all the way to Jacksonville for 13 poles in wetlands about the size of my behind. This is ridiculous. Fish and wildlife says, he can't have a pole out there. I am a legal rural subdivision. It's taken me six years to get to that point. Oh, Mr. Fort can develop his land. Well, let me tell you what. It will be another ten years before I see that pole in the ground and it was a done deal and all of a sudden I'm kicked to army corps. I asked Angela Hyer (phonetic) with army corps. She said, Mr. Fort, I have never seen anything like this. I spoke to George Adams with Sprint United. Mr. Fort, I have never seen anything like this. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Mr. Fort, are you -- are you -- are you clear? What I'm hearing you say is that Hiss Brett who is here today individually contacted these people and said slow this down? MR. FORT: I'm not saying she said slow it down, but I can prove to you that she has spoken to them because I confronted Andy Eller (phonetic) when he came out with federal fish and wildlife in front of Skip Burgman (phonetic), which was army corps, and the first thing I said -- because I was red in the face and shaking. I'm not shaking that bad today. I said, "Have you spoken to Gayle Brett?" Just like that I pinned him right against the wall, and the guy looked at his shoes for 60 seconds before he looked me in the eye and said yes. This woman isn't in the permitting process but it seems like every time I go to get a permit, she's talking to somebody. Now, this is a fact. We can solve this thing tomorrow. It's ridiculous for you all to be there. DOT acquired that land in next to no time. All we have to do is appraise our property "preblight." COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: What's your feeling about our urging the DEP to transfer the process to South Florida Water Management? MR. FORT: Well, in light of Miss Valetie Boyd-Gargiulo's comment that she favored the DOT process of acquisition which appraises land before it's blighted and there's no one in this -- in this room today that can say that that property hasn't been blighted, that all use has been taken away. Hiss Brett says we got agricultural use. Well, I went out there to put longans in, and within six months I lost my agricultural exemption. So, yes, we need to move this into the district's hands, and if they follow the mentality and the insightful recommendations by Hiss Gargiulo, we can have this thing wrapped up in no time. So we're just wasting it right here. Recommend immediate condemnation. Recommend moving it into the district's hands, and we got this problem solved, and everybody goes home happy. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: How did you lose your ag. exemption? MR. FORT: Well, I was told when I talked to Collier County staff, you'll never get permits to do anything out there, and this was a long time ago. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: That was including your fence line, if I'm not mistaken? MR. FORT: Oh, I lost -- I lost 90 percent of all my ag. use. I invited the Collier County staff out and showed them what I had done with my salute proposal. I was going to give 50 percent of my land to wildlife and patch farm the others with longans. Six months later I lost, that the bottom line if anybody figures out a way to make a buck on the property out there and do it in an environmentally-sensitive fashion without raping the property, and that has been my intent. You've received hundreds of letters from me to that effect. And what really burns me up here is, you know, I talked to Miss Dartland (phonetic) when she was here. Gayle Brett's in the paper two weeks before saying the land's gonna be flooded. It's already Picayune State Park. I went to Diana Dartland. I said, "Diana, please will you condemn me?" Just give me my day in court. There's no way I'm going to take a grand an acre when I got three grand an acre in it. I sold some of it for 5,000 an acre. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: To the state? MR. FORT: Would you please condemn me? And you know what she said? She said, "Mr. Fort, I'm sorry. No way we're going to condemn -- condemn you." So this is a war of attrition, and this willing-seller program is an unwilling-victim program. And all that body count that she proudly presented to you out there is a travesty, and those poor people have had their land stolen by the state. (Applause.) CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you, Mr. Fort. MR. DORRILL: Mr. Fitzpatrick and then Miss Valera. MR. FITZPATRICK: My name's Larry Fitzpatrick, and I am, in fact, involved in litigation against the Department of Environmental Protection, also the group that has tried to investigate other ways to resolve this problem. The South Florida Water Management District has agreed to accept the purchase from the DEP funds forthcoming from them. The only thing that stands in the way of that is a letter from Virginia Wetheral (phonetic). We have agreed and would agree to enter into binding -- a binding contract by which a fair appraisal would be binding on all parties. There goes 10,000 acres from our interest. I believe in the conversations that Avatar would probably do the same. If we can get a fair appraisal to the property, this is a done deal you'd go from about 20 percent to about 75 percent real quick. The bottom line is that if it goes to the district, we are willing to enter into a binding agreement, reappraise it with just fair instructions to the appraiser, and we're out of there. That's all it takes. Thank you. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay, sir. MR. DORRILL: Ms. Valera? V-a-l-e-r-a. Mr. Perkins, you'll follow this lady. MS. VALERA: Good morning, Commissioners. I want to thank you for this opportunity, and I too want to say that I used to not have faith in government, and you are changing my way of thinking. I do really appreciate it. One of the reasons I got involved in the Golden Gate Estates area was my concern for my own children. I'm worried about their future because what happens when government decides that they want a private citizen's property? Basically, you have two choices as a private citizen. Number one choice is you can give it to government at, you know, the price that they're offering. The second option that you have if the price that they're offering, you know, is insulting to you is to eventually file suit. And so many of the property owners there in the southern Golden Gate Estates did elect to file suit for that reason because that's their only option to try to get a fair market value for their property. One of the things I do want to point out that Miss Brett never really did get around to stating was the amount of offers, how much they're actually offering to property owners in the Golden Gate Estates area. I can point it out to you roughly on the maps if you'd like. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Use the microphone on the wall over there so we can hear you, please. MS. VALERA: Property south of Stuart Boulevard, they are offering these property owners $300 per acre. Property over here north of Stuart Boulevard in this area here is $650 per acre. COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: In the donut. MS. VALERA: No. No, this is in the platted subdivision __ COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: Okay. MS. VALERA: -- around in here, $650 an acre. And then up here right adjacent to 1-75 up in this area is only $900 per acre. And then if you're to the west off Miller Boulevard in units ninety -- excuse me -- 99, 98, 103, and 104, they're offering $1,500 per acre. Now, what I'd like to point out to you is when they sent out their purchase contracts on it -- as you know in real estate contracts normally speaking you will have a closing date that's implemented; however, if you read those contracts they put in there what appears to be a six-month window that they'll close on the property. But if you read all of the language, that date can be extended indefinitely by the language within the contract itself. In addition to that what it states if that property owner signs this legal binding contract and they die that contract binds their heirs or successors. So, in essence, what it appears is that it's a land grab, because if these property owners, you know -- and some of them have taken the offer because they think, well, we don't want to leave this nightmare to our kids, you know, and it's, you know -- we want to get out of it. So they accept the low offers only to find out that problem doesn't go away. The State of Florida, in essence, has now said to that private individual we're going to pay you X amount of dollars. The appraisals are all confidential. No one's privy to know what the appraised value of your property is, but if you take our offer, it's a legal binding contract, and you'll get your money when we're ready to send it to you. That's one of the problems of why they have been unable to buy the 18,000 lots that are there. Who would go into a contract like that? I know very few people that would. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: I have a question. You can't see the appraisal for your own property? MS. VALERA: No. It's confidential until after all of the property is in state ownership. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: What about Sunshine Laws? I mean, isn't there some way to get -- MS. VALERA: No. All the appraisals are confidential. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. MS. VALERA: In any event, this is why some of the property owners have chosen to file suit because they're in a no-win situation. It has been a nightmare out there and bottom line is if a fair price was being offered there wouldn't be this problem of waiting ten years. And, you know, it's -- it's insulting to the private owner. The other thing that I did want to point out that I came across -- somebody was kind enough to send this to me. I know one of the things that they use as their reasons for wanting to acquire that property is for the endangered Florida panther. And this was sent to me, and this was published by the Florida Department of Natural Resource Habitat Protection Plan. And in this booklet on page A22 there's a statement that states "Southern Golden Gate is not extensively used by Florida panthers due to the canals which restrict access and lack of proper habitat management; however, it is suitable habitat -- as acquisition continues more panther use could be expected." So right here in their own publications they're admitting that this land is not extensively used by the panthers. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: That's until we build the $25 million panther bridges. MS. VALERA: Correct. Correct. So I think what's happening is the public -- it gets very confusing because we have the water district that has very publicly -- and I was here on June the llth when Clarence Tiers (phonetic) addressed the commission and publically admitted they wanted an order to flood it, whereas DEP is saying that it's for the endangered Florida panther. Thank you very much for your time. MR. DORRILL: Mr. Perkins and Ms. -- Mr. Agoston. MR. PERKINS: Good morning, Commissioners. A1 Perkins, Belle Meade Groups, Citizens for Constitutional Property Rights are being stepped on by the government big time. If you people haven't been here as long as I have, you need to be an update. The Deltona Corporation and GAC was almost put out of business by the federal government and the state of Florida right coming into the '70s. GAC went under -- went into receivership and all kinds of stipulations were made, and one of them was not to put power in the southern Golden Gate Estates. Roads are in, all the facilities were there, all the benchmarks are there, and the elevation of the southern Golden Gate Estates is extremely high -- which some of you commissioners already know that -- in comparison to the rest of the county. So, now, when we get down to talking about water, we're talking about a whole bunch of lies. The deal that Deltona cut because they had properties throughout the state to be able to take and reactivate Marco Island, they gave away a lot of land, a lot of privileges just to survive. You people that weren't here, you don't know it. It cost them millions and millions and millions of dollars, and it went over a period of 15 years. They're still not surviving. The wet season south of Stuart which I heard when you take it and give it to the Big Cypress basin's water and South Florida Water Management which deliberately two times raised the level of the weirs to deliberately flood you people out and flood out the Belle Meade and the southern Golden Gate Estates and the Fakahatchee. Now, where can you put your trust in? Certainly not in South Florida Water Management nor the Big Cypress basin board. I often wondered are you gonna take and flood it out so everybody sells out so we can purchase more farm land for selective groups? DEP, department of exaggerated propaganda. They'll tell you anything that they think you're stupid enough to believe. They try to set the hook right down the line. Most of the people that speak are out-of-towners, and they're paid employees. By the way the Faky (phonetic) union -- Fakahatchee has not been purchased yet. They're still out there buying. At the same time, too, the DEP deliberately bought property in the Miller Boulevard extension just to hamper the evacuation routes, and they did it with public funds. Losses should be take against them and the individuals who instigated it. Now, are you ready? Here we go. September the 15th, 1992. Gayle Brett and a lot of the other environmentalists stood right here and fought against the spending of $3,000 to improve Miller Boulevard extension to get in ambulances, fire equipment, the Sheriff's department, and to keep everybody out. At that time sitting on the board was Max Hash (phonetic), Dick Shanahan, Michael Volcan (phonetic), and of all peoples who voted against the evacuation routes -- and I'm gonna say that again people. Listen up. The person who voted against the evacuation is right across the hall, Butt Saunders. Ann Goodnight (phonetic) was the only one who voted for it. She was fighting a losing battle against these guys, and I'm glad to see we've got -- we're starting to get balanced out seriously. The result of this was the death, the killing of people on Miller Boulevard by automobiles. The withdrawal of stop signs at hard-surfaced intersections. This was instigated by the DEP and the governor and they make no bones about it. They're proud of it. These people are not trying to save lives. I've -- I have been yapping about Miller Boulevard extension, Miller Boulevard, Everglades to evacuate the people from southern Golden Gate Estates, Marco Island, Goodland and all along 41. I'm trying to say let's save the lives. Apparently, they don't want to save these people's lives. Can I have one more minute, please, to finish? CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Ai? MR. PERKINS: Yes? CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Who are you addressing? Are you addressing someone out there or the county commission? MR. PERKINS: I'm trying to drive this thing home so I can get some people -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: A1, you're supposed to be addressing these people up here. MR. PERKINS: All right. The panther came up, and you know about panther kill. The panthers were captured, sent to Texas for canned hunts where you pay money to kill a thing for a trophy. Picayune State Park is supposed to be southern Golden Gate Estates. And they're gonna have a -- a state forest. I got it from the back here. Where they said we're going to have horseback riding, and gonna have camping, gonna have trail hikes and all the rest of the stuff. Then the South Florida Water Management says, yes, we're gonna flood that same place. Have you ever ridden a horse with scuba gear? CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you, A1. MR. DORRILL: Mr. Agoston. MR. PERKINS: Thank you. MR. DORRILL: Then Mr. Ferguson. MR. AGOSTON: Good morning, Commissioners. My name is Ty Agoston. I live in Golden Gate Estates, the northern part. I'm speaking for myself. I am not really involved in this issue other than as a private citizen, and to be perfectly honest with you my conscience kind of bothers me because I voted for some of the people involved in it which makes me kind of responsible. Let me just express my gratitude to you, because this is the first time I have seen a government body unified fighting another government body which seems to have run amok with their authority and central planning and complained about when the people they're attacking trying to unite and fight back. And that's all I really have to say. Thank you very much. MR. DORRILL: Mr. Ferguson. MR. FERGUSON: Tim Ferguson for the record. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Mr. Ferguson, before you get started, how's Sabal Palm Road? MR. FERGUSON: Sabal Palm Road, one -- one of my comments was that Sable Palm Road -- COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Okay. We -- we know it's not going forward; right? MR. FERGUSON: The whole issue with Sabal Palm Road has boiled down to -- and South Florida Water Management District has finally admitted to me that it's all an issue of whether or not hooks up to the Golden Gate blocks. They don't want a road. They don't want reasonable access to those blocks because they know if they get reasonable access to those blocks that the property values will go up, and they won't be able to buy them. The issue with -- with Belle Meade and with a -- a lot of this other property is they want to flood it because they think there's too much fresh water getting into the -- the saltwater ecosystems. They seem to misunderstand the law. Unless they buy all the property, they're certainly going to be flooding private interests, and I don't see how they think they're gonna get a -- around -- I don't -- I don't know how they're gonna do that. The money that it's gonna require to change that canal system is astronomical even if they do own it. The exotic infiltration into those systems out there is incredible. Mallaleuka has taken over the -- the -- those ecos -- ecosystems so fast that there's no way they can stop. Them I think the forestry person would tell you that it's practically impossible to stop that. We've got 447,000 acres, roughly, in Big Cypress National Preserve. We've got 126,000 in Big Cypress addition. We've got 46,000 in Corkscrew regional ecosystem watershed. We've got 45,000 local Oblahootchee (phonetic) -- or whatever this says -- slough -- COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Okaloacoochee. MR. FERGUSON: Okla -- yeah, whatever. We got 79,000 in Fakahatchee Strand. We've got 26,000 in Florida National Wildlife Refuge. We've got another 52,000 in southern Golden Gate Estates. They want 17,000 in Belle Meade. When you add all this up we're looking at roughly a million acres out of the million two we have in Collier County. I don't know what other county in this state has that kind of federal or state ownership, and when you look at what that does to the tax base of this county it's -- it's a little bit scary. We've got five or six hundred thousand people that are gonna be here in 20 years, and they're not even gonna have it purchased by then. I don't know where this is going, but it doesn't work. It's broken, and I'd like to say on behalf of all my clients they truly appreciate the stance this board has taken. They finally feel like somebody's on their side and looking out for their interests, and it's a true pleasure to say that to you today. Thank you. MR. DORRILL: Ms. Leinweber. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: How many more do we have? MR. DORRILL: Mr. Erlichman will follow this lady. He'll be the final speaker. MS. LEINWEBER: I'm Judy Leinweber. I live on Immokalee Road, Section 22. Today I have to honestly say I like our county commissioners. I think you're doing one bang-up job. I think Gayle Brett is probably one of the biggest crooks we have in this state. If no one else wants to say it, I'll gladly say it. She can come after me. I know for a fact Bay West Nursery, which is a 30-acre nursery -- our land is worth $36,000 an acre, and I'm kind of low-bailing right now. And our dike is the start of the designated flood zone. Nursery Lane, Rose Boulevard, those people can't even give their property away. They're willing sellers. They -- not -- don't even have to worry about $500 an acre. They can't even give it away to the university. And we're -- we're fighting a big battle. When Michael Slaten (phonetic) from the Big Cypress water basin has sent a letter out stating he will stand behind the people against the State of Florida -- don't have that -- I'll bring that up next meeting. I think our county commissioners are finally standing up for the people. We're fighting Big Brother, and I do have that letter at home. I will bring it. Michael Slaten did sign it. And I just thank you for your time, and I thank you for going a good job. MR. DORRILL: Mr. Erlichman. MR. ERLICHMAN: Good morning, Commissioners. My name is Gil Erlichman. I reside in East Naples, and I'm speaking for myself. I'm speaking for myself because I have -- I own no property in any of these areas. The only property I own is my condominium where I live. I own nothing else in the State of Florida. I'm not employed by anyone. I'm retired, and I appear before the commission meetings and various other civic meetings just because I feel that I have to say something in defense of the taxpayers and citizens of the county in which I live and the State of Florida. So therefore I have no personal axe to grind. The thing that really -- the thing that really bothers me is what I heard here this morning for the first time. I didn't -- never realized how insidious this Department of Environmental Protection is. It's an invasive organization, bureaucracy, which the citizens of the State of Florida have no control over. And when people's property rights are taken away, actually taken away and -- and -- and held, you might say, for ransom by -- by government, that's the time when people have to revolt. And I'm not talking about a physical revolt. I'm talking about a revolt of the pow -- taking the powers back from the -- from these -- the state's bureaucracy that has been organized. I -- I don't know when this deed piece started, but I think that was the death knell of private property ownership in the State of Florida and using the excuse to protect animals -- the panther -- building panther tunnels under 1-75 which are not used creating areas where they -- where you can't even have -- let a human being go because you have to protect certain types of wildlife is absolutely crazy. So I am happy that the commission has taken a stand as they did this morning, and I'm very proud to be a resident here in Collier County and have a commission of you people representing me as you did this morning. Thank you very much. MR. DORRILL: That's all, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We want to thank Miss Brett for coming here to give us her presentation this morning. That -- it's just verbal. We're not to take any action on this today, are we? The one comment I'd like to make is that the state has taken action over the years to drive the price of this property down. Whether that was by design or inadvertently doesn't really matter. But the refusal to allow services into that area where the property could have been utilized drives the property values down. One look at the map will tell you, as I mentioned earlier, that -- that -- that practice that you see there could be construed as very similar to what is called blockbusting in real estate. And my feeling is that if the state in these real estate transactions had to license itself with the Department of Professional Business Regulations not only would this kind of action cause them permanent revocation of their license but would most likely end them up in jail. And they -- because they're a government agency they -- they can get away with it, and I'm not sure that's fair to anyone. And that's my comment. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Chairman, I expect that there's an important safety issue that we may need to cut our teeth on in this matter regarding Miller Road. We know that when it rains and Chief Doerr can tell you, you can't get a fire engine up that road and you can't get an EMS unit up that road. All the folks that live along it want is the ability for emergency services to get in and out. And that's been a boondoggle. If we're going to go down this path, and I'm glad we are, I think we should give direction to staff to help provide options to this board on how we can at least obtain minimum access along Miller Road so Chief Doerr can do his job and other folks that live in that area can -- can have some services. COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: I thoroughly agree with that. It's a -- it's a private road I know right now, but it's private road that's been used with public access for eons. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We'll take a short -- COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Could I just ask if there's consensus on the board to ask staff to investigate whether or not we'd like to support this request to transfer it to the district from the DEP, this acquisition program. COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: Well, I want to know more about what they intend to accomplish by -- by doing that. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: So could we ask staff to look at that? CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Sure, that's fine. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Sure, look at everything. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. Dotrill, if you could have someone give us -- give us a list of pros and cons on that what it -- what the ramifications would be. We'll take a short break and be right back. (A short break was held.) Item #8A2 RESOLUTION 96-310 IN SUPPORT OF THE APPLICATION FOR THE FLORIDA MAIN STREET DESIGNATION FOR PORTIONS OF COUNTY ROAD 846 AND MAIN STREET IN THE DOWNTOWN REDEVELOPMENT AREA FOR THE IMHOKALEE COMHUNITY - ADOPTED CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We'll reconvene the county commission meeting. Our next item is 8(A)(2), community development and environmental services division resolution in support of the application for the Florida Main Street, a designation for portions of County Road 846 and Main Street in Immokalee. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Mr. Chairman, unless we need a report from -- I'm -- this is a recognition of the Main Street project and the application. There is no financial involvement from the board. I'd like to make a motion to approve. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion to approve this item. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second to approve. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: There's a motion and a second. Any public speakers, Mr. Dotrill? MR. DORRILL: I have one. No, I have two now. Miss Krier, and then following her I have Miss Losa de Lara. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: De Lara. MR. DORRILL: If you're from south Alabama, it's De Lara. MS. KRIER: Good morning, Commissioners. For the record I am Ellie Krier, and I'm representing the Chamber EDC Coalition, in particular their community redevelopment committee. I'm simply here to tell you that we're looking forward to this designation so we can continue to work with the redevelopment efforts in Immokalee, in particular with the airport, and in expanding and diversifying the economic base out there, and this is part of that puzzle. Thank you. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Ms. De Lara is the newly installed president of the Immokalee chamber. MS. DE LARA: Right. Thank you for having us this morning. I just want to impress upon the commission that the Main Street program is extremely vital to the Immokalee area mainly because, as I'm sure you're aware, the State of Florida has given us an enterprise zone for Immokalee now, and also the federal government has designated the airport with a free-trade zone. Those two projects are not going to get off the ground unless the Main Street project works. The Main Street project is vital to the Immokalee area, and I -- I thank you for giving it your blessing this morning. MR. DORRILL: That's all, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second for approval. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? Item #8A3 NEW METHODOLOGY FOR POPULATION ESTIMATES AND PROJECTIONS TO BE USED IN THE UPCOMING CYCLE FOR EVALUATION AND APPRAISAL REPORT (EAR) AMENDMENTS - APPROVED Our next item is 8(A)(3), community development concerning a new methodology for population estimates. MS. CACCHIONE: This is a request to modify -- my name is Barbara Cacchione for the record. This is a request to modify the population projection methodology that we will use in our upcoming amendment to the evaluation of appra -- as provided for in the Evaluation and Appraisal Report. We had, when the plan was first adopted, to use the high population estimates from Bureau of Economics and Business Research. We had a special request to use those estimates because that was the rate we were growing at in the early '80s. That rate is somewhat modified now and a little bit lower than it was at that time, and we feel that a more realistic approach so that we are not overestimating the amount of infrastructure that we will be needing is to use five years at a high growth rate and the remaining years at a medium growth rate. This is also the same methodology as approved by Metropolitan Planning Organization. We feel this would more accurately reflect the growth rate and that it would take care of any short-term gap by using the high in the first five years that we could potentially experience. And what we'd be doing is requesting that the board approve this methodology today so that we can go forward and begin that amendment process when we're found sufficient on Thursday. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Any questions? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Right here's 2020. The scenario one's indicated on her chart would be an annual growth rate of what percentage? MS. CACCHIONE: That would be approximately 4 percent a little -- a little bit higher than 4, I believe. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Four point one, something like that? Because 4 percent yields 353,000. So to yield 393,000 by 2020 is just couple tenths higher? Something to that effect? MS. CACCHIONE: If I could I'd like to ask Mr. Perry if he could clarify that. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I tell you what. Rather than dragging on if you'll just get me that information later so I could have it, that would be fine. MS. CACCHIONE: Sure. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Speakers? MR. DORRILL: No, sir. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Motion? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Motion to approve scenario one as presented. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Second. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Motion and a second. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? Item #8A4 COLLIER COUNTY'S SPONSORSHIP OF ISTEA TRANSPORTATION ENHANCEMENT PROJECTS - APPROVED Next item is ISTEA transportation projects. MS. CHAPMAN: Good morning, Commissioners. For the record I am Anita Chapman, your bicycle-pedestrian coordinator, and this item is for -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Excuse me just a minute. I make a motion to approve the item. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: Second. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Do we have speakers? MR. DORRILL: No, sir. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second for approval. That was a great presentation, Miss Chapman. We appreciate it. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? Thank you. MR. DORRILL: A quick note on that. At some point if we determine to be eligible for those -- the issue regarding maintenance will be a separate issue, because it's part of your core-level service description. That will come back at another time. Item #SB1 RESOLUTION 96-311 CREATING THE NAPLES PARK AREA DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS MUNICIPAL SERVICE BENEFIT UNIT AND REPEALING RESOLUTION 96-476 - ADOPTED CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Our next item is 8(B)(1), a resolution creating a Naples Park area drainage improvements HSBU. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Probably cut through the presentation quickly. There were two items we discussed last time this was presented. The first is the methodology. Does it include the modification of -- does what's being presented today include the modification to the weir at Pavilion Club? MR. BOLDT: No, it does not. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: It does not? MR. BOLDT: No, that's -- we're not back to next week under another separate item. These are resolutions strictly that recreate the district, initiate the program, and set the time for the tentative assessment rule. That process is still going on, and we'll get back to you with your information next week on those. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. So we're just setting the stage today. The specifics will be discussed next week? MR. BOLDT: That's true. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Thank you. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Any speakers? MR. BOLDT: My name is John Boldt, the stormwater management director. I have a very brief presentation. These are three resolutions you adopted last fall. Now that we've typically awarded the contract, we want to recreate the district and reinitiate the process and set a new date and time for the Tentative Assessment Roll. Do you have any questions on the specifics -- specifics of the resolutions? I'll be glad to answer. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Speakers? Mr. Weigel looks like he's trying to jump in. MR DORRILL: One speaker, Mr. Chairman. MR. WEIGEL: I'll just say that for the word -- where the word district is it's the unit. The unit is within the district just for clarification. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you. MR. DORRILL: Mr. Newman. MR. NEWMAN: I'll pass. MR. DORRILL: Waived. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Motion to approve. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. MR. BOLDT: There are three separate resolutions. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: You need three separate motions? CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Yes. This is for -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Was that motion for 8(B)(1)? CHAIRMAN NORRIS: 8 (B) (1) . COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's what the second was for. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and second for 8(B)(1). All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? Item #882 RESOLUTION 96-312 INITIATING A PROGRAM FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROVIDING STORMWATER DRAINAGE IHPORVEHENTS WITHIN THE NAPLES PARK AREA DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS MUNICIPAL SERVICE BENEFIT UNIT - ADOPTED COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Motion to approve item 8(B)(2). COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Second. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Motion and second for 8(B)(2). All those in favor signify by saying aye. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let the record reflect I supported both those despite the fact I have trouble with the overall concept. But we need to go through the technical parts, and I agree with that. Item #883 RESOLUTION 96-313 SETTING THE DATE, TIME AND PLACE FOR THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THE TENTATIVE ASSESSMENT ROLL FOR THE NAPLES PARK AREA DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS MUNICIPAL SERVICE BENEFIT UNIT - ADOPTED COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Motion to approve item 8(B)(3) -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- specially recognizing Commissioner Constantine's view on all three items. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second for 8(B)(3). All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? Item #8C2 AMENDMENTS TO THE COLLIER COUNTY TOURIST TAX ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS FOR THE COLLIER COUNTY MUSEUM AND SUPPORT AN ANNUAL 7% DEDICATED EXPENDITURE OF THE 2% TOURIST DEVELOPMENT TAX - STAFF TO PREPARE AMENDMENTS AND COME BACK; STAFF ALSO TO INVESTIGATE THE POSSIBILITY OF CHARGING A FEE AT THE MUSEUM Next item is 8(C)(2). Recommendation that we direct amendments to the Collier County tourist tax ordinance authorizing expenditure of funds for the Collier County Museum. Mr. Olliff, you get the duty. MR. OLLIFF: Yes, sir. For the record, Tom Olliff, your public services administrator. This item is a recommendation that the board authorize an amendment to the existing Collier County tourist development tax ordinance and authorize the expenditure that would be dedicated from the current 2 percent tourist development tax for the support of the existing Collier County Museum. The current state statutes provide for a wide range of uses of the tourist taxes that are not included in the Collier County ordinance. One of those specific uses is for museums. If you'll look in your executive summary, we indicated to you that this past year Collier County's museum experienced a visitor rate of 45,000. Of that, some 62 percent or 28,000 people were from either out of county or out of state or even out of country. That breaks down to almost 100 people a day were going to that museum who did not live in Collier County, and the majority of the attendees at the museum were not from Collier County. However, in the past the museum has solely been supported by ad valorem taxes and what is being proposed here today is that the commission direct the county attorney's office to prepare the ordinance amendment that would allow for the funding of the county's museum to come from the tourist development tax. Specifically what's being proposed is that it be -- that it come from what is known as category C of the tourist tax and a separate category be developed. When the item was presented to the Tourist Development Council, the item was brought up -- the issue was brought up that perhaps the ordinance amendment could be drafted in such a way that it would be not to exceed 7 percent based upon what the board actually approved is museum's budget in the annual budgeting process. The remainder of the monies that weren't spent would be then used in the rest of the category C uses as they ordinarily would. The attorney's office has indicated that the amendment can be drafted in that way and if the board approves it we would go ahead and propose that it be drafted. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Just one point, Mr. Olliff. On the other situation if the 7 percent cap of that funding source was not enough to cover the museum budget, then I would assume that we would -- we would fund the -- any overage in the budget with ad valorem again. MR. OLLIFF: There would be a cap. We would write the ordinance in that way that that would be the maximum amount -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: And if we wanted to exceed that cap, it would not come from tourist tax is my point. MR. OLLIFF: Correct. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: It would come then from the traditional source of the -- of the ad valorem. Or we -- we would have under this ordinance actually the flexibility to do that in the budget process in any case if we wanted to use part one funding and part -- MR. OLLIFF: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: -- partly the other funding. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I have a question on that. I understand that there's like a -- I think it's a $2 charge at the museum. Am I right? MR. OLLIFF: There was this year for the first time specifically for the Marco Cat. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Well, what about -- I mean, we do user fees, and we charge people to park at the -- at the beaches. I just wondered why we don't have any fees associated with a museum on a regular basis. I know it's -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: It's a matter of market forces supply and demand. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Well, if there's no demand for it, we don't need to be spending money on it. If people don't want to spend $2 to go -- I just -- I just would like to suggest that we investigate the possibility of some sort of a user fee since we do that on almost every other resource. MR. OLLIFF: What we have -- one of the maybe misnomers of the museum itself is the fact that it's called a museum. A lot of what goes on in a museum is historical research. This community is -- is -- is one that just has a lot of authors and people who are doing research on the history of Collier County, and we pretty much have one staff person almost devoted full time to that kind of a -- an effort. In addition, a large number of the people who go to a museum are children. Most of our school programs are run through the Collier County School District and I believe fourth grade is the grade that they study Florida history and we are a part of the curriculum of most -- they come through our location as part of their studies. We could and have talked about instituting some sort of an entry fee -- but I think with 45,000 people and a $250,000-a-year budget you'd be looking at a fairly significant fee that we think would detract a great deal. We'll agree with you it's a luxury. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I mean, a $1 fee would be better than nothing as we worry about -- as -- the thought occurs to me when we talk about that we're going to cap this TDC money maybe and then we'd have to go back to property taxes. I'd just like to say that if we -- we should cap the TDC money for -- but the next place we should look for money is gonna be through some sort of user fees. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: It's -- it's a good suggestion, but it's really not our topic today, so maybe we could hear a discussion of this in the future. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I would agree. Mr. Olliff brought up a good point. I remember at one point I had to do some research on the private sector on whether gas stations were ever located along a certain stretch of road historically. I had to go to the museum and look at aerial photographs as far back as they had to determine if there was ever a gas station there. But that type of function is important. I'm comfortable with the 7 percent cap for one reason. It gives us -- it gives the TDC a known quantity. It -- it takes away the idea that, you know, we're going to fund every new program and expansion museum from TDC. And on top of that I think we're going to see, and I hope we'll see in the near future, at least I'm working on, a refinement of category C expenditures, a check list. How they qualify, how they don't qualify, and this board I hope will make that decision in the coming month or so on what that should be so that we're all on the same playing field. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Can -- and -- and -- and a part of that, something that I have been thinking about and wondered if there's a majority of support -- we know we're going to be looking at -- we've talked a lot about looking at those guidelines again and trying to quantify them better. I wonder if we ought to -- or let me ask are we making a decision to fund the museum out of this 7 percent TDC money for this year and we'll make the same decision each year. Because I would like to make it for one year and look at it again after we have reevaluated these criteria and be sure that it still applies. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I think my point was that in our budget process each year we have the ability to be flexible to decide where the funding comes from. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Good. If that's understood in the motion I'll -- I'd like to include that this is for one year. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: What motion? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: The motion when we get there. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Oh, okay. MR. OLLIFF: The last thing I need to make is the point -- is that the item was presented in an emergency meeting or a special meeting of Tourist Development Council this, and I need to on the record thank them for having a special meeting in order to accommodate this particular item and timing. But their recommendation was for denial, and I believe there were six members present, and I believe it was five-to-one vote against. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Mr. Chairman, I have a question, please. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Yes? COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: The 7 percent you're talking about is 7 percent of the 2 percent which -- and that's going to come out of category C which is allocated 15 percent. So just about half of the 15 percent is going to go -- go to this? MR. OLLIFF: Yes, ma'am. And the other two reasons -- the two specific reasons we're recommending this the way we are is one, category C is the category that historically we have not done a very good job of finding places to spend those funds. This is a specific location in the statute that can be funded and we looked at equity in terms of who has been paying for it versus who has been using it, and we think that the tourist is who's using this facility. And the most equitable funding for it would be out of the tourist development tax. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. Dorrill, how many speakers do we have? MR. DORRILL: We have about seven. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I've got a couple other questions if you don't mind that might help with the citizens that want to talk. Is this a recommendation then to change the ordinance or the guidelines? MR. OLLIFF: The ordinance. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: The ordinance? So it has to come back, and that has to happen. MR. OLLIFF: Yes, ma'am. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Is this only for operating funds because I believe our ordinance stipulates that capital cannot be purchased with these funds? MR. OLLIFF: Yes, ma'am. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Are you going to change the ordinance to allow capital projects? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I guess the irony is the one capital project we've made an exception for was for the museum. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: We -- we can make waivers I -- I -- I know, but I'm just asking if we're going to make a general ordinance. MR. OLLIFF: We could probably do that to give the commission flexibility as opposed to having to have an ordinance, and then each and every time there might be a minor capital item that came up and at least the board then would have the flexibility to do that. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Okay. Thank you. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Just before we get to public speakers, is there a -- at this point a general consensus on the board that the ordinance as presented at a 7 percent dedicated expenditure is -- is the direction we'd like to take? Would -- would fund the museum's operating budget this coming fiscal year at the requested amount and we'll make decision year by year as to how much up to that 7 percent we would use? COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: If that were a motion, I'd second it. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We seem to have a majority leaning -- if that's a motion. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'll put that on the floor as a motion to approve -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We seem to have a majority leaning that way. If the speakers agree, they don't necessarily have to try to come up here and talk us out of it. MR. DORRILL: Mr. Stickles? Mr. Lee, do you still wish to speak? MR. LEE: I yield. MR. DORRILL: Thank you. MR. STICKLES: For the record my name is Don Stickles, Marco Island. I'm just down here to say that I've listened very carefully to what the commission is saying this morning, and I believe that the position you've taken is probably the most fruitful position. The only question that would rise in my mind is how many times do we have to come back and support perhaps capital improvement amendment on these funds? The point that Mr. Olliff made was exactly correct. Last year with the building of that Marco Cat exhibit, we did have to charge a little bit extra money, but the point of doing that was to pay for the extra security which now allows us to do projects we never possibly could have done before. This gives us a tremendous advantage. We're one of the few museums, I believe, in the area right now that has the capability to do high-profile, high-security positions and this includes very, very carefully documented and very, very carefully prepared exhibits which otherwise cannot be shown in the local area. We're one of the few museums that can give a Smithsonian-type exhibit. This did involve capital expenditures and that's the only reason I'm really standing here. So my concern is not so much with the ordinance as it stands or any of the funds but rather with would we -- what would we really have to do is -- I guess is the question in my mind, to ensure that each time a capital expenditure to provide this kind of service to the community were made available, what would we have to do to come to the board and do that? Would we have to come back on a continuing basis? CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Let me see if I can answer that question for you as I understand it. I think I understand it. The board looks at each of these capital items assuming that they're of sufficient size on an individual basis and you'll have to do the same. MR. STICKLES: That's exactly my point, sir. In other words, it's my understanding if it were a major capital investment that the board would want to see and would regulate. I'm not familiar with the detailed wording of the ordinance, and that's really the reason for my confusion. I urge the passage of such a bill because of the benefits that will accrue to the county since we now have the ability to provide all kinds of services we never had before thanks to the capital improvements done for the Marco Cat exhibit and thanks to those that we have with the county board and the Friends of the Museum plans for the forthcoming year. Thank you very much. MR. DORRILL: Ms. Lyon, do you still wish to speak? MS. LYON: I yield. MR. DORRILL: Thank you. Miss Chenery, do you still wish to speak? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Jamro, have you stopped sweating yet? MR. DORRILL: Ms. Young, do you still wish to speak after Miss Chenery? MS. YOUNG: No. I just want to give you all a loud cheer. MR. DORRILL: Thank you. Miss Chenery, go ahead. MS. CHENERY: Good morning, Commissioners. I'm Mary Chenery, treasurer of the Friends of the Collier County Museum. I'm here to say the museum must be funded regardless of where it comes from this year. The future funding should be taken under advisement in the coming year. I have a few facts I wish to share with you. Edward Able, president and CEO of the American Association of Museums, puts it: Museums no longer are just the nation's attics, the keepers of stuff. In the late '70s annual attendance in American museums was roughly 389 million. Now, it is in excess of 600 million. There's more than combined attendance at all professional and amateur sports events, performing arts, events, and movies all together. Museums get a larger response. Why are museums doing so well in these tough times? At first glance increased attendance can be attributed to savvy marketing. But what is keeping attendees coming is exhibits are planned to be more user friendly. Lewis Cancell (phonetic), a consultant on Internet development for cultural organizations who formerly headed the American Council of the Arts and was New York's city commissioner of cultural affairs, points out there's greater emphasis on helping audience interpret what they view. They'll see a considerable effort being made by both large and small museums throughout the country to educate, involve visitors using everything from better labeling to audio to -- tours. Holly Sid -- Sidforth (phonetic), program director for the Lila Laurence Reader's Digest, one of the nations top private funders of the arts which last year gave 23 million to museums believes that museums' increased popularity may be directly attributed to America's seeming preference for the visual arts. Americans like to think they're visually astute. Hay I note here Collier County has been a recipient of funds from the Reader's Digest Funds. The -- the gardens that we have were in part funded by them. They think of us as a valuable cultural source. Richard Paul -- Paul Richards, art critic for the Washington Post, agrees as we live in an increasingly visible culture our ability to learn from, evaluate, interpret, and store images improves. We are much more open to visual information than in the past. The most successful cultural institutions are the ones who are thinking about the interest of their audience and developing programs tailored to those interests, according to Holly Sidforth. Museums have also had to consider the conditioning of contemporary audience to pop culture and mass media imagery. There is a much -- there is much higher use of technology at museums today according to Edward Able. There are headphones to provide an audio component, large boards with better signage, and explanations, lectures, even films to help people learn about the historical, social, and political context of what they are viewing. Paul Damagio (phonetic), a sociologist at Princeton University who studies cultural organizations, believes that the increase in attendance at museums can be attributed to the fact that people enjoy the flexibility of museum experience. In contrast to theater performance, a museum visit isn't limited to specific time. One can move around at an individual pace and be open to social interp -- interaction. Because of the Internet younger visitors are used -- are used to having a lot of information and entertainment options. Damagio explains that the nice thing about museums is that they, too, offer variety. There are usually a number of exhibits that you can go to in order to make your choice. I fail to understand why the commission and the TDC do not appreciate the tourist attraction that is ours to offer. The -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Well, excuse me, Miss Chenery, but I think we do. We're sitting here ready to vote. MS. CHENERY: I -- I -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I mean, I don't know what you mean by that comment -- MS. CHENERY: Well, I didn't mean it as strong as it sounds. My point is I -- I'm shocked that we're so late in recognizing the museum's value and the support that we should be having because it is a very educational tool and it is a financial -- it can eventually be self-sustaining if we get the help. Thank you. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you. MR. DORRILL: Mr. Erlichman. MR. ERLICHMAN: Good morning again. My name's Gil Erlichman. I live in East Naples, and I'm speaking for myself. Well, it seems as though I am on the opposite side of this issue. I firmly believe in the taxpayer paying for the -- taxpayer residents of Collier County supporting the museum. I do not agree with the tourist tax supporting the museum or partly -- or even partially supporting it. From a philosophical standpoint museums have always been supported by the community, and only say in the last 30 years have museums charged admission -- started to charge admission fees, and most of those fees are nominal fees 50 cents, a dollar, dollar and a half, two dollars, whatever. And living in Chicago for a period of 23 years, I went to the Museum of Science and Industry which is one of the finest museums in the United States. In fact, it even rivals the Smithsonian in some aspects. The Field Museum, the aquarium in Chicago, these are all in Chicago, and they had to institute a -- a -- an admission fee. Those admission fees are accommodated for classes of school -- school children on a low -- on a low scale. But, of course, the Collier County Museum in most respects in size and in scope cannot compare to a large metropolitan area. But I feel -- and I've been a visitor to the Collier County Museum on many, many occasions. In fact, I -- their -- their reference library there is excellent so far as the history of Collier County and Naples; and the pictures and photographs they have. But I feel that it's a community responsibility, and it's not a responsibility of a tourist tax. I -- I -- I really cannot go along with the idea that tourist has to pay or help pay for -- for a -- for the museum or any museum for that matter. So I am entirely against it, and I urge the commission to reconsider their stand on considering tourist tax support for the museum. Thank you. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you. MR. DORRILL: That's all, Mr. Chairman. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Chairman, the public hearing is closed. I'm going to let my motion stand. I would like to indicate, though, that the vote of six to one -- I assume you were the one in favor. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: That's right. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Five to one. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Five to one -- I'm sorry -- just shows again a separation from what the members of TDC and this board feel category C is appropriately expended for. I'm going to work to bring that closer together in the next couple of months. I know Commissioner Constantine has tried in the past and had a difficult time meeting success with that and made some revisions that were beneficial then. But I just think that's something we need to resolve. I'll personally work on that but I'd like for my motion to stand on item, and we'll be bringing something back in the near future. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? There are none. Next item. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Mr. Chairman, could I interject and ask that we give direction to staff to look at the imposition of a fee for the museum, but at the same time we look at that from the viewpoint of excluding young people under the age of 16 or what have you so that our school children are not impaired from visiting it on their regular fourth grade program? CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I have no objection to staff bringing us a report on that. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: The other thing that I'm interested in knowing if the museum can keep these records is -- and it goes to what Commissioner Hancock was saying -- is that if -- if the fundamental premise behind a tourist development tax is to develop tourism, I would be interested in knowing at this time next year, Mr. Jamro, how many of the visitors to the museum spent nights in hotels in Collier County. MR. JAMRO: I can answer that for you. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, I know you can for last year, but, frankly, with the cat I think that was extraordinary and I'd like to know -- at this point next year I'm going to ask you that question when you come asking and we're deciding whether or not to fund out of TDC, I'm gonna want to know. So if you can keep those records or get that information -- COHHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What are the statistics for last year, Mr. Jamro? MR. JAMERO: For the record, Ron Jamro, your museum director. We've only kept records -- attendance records, of course. We don't survey every visitor to the museum, so it will be hard to get that kind of information for you. We could -- can ask that it be volunteered. I'm sorry, Commissioner Constantine, what -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You said you do have some indication for this past year. I've got to assume -- I know it was a little signing book and all -- sometimes people will put where they're from. It seems like when I looked at that, the vast majority are from somewhere other than Naples or Golden Gate or -- MR. JAMRO: Well, the clearest picture we have of the demographics of visitor profile of the museum was taken during -- during that snapshot, during the Key Marco exhibit which is extraordinary in the fact that it brought more people -- you know, had a larger appeal. But tourists, you know, don't bring their children here to go to our schools, and we deal with a lot of school children, six, seven thousand school children every year. You know, we're seeing 62 percent, somewhere in that area, of the cat audience was -- was nonresident, you know. I think that was the figure. So, you know, those kinds of detailed statistics we can -- we can attempt to provide those in the future, but we don't normally survey everyone who walks in the door. We felt we wanted to make a case to the TDC that it was a legitimate expense. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Yes. And I think that was a good thing to do in response to those concerns on the Key Marco Cat, because that was an extraordinary expenditure of TDC funds. I'm just saying to get my vote -- and I'm only one -- to get my vote on continuing TDC funding, I'm gonna want to know at least how many out-of-county visitors. I'd like to know how many stayed overnight in Collier County in hotels because it is a tourist development tax. just telling you that's what -- may not matter. You may get four others who -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Maybe it's something -- if I may interject -- that you could do for several 30-day periods instead of doing the entire year to give us an idea about in-season and out-of-season, because I think to survey every single person who walks in the door is too cumbersome for the limited staff -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Sure. MR. JAMRO: Well, that is -- I appreciate your saying that. I may come here and ask you for a computer to help do that. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Well, just give us your best information and try to -- try to gather some. MR. JAMRO: If I may respond to your question, we've been down the idea of charging fees before -- we've been down that road. We've all come to the conclusion, at least I have, that we need to have an employee to collect those fees principally because our volunteers don't want to handle money. They don't want that responsibility, so we're talking about a staff function. I think at 46,000 people a year in a very good year we'd be disappointed with a return after you pay the benefits and salaries for that employee. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Point well made. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But Mr. Olliff came up with a way to do that at the beaches. I bet he might be able to come up with something there. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Put a meter inside the door? How personal. Welcome to Collier County. Give us our money, please. MR. JAMRO: Maybe -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: That's not on the agenda today. Let's leave it alone. Thank you, Mr. Jamro. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: We'll have a armature at the door. Item #SD1 COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT TO ASSUME THE SPONSORSHIP OF THE RETIRED AND SENIOR VOLUNTEER PROGRAM (RSVP) OF COLLIER COUNTY FROM THE SENIOR FRIENDSHIP CENTER - APPROVED CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Next one, sponsorship of the Retired and Senior Volunteer Program, RSVP. Miss Edwards? MS. EDWARDS: Morning. For the record my name is Jennifer Edwards. I'm your human resources director. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Excuse me, but I don't know -- does everybody need a presentation on this because I'm willing to move approval at this point? COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I'll second it. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's a great idea. My only question is it's escalating to three years. In the fourth year or fifth year, do we end up carrying 100 percent of the load instead of MS. EDWARDS: No. 30 percent. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: So the expense would never be more than 4,300? I'm sorry. Go ahead, Commissioner Constantine. I interrupted. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Same question. So it's for eternity that it will be 30 percent from that point forever? MS. EDWARDS: Thirty percent from that point forever. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And that's all we're approving? MS. EDWARDS: What I'm asking you to approve today is for us to work with the county attorney and other staff -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Motion to approve staff recommendation. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Question. Are we duplicating any service here with other volunteer coordinators throughout the county by accepting the RSVP program as in essence a county function, a county grant? Are we duplicating function anywhere in the county that savings can be realized? MR. DORRILL: Our current provider is about to default or cease activity. This is an example of your staff pursuing a grant opportunity that became available that would give you $50,000 to help pay the cost of your current volunteer coordinator program and we get credit for everything we're already doing. We just have to get the federal money to do it. It does broaden our responsibility, but I think it gives us a huge inroad to expand the number of volunteers, and it's just a good example of how a great staff works. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I appreciate that answer. My question, in essence, will the salary go towards the salaries that we were paying already for the volunteer coordinators and this is a plus to the county while maintaining the value of service, is that a fair assumption? MS. EDWARDS: The coordinator has not been an employee of the county. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Are we going to hire someone to fill -- MS. EDWARDS: There already is someone, a director managing the program, administering the program. We will just assume the sponsorship of that. She will do the work. There will be no change in that. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Did -- those two answers don't seem to be the same. MR. DORRILL: Not the way I understood it. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: No -- MR. DORRILL: We currently have a part-time volunteer coordinator, and my understanding was that our current costs would be eligible to either be in kind or cash to meet the necessary grant requirements that we have. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And that's what the executive summary says. MS. EDWARDS: That is true. The part -- but it is a full-time director who has been working with the senior friendship house, and that person will now be working with us, and we will be providing a -- an office space. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Does that person receive salary? MS. EDWARDS: Yes, through the grant program. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Not from Collier County dollars, not from property taxes. Out of this grant program to which our present contribution is in-kind services and eventually will be as much as $4,000. MS. EDWARDS: Between four and five thousand. 30 percent. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. We're not adding staff. We're not subsidizing this staff position with this money, but it is now being counted as income. So instead of paying seventy-five hundred bucks we'll only have to pay forty-three hundred the third year. MS. EDWARDS: In the third year; that's correct. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. I'm fine. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Motion and a second. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? Thank you, Ms. Edwards. MS. EDWARDS: Thank you. Item #BE1 CONTRACT WITH INTERNATIONAL FIREWORKS HANAGEHENT GROUP FOR $200,000, CATEGORY TOURIST DEVELOPMENT FUNDING - APPROVED WITH CHANGES CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Our next item is the fireworks presentation. MS. GANSEL: Thank you, Commissioners. Jean Gansel from the budget office. What we're asking you to do in this executive summary is to approve the contract with the International Fireworks Management Group for $200,000 category C tourist development fund. There are two changes from the original submission that you received that I would like to point out. The first one was that the original request was for $300,000. The board had authorized $200,000. There is a revised page. It's page 22 in the contract that's attached that revises their budget to include the 200,000 as opposed to the 300,000. Also there are some date changes. The original submission was November 2nd through the 16th, and they have revised that from November 2nd to the 23rd. Also there is some consideration being given to an addition -- to another site from the original proposal of Sugden Park. The representatives are here to answer any questions that you might have or that I might be able to answer for you. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: You said that there is another site specified in the contract. MS. GANSEL: No, not in the contract. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. MS. GANSEL: There is consideration at this point being given to another site. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Is any site specified in the contract? MS. GANSEL: In the contract I just -- in their original application they did have Sugden Park as a site. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: What about in the contract? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: If we approve the contract, are we approving a site? MS. GANSEL: Well, consideration -- whatever your motion would be after considering that the application is an exhibit to the contract so it is a part of the contract. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. Presenter have anything to say? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I have questions about changing the site that I guess the presenter -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I have questions on all the changes. I'm curious what's going on. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Well, down from three hundred to two hundred is a good change. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: We did that. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I know, but a permanent motivation for me and my vote was that this would accelerate the development of Sugden Park and could possibly result in some improvements being privately funded by your organization instead of publicly funded. So I -- my -- so I need to understand why we're talking about changing the site. MR. LEITH: Okay. Chairman and commissioners, for the record, Brian Leith, marketing director. I'd like to just preface everything by indicating that we really do not have a problem with using the Sugden site. What we have done is we have been cooperating with both the public services department and the Gulf Coast Skimmers in informal discussions about looking at an alternate site. The planning for the park has gone through a bit of a transition, some of which was determined by the additional funds that the Sugdens advanced to the Skimmers which happened actually later on the day that we received the TDC funding approval. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Would you pause at that point, because that's something I need to ask Mr. Olliff about? That -- the fact that Mr. Sugden gave additional funds to the Skimmers, which is a good thing, somehow interferes with the development plans and slows things down? I don't understand that. MR. OLLIFF: The donation that Mr. Sugden made was actually to Collier County for the construction of the covered grandstand facility. The condition that Mr. Sugden put on the funding was that it be spent within a year of it's being donated, because I think he's got some concerns that the money doesn't just sit there fallowly not realizing any benefit. The concern from the Skimmers perspective is that they want to try and get construction completed on the facility prior to the season beginning so that they would not have their grounds and area under construction at the peak of their -- their water-ski show season which is January is when their season starts in earnest. So their -- their construction schedule which is good in terms of our schedule in order to spend the money was to begin construction in the month of August, a 60- to 90-day construction time frame in order to get that covered grandstand built. But that covered grandstand is in the same exact area that the grandstand seating for the fireworks event is going to be. So there are some -- some conflicts there in terms of, you know, if it is both covered grandstands can get built in time. They need to have access to the site in mid-October in order to begin their work. It's -- it's very, very tight and it also then takes up some space that would have been devoted to just temporary sort of grandstand facilities that, frankly, you could seat more people in than you will be able to in this covered grandstand. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: So basically the Sugden's gift and the time line attached to it has created a situation where we're building something that you were going to use for your grandstands and it won't be done in time for this event? MR. OLLIFF: That and there are also impacts on the construction of the park itself, because the construction of the park was scheduled to begin sometime in the fall in order to accommodate the event must -- there are certain improvements that must occur -- the fencing around the park in order to have secured entry for paid entry, roads -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: But I thought that's what they were gonna do and that's a big part of my vote was that if we weren't ready they would put that -- that fencing in or the road in or whatever was necessary and, frankly, that seemed like a wonderful reason to vote for this is that we'll get some privately-funded improvements to the park in exchange for -- I mean as opposed to asking you to pay a fee to use the park. MR. LEITH: I'd like to just address that, though. I think if you go back through the minutes of the meetings, yes, there was the possibility that that would take place at the park, but all the way through the process the park and the TDC funds were very distinct, separate entities and it was the board that made a point of asserting that they are be kept that way and, you know, I just -- I -- you know, we're just -- we're really just trying to appease some concerns, and we have been able to identify another prospective site in Collier County and if -- if the board allows us then we will continue to pursue that area. If the board doesn't allow us, then we'll proceed with Sugden Park. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just getting back to Commissioner Mac'Kie's question or point, though, weren't there some assumptions -- I would say promises made as far as construction of actual things and I think some of it was discussed in reimbursement form but -- to get the money up front and get the park up and running in a timely manner? What it does -- what my recollection of the discussion was -- was it accelerated the construction of the park. MR. LEITH: Well, the plan was to accelerate it but in actuality I think we'll be impeding the development of the park. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: In fairness to -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: How can that be if you are gonna have to put in the fence and the entry road? MR. LEITH: We weren't responsible for the fence and the entry road. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: In fairness to Mr. Leith, what I understood when we approved it was there's a big, blank, open area that was going to be used for seating, a large portion of that was going to be used as seating for the event and all the other improvements that had to be done to make it possible for that seating were a part of his cost. Because of the time line and what Mr. Gutsoy has now -- and this occurred after the board approved him, you know, the use of Sugden Park. Now the time line getting ready for season has caused that area to be in disruption which Mr. Leith intended on using for seating. So a good portion of what he intended on using -- and correct me if I'm wrong in this, but a good portion of what was intended to be leveled and graded and bleachers put up is now going to be under construction, quite possibly, when the event is supposed to take place. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: He says he can work around that and is happy to use Sugden Park if -- you know, if that's what we want him to do so that doesn't seem to be an impossible -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Is that what you're saying, Mr. Leith, that if -- MR. LEITH: Well, see, the possibilities and impossibilities are really beyond our control. A lot of that falls back on the county itself and, I mean, we're just -- we don't do the scheduling of the development of the park. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Let me ask Mr. Olliff. Mr. Olliff, we need advice from you on this matter. Is there anything in the contract that is in conflict with what the board approved in this application? MR. OLLIFF: I'd have to go back and look. I'm sure it doesn't, because I'm sure Jean '- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Is -- is -- okay. The -- if the fireworks program goes forward is this going to interfere with the opening and construction of our park? Is this going to delay us or cause us problems? MR. OLLIFF: Yes, sir. I can't avoid saying yes. I think because the event is going to take place over a course of the better part of a month if not a month, if I'm correct we would basically have to mobilize construction, do the construction for the fencing and the entrance roads and whatever other improvements needs to be made, and then stop in order to have the event so that the site's not under construction at the same time as the event. If you're expecting 20,000 people a night, we can't have it a construction site, so we'd have to stop, secure the site, let the event occur over that course of the month, and then remobilize again and start the construction following the event. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Which goes back to one of the other changes; it's now three weeks instead of two? Or -- you extended -- MR. LEITH: Yeah. What we -- well, what we did -- we could actually cut it back to the original two weeks. We just simply extended the first two shows so there's a week -- week in between. What we did was we added a fifth country. We've put Canada into the mix. We think that that offers the opportunity to draw a lot of Canadians down into the area. It also helps us defray some of the additional costs we got because of the reduction of the TDC funding. So -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let me ask you a couple of questions getting back to the purpose of TDC funding and the proposed other site that you've been exploring. With the initial site you talked about off-site parking you mentioned some specific locations that you were shooting for. How would the parking be handled at the second proposed site? MR. LEITH: The second proposed site component of the parking would be off-site. If we are able to secure the permits and work with the other site, there's a possibility of building parking right on the site. In terms of the cost between the two, a lot of the costs of the transportation was going to be offset by parking fees so that was not really an additional cost that we were going to have to bear. So, you know, there's not an advantage from a parking point of view other than it's probably going to be more convenient to people if we move it. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Where I'm going with it, I guess, is the -- part of the appeal for me with the TDC funding is the idea of tourist development funds is to promote our local economy through tourism and through not only staying in hotels but going to stores and going to shops and spending their money in the local area. The appeal of the off-site parking -- and you had mentioned several different commercial establishments all located within roughly a mile of the site. The appeal of that is it introduces those people to our local shops and businesses, and any visitors then if they come early they can stop and shop or when they're done they can go in for some ice cream, but it encourages them -- or buy beer. It encourages them to spend their money in our local businesses which goes back in my mind to the origins of the TDC and trying to boost our local economy. My concern with an alternative site as it's been described to me -- and I don't know if you're prepared to say exactly where it is today but as it's been described to me is -- it's certainly not in a commercial center, and I'm not sure where the off-site park would be but I'm trying to picture within a mile radius of there. MR. LEITH: There's schools up there. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That would answer my question. If there are schools up there then obviously that doesn't encourage boosting our economy. So I go back to the very purpose of what it is we're spending money is -- obviously if you think we can draw some people in and they go to hotels that's great, but I would like to take that a step further and if we could -- and that was part of the -- the appeal of it to me is that you are putting them on the doorstep of any number of businesses in the format you had originally presented. MR. LEITH: Well, I think in terms of the economic impact the move would be neutral. You know, the focus of the advertising is going to be on bringing people into the area. We've been working very hard with the hotels. I believe we have 41 establishments now that are prepared to offer discounts to people who are coming into the area for the event. We've had discussions with the restaurants and the Philharmonic, and what we're trying to do is put packages together where when people come in for our event they will stay for a couple of days, it's attractive for them to do so and they will go out and enjoy the restaurants, the beach, the Philharmonic, other -- other activities and events in the area. The amount of additional business that retailers in the area will enjoy probably will remain pretty constant. We will have -- we would have had an element of people coming in simply for the event and leaving before and that element should remain consistent. The people who do stay here are the people who will go out in the shops and, I mean, there's nowhere for them to go up in that area so they would have to continue to go down to the hotels in Marco, stores down in Marco Island or over on the -- the North Trail. So I really don't see an economic impact whatsoever. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Let me ask Mr. Olliff. If we went through with the scenario that you described where we started construction, did some construction quickly now and then had to demobilize and remobilize, is that gonna cost the county some money? MR. OLLIFF: I'm uncomfortable answering that. We could put together bid packages so that we would have separate contracts for the initial work and separate contracts for the work that started after so there probably wouldn't be a significant, if any, additional cost. We could -- I'm sure we could work around that. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. MR. OLLIFF: It's just a matter of timing and convenience. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Would this timing and inconvenience be a material factor or is it just simply a -- MR. OLLIFF: It would -- it would probably amount to some -- some 60 days in -- in reality by the time you actually, you know, start, stop, and then do the work. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Would it preclude us from opening the park by schedule date or by, let's say, season of '97? MR. OLLIFF: No. The only impact would probably be on -- on perhaps the building itself. I'm not sure we're going to make that season. I think the rest of the park will be available by the season of '97 with or without the event. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And the other thing that I was trying to understand -- it sounds like that if we go ahead with the fireworks at Sugden it puts pressure on you to get out there faster and get going sooner which is a positive. Sorry. Sorry, but we're salts. You know, you can handle it. And that's a real positive for me and I -- I guess I'm a -- I guess I think that if this were a huge problem for the Skimmers somebody from the Skimmers would be here today to tell us. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah. And obviously I was looking around for John Gursoy myself but -- I guess I'm not -- I would like to see it at Sugden. Also if that's the direction we're going to take, then let's go ahead and go that way, but I do have a question on the contract itself, oddly enough. Under payment and reimbursement it states that for expenditures incurred for the event upon submittal of a paid invoice, so everything's got to be submitted. And then under ineligible expenditures, rather than saying what is eligible we've stated what isn't eligible, which is a little backwards, and I'd probably like to see it the other way. Item H says travel not associated directly with the project which to me says any travel associated with the project can be paid out of TDC funds. Travel for whom? How much from -- help me understand why TDC funds are being used to pay people to fly to and from somewhere. MR. LEITH: I didn't write the contract, but my understanding of that provision would be simply if there are airfares involved in going out and helping to organize the event or something that that would be covered off -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: That's a little nebulous for me for TDC funds. I would like to strike item H from the contract or let -- let me just say travel is an ineligible expense. MS. GANSEL: The contract -- the provisions in the contract are essentially drawn from the guidelines and that's the way the guidelines are written as opposed to being specific to this project. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Well, with Mr. Leith here and not hearing an objection, I'd like to change item H to just as an ineligible expenditure. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Everyone agree? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I would like to see as much of this 200,000 go into promotion and advertising, and that should be the priority of the -- of the TDC funds. So promote the event and advertise the event as opposed to physically paying for the event to Occur. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Do we have any speakers? Do we have a direction? COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Weigel looks like he might be a speaker. MR. WEIGEL: In reviewing the contract and the insurance provisions, it's legal, but I would request -- suggest that the county have a higher insurance requirement in there. And I had the opportunity in the hallway to speak with Mr. Leith and Mr. Foy and they agreed. They had previously I think told this board they had $10 million worth of insurance. And so I would like the contract, if you do go forward and approve it, to reflect $10 million worth of insurance which will show that Collier County is an additional insured. I expect it may be an umbrella policy, and I can work that out with them. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. And that's acceptable, Mr. Leith? MR. LEITH: That's acceptable. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Fine. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I've got a couple questions. I spoke with Mr. Leith about the -- about the proposed change in site last week sometime. And at that point I didn't have any real objection. I mean, if it's going to be held in Collier County, then it's going to be held in Collier County. Unfortunately the more I thought about it and I couldn't get ahold of you is the relationship of the proposed change in site but it sounds like this board wants it to be Sugden which is fine. But the relationship of the proposed change in site to Immokalee Road and Exit 17 on 1-75 while it may make to easier for people to get to your proposed new site, it will also make it easier for your attendees to not stay in Collier County. And that -- that troubles me a little bit because the purposes of the Collier County TDC money funding your project but at the same time the people who attend your function may very well not stay in Collier County but in another county in which we would get no benefit from that. MR. LEITH: As I mentioned earlier, though, we're making effort -- every effort that we can to work with the local establishments and -- and enticing people to stay. I mean, our event can simply bring people into the area. We have no control over their staying here. That's up to the people of Collier County, the business people of Collier County to make sure that that happens. The proximity to 75 -- the differences may be a mile. I don't really think it would be a deterrent to anybody if it's on the East Trail as far as getting onto the highway and leaving. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: It -- it just seems to me the closer that your event is to Marco Island and the City the Naples and where our major hotel district is the more likely that they're going to stay in Collier County. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I agree with you it's probably a moot point because I think I hear direction that Sugden Park is the location. It's what we approved. It's what we're continuing with. And NATB has worked very well with you so far in offering package discounts, so we're at least getting the information out. I'd like to make a motion that we approve the TDC grant with the following changes: That on page 4 of the agreement item H be changed to travel, period. And with the same -- or a change that Mr. Weigel cited under insurance that a $10 million clause be placed in there to his satisfaction or legal sufficiency. Those are the only changes I had. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And that the contract provide for Sugden Park as a location? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Correct. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: As long as it's consistent with our original approval, I'm fine with it. We start tinkering with that, and I lose a little comfort level. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: This might cause us to work with the Skimmers a little bit on their construction schedule, but that's just part of doing that. We'll have to do that sometimes. MR. OLLIFF: I think you've got their construction contract on your agenda next week. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: And -- and this contract still includes that payback of any funds -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yes, it's in here. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Yeah. I thought I read it. I just wanted to make sure it's on the record that the event if it makes any profit at all will pay back the -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion. Do we have a second? COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Yeah. I'll second it. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? Thank you, Mr. Leith. Item #10A RESOLUTION 96-314 APPOINTING C. E. GETLER, R. D. LAIRD, B. C. PAUL TO THE COUNTY GOVERNMENT PRODUCTIVITY COHMITTEE - ADOPTED Next item 10(A). COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Chairman, we have two recommendations on the floor, Mr. Getlet and Mr. Laird. I also -- I spoke to the committee at the last meeting and they had no opposition to Mr. Paul or Mr. Bryant but felt that the board may wish to make that decision. If you remember the board approved, when we changed the ordinance, members of the county manager's staff I think was the actual -- it was kind of directed at the county manager's staff that they may sit on the productivity committee if it was beneficial. Mr. Bryant is under the county attorney's office, and to be quite frank with you, with everyone, I think Mr. Bryant's got a full plate. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I'll tell you real bluntly if he's got time for the productivity committee, I'd like to see that Lely guardhouse issue get moved up a little. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Although that's not solely in his lap. I'm a little uncomfortable with someone from the county attorney's office on the committee just because of the workload I understand Mr. Weigel's office is under, Mr. Bryant's office is under. So I would like to recommend Mr. Getlet, Mr. Laird, and Mr. Paul. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: And -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'll second. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? Item #10B RESOLUTION 96-315 APPOINTING H. PEDONE TO THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COHMISSION - ADOPTED Next item is 10(B). I'd like to recommend Michael Pedone. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You want to make that a motion? CHAIRMAN NORRIS: That's a motion. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Second. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? Item #10C RESOLUTION 96-316 APPOINTING R. C. BENNETT TO THE COLLIER COUNTY UTILITY AUTHORITY - ADOPTED Item 10(C) is appointment of member to Collier County Utility Authority, and I think Mr. Weigel has a comment for us. MR. WEIGEL: I do. Thank you. From time to time with this -- with this group you may have the opportunity for selections but not too often. But it's certainly within the purview for appointments to this. You may wish to bear in mind the geographic distribution throughout the county based on the authority that's review of water and wastewater matters throughout the county. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, just a comment. A couple of names jump out at me. During the initial interview process Michael S. Davis -- not the Mike Davis we all know and love but the other Mike Davis who I'm sure that we have would know and love as well but he was very impressive, but I also -- most of you are probably familiar with Bob Bennett (phonetic) and he I think would have some of the technical expertise that would be particularly advantageous on this committee, so I'd like to go ahead and make a motion we recommend him. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Without getting personal I'm more comfortable with Mr. Davis. Personally I would -- I think Mr. Davis would -- pardon me? And there is some, as Mr. Weigel placed, some request for geographic distribution. I certainly wouldn't want to oppose Mr. Bennett so don't send that message to him, but I was going to beat you to the punch with Mr. Davis, but I was a little slow. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I support Mr. Bennett myself. I thought that his expertise sounded like he could really make a contribution. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Tell you what. If my motion, fails I'll second yours. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: There you go. So it's a second. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: The -- the other members of the authority I'm not sure that I remember exactly what business they're in or what part of the county they come from but is it -- is it already geographically spread out? MR. WEIGEL: There's a -- there's a bit of a concentration. I'm just forming it in my mind. I think we've got a couple on the -- of the four members of the five-member authority. I think two are from Marco at the present time. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Two from one, one from three, one from five. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Again, I'm -- I'm not -- this isn't a -- so much you know a dissimilar district someone from District 4 just to, I mean, spread out the geography of the committee. But, again, there's a motion on the floor. We'll see where that goes. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Can I ask one more question -- I'm sorry -- of Mr. Weigel? The people who are from Marco Island or from District 3, if they're in the service area for either Florida City or SSU if we should win our -- the suit that's going on state-wide with that, would they have to abstain from voting on whatever -- their -- the regulation would be? MR. WEIGEL: I don't think so. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Okay. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. We have motion and a second to appoint Bennett. All these in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Aye. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: That passes four to one, I guess. Item #10D AMENDMENT TO THE TRANSPORTATION DISADVANTAGED FUNDING AGREEMENT BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY AND TECH OF COLLIER COUNTY, INC. - STAFF TO REPORT BACK ON 7/23 AFTER REQUESTING THAT THE TD COMMISSION TABLE ACTION UNTIL AFTER THE AUGUST MPO MEETING. CONTRACT AMENDMENT - APPROVED 16(A)(4) is now 10(D). There was a question on this one. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Perry, this isn't really specific to this item in it's wording, but it goes to the heart of this item, and that is we brought up very early in this year, January or February, and then revisited again six or eight weeks ago the idea of looking for alternative service providers for transportation disadvantage or our community transportation. While TECH is very good at doing what they primarily do transportation they seem to have had a number of problems that's come to us from the Collier County Association of the Blind and a number of different people who use that service and we -- the board had indicated a desire to put that service out for bid again, and when we are going to do that? I'm just kind of looking for an update on where we are, because Mr. Dorrill seemed surprised when we brought that back up a couple of months ago. MR. PERRY: Well, for the record my name's Jeff Perry, planning services department. I was not aware that we had received any direction to -- to -- to go that way with the -- with the service. I can tell you how it works as far as the county commission is not responsible for the oversight of that agency they are under contract to the Florida transportation disadvantaged commission and the MPO did recommend them in 1990 to be the coordinator of -- but they are on sort of an annual evaluation process done by the local coordinating board. They have completed that process this year in April and May and in June were recertified to go through and enter into another contract or extended the contract with the TD commission. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Has that contract been signed yet? MR. PERRY: I'm sorry? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Has that contract been signed yet, because that's directly in conflict with the direction of the board and I think with the MPO for that matter but I'll go back and review the minutes? MR. PERRY: I have not seen any signed contracts from the TD commission. I have the version that was approved by the coordinating board and sent to the TD commission, but I can't confirm whether or not it's been actually executed by the TD commission. The contractural arrangements that the -- excuse me -- that the board has with them is for the provisions of the local grant. You provide about $100,000 to them to provide additional service beyond what they get from the state and Medicaid and those agencies and that's the contractural arrangements that the actual county commission has. The MPO doesn't even have anymore arrangements with TECH. It's between TECH and the state TD commission. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: But we have some voice in that process obviously, and the concern that was raised continually throughout the last contract year was they were not providing service in an adequate manner. I'll be happy to revisit the -- I didn't think that was the intent today. But the idea that that contract has just come flying back through and they've been renewed for another year is in conflict with what this board requested. We asked that we look at other potential providers who may specialize in that because TECH is lacking in many of their transportation issues. I'm sure it's a good effort on their part, but they're just unable to deliver the goods. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: So your motion is? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: It sounds like there's staff direc -- a direction to staff being given here that may not have been clear, for whatever purpose, at some point and not carried out, for whatever purpose, that we would like to at the earliest opportunity find a way to bid this so that there are other bidders than TECH if they would like to provide this service if -- whatever role we can serve in facilitating that I believe is the request. Is that fair? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Exactly, and if that contract through the state and ourselves has not been yet signed for the upcoming year, then I think in compliance with our previous direction we should discourage that from being signed at this point because, again, I've said it three times it is contrary to our direction. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Can we get a response from you next week to find out what the process is on how the contracts -- even though -- if the county doesn't participate, TECH may still have a contract with the TD and the state; is that correct? COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: The TD commission. MR. PERRY: The agreement -- the contractural arrangements is between TECH and the TD commission in Tallahassee. The TD commission bases it's annual renewal of that contract based on the operations of the local coordinating board. The local coordinating board authorized them to submit that contract to them, evaluated them, found them to be doing satisfactory work or in compliance with their earlier agreements and authorized them to resubmit that contractural arrangement. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Who's the staff member assigned to that board, the local coordinating board? MR. PERRY: The staff member? COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: It says county commissioner -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I know you've been on that, but I assume you didn't personally go and certify TECH -- COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Absolutely. No. We have a subcommittee that does that, and essentially what they do is go through the records to certify them for satisfactory performance, but it is a single contract. It is not a bid proposal or anything where we go out and actually search for other companies and such, because the contract is with the TD commission and not with ourselves. Now, it would seem to me if we want to expand the search for a provider that we should ask the TD commission to look for a proposal by a bid route as opposed to what's going on. MR. PERRY: The HPO has the authority to seek proposals for this operation without regard to the existing contracts or anything else. The HPO can go out tomorrow and start seeking proposals to have new operators and new providers and new coordinators. They -- and if they will decide that they like what they see, they have the ability to, you know, recommend that the coordinator be changed, that the TD commission consider that at their earliest opportunity. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Let's do that. MR. PERRY: You know, that's what I had suggested to Mr. Dotrill after speaking with him yesterday that this would probably be appropriate for the HPO to take up at their August meeting to discuss it with coordinating board members, to evaluate the service. You'll see the report that the coordinating board approved June and sent to the TD commission on the service that's been provided so far. And if at that point you decide that you want to go out to and RFP if nothing more than just to see what else is out there. The concern that I have is that there's nobody banging down the doors to take over this role. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, if we do a cursory review annually since 1990, there may be those who just assume it's a done deal. Unless we do an RFP we don't know. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Let's go ahead and put that on the MPO agenda for August since that seems to be the earliest point a direction can be given, substantive direction. I think that's a reasonable approach. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let's put a hold on the annual contract if we can for the time being. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Let's -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Can we do that without interrupting service? COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I was going to say, that's -- that's my next question. When does the current contract expire? I know they've got one piece of it is on a -- on a fiscal year from June to July -- I mean, July to June, and another piece of the contract is on the fiscal from October to September. And I'm not sure which -- which one this is. MR. PERRY: I think the contract that they have with -- what's called a memorandum of agreement that they have with the state operates on the July 1 fiscal year. It may not be -- it may not have been executed because it would typically be done at a TD commission meeting, and I think their meeting is coming up. So their current contract may extend automatically until there is a new memorandum of agreement actually approved by the TD commission. I can place some calls this -- this afternoon and get that information for you. And if there's any action that the TD commission feels comfortable in taking as a result of your concerns, they can certainly do that, and we can proceed with our -- with our MPO action at -- in the August meeting. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, what you've just said is it will continue -- you believe it continues automatically and if that's the case the TD commission shouldn't have any difficulty continuing the item until the MPO has discussed -- MR. PERRY: Well -- well -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Two other questions. One, again, when you're -- when the local TD gets together, does some staff member from some department -- does a staff member from the MPO -- does anybody sit in on that? COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: We have a Julia Davis from the RPC, and we have Mr. Lawson from TECH, and we have a subcommittee of the local coordinating board make the evaluation. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I guess I'm just -- I'll go back and take the minutes out word for word because it's very, very aggravating for us to make direction and have it completely ignored. Now, I'm not blaming you. Don't get me wrong, but it's very, very frustrating. We, on two occasions in 1996, have given direction on this and -- COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: Well, my concern that I would like to see Mr. Perry come back to us hopefully next week with direction of exactly what will happen if we request the TD commission not to approve this contract and to possibly extend the existing contract for 120 days or 180 days until we can go through the proposal process. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. Somebody make a motion, please. MR. PERRY: I can provide that to you for your next meeting. My understanding is that the direction we received at the two meetings dealt with the fare structure and dealt with trying to improve the service based on fare structure reducing the fares and that we brought back -- COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll break the minutes out, and we can review it. But I'll go ahead and make a motion that we ask you to come back with that information next week, that we ask you to request that of TD commission, that they delay that pending action from the MPO, and that you place the on the MPO agenda for next month. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: So your motion is to table until MPO action? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Correct. COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: To table this? This is the -- COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No. To table the TD commission's action. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Okay. But not this agenda item. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No. This will be a separate motion. COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: Okay. I'll second that. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and second with -- with several points of direction for the staff. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I'd like to make a motion to approve the current executive summary, item 10(D). COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll second that. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second for approval of the agenda item. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? We'll take a lunch break and be back at 1:30. (A lunch break was held from 12:15 p.m. to 1:34 p.m.) Item #7A WALTER SOLOMON, DEPUTY SHERIFF, REGARDING A WAIVER OF FEES - IHHOKALEE LANDFILL - APPROVED CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I'll reconvene the county commissioner meeting. If I could have a motion to untable our public petition, we could get -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So moved. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second to untable our public petition. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? That's untabled. Mr. Dotrill, would you call our public petitioner, please. MR. DORRILL: The representative from the sheriff's department, Deputy Soloman, if you would, please, sir. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Deputy Soloman, has anyone ever disobeyed you? DEPUTY SOLOMAN: On a rare occasion. Just so I can introduce myself, my name is Deputy Sheriff Walter Soloman, and I'm one of the members of the community policing section who's assigned '- I'm assigned to Immokalee, Florida. Part of our mission is to identify and locate the ills in each of our assigned communities. One of the ills in the community of Immokalee is found out to be trash. There's trash everywhere. It's not because the agencies who are assigned to take care of that are not doing their jobs, there's just so much of it and it's been there so long that it's just overwhelming. We're not trying to take the place of those agencies; we're just trying to assist them, and the way we're doing this is we have utilized persons that are on probation, weekenders, and volunteers from the Immokalee Jail Center to go out with us and pick up trash, bottles, cans, whatever, what have you, whatever we find on the roadways and byways and in some vacant lots. In doing so we found that we had a problem with getting rid of the trash, because it has to be taken to the dump, and we were asked to be charged for the taking of this trash to the dump. We feel that the cost or the revenue that's received for this trash is more than compensated by the amount of the labor that's being perpetrated by the prisoners, probationers, and the volunteers; and we ask that that would be resolved. We have documentation. We have weight and measures, receipts from the dumping area, also photographs of the men picking up the trash if that is necessary. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Actually, we have in the past -- we just recently did this in East Naples for an area that the community policing effort decided needed to have similar attention. Mr. Dotrill, obviously we don't waive fees. We would then process a budget amendment to, in essence, pay those funds out of the general fund. MR. DORRILL: This -- we -- a member of our office had gone out and toured the community with Deputy Soloman in advance of today to get some idea as to what programs he is offering. This does not entail any type of permanent dumpster, but it would be on an as-needed basis, I'll say similar to our Adopt-a-Road program where we have, in that case, volunteers picking up trash and then they leave the trash at a designated location. But there would be no fee to dump that trash; is that correct? DEPUTY SOLOMAN: Basically, that's correct; however, in the adopt-a-street they have located certain areas where they drop large amounts and then the county picks it up. What we propose is that when we go into lots or wherever we pick up large amounts. It may not be trash, but it's double work for us to pick it up, put it down, and then have two men -- because that's what it would take to pick it up and put it in a truck. We want to take it right from the site where we picked it up right to the dump. MR. DORRILL: I don't think we're opposed to that. We had a -- one concern that there was going to be an open dumpster left somewhere in the community because of the obvious magnet that that would entail if persons thought that it was free dump service, but that's not what we're talking about here. If you'll just give us the general authorization to bring a budget amendment back, I think that CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Do we do that by direction or -- MR. DORRILL: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. So directed. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah, we direct staff to do that. DEPUTY SOLOMAN: Thank you. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you, Deputy Soloman. PUBLIC COHMENT Do we have public comment? MR. DORRILL: Yes, sir, for which we have two today. Mr. Erlichman, you'll be first. Mr. Perkins, you'll be second. MR. ERLICHHAN: Good afternoon, Commissioners. Gil Erlichman, I reside in East Naples, and this public comment is -- is my own. We're just starting the election season, and the plethora of -- of election signs, candidate signs throughout the county has just started, and we have ordinances that cover just about everything, and one of those ordinances concerns signs, temporary signs, and then specifically political signs. And these political signs -- this ordinance goes to the size of the sign, where it can be erected, how many feet from the road, where a residential area the size of the sign, and other -- areas other than residential in this size, and how high, and supports, et cetera. Well, they're all fine. It's all fine and, of course, this last reference to trash throughout the county -- to me there's nothing more -- abundant trash than post-election signs, and according to the ordinance it says political signs shall be erected not more than 60 days prior -- 60 calendar days prior to an election or political event and shall be removed -- removed within seven days -- pardon me, seven calendar days after the election, event, or after the campaign issue has been decided. I've been down here -- I've been living in Collier County since 1988 and have gone through several election campaigns, and invariably after each -- at the end of each campaign, there are signs that still remain up after -- two weeks after the election's over, and it takes -- the code enforcement people then have to go out and tear those signs down, take the -- take the structures and so forth and then dispose of them. Now, there is no method to force the person or personnel in the -- of the campaign, the candidates' campaign to go out and take those signs down, even though the ordinance says seven days. So what I'm proposing is that in order to compensate for the taxpayers paying the people from the code enforcement going out and spending time tearing down the signs that are there seven days or more after the election, I would like to Sugden a fine being imposed on the signs that remain standing seven days after the election. So, in other words, it would recompense the taxpayers for the time spent by the code enforcement people going out and tearing those -- tearing those signs and structures down. And I would say that it would -- it should be a minimum fine of no less than $100 and, of course, it could be on a daily basis. Maybe that would force the people who are responsible for those signs being up, for them to take them down. And that's a suggestion that I have to put forth to the commissioners. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I think that makes a lot of sense. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I don't have a problem with it. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you, sir. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Why did two commissioners speak that -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: The two that aren't running. MR. ERLICHMAN: This is -- this is in no way intended to point any fingers at Mr. Norris nor Ms. Matthews. I have no -- or Mr. Constantine. I have no axe to grind with them. It's just that I'm tired of seeing these old signs, and there's nothing worse than looking at these old campaign signs after an election. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You know how after each election many -- both winners and losers often put up the thank you on their thing? My way of saying thank you is taking them down within 24 hours. MR. ERLICHMAN: Thank you. MR. PERKINS: He put it in place, didn't he? A1 Perkins, Belle Meade Groups, Citizens for Constitutional Property Rights. Today's meeting this morning was so important and so informative that I'm going to jump up and down and shout about getting it out over Channel 54. Replay this meeting for the people who can't make it here because they're home or they're at work trying to earn a living to support this place. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let me interrupt you right there, A1. There's nothing that would prohibit us from doing that. We purchased a timer, if I remember, about a year ago to allow us to do things. School board runs their meetings goodness knows how many times a week on Channel 54. It might make sense to run one night -- or a couple nights a week to run ours just as a repeat so that -- I mean, Al's absolutely right. People work during the day; they don't always have a chance to see it. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Why not? COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Why not? If it's not being used, why not? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: It might help insomniacs. MR. PERKINS: Yeah, but there's another point. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Tonight on C-SPAN. MR. PERKINS: The monies that you spent and the effect that you have on the people's lives who cannot be here to defend themselves on most occasions, at least they are aware of who you are, what you're doing, where it's happening, and who is actually making the money on the deal, or who or what agency, developer, or whatever, according to -- with the flooding and the whole 5 yards right on down the line. My big thing is let's start utilizing the things that we have available to us to get all of the information out that -- what this county is doing for us and to us. Thank you. Item #12A1 RESOLUTION 96-317 ADDING AN ADDENDUM TO THE EVALUATION AND APPRAISAL REPORT (EAR) OF THE COLLIER COUNTY GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN BY AMENDING PARAGRAPH V. C OF THE GOLDEN GATE AREA MASTER PLAN OF THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT AND TO TRANSMIT SAID RESOLUTION TO THE SOUTHWEST FLORIDA REGIONAL PLANNING COUNCIL (SWFRPC) AND FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF COMHUNITY AFFAIRS (DCA) - ADOPTED AS AMENDED CHAIRMAN NORRIS: That concludes the morning portion of our agenda. We'll move on now to item 12(A)(1), recommendation that the county board of commissioners approve a resolution to add an addendum to the Evaluation and Appraisal Report. Miss Cacchione. MS. CACCHIONE: For the record my name is Barbara Cacchione of your comprehensive planning staff. The item before you is a resolution to amend our Evaluation and Appraisal Report to supply additional information on the board's decision to amend Goal 2 for the southern Golden Gate Estates. The information is listed in the resolution and summarized in the executive summary. Both the DCA and the Regional Planning Council have reviewed the proposed resolution. The Regional Planning Council has placed this item as a consent agenda, and the DCA has sent a letter yesterday informing that they would find this information sufficient in order for the sufficiency finding. They did state in that letter that it would not be adequate in terms of the amendment process and we would have to further justify the amendment at that point in time, and they did request that we work together over the coming months to see if there is some ability to work on some different proposals for that area. Basically, what I would request is that the board would adopt this resolution. I would like to make those changes to verify those numbers that Miss Brett reported this morning so that the ordinance is as -- the resolution is as accurate as possible. I think it's off by about a thousand acres and that is over the last couple months. And there was some confusion between whether we were talking about just southern Golden Gate Estates or the larger area, and that's when I informed Miss Brett that we were dealing with just southern Golden Gate Estates as part of this resolution. There has also been an advertisement that was placed in the newspaper. It was not at the correct point size and placed in the correct location in the paper. It has been readvertised and will appear on your agenda next week as well, and that's -- that was just to be cautious and advertise it again. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: As the same item? MS. CACCHIONE: As the same item that's before you. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Is it appropriate then to take action on this item today and pending any complaints or -- MR. WEIGEL: Yeah. In fact, I advised her to come back next week. It's a newspaper error, certainly not staff, in the advertisement. It didn't come up in the type font or the placement that is required. By the same token we got some time imperatives with the Regional Planning Council and others, so it's sort of a prophylactic measure. You can come back next week, properly advertised, which it has been, then you could approve it and everything's fine. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Should we continue this then when we -- MR. WEIGEL: No. You should go ahead if it's your decision to approve this today as presented. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: There are no public speakers on this item? MR. DORRILL: No. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I make a motion to approve the item noting that changes should be -- particularly down under the 41,000 acres of estates of which 10,950 have been purchased -- unless we don't want to update that -- which represents 27 percent, and at this rate it would take approximately 41 years -- I think those are the numbers that were reported this morning. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? Thank you, Miss Cacchione. Item #12B1 ORDINANCE 96-38 RE PETITION R-96-4 DWIGHT NADEAU OF HCANLY AND ASSOCIATES, INC., P.A., REPRESENTING WALLACE R. DEVLIN FOR A REZONING FROM "E" RURAL ESTATES TO RHF-6(4) FOR PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF DAVIS BOULEVARD AND COUNTY BARN ROAD - ADOPTED Next item is 12(B)(1), petition R-96-4. MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows, planning services staff, presenting petition R-96-4. Dwight Nadeau of HcAnly and Associates is representing Wallace Devlin requesting a fezone from estates to RHF-6 with a cap of four units petitioner acre for property located on the southwest corner of Davis Boulevard and County Barn Road. The purpose of this petition is to establish a zoning district that would allow for both multi- and single-family units at a cap of four units per acre as opposed to the six units per acre typically allowed by RHF-6 zoning. This petition, if approved, will allow for 232 total units on the 57-acre site. The project is consistent with the future land use element, the Growth Management Plan, and the density rating system at four units petitioner acre. The projected trips will not exceed five percent of the level of service "C" design capacity on Davis Boulevard or any road within the radius of development influence. Water and sure is available to the site. Staff has not received any letters for or against this petition. The Collier County Planning Commission reviewed this petition on June 6th and recommended approval by a five to zero vote. Any questions? CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Yes. Mr. Bellows, one of the concerns that we've had in the past with straight zoning when you try to put the conditions on it, is that there have been instances, I think, in the past where the conditions got lost because this was straight zoning. I think we heard one of those just a couple of weeks back. How do we -- how can be we a hundred percent assured that that's not going to happen in this particular case? MR. BELLOWS: This is a little bit different than the stipulation in that -- the fact that this is dealing with a density number which is actually reflected on the zoning map directly, and I think Mr. Nino pointed out in the staff report on the top of page two -- page two of your agenda packet that it actually will show up on the zoning map as RHF-6 with a "4" in brackets which will designate the actual density. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I did a little research on this because I had the same question after looking at it and under the -- when we were doing zoning teevaluations, if any properties were rezoned the same way, they do show up on the zoning atlas with the density in parentheses and usually noted at the bottom of that page. So because it's been done before -- I don't know that it will necessarily hold this up today -- but I feel compelled to at least initiate a policy direction from this board that if you are going to request a zoning district that typically allows a density higher than what you're requesting, that it be rezoned PUD. That's the intent of the PUD zoning district is to be able to take factors into consideration and put them into a single document, so you know, again, I don't see -- I don't have a problem with the application today, but I think we need to give direction to staff that these types of applications should be in the form of a PUD, not in this manner, so that we can stop doing this and stop messing up our zoning atlas that way. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let me raise a little different question, and that is under current zoning it would allow for approximately 21 units. Under the change it will allow for 232 units. As we read through our summary, it says rural estates zoning districts located within the urban residential designated area are expected to be rezoned. And I'm wondering if, as we listen to the message given to us by FoCuS and all the others, if maybe we should lower that expectation, because there's a great number of areas that are yet undeveloped; and -- and this isn't a huge parcel, but there are some that are much bigger than this, and a jump from 21 units to 232 units is dramatic. And you take other parcels around the county that may be much bigger than 58 acres and -- and you could have an increase of a couple of thousand. And I'm just concerned -- I look down on page 3 of our packet in the third paragraph almost all the way through, and it says because those -- talking about other properties -- those like the subject property will be rezoned at some future date for an urban residential zoning classification. Apparently, it's a given. We, somewhere in our paperwork, have decided, well, this is what's going to happen. And I'm not sure in today's climate that that is necessarily what the public at large wants and so I -- I would -- MR. BELLOWS: I think what Mr. Nino is referring to is the fact that the future land use element allows for a base of four. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Right. And I understand it -- it does -- in its current form it does. And, I mean, these guys came through on that, but I don't know if we should just have that grand expectation out there for everyone, and when we use words like it will be rezoned, all of these will be rezoned, maybe it's time we take a peek at that. That is one way in which we have the ability to limit growth in the future. And I'm not saying we shouldn't be able to change it at all in the urban area, but we might have more specific limitations on it. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Then again, we could probably go down that road and discuss that issue at length, and it has less to do with the application before us today because, again, as you mentioned, they came in under -- and that's the direction we're going to take. I would like to see that discussion take place at either -- as we look at the EAR process, you know, and deal with this application specifically today. I don't necessarily disagree with you. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let me quickly wrap up my comment, because you're exactly correct, and you came in under the current FLUE, and we can't change the rules in midstream on you, but is their any objection from the board to our staff looking at that, and as we go through our next process, bringing something back to us and at least exploring some of the alternatives there? COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I thought we already asked for it last fall. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: But this is very item-specific, though, I guess. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: So what you're saying is change the wording to reduce the expectation to -- similar to what we have elsewhere -- up to but not to exceed, rather than -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Or even maybe -- maybe these rural estates parcels shouldn't be rezoned at all. That's another question. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And maybe it's somewhere in between. I don't want to get off on that today. But just to -- is there any objection to asking our staff to explore that and bringing back some alternatives to us? COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Can I ask a follow-up on the same idea? I mean, at -- at one point -- I don't know when this was rezoned estates, but certainly at some point it was, and I -- I'd like to know what the methodology and the thought process was at the time for making this estates and saying that there should only be one dwelling every 2 1/4 or 2 1/2 acres. At some point somebody thought that's all that should be here, and now -- now we're being asked again to make another change. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I think that that direction is fine, because it's probably going to just open up the discussion on density county-wide so, yes, if you're looking for direction, I agree with that. What I'd like to do, though, is focus on this petition at this point, because four units an acre by other community standards is a low density. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah. And, again, I just want to make that point and take this opportunity to give the staff direction on this. I realize we can't change the rules on this one midway. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. Thank you for that. MR. WEIGEL: Mr. Chairman, as I mentioned earlier I would appreciate it if the parties that are speaking or have spoken on this and the other public petitions that follow would be sworn in, and our reporter is prepared to swear them in. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. Let's have -- how many people in the audience intend to speak on this petition? Mr. Nadeau, I don't see your hand going up. Are you out? MR. NADEAU: Oh, I think that should be assumed. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. Would you please raise your hand and let the court reporter swear you in. You, too, Ray. (The speakers were sworn.) CHAIRMAN NORRIS: You may now kiss the bride. MR. NADEAU: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, it's a pleasure to be before you again this afternoon. Rather than to get into a discussion of zoning density in Collier County, I think I will focus my attention on the petition at hand, R-96-4. I'm representing Wallace R. Devlin, and if I didn't say so, my name is Dwight Nadeau with HcAnly Engineering and Design. The petition before you is a request for RHF-6 at a density cap of four dwelling units petitioner acre as prescribed by the future land use element in the comprehensive plan. We've done some significant work on this property. As neighboring residents know there was some -- some flooding in the County Barn Road area back when we had some storms two years ago, and in cooperation with Mr. Boldt of the stormwater management department, we're not going to be able to resolve the problem with this petition request, but we're certainly going to have a significant impact on the drainage problems in the area. If I could move to the map, it's a 57.9-acre piece of property. I think we all know where it is, County Barn Road and Davis Boulevard, the southwest quadrant. The property has approximately 32 acres of jurisdictional wetlands on it. They're shown in red here. Based on some permitting strategies that we're fairly comfortable with, we're going to wind up with about 22, 23 acres of conservation area, and that will be the higher quality cypress strands or cypress areas that occur in the south portion of the property. If anyone has ever driven by that intersection, you're seeing, effectively, a monoculture of malleluca and exotics, and we're going to assist by removing those in the petition process. Access to the site is presumed to be from Davis Boulevard and approximately 900 feet south with full openings, potentially, to the site on County Barn Road. Prior to the Planning Commission, there was some discussion with adjacent property owners in regard to compatibility. I met with those property owners and showing the nearby single-family homes in the estates designation, we came to a conclusion that there was adequate separation and further, at the Planning Commission, I made a commitment to Mr. Jones, who is a neighboring property owner, that there would be no greater than two-story buildings along the western property boundary. And I've been told by Mr. Bellows that that's been incorporated into the adopting ordinance. Beyond that, Commissioners, we've satisfied the test of the future land use element, we've shown compatibility with the adjacent properties, and we feel that this is a -- an appropriate use of this section corner, and I'd ask your approval of the zoning request. I'd be happy to answer any questions. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Let me ask you a little bit about the drainage again -- MR. NADEAU: Sure. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: -- since that's a critical area up in there. First of all, in its natural state there, where is the water going? In which direction does it go? MR. NADEAU: Not being a water management engineer, bear with me. But effectively, we have a sheet flow which runs from the north to the southwest in this fashion, and as you can see when you drive by, there are several culvert openings which have been significantly scoured with volumes of water moving through those pipes. One of the conditions in the adopting ordinance is that we would accommodate the existing flow on -- as an interim measure until the District 6 drainage improvements are done on the County Barn Road corridor. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. And so you will be actually then improving the situation in that corner ostensibly? MR. NADEAU: Well, I've been cautioned -- cautioned to use the term "improve," because when you look at the entire District 6 basin, a 58-acre piece of property is merely a postage stamp inside there; however, there will be a -- a significant improvement just by the water-management regime that's being proposed for the development. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: And retention. You will be installing retention where there is now none which has to improve the situation MR. NADEAU: That is correct. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: -- to some degree. MR. NADEAU: Yes, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Is that not correct? MR. NADEAU: Yes, that's correct. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: You will be ensuring that the water will be retained on the entire site for a certain period which right now there is no assurance that that's happening. Commissioner Hancock. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: A couple of questions, and I could probably find the first answer by looking at the application, but I'll -- it's easier to ask. Did the trust who's making application purchase or have contract to several properties to aggregate them for this project, or is the entire parcel under single ownership? Do you understand the difference that I'm asking? This is -- a trustee is -- is part of the application. Is that trustee representing several property owners that combined to make this request? MR. NADEAU: Mr. Devlin's legal counsel is here. It may be appropriate for him to respond to that, because he's involved with the contractual end of Mr. Devlin's petition. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Do we need to swear counsel in? MR. WEIGEL: Yes, we do. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Mr. Hoover came to the foreground. Are you on a different petition? (The witness was sworn.) MR. CONLEY: Thank you. My name is Dan Conley. For the record I represent the purchaser -- the contract purchaser of the property, who is Wallace Devlin. The current ownership is all within the Ingram family. There is an Ingram trust, which my understanding -- although I do not represent them -- consists of two people, and then there is another member of the Ingram family who also owns a partial -- a portion of the property. So I believe that there are three individuals who own portions of the total 57 acres. It will all be under one ownership when it's -- the purchase is complete. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. But they're all in the same family. It's a family trust? MR. CONLEY: That is my understanding. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Thank you. I have a couple more questions. MR. NADEAU: Certainly. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I assume you're requesting RHF-6 because of the high degree of wetlands on the property, to give you reduced setbacks, and so forth, to achieve the density. MR. NADEAU: No. The RHF-6 development standards are most appropriate to use. There's no need for me to do a PUD document for this site because we can conform with the development standards in the RHF-6 zone. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. That wasn't my question. My question was -- you're at four units an acre? MR. NADEAU: Yes. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: But you're requesting RHF-6, and the purpose for that is -- is it simply product? Do you want to do multi-family? MR. NADEAU: The opportunity to do a multi-family product, yes. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Is water and sewer available at the site currently? MR. NADEAU: Yes, it is on both frontages, Davis and County Barn. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. And the last thing I have is more of a -- I guess a statement for discussion of the board. We notice on -- and I remember last on Radio Road -- that a single project would come in, it was the first of its kind, and we tended to -- or at that point granted up to the maximum that was allowed. We then saw the pattern -- and I think it was affordable housing -- of people coming in after it, and once the pattern is kind of set in an area, it begins to develop and grow with that being the trademark. To the east of your property is all estates zoning, if I understand correctly, and some of this developed to single-family homes on estates zoning. My concern is that by granting four units an acre on this parcel we are going to set the stage -- and I understand there's a convenience store next to you, and we need to buffer from that. I understand that. But by granting four units an acre on this piece, we're kind of opening that corridor with estates zoning to similar requests and, you know, I know you can't guarantee that or -- that it will or won't happen. MR. NADEAU: Well, if I may just elaborate on where this property is in relation to development opportunities near by. If this property were located on the east side of 951, it would be within the density band of the activity center at Santa Barbara. Therefore, it would have the opportunity for an additional three dwelling units per acre taking it up to seven. A former request back in '89 brought this property to you with nine dwelling units petitioner acre, which was affordable housing -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: You meant to say County Barn Road, didn't you? MR. NADEAU: Yes, I'm sorry. If it were east of County Barn Road, yes. If this property were approximately a mile to the -- further to the east, it would be within the activity center at Santa Barbara and Davis Boulevard and would have the potential for 16 dwelling units petitioner acre; but given that -- the fact that the density band does not include this property, four dwelling units petitioner acre would be the maximum allowed under the comprehensive plan. So with the existing trend of six, eight, seven, and even three dwelling units petitioner acre in the surrounding area, I do not believe my client will be setting a precedence for an intensity of development in this area. I believe it may be more intense when you see future petitions come before you in those density bands and in those activity centers. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Hancock, may I ask a question? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Sure. I'm done. Thank you. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Okay. Mr. Nadeau -- and I know this information is in our packet, and I'm asking you this for my own clarification. MR. NADEAU: Sure. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Directly to the north of that intersection is Embassy Woods? MR. NADEAU: Yes. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The density there is -- is it 4.3? Is that right? MR. NADEAU: Yes, that's correct. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: East of Embassy Woods is Countryside. Do you know what the density there is? MR. BELLOWS: It's 3.99. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you. And directly to the west of Embassy Woods is -- actually there's going to be, on part of it, affordable housing I think that -- MR. NADEAU: Osprey Landings? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Actually, that's a little further, but anyway my point just being made. I think it's fairly consistent with what's there. The real danger is going to lie -- I'm trying to help answer your question. The real danger is going to lie with those future projects in the activity center to the east. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: That's my concern. What I'd take into -- in this overall concept is the fact that to the south, Rattlesnake Hammock has been limited to four lanes. It will never be six lanes. And as this area blossoms -- we're seeing a lot of applications come in on this area. I'm just concerned that, you know, what we do -- what its overlapping effect will be in the long term. And obviously if you were standing here you'd say, well, okay, three units an acre is fine. I'd say, great, have a nice day. But that's what I'm wrestling with, whether four is more appropriate or whether three would set the stage for what is to happen in the surrounding area more to the liking of this board. I'm just not sure which way to go on that. MR. NADEAU: Well, I can only respond on behalf of my client and that -- from an economic standpoint and with the extent of the wetlands on that property, the margin is very narrow. And that's why I'm urging this request for four dwelling units petitioner acre. CHAI~ NORRIS: Do we have public speakers? MR. DORRILL: No, sir. CHAI~ NORRIS: If there's no further questions, I'll close the public hearing. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: If I understand your comment then is that at three units an acre, you wouldn't be here. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm going to move for approval on this under the recommendation of CCPC. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm going to second it acknowledging the current FLUE and, again, referencing the fact that I'd like to see that change, but this came in under current law, and we can't change that midstream. So I'll second the motion. CHAI~ NORRIS: Okay. Now, Mr. Bellows, before I call the vote, are we, as the Board of Commissioners here, are we a hundred percent guaranteed that they're not going to be able to do more than four units an acre? MR. BELLOWS: Guaranteed. It will be on the zoning map. CHAI~ NORRIS: Okay. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Based on the consistency of the area, I'm going to support the motion but, again, I have to put a little red flag up and say as this area develops we need to be concerned about the traffic and the few roads that feed that area. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Before we vote should we indicate if we've had any contact with the petitioner or others, Mr. Weigel? MR. WEIGEL: Yes, you should. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. I have had none. MR. WEIGEL: In fact, I'll make that request now for all of the elements and items following this, too. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: On this particular item I don't know that I have, but I am basing my decision solely on the information provided during this public hearing. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I have not had any contact on this, and I am basing my decision solely on what I've heard here today. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Likewise. COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: I, too, no contact, but will base my decision on today's information. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second for approval with the conditions noted in the ordinance. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? That's approved. MR. NADEAU: Thank you, Commissioners. Item #1282 PETITION PUD-96-3, DAVID S. WILKISON OF WILKISON & ASSOCIATES, INC. REPRESENTING SAL ANGILERI REQUESTING A REZONE OF CERTAIN DEFINED PROPERTY AS HEREIN DESCRIBED FROM "E" ESTATES TO "PUD" PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FOR PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE NORTHWEST QUADRANT OF THE PINE RIDGE ROAD AND 1-75 INTERCHANGE ACTIVITY CENTER - TABLED. CONTINUED TO 8/13/96 AS LONG AS PETITION DOES NOT COME BACK WITH GAS STATION OR CONVENIENCE STORE AS PART OF THE APPLICATION CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Item 12(B)(2) is petition PUD-96-3. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, on this one I've had -- COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Excuse me. I just wanted to give direction if we can to staff so that we can get some sort of report as to this estates zoning that exists in pockets now throughout the county, because we are definitely, it appears, headed in the direction to fezone all of the estates property west of 951, and I'd kind of like to know what we're going to do about that. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I think that's what Commissioner Constantine is a -- for a report specifically for the estates. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I just want to make sure that we have definitely asked for that. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Yes, we have. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Okay. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, on this next item in person, on the phone, in letters, and even in my dreams, I have had extensive contact from both sides of the issue; however, my decision will be based solely on the information provided during today's public hearing. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: And that goes for me as well, that entire statement. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Same thing for me except for the dreams part. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I've had contact with the petitioner, affected residents, nonaffected residents, and various others, and I base my decision on what's presented today. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I've had contact from all over the county on this one, I think; but I, too, will base my decision on what we hear today. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. MR. DORRILL: We have 14 speakers, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. Would everyone who is intending to speak on this issue please stand up and hold up your right hand at this time. If you don't -- if you don't get sworn in now, you will not be given the opportunity to speak. Go ahead, please. (The speakers were sworn.) CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you. Would someone like to start? COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Why don't we start with Bryan. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. Milk, would you like to start off for us, please. MR. MILK: Yes, sir. Good afternoon. For the record my name is Bryan Milk. I am presenting petition PUD-96-3. This petition seeks to have property rezoned from estates to planned unit development for a commercial development intended to serve the traveling public. The subject property is located in the 1-75/Pine Ridge Road interchange activity center. The subject property is 4.5 acres in size and has been designated as a commercial node since 1983 with the implementation of the comprehensive plan. In 1989 with the implementation of the future land use element and the Growth Management Plan, the subject property became site-specific and is known as an interchange activity center. This activity center was intended to be used -- utilized for commercial uses for the traveling public. The area to the north is zoned estates and is the Livingston Woods subdivision. Typical lot sizes range from approximately 2.25 acres. Property to the west is the interchange activity center and approved Naples Gateway PUD and is currently undeveloped. The property to the south is the Pine Ridge Road right-of-way. The Southerland PUD currently is being developed and is being developed as a hotel/motel site, gasoline service station site, fast-food restaurant site. Access to the subject property is provided from Pine Ridge Road. It's provided by a shared-access agreement with Tract 60. The proposed access aligns with Whippoorwill Lane directly to the south. At this particular intersection there is a median opening to the Pine Ridge Road right-of-way. The petitioner is responsible for the necessary right-turn lane, the decel lane, the modifications to the intersection, and the signalization of that particular intersection. Pine Ridge Road is currently operating at the level of service "B" and has approximately 36,000 trips per day. In the year 2001 this facility shall be or should be a six-lane arterial roadway at that particular time. There is currently water available to the Southerland PUD, and as we speak there's a sewer line being developed in this particular area and should be to the subject property shortly. The PUD is unique in that it has three areas for development. It has area A, B, and C. Area A is approximately .6 acres in size, and it fronts Livingston Woods Lane. The uses designated for that area are open space and water retention. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Area A is how deep? Is it 90 feet? MR. MILK: It's approximately 90 feet deep. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you. MR. MILK: Also in area A petitioner is going to construct a 6-foot wall and a landscape buffer. That particular buffer will consist of a tree spaced every 15 feet and a landscaped hedge along the front. The wall shall be a block wall and architecturally designed. Behind the wall will be approximately 15 maple trees in this particular area of the water-retention area. In area B it's approximately 2.24 acres in size and will be utilized for hotel/motels, sit-down restaurants, professional offices, and some retail uses. Area C is contiguous to Pine Ridge Road and the frontage road, Kramer Drive. Area C is approximately 1.7 acres in size. The designated land uses are gasoline service stations, fast-food restaurants, and miscellaneous retail and convenience commercial stores. All the areas -- B and C have a maximum height restriction of 30 feet except for the hotel/motel site, which is 38 feet. The property provides Kramer Drive for future access to those additional properties to the east which are also located within the activity center at that interchange. The reason the property was put together as a tracted area was to transition the uses from open space in area A to the more intense gasoline service stations adjacent to Pine Ridge Road. The closest service station or building on area C would be approximately 385 feet from the Livingston Woods Lane right-of-way. An additional 60 foot would be included for that right-of-way, and an additional 75 feet would be included for the nearest residential property directly behind the subject location. On June the 6th the CCPC heard this item and voted four to one to recommend approval. In their approval they sited three stipulations for the record. These stipulations were incorporated into the PUD document. These stipulations were that no truck stops were permitted on the site, that diesel fuel dispensed on site shall be of automobile grade, and that the petitioner shall construct a 6-foot wall adjacent to the Livingston Woods land. Again, all of these were incorporated. At the public hearing there were several members of the Livingston Woods subdivision directly behind the -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Quick question. On planning commission you mentioned there was one vote against. Was -- were there findings or was there a reason why they voted against that? MR. MILK: I think due to the intensity of the site and possibly the nature of the gasoline service station. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you very much. MR. MILK: Staff is of the opinion that due to the location within the interchange activity center, the access to the site, all the development regulations provided in the planned unit development document, the architectural standards, the open space, the landscape buffers, the transition of uses, that this is a compatible planned unit development. As I was saying, the folks behind the subject property, which is approximately 15 or 16 -- and I tried to incorporate all of those letters of concern in the executive summary -- had questions and opposition to the use of the gasoline service station. Their biggest opposition was the use of the service station, the noise, the traffic, and how it might -- might impact the surrounding wells, because all those folks are on wells and not potable water that if there was a leak it may, in fact, affect their drinking water source. They also had concerns about that area being close to their residential areas. I'd like to answer any questions at this particular time. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. Let's have the petitioner come forward and make your presentation. Who's going to handle that? Mr. Anderson? Mr. Anderson, if you could -- I know you have a lot of things to get on the record. If you could, keep it to the point, please. MR. ANDERSON: Certainly, Mr. Chairman. THE COURT REPORTER: Excuse me, sir. Have you been swor~? MR. ANDERSON: Yes, ma'am. THE COURT REPORTER: Thank you. MR. ANDERSON: For the record my name is Bruce Anderson from Young, van Assenderp & Varnadoe representing the petitioner. I'd like to introduce two of the property owners that are present today, Mr. Sal Angileri and Wendell Kramer, who are Collier County residents and who have owned the subject property for 17 years. I'd also like to introduce Max Brayer (phonetic), who is the vice president of engineering and design for Racetrac Petroleum, Incorporated, who has a contractual interest in the property. Racetrac is a 63-year-old company headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia, with over 380 company- and dealer-operated stores in 13 southeastern states located primarily along the interstate. Also available to provide testimony and answer questions are David Wilkison and Jeff Davidson of Wilkison & Associates Engineering firm; Mr. Bill Hoover of the Hoover Planning Shoppe; Rick Armalavage of Armalavage & Associates, a real estate appraisal and market analysis firm; and Tom Missimer of Missimer International, Inc., to address hydrogeology and related groundwater issues. This is a very straightforward fezone petition for slightly less than five acres located within the boundaries of an interchange activity center. The subject property has been designated for commercial uses under two different comprehensive plans including the one in effect today. We seek approval for the same type of uses that the county has approved for other PUDs in this activity center along both sides of Pine Ridge Road. Of the 14 specific principal uses that we have requested, 9 of them are either C-1 or C-2 uses, and the remaining uses consist of a florist, a dry cleaner, auto supply, hotel/motel, and a travel agency. Those are the only ones that don't fall within the C-1 or C-2 category. We have agreed to every stipulation requested by the planning staff and the planning commission, both of which recommended approval. In preparing this PUD we have been careful to address the estates-zoned property that lies to the north of this PUD across Livingston Woods Lane. Interestingly, Section 2.1.14 of your Land Development Code defines the estates-zoning district as an agricultural-zoned district rather than a residential district. Nonetheless, in terms of setbacks, buffering, and landscape screening, we have treated the properties to the north as if the Land Development Code defined the estates as a residential district. In many important ways this PUD exceeds the normal Land Development Code requirements that apply to commercial development. For instance, the normally required setback from Livingston Woods Lane and for all of the commercial zoning districts in Collier County is only 25 feet. Our PUD triples that, more than triples that by providing a 90-foot setback. Your Land Development Code calls for a 20-foot-wide landscape screening buffer with trees planted every 30 feet. Our PUD provides a 20-foot-wide buffer with twice the number of trees to be planted every 15 feet plus a hedge and plus a minimum 6-foot-high masonry wall. Section 2.6.28 of your code specifically allows service stations next to residential areas so long as there is a 50-foot separation between the two uses, and our PUD master plan increases that separation by more than seven times by providing a 385-foot setback from Livingston Woods Lane. Another example, the building heights allowed in the county's commercial zoning districts range from a low of thirty-five feet to fifty feet to a hundred feet. Our PUD places a maximum building height of 30 feet except for hotel/motel, which would be allowed to go up to 38 feet. Your Land Development Code does not address the use of loud speakers or public address systems, but our PUD does by prohibiting them. Additionally, the regulation of underground petroleum storage tanks is preempted to the State of Florida Department of Environmental Protection by Section 367.317 Florida statutes. Now, under that preemption statute the department has adopted an administrative rule which requires only a 50-foot setback for new required double-wall petroleum storage tanks from a private potable supply well. Again, our PUD exceeds that requirement. It increases the setback requirement by more than 10 times by providing for greater than a 500-foot setback for the underground petroleum storage tanks from not just the nearest well, but the nearest property served by a well. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Bruce, would you repeat that one again, please. MR. ANDERSON: Yes, sir. The Florida statutes preempts the regulation of underground petroleum storage tanks to the state. The Department of Environmental Protection has adopted an administrative rule that permits the newly required double-walled petroleum storage tanks like we're required to install. That administrative rule permits such a tank to be installed 50 feet from a private potable water supply well. Under our master plan our underground tanks will be more than 500 feet, more than 10 times the state-mandated requirement. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you. MR. ANDERSON: Additionally, we have committed in the PUD to unified architectural standards for all buildings, signage, landscaping, and infrastructure, and have gone beyond the normal architectural commitment by specifying that all buildings will be primarily finished in stucco or architecturally-finished cut-block; and unless it is a flat roof, all buildings will have a tile or metal roof. This is unprecedented for a commercial PUD in this county. Further, the owners of at least two of the other tracts in this activity-center quadrant have written to you and voluntarily committed to abide by our architectural standards when they come in to develop their own property. In so very many important ways, setbacks, buffering and screening, site design, building heights, access, and architectural controls, the owners of this PUD have gone the extra distance beyond the normal requirements. At this time I'd like to enter into the record a hearing exhibit book, which contains reduced copies of most of the exhibits that we will be using at this hearing and which I previously distributed copies of. I would particularly direct your attention to Exhibit 1 in this booklet, which is a comparison chart, which details the applicable standards of the Growth Management Plan, Golden Gate master plan, and future land use element, the Land Development Code, and other standards to the Angileri PUD standards to demonstrate in the summary, easy-to-read form how this project meets or exceeds those standards. Also included in the back of the hearing book are the resumes of all of our expert witnesses, all of whom have testified before this body as expert witnesses at prior hearings. In order to save time, I would ask you to please go ahead and accept the following individuals as expert witnesses. I don't know that we'll call all of them, but William Hoover in land use and transportation planning; Richard Armalavage, real estate appraisal and market analysis; Thomas Missimer, hydrogeology and groundwater; and David Wilkison and Jeff Davidson in civil engineering. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Anderson, I have one challenge there. MR. ANDERSON: Yes, sir. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I recognize Mr. Hoover's credentials in planning; however, you mentioned transportation planning. MR. ANDERSON: Yes, sir. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: There is not a professional designation in the planning field for a transportation planner. MR. ANDERSON: Okay. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Does Mr. Hoover have a PE, a profession engineering certification? MR. ANDERSON: No, he does not. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. I would -- I would challenge transportation planning. MR. ANDERSON: Okay. We'll just go with land-use planning then. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Motion? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I make a motion to acknowledge them as experts. I'll also include in that Mr. Hulhere, Mr. Arnold, and Mr. Milk as experts in their respective fields as well. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Motion and a second to accept the expert witnesses. All those in favor signify by saying aye. MR. ANDERSON: Thank you. I would request the opportunity to respond to any comments from members of the public at the conclusion of the hearing and to offer concluding remarks; and unless any of you have any questions for me right now, I would ask Mr. Hoover to make a brief presentation on the land-use planning considerations, and he would be followed by Mr. Armalavage to testify about the market demand for the uses at this location; and following Mr. Armalavage's presentation, we would turn it over to you to receive public comment unless you would like to hear from any of our other experts who have not testified or if you have any questions for me. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: That's all fine, Mr. Anderson, with the exception that we're not going to allow you to get into cross-examination of public comment. MR. ANDERSON: No, no, no. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We're not going to allow you to respond to public comment. If a member of the board wants you to explain something that some member of the public said, that's one thing. But we're not going to set aside time for you to respond to everything that some member of the public might say. MR. ANDERSON: No, no. And I don't intend to do that, but there may be some things that I didn't want to waste time on at this time if it wasn't necessary as a result of the public comments is all. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Please proceed. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: My -- my question was who, if anybody, will be talking to us about the architectural standards. I'm interested in getting a better picture of what that's going to look like. Stucco and -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I, too, have a laundry list in that area, and I think it may be appropriate that we hear the concerns from the public in total, draw that perspective, and then maybe ask the petitioner at that time about the areas that the public -- they'll probably raise some things we have not considered. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Oh, yeah. I just wanted to tip you off that I'm going to have a lot of architectural questions, and I didn't hear an architect in your list of experts, so I was hoping that somebody would be able to address that at some point. MR. ANDERSON: In the absence of the county having adopted any architectural standards, we volunteered these and, of course, there's some risk in doing that, but we put our best foot forward and went beyond the minimum requirements. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you. THE COURT REPORTER: Have you been sworn, sir? MR. HOOVER: Yes, ma'am. For the record Bill Hoover of Hoover Planning representing the petitioners. The subject property is designated as interstate activity center on the future land use map of the comprehensive plan and previously was designated as highway commercial uses on the prior comprehensive plan since 1983. The future land use element states that the full array and intensity of commercial land uses may be allowed in these activity centers, and we're requesting only very specific highway-commercial and convenience-commercial land uses. These are the same type of uses that are already allowed in here in the Southerland PUD, two PUDs to the southwest, as well as in the Naples Gateway PUD. The Southerland PUD to the south is the only PUD developed west of 1-75 within this activity center. It has typical interchange uses including service stations, motels, and restaurants, plus an additional interim wastewater treatment plan. Moving to the west is the Pine Ridge Center PUD and Pine Ridge Center West PUD. They're both approved for auto and truck fueling facilities, restaurants, offices, and banks. The Naples Gateway PUD in the northwest quadrant is approved for service stations, convenience stores, sit-down and fast-food restaurants, offices, motels, and banks. These are basically the same uses that we're requesting. The Collier County access management plan designates the only full median cut and traffic signal on the west side of 1-75 in the activity center to be located at the southwest corner of the subject property, which would be right there. We have proposed cross accesses to both abutting properties to the west and the east so that as many motorists as possible can use this traffic signal as well as to minimize traffic cuts onto Pine Ridge Road. In my professional opinion the existing estates zoning on petitioner's property which limits the use to a single-family dwelling is unreasonable. The property is located at an interstate exit fronting on what will become in a few years a six-lane, major arterial with a traffic signal fronting the property. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm sorry. Is your testimony that the estates zoning on the PUD parcel is unreasonable? You're not saying behind it. MR. HOOVER: No. I'm just saying on the subject property. The following planning strategies, which exceed LDC requirements, were utilized to ensure that our impacts would be inconsequential to the existing and future residents to the north across Livingston Woods Lane. This exhibit shows the Naples Gateway PUD, a vacant parcel in between, and the subject property. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The Gateway PUD was passed when? MR. MILK: 1985. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Milk, is it fair to say that in the last 11 years the character of the area of Pine Ridge has been altered a little bit? MR. MILK: Yes, sir. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you. MR. HOOVER: What we've done -- on the northern 80 feet of our site, we've designated an area as area A -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Bill, I'm sorry to interrupt, but it just occurred to me, we ought to have -- or recognize our planners as experts. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I did. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: We did. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That was part of my motion. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm sorry. Then I especially apologize. MR. HOOVER: In the -- what we're allowing in this area is only open space and water management areas only. The only thing we're going to be doing in this main area here is water management, and it would additionally be planted with red maple trees to sort of give it a park-like atmosphere. Instead of the normally required 25-foot setback from Livingston Woods Lane, we're going with a 90-foot minimum setback, and this is for both principal and accessory structures. Service stations and fast-food restaurants would only be located in area C, which is the part that fronts along Pine Ridge Road. Getting back to the architectural standards a little bit, we're stating that all structures and signs will be under a common architectural theme. We would require that all buildings be finished in stucco or architecturally-finished cut-block. Additionally, all the buildings would have metal or tile roofs unless it has a flat roof. Due to the minimum 75-foot setback for estates homes on the north side of Livingston Woods Road -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just a quick question. You said unless it has a flat roof. MR. HOOVER: Yeah. Then we would -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Do we have any idea whether any of the proposed buildings -- MR. HOOVER: We don't have anything that would be a flat roof today. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Thanks. That's number three on my laundry list. MR. HOOVER: Due to the 75-foot setback in estates zoning, the 60-foot right-of-way and/or 90-foot setback for the area B -- and this is the area where we would have our less intensive uses -- all the structures in area B would be set back a minimum of 225 feet from any existing or future estates home. And going up to area C, which is the section along Pine Ridge Road, all the buildings in area C would be set back a minimum of 520 feet from any existing or future estates home. In my opinion as a professional planner, the proposed PUD is easily compatible with all neighboring properties and land uses based on the way we've massaged the PUD in this case. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just let me make sure I understand. The neighboring property to the west is vacant? MR. HOOVER: Correct. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Currently, it doesn't have any plan attached to it? MR. MILK: That's correct. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And the neighboring properties to the east are vacant or don't have any current plan attached to them? MR. MILK: Zoned estates. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And the -- both east and west are zoned estates? MR. MILK: That's correct. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And the property to the north is zoned estates with the lowest intensity residential use we have in the county. MR. MILK: The estates designation. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you. Okay. I'm sorry. THE COURT REPORTER: Have you been sworn, sir? MR. ARHALAVAGE: Halfway. THE COURT REPORTER: Halfway? MR. ARHALAVAGE: Right. I was halfway in the door when you were doing it. (The speaker was sworn.) COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It might have only been a half truth otherwise. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Now, we're going to get a full truth; right? MR. ARHALAVAGE: Good afternoon, Commissioners. For the record I'm Rick Armalavage of Armalavage & Associates. I am a real estate appraiser, market analyst, and basically I've been down in this area doing real estate analysis for about 18 years. I was hired to do an analysis of the subject property, which is the Angileri PUD to determine three primary things; firstly, to determine the economic feasibility for residential use on the subject property; two, to determine probable use based on demographic trends and market patterns in the subject area; and three, analyze if there's been any diminution of value to the existing residential properties in the surrounding area by the existing commercial uses along Pine Ridge Road. As part of this analysis I studied the subject property and surrounding areas and with particular attention to all the interchange locations between Lee and Collier Counties and actually further north of that, but primarily Lee and Collier Counties, analyzed demographic information, a variety of sources in that way, traffic counts, and relied on a variety of trade publications from the ULI and the National Association of Convenience Stores. I'll give you my conclusions. They're very brief. Firstly, use of the subject property for residential purposes is not economically viable, not probable, and not likely. I'd say that at no time in our near-term future will we see any residential uses on those properties. Two, probable use is for commercial, most likely of an interchange-related use and convenience-related use. The best use would be of a convenience store, gas station, hotel, restaurants, and the demographics clearly fit almost like a glove for that use. Lastly, there is no quantifiable diminution of value to the existing residential properties, none whatsoever. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: From existing structures, not from proposed development. MR. ARHALAVAGE: From any existing -- or existing zoning that's in place there. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: As a professional appraiser and a heck of a good basketball referee, can you -- COHHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Big game coming up? COHHISSIONER HANCOCK: My wife did get transferred to Barton -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: He's trying to win a few points here. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- but that's another issue. Are you able to determine if the existence of this project in its most intense form would have a diminution of value on the adjacent estates zoning? Are you able to determine that as a professional appraiser? MR. ARHALAVAGE: You'd have to prognosticate quite a bit, forecast quite a bit. My -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: That's what we have to do, unfortunately. MR. ARHALAVAGE: My forecast is it would not if it is handled correctly. I think that the patterns are already set in the area, so the diminution that is going to take place is already established by virtue of all the surrounding land-use trends and traffic patterns. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let me ask a question along similar lines. Could the development of this property -- this is a yes/no question even though I kind of will have a little twist here. Could the development of this property have any impact, better or worse, but have any impact on surrounding properties? MR. ARHALAVAGE: Yes. Actually some form of use here would probably have a positive impact more than a negative, because there's a lot of vacant land there, and I think just establishing -- you know, quantifying the trends, establishing all the criteria for architectural standards, et cetera, would actually be a benefit. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So having something will -- putting something in there will have some sort of an impact and depending on what it is obviously, whether it's better or not. MR. ARHALAVAGE: I would say that if -- worse case would be that it would remain consistent and most likely after development occurs, you'll probably see normal increases that would occur in most areas. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Is it fair to say some things are more desirable than others or would have a better impact than others? MR. ARHALAVAGE: Yes. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you. MR. ARHALAVAGE: Any other questions? CHAIRMAN NORRIS: No, thanks. MR. ARHALAVAGE: Thank you. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you for your presentation. MR. ANDERSON: I have two quick ones for you, Rich. MR. ARHALAVAGE: Okay. MR. ANDERSON: Are the uses that have been requested in this PUD reasonably foreseeable land uses? MR. ARHALAVAGE: Yes. MR. ANDERSON: And if one or more of the uses were denied, would there be a demonstrable difference in the fair market value of this property? MR. ARHALAVAGE: If you were not to have the -- or to allow the convenience store/gas station use there would be less marketability for use of this property. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Would it be less marketable than an estates-zoned piece of property? MR. ARHALAVAGE: Yes. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Less? MR. ANDERSON: No, I don't think so. MR. ARHALAVAGE: Oh, no. The estates would be less marketable. Reverse what you say. MR. ANDERSON: Thank you. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Let's go to the public speakers. While the public speakers are being called up here, for those of you who may not have done this before, we allow five minutes petitioner speaker. We ask that -- that you be concise. We have a number of public speakers here. We'll be here for a while, so if you could be concise and please not be repetitive. If someone has already made your point, you may shorten your presentation down a little bit, and Mr. Dotrill will call a name and ask someone one to stand by to be next, and we will do that after each speaker. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I've got to apologize. I just need to clarify that last question. I think I understood it -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: The answer did not come out right. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- but I wanted to make sure I was clear on the record. I think Mr. Anderson's question was would the denial of some or all uses render this -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Less marketable. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- less marketable than it would be with all those uses. MR. ARHALAVAGE: That's correct. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And then I asked would the denial of some of those uses make it less marketable than a regular estates -- than just a simple estates designation, and I think you ended up saying no, but I just wanted to clarify that. MR. ARHALAVAGE: That's correct. The answer is no. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you. MR. DORRILL: Mr. Chairman, the first speaker I have is Ms. Yoke, Kena. Is she here? MS. YOKE: Yes, I am. MR. DORRILL: Okay. And, Dr. Nikishin, you will follow this lady. If I could have you stand by, please, sir. Go right ahead. THE COURT REPORTER: Ha'am, have you been sworn? MS. YOKE: Yes, I have, in the group. For the record, my name is Kena Yoke, and I'm here today as a resident of Livingston Woods, a resident of Collier County, and a traveling public user on the interstate activity center on Pine Ridge Road. I'm here to ask that you carefully consider the points we'll be presenting when casting your vote on this issue. Earlier this month I asked staff to review the county zoning maps to locate any areas in Collier County that have such intense zoning located adjacent to low-density, residential neighborhoods. The findings were four areas in Collier County: The Sam's Wholesale Club, which does not dispense fuel or operate 24 hours a day; the county maintenance facility on County Barn Road, which does not dispense fuel or operate with the public 24 hours a day; the G's store in Golden Gate, which is a stand-alone facility; and the 7-Eleven/Beacon Bowl area on Pine Ridge Road, which again, is a stand-alone facility, and the neighborhood is protected by a large lake. I realize that there are inherent benefits with the property estates being in an interstate activity area, but the referenced project is still proposed in front of a substantial residential neighborhood on both the north side and the west side. To approve this additional type of facility on the north side of Pine Ridge Road in front of Livingston Woods would set a precedent for that corridor, which has no development in it currently. The Gateway PUD which was approved in 1985 has yet to be developed, so any -- any decisions that are made today on this project, as you well know, will have a ripple effect for each parcel in the east and west. If you look at Exit 15 and Exit 17, which are interstate activity areas, there is limited gasoline facilities there. There's two at Exit 15 -- at Exit 17 and three at Exit 15. Currently we have five at Exit 16. We're asking, you know, not that you deny development in this area -- we're all aware that it will be developed; it is an interstate activity area, and it will be developed commercially. We're asking that you carefully consider the gateway to Naples that this area represents, the impact that any type of development proposed in this area will have on the entire corridor and the neighborhood behind it, and that any architectural standards that are submitted, whether they're above and beyond the LDC code, be submitted in graphic form for approval by the board. The residents of Livingston Woods and neighbors on commercial property are willing to sit down and set up an architectural-review board to work with the county, to work with the planning department, the county commission, to set up and meet a criteria -- for projects to meet a criteria in this area. We're not asking that you deny development. We're asking that you control it in a fashion that is aesthetically pleasing and will welcome the people into Naples and protect the integrity of our neighborhood. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. MR. DORRILL: Dr. Nikishin. And then I have -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you very much. MR. DORRILL: Miss Connor, you'll follow the doctor. Go right ahead. DR. NIKISHIN: Good afternoon. My name is Nikishin. I am a retired surgeon. I'm not an expert, but I will try to address the matter from a point of view of strictly common sense. I ask your board to oppose the plan to build a gasoline station on the north side of ridge -- Pine Ridge Road between the Exit 16 and 1-75 and Livingston Road because of my concerns about the safety of my home and the value of my property. Livingston Woods is a wooded area on the north side of Pine Ridge between the Exit 16 and 1-75 and Livingston Road with about hundred to hundred and twenty-five homes built between the trees and bushes. More trees would be planted by the petitioner, as we have heard. The areas -- the area does not have city water and is dependent on well -- individual well water. A single drunk in a car that hits the gasoline station and catches fire will be enough to spread the fire like fire, burning some hundred and twenty-five homes and endangering lives of three times as many people or more. Clearly, a piece of wall behind the gasoline station would not contain the fire in a wooded area. If human lives are cheap, the fire insurance is not. I know the danger of attract -- I know the danger of the fire would make the premium skyrocket, decreasing the attractiveness of the area to the potential buyers. It is, however, not the lives of the people in the area that concern me most. I believe that to place a gasoline station in a wooded area that depends on individual wells for water would not be a prudent decision. Naples is not just another city; it is a tourist and a vacation area. Its economy depends on its attractiveness to visitors. Livingston Woods is the main gateway to Naples for travelers from the north and for the Americans and foreign visitors using Fort Myers International Airport. It is like a business card that provides the most important first impression of the business. We all know how important a business card is, and we know that the nice appearance of the card is essential to generate a favorable impression of the firm; in this case, of the Naples area, its population, and its population's care for itself and for its visitors. A poor first impression is hard to overcome. Even if the specifications that we have heard or if the architectural restraints that we just heard by the petitioner are satisfactory, there is no guarantee that the same specification will be used as a restraint for the area north -- east and west of the segment that you are asked to fezone. There can be little doubt that the opening of the north side of Pine Ridge to a piecemeal salutation might lead to unsightly and discordant blocks of buildings making this gateway to Naples unattractive or outright ugly. Imagine yourself driving south on Interstate 75 and looking first to the east of the Exit 16. You would enjoy the view of a clean canal, a pond with a beautiful front, a well-kept lawn of Vineyards, a nice shopping center off an attractive entrance to the Vineyards development. Then turning west you'll have to look at a tunnel between two lines of gasoline stations, convenience stores, maybe a bowling alley, a used car lot, maybe even a bar blaring the awful boom-boom noise that masquerades as music. Where would you go? East or west? I know where I would go. No amount of palms planted in and along the area boulevards could neutralize that first impression. I also can envision a reasonably-architectured building of the Cleveland Clinic on the southeast corner. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: That's it. DR. NIKISHIN: May I go on? CHAIRMAN NORRIS: No, sir. Just like everyone else, you will be given your five minutes. DR. NIKISHIN: You're correct. You're right. Might I have one sentence? CHAIRMAN NORRIS: No, sir. DR. NIKISHIN: Thank you. MR. DORRILL: Miss Connor and then Mr. Connor. MS. CONNOR: I'm Barbara Connor and I live at 6581 Bottlebrush. Good afternoon, Commissioners. THE COURT REPORTER: Have you been sworn, ma'am? MS. CONNOR: Yes, I have been. I want to -- I'm here to talk about the signage. On the south side of Pine Ridge at the present time, we have six existing elevated signs. One more would be added for the golf course, and we have a new one at Livingston Road for the fertilizer plant, plus we have three fast-food restaurants who all have their little signs out stuck onto something else. On the north side of Pine Ridge, we have 12 tracts. Three are in the Gateway PUD, but they're still tracts; they will still be built on; they will still have signs. Now, most of those tracts will be divided into two to put two businesses on each one; each can have a sign. That's 24 signs. That makes 32 signs altogether with the ones already existing. Now, on the south side of Pine Ridge, there are nine pieces of acreage for sale. They range anywhere from 8 to 14 to 18 acres. Now, if each of those were divided into two-acre sites, we'd have a sign on all of those. We'd have over 50 signs, and that would be within one mile. It is one mile from the ramp to Livingston Road. I've clocked it. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Mr. Milk, I'm going to want to hear if you agree with that assessment, because that's an awful number of signs. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: I think they could put a lot -- some of -- MS. CONNOR: It's logical that it could happen, but it may not because Gateway may put in a nice, big building. But these individual lots -- MR. MILK: The parameters of the Land Development Code allow one pole sign petitioner a hundred and fifty linear footage of right-of-way and one wall sign, which would make up 20 percent of that area along that frontage. So what could happen if they do subdivide and tract these particular parcels up, you won't have all the pole signs that you see across the street or down the road, because the signage requirements of this PUD are the same requirements in the Land Development Code. So you can only have one pole sign petitioner a hundred and fifty foot of linear frontage. MS. CONNOR: And these lots are 330 wide. MR. MILK: That's correct. MS. CONNOR: That's two signs. MR. MILK: So that could be two signs. MS. CONNOR: That's right. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: So her math could be right? MS. CONNOR: It's possible. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We could have 50 signs? MS. CONNOR: These lots are all 330 -- everything in Unit 35 is 330 wide, 660 deep. MR. MILK: If they chose to utilize that -- the only thing is a lot of developments require an acre or better for development purposes: your fast-food restaurants, your gasoline service stations. So more than likely -- her assumption is correct, but more than likely we'll have one user on each frontage I think is the scenario. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you. MS. CONNOR: Well, I don't -- I don't know that that would be true. Right now we have Shell, which is very acceptable to us. Right behind it we have the Knights Inn. Now, the Knights Inn has been under new ownership at least three times, possibly four times, since it was built. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: As we speak -- MS. CONNOR: Because it's not a money-maker, believe me. Now, in petition 96-3, this will set a precedence or a pattern for the other future developments, both architecturally and sign-wise. These signs are dependent on their future development -- depending on this in their future development. These signs need to be defined and show what type of sign is available. They should be defined and show the height and the placement allowed. There should be no advertising or promotional display permitted in the right-of-way or in front of this property or any property in this courtyard. But now you stop and think, this is an activity center. It's supposed to serve the traveling public. So we get all of these signs whether they be on buildings or whether they be on a pole. If you're coming from either direction, you don't see the signs until you're past the entrance to the exit. You will not see the signs until you're at the bottom of the exit or going along the overpass, so they'll be of no service to the traveling public. You don't know what's ahead. Now, they will be an eyesore to the local population using the ramp coming to and from the city and particularly to all the people in Livingston Woods and those people in Golden Gate. And, lastly, this is a rezoning request. And maybe this is just a question, but where has a zoning sign been posted for the required notice to persons living in the immediate area. We have never had a sign posted. MR. DORRILL: Mr. Connor and then Ms. Falls. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I'd like to get an answer to that notice question. MR. MILK: The property was posted and noticed, and I have a picture of that posting in my file. MS. CONNOR: I'd like to see it because I've driven by there at least eight or ten times. Mr. and Mrs. Falls' property is directly across the street from the rear of this property, and they've never seen one either, and they're the people who live the closest. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I'm sure Mr. Milk will share that with you. MR. MILK: I will. And there's something else that this lady said is that in the architectural styles and design standards it also includes signage, landscaping, and structures all have to be of similar type and style, materials, colors, that sort of thing, just to add to that. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We don't -- once again, we're not going to sit here and respond to every comment by someone from the public, so -- MR. DORRILL: Mr. Connor. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: -- let's move it along. MR. CONNOR: Ken Connor, and I've been married to that lady for 43 years. Guess who's won most of the arguments. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm putting my money on you, Ken. MR. CONNOR: Anyway, I have the dubious honor of talking about architecture, and I'm not going to take five minutes because we've covered a lot of that already. The main concerns of the people in Livingston Woods, where we live, is that we're very proud of our property. It's growing in value and -- at least it has been. We've mentioned, for example, the roof style of the property. You said what kind of a roof, and he said this is going to be a flat roof. It'll be shingle or tile. I'll lay my money -- my odds that it will be a flat roof, and even if it isn't, I don't see how you can dress up a Racetrac gas station. That's pretty hard to do. The building heights have been talked about, and we're a little upset with that four-story idea of a hotel coming in there, because a 6-foot barrier, even if it's 90 feet away, is not going to solve much problem there. The other thing that I would just like to say is I hate to dispute Mr. Armalavage's idea about value of those properties. I was selling real estate before he kicked the snaps out of his baby thing, but that doesn't make me smarter than he is. I have been in the real estate business all my life, and anybody that's stupid enough to say that putting all that -- all that crowded commercial in front won't devalue our properties is just not looking at the right book. It would definitely hurt our properties. We don't care if it's commercial, but there has to be some decent compatible commercial. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you, sir. MR. DORRILL: Ms. Falls and then Mr. Falls, you'll follow. THE COURT REPORTER: Ha'am, have you been sworn? MS. FALLS: Yes, I have. My name is Linda Falls, and I live on Tract 62. Our property will face this property that's being proposed today. I came to discuss two things. First of all is security, and security will -- can be served the best by an 8-foot wall placed adjacent to Livingston Woods Lane. The planning committee approved of the 6-foot wall. At an informal meeting between the petitioners and the residents of Livingston Woods, there was an agreement for a 7-foot wall; however, we are asking for an 8-foot wall. We feel that that would best protect our properties. We ask that this wall run the entire length of the property and that any developments on the east and west of this property also have an adjoining wall. Since this property is the first one being developed in this section, there is a unique security issue and that is the perimeters of the property. Because the wall will only run along the north side, the perimeters are wide open. How can this property be secure with the perimeters open? Anyone can walk around the side of that wall and onto Livingston Woods Lane. We are asking that there be a barrier of some type that connects to the wall and protects the people living in Livingston Woods Lane, the neighbors and our children. Another security issue is the height of this building. Thirty-eight feet does propose an invasion of privacy as far as we're concerned. They are going to be able to look over our roofs, into our lawns, into any corner of our community. We ask that you please consider limiting the height of this building to a two-story structure. My second point is landscaping. We are asking that the landscaping size and spacing be very clearly defined; that the plants and trees be of mature nature at the time that they are being planted; that the landscaping be placed on the north side of the building adjacent to Livingston Woods Lane. Finally, walls, and landscaping will not matter unless they are well-maintained. We are asking that proper maintenance be part of your recommendation for the walls and the landscaping on this property. That's all I have to say for today. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you. MR. DORRILL: Mr. Falls and Mr. Byron. MR. FALLS: My name is Mr. Falls. I'd like to talk about sound and lighting on my two topics. Incidentally, I was here three years before Mr. Angileri even bought his property. In any event, "Go ahead on pump 17." That's what I can hear from the gas station on the south side of Pine Ridge Road, so you can imagine what it's going to be like if they have one on the north side of Pine Ridge Road. Our home is less than a hundred and thirty-seven feet from Livingston Woods Lane. I don't have the luxury of being able to have my house moved as my former neighbor did. I have no choice; I must reside here. Federal law may mandate loudspeakers in gas stations for safety reasons, but it's a moot point that they, the developers, don't want to use loudspeakers. They may have to at some later point in time. I know there will be an increase in the amount of noise. I just want to minimize it, and we've got big rigs coming into the restaurant and the refrigerator motors going, loading and unloading. A hundred and thirty-seven feet is pretty darn close. I don't want to hear the refrigerator trucks parked with their loud motors running at all hours of the day and night. You'll find large diesel rigs parked on the south side of Pine Ridge Road in the vicinity of the Waffle House whether they're allowed or not. The people of Unit 35 want something compatible with their residential neighborhood: business offices, nine-to-five establishments, not 24-hour activities. Second is lighting. The lights from the 1-75 interchange already light up our home. If PUD-96-3 has three businesses -- a convenience store, a gas station, and a restaurant -- it would be approximately on one acre -- on one five-acre tract, that's over 20 bright signs we would have on approximately 10 five-acre tracts on the north side of Pine Ridge Road. Now, that's been -- you know, whether it's three businesses or two businesses petitioner five-acre tract, if they're lit that's going to even be more lighting on that whole strip, and you're definitely going to see it. Let's see, you've talked about the colors and compatibility, so I won't go over that. The gateway to Naples should include strict architectural standards at least on the north side of Pine Ridge Road where the residential homes exist. I don't see that structure on the south side. If we're going to get a precedence set here, let's have uniform lighting. I believe we need a continuance in order to study the impact the sound and lighting as a whole would have on the Livingston Woods neighborhood. Thank you for making Naples a better place to live in. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. Falls, were you sworn in? MR. FALLS: Yes, I was. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Would you, for everyone's benefit, point to where your house is. MR. FALLS: Yes. Let's see. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: That rectangle s the project. MR. MILK: Right behind it. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: That's it right there. MR. FALLS: Yeah. There's the house right there. Right there. So there's your hundred and thirty-seven feet from there to Livingston Woods Lane. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Thank you. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you. MR. FALLS: Thank you. MR. DORRILL: Mr. Evans, and then I have Rick Cashion. THE COURT REPORTER: Have you been sworn, Mr. Evans? MR. EVANS: Yes, ma'am. My name is Duval Evans; I'm representing myself. I'm the owner of the Pine Ridge Chevron out in Pine Ridge and Whippoorwill Lane. Now, I am sure that Racetrac will do a fine job on their building and the architectural works, and I'm sure they'll set back as they've stated and do all the things that's supposed to be done. But we need to take in consideration that we have five convenience stores or service stations out there and my -- me for one, are having a hard time right now making it. We estimated through experts that this station that I just built would do a hundred and fifty thousand gallons a month. Last month this station did sixty-two thousand gallons of gasoline, and we're not breaking even. I've talked to the other -- like the Mobil station down on -- on the east side. Their volume is down since I opened up; Shell's volume is down since I opened up, and if we let more stations go in and have a gasoline alley, you're going to see these stations that's not going to be painted, the manicuring won't be nice, and the reason being is they're not going to have enough money to do so, and I wouldn't be surprised if some of them doesn't close. Now, we're hoping that you people will take in consideration that we have got lots of money involved in these stations. My -- me, for myself, have got over a million six hundred thousand dollars, and we are hoping that we can stay alive, and we can't do it if we have too many stations. For instance, you take up on Pine Ridge and Airport Road, the new station, you know, the shopping center that's gone in there. Well, Winn Dixie is out. They've got a lot of places that's vacant, and you're going to see this happen, and we sure want to keep our stations clean, manicured, and I hope you take in consideration that we just don't need any more competition. Thank you very much. MR. DORRILL: Miss Cashion and then Miss Hadigan. THE COURT REPORTER: Have you been sworn? MS. CASHION: Oh, yeah. Hi. I live in Livingston Woods. My name is Ricki Cashion and everyone -- or quite a few of us have spoken about the strict agricultural standards that we want to see done, and I want to explain why. I don't know if any of you are familiar with where this gentleman has his gas station right along on that south side of road. They do have a theme, but it's kind of similar to an amusement park if -- do you know what I'm talking about? Okay. Chevron has their standard colors: red, white, and blue. Okay. Then Shell is a variety of colors: yellow, red -- and the roofs really, really are bad. Okay. And Cappy's Pizza is that neon green. I mean, this -- I know, and we live there. Neon green, red, and white; and then the Waffle House is black and yellow; and, of course, Burger King is stuck in there with all of their colors. Okay. So each of them are maintained, and they might be maintained, kept clean, manicured lawns, et cetera, but there's no consistency and no theme. Since this property is going to be the first one in, we thought this would be a good chance to set forth some type of theme. A little bit closer to us, that nursery that was put up recently that kind of looks like Disney World; like Snow White's house or something. Yeah. Now, nothing -- now, when they put something in next to there, no one else is going to put a Disney World building up next to there. So already there is that -- what is it? Peacock blue or teal blue or something? What's going to go with that? Okay. Racetrac. I can imagine what colors, right? It's going to make -- they're going to be great competition for across the street. There should be a real competition there, different colors, et cetera. Okay. So we -- we need some type of security wall also. That's been mentioned, but I -- maybe you don't understand, too, this is a low-density neighborhood. This is more of a country-type neighborhood. It's not apartment buildings, not townhouses, nothing, nothing like that. It is just really, really a neighb -- a residential neighborhood. Okay. So what I'm asking for is, since this is a gateway beginning of Naples, people coming off the interstate, that we really, really try this time -- I don't know if we can fix up the south side of the street, but it sure would be nice to start well on the north side; and several of my neighbors have spoken about it. We'd be more than willing to serve on a committee, perhaps with the owners of these properties or county employees, et cetera, to try and help this out. Okay. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you. MR. DORRILL: Miss Madigan and then Mr. Bonness. THE COURT REPORTER: Ms. Madigan, have you been sworn? MS. MADIGAN: Yes, I have. Good afternoon. I'm Ellie Madigan and I live on Bottlebrush Road. And I'd like to point out about the Collier County Growth Management Plan, item No. 2, the implementation strategy. The goals, the objectives, and the policies; and goal one reads, to guide land use decision making so as to achieve and maintain a high-quality natural and human environment with a well-planned mix of compatible land uses which promote the public health, safety, and welfare consistent with state planning requirements and local use. A mouthful. All right. The -- well, to address what you are to look at in implementing a plan. Well-mixed uses. There is a total lack of mixed uses in the activity center as it is right now. Exit 16 is well on its way to becoming -- reversing being gateway to Naples to becoming gasoline alley. As we've said it has five gas stations now. Exit 17, I think it was said, there were three; and Exit 15 -- maybe I have that reversed. Two on 17 and five on -- three on Exit 15. We are guaranteeing that the traveling public or passerby will be guaranteed the ability to ride anywhere in Collier County with a full tank of gas. Public safety. The gas station/convenience store use on the north side of Pine Ridge Road will increase the introduction of transients into this area. We have already suffered; we have -- the south side of the road has already suffered that problem. In the neighborhood of Livingston Woods, a surrounding use is comprised of high-quality, single-family residences in which homeowners have invested considerable amounts of money to raise their families in a safe and quiet neighborhood. Market demand has been touched upon already, so I -- I really will not address that issue, because I think we have -- we have established that it's hard to believe there can be a market demand. Surrounding uses. Realizing this PUD lies within an interstate activity center, it is still bound on three sides by estates zoning. A rezoning process must be undertaken prior to any type of development with the exception of residential. This must be considered when you're reviewing this issue. Though this proposed use may be compatible with those currently in place across the street, it is not consistent with the residential use surrounding this property now. It cannot be considered consistent with future development, because there isn't any other development. We ask that any type of approval for development in this area be tied to a strict architectural plan, one that is carried out for the full area. I thank you very much. MR. DORRILL: Mr. Bonness, and then Mr. Bartis. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: How many more speakers, Mr. Dotrill? MR. DORRILL: I have two following this one. THE COURT REPORTER: Mr. Bonness, have you been sworn? MR. BONNESS: Yes, I have been. For the record I am Joe Bonness. I've been a resident in Livingston Woods Estates since 1982. Interstate activity centers are specifically for the use of the traveling public; and gas stations, they are needed for the traveling public, but when is enough enough? Exit 15, that's the last stop going on to Alligator Alley or the first stop coming off of it. It only needed three. There's going to be two up in Exit 17. Here, on Exit 16, we have five permitted sites already. With the addition of this, you'll have six. Soon to follow, if this one is permitted, is going to be Gary Barton (phonetic) number seven. We have already reached saturation of this market. If a need was really there, the Gateway PUD would have developed. With two more stations on the south side of the road, the future needs are met. With saturation what happens next is displacing of the existing businesses, probably most of the four other gas station/convenience stores that are on westbound Pine Ridge Road, all of which are located -- properly located and buffered from residential neighborhoods already. This parcel is bordered by estates zoning on three sides, and its petitioned use will not be compatible or properly buffered as far as a 24-hour operation, three-story hotels overlooking single-family. That simply does not fit. To recap the reasons to deny this PUD, all of them part of your comprehensive plan; first, activity centers are to be mixed use. Currently only commercial industrial has been zoned in this -- in this activity center. This parcel should be residential, maybe institutional. Two, existing patterns of commercial use show a needed standard for architectural signage setbacks and landscaping that needs to be defined. This should be defined and set in stone before the rezoning. Three, is there a market demand for a sixth gas station in this activity center? If there is why hasn't the ll-year-old Gateway PUD been developed? The demands are not there. This activity center is saturated with gas stations and convenience stores already. Number 4, heavy commercial will demand additional traffic lights and add more congestion. We talked about 36,000 trips petitioner day on this particular piece of road. That alone puts it into the major corridor in and out of Naples. We need to preserve this corridor for the traveling public. It is also one of the very few evacuation routes. What are we going to have when we go out and we start jamming our evacuation routes with even more traffic lights and more congestion? This proposal is not compatible with the adjoining estates zoning. Nowhere else in the county has this been accepted. Why here? If more gas stations are needed, put them in a buffered area of this activity center not adjoining the single-family, low-density housing. Please preserve the corridor and protect our neighborhood. Thank you. MR. DORRILL: Mr. Bartis and then Miss Krier. THE COURT REPORTER: Mr. Bartis, have you been sworn? MR. BARTIS: Yes. Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. Dr. Nikishin has touched on what I wanted to talk about. I wanted to talk about the issue of contamination of groundwater. The first thing I would like to clear up was that at the meeting, the public hearing which was held with the zoning board, there was an assumption that the water ran from the west to east in Livingston Woods. It is the contrary. It runs from the east to the west, so you may be hearing something touching upon that by the proposers of this plan. The other situation is, you are all aware that we in Livingston Woods have wells; wells to clean the houses, to clean ourselves, and most importantly, to drink, unlike the projects which are being done on Pine Ridge Road, which will have county water eventually and not very far in the distance. We all know accidents happen; that's why we have the word "accident." Some accidents, depending upon the size, become disastrous. When you have in-ground tanks of gasoline, you are creating the possibility of an accident. If an accident happens our groundwater, which feeds our wells, will be contaminated, and while after the hearing this morning, what was being said about the Department of Environmental Protection, I'm a little reluctant to quote what they said. However, they did say that one gallon of gasoline can contaminate one million gallons of water, and one million gallons of water is the amount of water that the average person would use in 13 years. It is because of these reasons that we are so apprehensive of this application. Thank you. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you. MR. DORRILL: Miss Krier is your final registered speaker. MS. KRIER: K-r-i-e-r, and yes, I've been sworn in. Good afternoon, Commissioners. For the record I'm Ellie Krier, and I represent the Chamber/EDC Coalition. I'm here this afternoon because -- we found it encouraging to hear the petitioner's proposed uniform architectural standards. It is encouraging to hear residents of Livingston Woods speak about volunteering to help with the architectural standards. There is another word for a urban-designated interchange activity center, and that is the entrance to your city and your town; and we would like to also encourage you to work toward developing and adopting architectural and landscaping design standards for all gateways to your city and your town and your community, not just this one, but all of them. As your staff mentioned before, they're not in your plans yet, and this is an opportunity for you to go forward and make sure that we do it right while we have the opportunity to do it. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you. Let's take a very short break. I'd ask the board members to be back within five minutes. ( A short break was held.) CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. Let's go. I'll reconvene the county commission meeting. We have finished the public speaking. MR. MILK: Could I enter one point of clarification for the record? CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Certainly. MR. MILK: In the activity center there are three existing automobile service stations: a Chevron, a Mobil, and a Shell station. The other two are down at the intersection of Pine Ridge Road and Airport. I kept hearing five; there's only three, three existing stations. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Quick question for Mr. Anderson. You had talked about having section A, B, and C within this -- in 30 seconds or less, what is the purpose of having those segmented out the way they are? MR. ANDERSON: To transition the uses from open space/water management, closest to the Livingston Woods area; then area B is the hotel or motel or sit-down restaurant; and area C, which is the closest to Pine Ridge Road, would be the one that would allow the service station/convenience store or a fast-food restaurant. Neither of those two uses would be permitted in area B. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you. A question for our staff, and that is -- the Gateway PUD was referenced a number of times. Does the Gateway PUD have some sort of shelf life? I think that's under review. MR. MILK: It's actually coming up in the fall. That's correct. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: October of this year? MR. MILK: Yes, sir. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Will it come back before the board? MR. MILK: Yes, sir. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And I guess the point there __ CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Unless they develop it between now and October. MR. MILK: Unless they get a legitimate building permit and site-development plan, that's correct. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And I guess the point there is, it's very possible that within the next 90 days, it's an open book again, so -- on the last public hearing Commissioner Hancock made an interesting point, and I wrote it down when he said it. If I can find it in all my notes here -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I erased it. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Oh, here it is. He mentions -- and this was on the one down at County Barn. You said, gosh, this is the first of its kind and sets a pattern for future development. And that is essentially what's going on here. There is nothing to the east -- directly adjacent to the east. The only PUD that's down the road to the west is going to be up for review and actually was approved in 1985; and I asked the question earlier on, would it be fair to assume the circumstances have changed on Pine Ridge Road since 1985, and you indicated yes; and so what was approved in 1985 may or may not prove to be appropriate in 1996 or beyond. I asked and -- oh, and directly to the west is also undeveloped; is that correct? MR. MILK: That's correct. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And it has no PUD. And then to the north -- and I asked the question before. To the north is estates zoned, so you have one per 2.25 or greater -- MR. MILK: As an average, right. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- for homes. So three out of four sides you have nothing. On the other side you have a major thoroughfare, and then you have traffic below. And I asked Mr. Anderson about the purpose for having A, B, and C, and you indicated transitional use; and while I appreciate the effort there, I guess what I'm thinking is I would like to see a transitional use -- what we've done traditionally, whether it be the density of residential units or what type of commercial units are allowed and so on, we've tried to have transitional uses so you don't have heavy impact beside very low impact. What I would like to see is -- on the south side of Pine Ridge we have fairly heavy use. You do have your gas stations; you do have your fast-food restaurants. And it seems like rather than have a 90-foot transition directly abutting Livingston Woods, we ought to have that 4.5 acres act as a transitional. Now, in our summary it says that this is within the Pine Ridge Road/Interstate 75 interchange activity center, consequently, earmarking this property for commercial use; but that earmarking doesn't necessarily guarantee any particular black and white -- specifics of commercial use. MR. MILK: That's correct. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I don't disagree that commercial use is appropriate there. What I'm thinking is perhaps a little lighter use makes a logical transition between the heavy fuel station, convenience store, et cetera, on the south side. You have a lighter commercial use, so it is commercial; and then you go into the very, very light density residential on the north side of this property. And I appreciate, Bruce, what you're trying to do with transition. I just think I'd like to see -- rather than 90 feet of transition, I'd like to see the full area be a transitional -- I think that's consistent with the policies we've followed in the past. When I went through our different questions of findings under 2.7.3.2.5, and we talk about the suitability of the area for the type and the pattern of development proposed, and it breaks down -- intensifying land development patterns is one of the rationales under pro. Intensifying land development patterns produces economies of scale relative to public utilities, facilities, and services. I'm not sure that's a valid argument in favor of putting something somewhere just because it might loosen the load a little bit on whomever else develops there and has utilities; so how intense or not -- I think you could still get that same relative break on utilities if you had a lighter commercial use. I think the point there was that if you had any use, it would lighten the load on utilities, but it doesn't support it. I lost my place here. The consistency issue for me comes in strong. You've got 2.7.2.5 that talks about -- MR. MILK: Excuse me. What page is that on? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Page 20 of the packet -- whether the proposed change will be consistent with the goals; and this, again, just goes back to Commissioner Hancock's earlier statement from a prior public hearing and that is, you set a precedent when you have first-time use; and that is exactly what's being done here. There is absolutely nothing on the north side of Pine Ridge. It's undeveloped on three sides -- undeveloped on two sides if you'd call a home across the street on the north side developed. But the existing land-use pattern, with that in mind, doesn't necessarily make this consistent; it doesn't conform. Number 4 on the next page is whether existing district boundaries are illogically drawn in relation to existing conditions, and I think perhaps they have -- some of the -- some of the PUDs that have passed even on the south side were in 1987 and 1988 and, again, I go back to your point -- to your answer that conditions have changed dramatically out there. When I first came to the area, Pine Ridge Road didn't extend beyond where 1-75 is now, and so it was kind of the end of the road; and what was acceptable in the mid-80s and what is acceptable in the late-90s may be very different. At the bottom of that page is the question as to whether or not the proposed change will adversely influence living conditions in the neighborhood, and I asked the -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: You said inversely. I believe it's adversely. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm sorry. I may have fumbled, adversely. And I had asked the expert as far as -- do different uses have different impacts; and while some commercial property is obviously appropriate for frontage on such a road -- depending on what that commercial property is, depending on what we allow for development -- it will have different impacts on neighboring properties; and I would say the heavier use would have a less desirable impact on those neighborhoods to the north than a lighter use. Is that a fair assessment in your opinion, Mr. Milk? MR. MILK: That's correct. I think the petitioner and staff recognize this as a precedent-setting fezone petition, and I think that's why we put the effort into the transitional uses, the frontage road criteria, the location of this property at the intersection, and the specific uses designated for each area, and the landscaping thing, the wall. All those uses were looked at very strictly for the compatibility with that area to the north keeping in mind the gateway to Naples and the inclusion of the architectural design and consistency. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And while the 90-foot transitional area is certainly appreciated, is it fair to assume that if you had the full, I think it was 385-foot lot -- 600-foot lot -- if you had that full use as transitional, that that would probably be a more desirable impact on the residential neighbors to the north? MR. MILK: I think with the different uses and traffic -- every use has a -- an intent and traffic orientated to that specific use. Proper buffering, screening, traffic circulation, no access to Livingston Woods Road definitely has a bearing on what the neighbors will hear as far as noise and impact, 24-hour service, eight-to-five service, all that does have a bearing on the folks to the north. Again, what staff tried to do was maintain an area of transition to provide the least impact as possible. In looking at what occurs around Collier County: Naples Park, Golden Gate City, Marco Island; gas stations can be located within 50 feet of a residentially-zoned lot. A pump-island gas station can be 50 feet away from that particular lot. In recognizing existing zoning, conventional zoning, recognizing this as a Gateway, all those factors, we tried to provide all the goals and policies of the comprehensive plan -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Would the answer to my question be yes or no? MR. MILK: It's yes. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you. MR. MILK: You're welcome. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Number 11 on page 23 of our packet, whether the proposed change will be a deterrent to the improvement or development of adjacent property in accordance with existing regulations. I don't know if, in a literal sense, it's a deterrent. I think it deters somewhat, perhaps a higher level or a higher expectation of development to the adjacent property, again, going back to the point I've referenced about three times now, and that is this is the first time; this is the trend setter; this is the policy maker. And if we do not put a transitional requirement on this -- this parcel north of Pine Ridge, we're going to be pretty hard-pressed to do that on the others. So I guess under item 11 -- it appears to me that this -- the precedent would not be a good one. An interesting one I just highlighted as the public was speaking is -- item 14 on page 24 -- whether the change suggested is out of scale with the needs of the neighborhood or of the county; and I've got to assume that -- and I wrote a note here what the gentleman's name was, but the Chevron owner -- I've got to assume he might qualify as an expert on the economies of his particular business and certainly in that area, his particular business. And if they are in a difficult situation right now, I've got to wonder if there is the need in that particular neighborhood, in that particular section of the county for this service. So I'm not sure whether the change suggested, as requested specifically, is in scale with the needs. Item 15, I think, is very obvious and that is whether it is -- and this is on page 24 of the packet -- whether it is impossible to find other adequate sites in the county for the proposed use in districts already permitting such use. Certainly there are other areas in the county that would allow this and that are already zoned that way, so we'd be hard-pressed to say there's a requirement here. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I sense you're building to something. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Do you? The -- one of the speakers made the point there are only four places according to our staff -- and I want to verify -- that there are only four places in the county that have an intense use like that directly adjacent to low-density residential homes. MR. MILK: And I -- the only thing is the -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Is that a yes or no? MR. MILK: I would say it's not accurate, because staff did not provide that evaluation, at least no one from the current planning staff or long-range planning staff. That was somebody, I believe, over in real property. I don't think it's a professional land-use planning, so I would have to say no. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Can you cite any examples other than Sam's, the county maintenance barn, G's store, or the 7-Eleven mentioned? MR. MILK: I would cite the properties in Naples Park, Golden Gate City, and Marco Island where there's lots that are planted in the grid system where you provide commercial zoning abutting residential zoning, whether it's multi-family or single-family. I think there's an intensity of use that occurs in conventional zoning districts. That's why the PUD district is so -- it's unique so that we can provide for that transitional buffering. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What's the residential density in Golden Gate City? MR. MILK: That depends. The master plan has it at four units an acre. There's several areas at twelve, four, and six, so it's a diverse area. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I think the point being that twelve and six are probably not comparable with one unit every 2.25 acres. MR. MILK: That's correct. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I guess it all boils down -- to me it does not appear consistent. It's kind of a weak argument to say, well, the Gateway PUD has something that was approved in 1985, and it's down the road, and it's due for review in 90 days. It is a weak argument at best. It is vacant, undeveloped, unplanned. Directly to the east it is vacant, undeveloped, unplanned. Directly to the west it is zoned estates and certainly not anticipated to be anything other than that to the north. So I think the argument that this is consistent with existing zoning is clearly inappropriate. I guess I'd ask the board -- if I'm missing something here, I need a little help with it. But it seems fairly obvious to me that while the activity center and the interchange certainly anticipate commercial use, am I mistaken in my suggestion that transitional commercial use -- having some sort of transition between that low-density residential and the high impact on the south side of the road -- might not be consistent with the policies we have implemented in the last couple of years. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Before I close the public hearing, I think Mr. Anderson wanted to make something on the record here. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And I wanted to ask him to answer that question I had way back about architectural standards. What would -- what might we expect by way of color scheme and design? And I realize none of that is required by code, but if you're offering that, I'd like to know something about it. MR. ANDERSON: Well, I would simply refer you to your PUD section on it. It's 4.8(B) and the -- the one use that has a contractual interest that we know would go in there today, is the only one I can really talk about with any certainty; it's the Racetrac station. They typically have a metal roof on their buildings. They can vary in their -- in how they do their exterior depending upon what the local codes require. They've done -- they've done brick; they've done stucco; they've done architecturally-finished cut-block. Here in Collier County we have no standards, so we volunteered them and, you know, I hate for us to get hung on our own petard on that one. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Now, I want -- I commend you for coming in with that and, frankly, I'd suggest that your odds of approval are significantly enhanced by having included that, but I'd go back to this discussion we had -- have had several times about had we architectural standards in this community, we wouldn't have that big, ole, gray box of a Sam's Warehouse, because they can actually build them another way. So until we have them in place, we're going to be trying to impose them on a case-by-case basis, and I don't think there's enough in this document to address my concerns about the gateway-to-Naples issue architecturally. MR. ANDERSON: What more would you like to see? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Well, I'm not -- I'm not an architect; I can't design it but -- okay. I want it to be brick and peach and -- know you, you don't want me to do that. MR. ANDERSON: No. But if I knew what was wanted, you know, I might be able to commit to it. I'm -- I suffer from the same disability you do: I'm a lawyer. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Again. And from one of our own. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Well, why don't you put your items on the record that you would do. MR. ANDERSON: Okay. Yes, sir. Number one, I'd like to -- I would like to know now whether any of you have any concerns that you want to have addressed on the petroleum tanks and the groundwater. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I do. MR. ANDERSON: Okay. Okay. Because I'd like to call Mr. Hissimer up here to -- to answer any questions that you may have on that particular issue before I continue any further. Thank you. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Tom, I'm sure you have a prepared explanation on this and I well appreciate that. But specifically for me is that I understand there are certain requirements the state has or the county has or any agency may have to address these things, but I think the main concern is real life, and what's the real likelihood of having an accident. One guy -- I think he was talking about fire and not about fuel spillage. And he said, you know, all it takes it one drunk to drive into a tank, and there is a very real concern. Their only source of water is well water, and if that is damaged, they don't have a source of water any more, and it provides kind of an awkward situation, and so I need you to address that. MR. MISSIMER: Okay. What I can do is I can address it informally and don't -- feel free to interrupt me at any time, because what we need to do is kind of look at what modern regulations are compared to the past problems. The issue of service station contamination is well known. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Mr. Missimer? MR. HISSIHER: Yes. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Before you get started let me just put my question out as well, so you can address it in the whole. My question is -- my understanding is that your tanks are designed to be double lined. MR. HISSIHER: Correct. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Okay. And my concern is -- and failure does happen. Since they're double lined is there a warning system that if either of the two seals have been ruptured, penetrated, what have you, then does that warning automatically shut the ability to pump gas down; and if that happens, is there any way for anybody to override that shutdown without repairs? MR. HISSIHER: Well, let me explain that first, because that is exactly, you know, what -- what is being placed there. All modern underground tank facilities -- and you have a diagram in your manual with regard to what a typical double-walled tank looks like. In between the two walls there's fuel in the middle and then there's an interstitial air space area. Inside that wall there is a series of sensors and there are a variety of designs. There are optic fiber sensors, and they sense vapors of petroleum. That segment is not -- or the tank itself is double walled, but all the plumbing from the tank to the service pumps is also double walled. Those areas of that system are segmented so that a series of sensors could not only give you a warning with an alarm and an automatic shutdown for a given area, but also tell the service station, you know, attendant and the computer where the leak is in that segment of piping; so that not only do you know that it's leaked from the inner wall to the outer wall -- there's some leak of vapor -- that automatically shuts down, and Max is here that he can explain it in even more detail. But it shuts the system down, does not allow the dispensing until somebody comes out there, checks it, and then reprograms the microprocessor or computer. Now, let's make the assumption that that system doesn't work in some way, okay, in the emergency thing. The next thing is inventory rectification. There's a series of sensors in the tank itself, and when the tank is filled up -- every 15 minutes when the fuel level in a tank is stable -- a series of readings are sent back to the microprocessor, and they're compared with the inventory records coming from the pumps into the -- into the system. So you have an inflow of volume and an outflow; and at any time if there's a more than one-percent discrepancy between any of that, the whole thing shuts down. There is no manual override that somebody can come in and start pumping switches and making mistakes, so -- I mean, that's -- that's the way a modern system works in -- in general concept. So you have the two walls. What I might add is these are a steel wall with an outer fiberglass wall to prevent corrosion, overfill protection at the portals, and then a complete computerized system not only of the sensors in the system themselves but also a rectification into the computer in the system, so there's two sets of buffers there. Now, let's -- let's pretend that all of that goes away. There's also -- if somebody yanks a pump off the top, there are automatic shutoffs and automatic valves. That's, you know, part of fire law in the State of Florida, and that's been insistent for a long time. Let's pretend it all doesn't work, okay. Something goes wrong. Now, what's going to happen in the system in terms of the potential for any of the people north of there of having any kind of contamination? Let's just simply look at the geology and the hydrology beneath that site. The upper 17 feet -- and that -- and it varies. Between 15 and 20 feet of material is in the water-table aquifer; that's unconfined. The tanks would go in the upper portion of the sand in that location, so that's the area where the tanks -- and if gasoline were to enter the system, it would float up on the water table. Gasoline is less dense than water; it floats. The people who have wells in this area mostly use the lower Tamiami aquifer, because it is cleaner water and it is clearer water. And if you take and don't put a casing deep enough in that area, you start picking up this marly clay material, and the well doesn't stay open. It just simply collapses. The wells vary quite a bit in depth in that area, but virtually all of them tap this aquifer, because that is the primary potable water supply aquifer in the region. So if you look at this whole situation in a nutshell, gasoline got in here, it floats on top of this aquifer, and it doesn't move very far. I mean, the groundwater velocity in the water-table aquifer in that area is about .05 -- and there's a mistake in your -- in the handout. It's .05 to .3 feet per day maximum. Now, the direction of flow in the water-table aquifer isn't constant seasonally in this -- in this area. There's some reasons for that, but it can either go towards the southwest, south, or towards the east; and the east influence is caused by the canal on the east side of 1-75. In extremely dry conditions that canal tends to lower the water table in that aquifer and shift the flow of groundwater in that direction. So the flow of water in the water-table aquifer is away from the north side of the site and directed in the -- you know, that quadrant to the south or to the west depending upon conditions. Also the flow of water in the lower Tamiami aquifer is directed towards the southwest or more due west depending upon how much water is pumped from the Naples well field in that condition. Now, the aquifer is permeable enough that the amount of water being pumped in the residential areas in one well petitioner 2 1/2, you know, acres is trivial compared to the amount of water in the aquifer and is insufficient to reverse the flow of water in that system and move it back to the north. So you have a number of protections here. Number one, you have all of the protections that are put in, every bell and whistle on a modern tank system, because these are well done these days, and it's very expensive to clean things up. So everybody in the petroleum business is putting in -- the maximum effort into sensors and detection. Okay. If you ever got any spill in there, it would be small before it would be detected. It would be trapped in the general area and could not move very far very quickly compared to historical issues. It cannot move in the direction of the residential wells to the north. So the key here is also the confinement that's provided. If this was a sinking fluid that would pond on top of the confining beds and find a way through it, it would be one thing, and that may be something like a dry cleaning fluid leaking out into the ground; a dense fluid. But this is gasoline. It floats; it isn't going to go down through the confining bed. So there are a series of natural protections that I feel provide, you know, full protection to these people's wells, all of them. And, you know, the probability of gasoline ever reaching any of them is infinitesimally small. I'd be happy to answer any questions. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Any questions? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I have one question before we drift too far. Mr. Anderson, was dry cleaner one of the proposed items here? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yes. It's in the PUD. MR. HISSIHER: Well, dry cleaner is also -- the idea -- the same double-walled tanks are used for these also these days. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: But if this completely fails, the dry cleaning fluid -- MR. HISSIHER: Goes down. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- would be more of a danger. MR. HISSIHER: Right. It sinks; it doesn't float. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Anything else? MR. ANDERSON: The dry cleaner has just been deleted. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. The dry cleaner was deleted. That's fine, then. Thank you. MR. HISSIHER: Oh, and I am sworn in, also. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: One more question. Hydraulic fluid like you might have in an elevator, would that be considered more dense and would likely -- MR. HISSIHER: Hydraulic oil is also less dense than water. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Okay. MR. HISSIHER: Virtually all petroleum products, you know, with the exception of some residues from refineries that are really heavy, heavy hydrocarbons are less dense than water. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you, sir. MR. HISSIHER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Any further questions for any of our staff or the petitioner? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I have a question for staff. Can you Sugden, Mr. Milk, some architectural standards? I mean, what I'm familiar with are, like, in Boca Raton there are lovely architectural standards for similar developments. Is somebody going to Sugden something or -- MR. MILK: Let me just offer a couple of things. We have the Golden Gate Parkway Professional Office District. In that district we have iljustrations of buildings, parapet walls, masonry type. That is one way. Another way to assist the architectural design that's provided in the PUD document is to offer a list of colors. Now, I will Sugden that the architectural language that's provided in this proposed PUD far exceeds the Carillon PUD architectural styles. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Which is nothing to brag about. MR. MILK: Well, it -- it provides the basis, but it didn't provide the architectural style nor the colors. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: There are a lot of -- MR. MILK: That's the only thing that's really absent from the petitioner's architectural style or -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: There are a lot of specifics here, and the best example of what we don't want is across the street. The Southerland PUD is a perfect example of hodgepodge, you know, slap it together, no controlled site development, you know. The lady who recited the colors that are involved within a stone's throw of each other -- you know, that area is in the running for the ugly award. The opposite is at the intersection of Goodlette-Frank and Golden Gate Parkway: Stoney's Plaza. It's a gas station and a strip center unlike any other strip center. Barrel-tile roofs are used from building to building to building, the exact same color stucco on all of the buildings, paver blocks. In other words, there's a right way to make a gas station look not so much like a gas station/convenience store, and there's a wrong way; and those are the two extremes I find in the community. I personally would like to see, if -- if this were to go ahead, something like Stoney's, you know, that type of an approach. There are some other things that if this -- this PUD moves ahead in any form that I would like to have agreement to, and I'm just going to hit my laundry list, and we'll see where it goes from there. The maximum building height for the hotel should be two stories. No flat roofs on any buildings. All roofs must be peaked including the gas-pump covers to match the roof of the Racetrac building if -- or gas station or whatever else, which has already been said to be aluminum or tile. No pole signs. Maximum height of the signs should be 8 foot above road grade. Dumpsters and trash facilities are to be shielded in an opaque enclosure. In other words, you can't see them from the residential section, period. Hours of gas station operation or a convenience store, if it's included, should be limited. I -- those are obviously up for discussion, but I had 5 a.m. to midnight. Wall heights shall be 8 feet instead of 6 and be constructed prior to C. O. of any structure. Adjacent property owners, hopefully that are here today, would agree to a continuation of wall and buffer. I understand that it is nonbinding, but it would be important to hear just the same. Finish colors may not be gray or black. I mean -- you know. I think that goes without saying. No more than two principal structures, or possibly three, could be constructed within the boundary of the PUD. In other words, I don't want little half-acre, out-parcel developments, skinny little Waffle Houses lined up with a Checker's slapped in the middle of them. That's -- that is not what we're looking for I don't think. There's some other things: Remove item D -- or 3.3(D)(2) from page 7 of the PUD which allows drinking places in conjunction with hotels or motels. My concern there is that a hotel adds on that little bar that becomes a nightclub, and the next thing you know we've got, you know, folks coming out at 2 a.m. in the morning after drinking right next to a residential neighborhood; and you know, there might be some loud music that -- that local government bodies have been dealing with in the past, and I don't think we want to enter that. 3.3 item (D)(3). Why are loudspeakers required at all in a gas station? I saw -- or required by law? You know, unless it's an alarm, I don't see why loudspeakers should be required for voice transmission in anyway. Maintenance of landscaping and replacement of original landscaping should be required within 90 days if the plants should die. Low-level lighting shall be used in area B only; no pole lighting. And I'd like to see test wells. If there's a gas station -- what I didn't hear is test wells at the site perimeter to catch that floating -- you know, if everything should fail, that there be a test well to catch the surface gasoline presence in the upper table and remove the -- those -- that is kind of -- that's my laundry list. So, Commissioner Hac'Kie, if you were looking for standards, those are the kinds of things that we don't have anywhere else, because we've never put them into play. And I'm going to give you an example of where it goes wrong, Toys R Us and The Sports Authority coming in at Pine Ridge and Airport. I called both of their -- their offices. I asked for architectural plans of their building, told them up front that we didn't have architectural control, but that I may be able -- I had some citizens who wanted to look at it and they may be able to suggest some things that would make it more compatible with the general community. The words from Toys R Us before sending me the plans were, "We vehemently oppose changing our trademark building." In other words, who cares about your community. We want our building to look the way we want it to look. The Sports Authority said we're going to be good neighbors, and we'll FedEx that to you; you'll have it tomorrow. That was three weeks ago; I still don't have it. So this, if nothing else, stands as an impetus for me, and what I will be pursuing is to develop architectural controls for commercial properties county-wide so that this doesn't happen again and again and again. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Anderson -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And that's got to happen fast. While he's coming up -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I've got a specific question that he's going to want to answer. Mr. Anderson? CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Bruce. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Bruce. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I gave him 14 things that -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You don't have to come up. I'm just going to ask you a question that you'll probably want to discuss with your clients as well. As you're reviewing his checklist, I wonder if you might also review the option of removing the fuel station in an effort to meet that transitional requirement that I had mentioned in my previous question. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm sorry to interrupt you. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: No, no, that's okay. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: We need the theme from Jeopardy playing. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. Anderson, are we going to be able to continue here? If you have anything further to put on the record, we'd like for you to do it, please; and we can close this public hearing. MR. ANDERSON: First of all, I'd like to address one of the comments about this setting the trend for the area and the seeming disregard for what was -- what is on the books today in the Gateway PUD. I realize you all may -- may be thinking you're going to reevaluate that in 90 days and are going to be able to start with a blank canvas. But under the Private Property Rights Protection Act, you're going to find yourself hampered as far as tinkering with the approved uses in that PUD. Now, that's not directly relevant to our proceeding, but I did want to make you aware that -- that that is out there when you start reevaluating these PUDs, because it is -- it would be something different if it were inconsistent with the comprehensive plan. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Anderson, do you have any idea how many acres, including the property you're representing, are east of the Gateway PUD but west of 1-75 along that strip? I think it's roughly 35, but I'm -- I don't really know. MR. HOOVER: About 30, Commissioner. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And considering none of that is currently zoned or planned in any way, I think this does -- it is a trendsetter regardless of the gateway situation. MR. ANDERSON: I do appreciate your time and attention and patience on this matter. I'd like to remind you that you heard unrebutted testimony that a residential use of this property is not an economically viable use nor are offices a practical use. You also heard unrebutted testimony that the convenience commercial uses that we set forth in this PUD are reasonably foreseeable land uses. Under the principles of the Florida Supreme Court's decision in -- in the Board of County Commissioners of Brevard County versus Snyder, your decision must be supported by substantial competent evidence. The case law in Florida is also clear that neighborhood opposition is not a sound basis for denial. Now, the Snyder case also requires that a denial of an intensity authorized by the comprehensive plan such as we have requested, an approval of a lesser intensity must also be supported by substantial competent evidence and is subject to strict scrutiny on review. There is -- what the neighbors may not be aware of, and I -- and I believe you are, is the county's financial exposure for payment of compensation in the event of a denial or denial of one or more of the requested uses. Under the principles of City of Sanibel versus Good and the City of Clearwater versus College Properties where zoning is so restrictive that it deprives the owner of any marketable use of his property, and the estates zoning deprives him of a marketable use. It deprives him of any beneficial use, and it constitutes a taking. And under Florida's new Private Property Rights Act, local governments can be held liable to pay compensation when they take action which unfairly burdens a property owner to the extent that he's denied the right to existing land uses. Now, the term "existing land uses" is defined in that Private Property Rights Act to include reasonably foreseeable land uses. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. Anderson, with all due respect, we pay Mr. Weigel an exorbitant salary for his legal advise, and that's who we take our legal advice from. MR. ANDERSON: I understand. I understand. And it would also be our -- our position that -- that denial of the uses, besides giving rise to a compensation claim under either of those two provisions, would also violate equal protection. But on a more positive note -- I couldn't hardly write as fast as Commissioner Hancock -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, I've had a couple of hours to write these things down. MR. ANDERSON: -- went through the list. There are -- there are some that we can quickly agree to and others that have caused us some concern -- some greater concern than others. We don't have a problem, for instance, with your limitations on the height of the signs. We could live with a limitation of two stories on the hotel. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. MR. ANDERSON: We could live with a limitation of no more than three structures in the PUD. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The -- would the canopy on a gas station be considered a structure? COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: No. I meant that as principal structures. In other words, uses is what I was trying to -- COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I just wanted to clarify that. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Again, I didn't want the Checker's and the Jucy Lucy's and all that -- those -- because the minimum width is 75 feet in a PUD, which means you can get a lot of those real tiny, slim uses in there. Look at what's across the street. MR. ANDERSON: Three uses, yes. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Three -- three uses. Some of the other things, dumpsters and -- dumpsters and trash facilities to be shielded in opaque enclosures. MR. ANDERSON: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Hours of gas station and convenience store operation, 5 a.m. til midnight. MR. ANDERSON: Let me -- that does present a bit of a problem. Let me -- COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Question mark. Wall height shall be 8 feet instead of 6 and shall be constructed prior to C. O. of any structure. MR. ANDERSON: That's fine. COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: Flat roofs. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Oh, yeah. The -- no flat roofs on any of the buildings, and I do have one thing excepting to that -- that -- because if you go putting a peaked roof on a two-story hotel or motel, if one should come in there, it actually could be more imposing. So no flat roofs on any of the buildings and peaked roofs over the gas pumps to match the roof of the -- of a gas station. So the only -- the only thing I had is -- is if you have a contoured parapet, which is kind of the wall that extends above the roof to make it look like something other than a flat roof. They're on the front of a lot of buildings and provides a nice face and would actually give the overall height -- a less overall height than a peaked roof. Something like -- or on the backtrack on B. You could do that if it's less height than a pitched roof. You know, you could do a parapet wall instead of a pitched roof if it provided less height. MR. ANDERSON: Okay. If that provides us additional flexibility, that's great. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Finish colors may not be gray or black. MR. ANDERSON: Problem with -- with the gray. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Because Coastal -- or Racetrac is normally gray. MR. ANDERSON: That is one of their -- one of their trademark colors. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Right. But boy, you know, put that aluminum roof on there and a nice little Florida color on it and COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's an important one. We -- I mean, I wanted to say, you know, nice, pastel, Naples yellow, but I can go with -- COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Not the color of those light posts down there. COHHISSIONER HAC'KIE: That's the color. MR. ANDERSON: We would probably use something like the gray behind you on the -- on the background. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: It's almost a white. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah. My key there is no dark shades, you know. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I guess I don't know that you should be backing off on that. I've referred before to the Freeport -- the HcDonald's in Freeport, Maine, where -- you know, it's brick and it has little -- carved in wood on the doorway, it has a little H, but, I mean, it doesn't -- it doesn't have any other way -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: The wood siding on a HcDonald's in Vermont, but -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: No, I'm going to hang on to that one, because either stucco or block can be produced in those colors these days just like paver bricks are, so it could be, you know, something other than gray or black. MR. ANDERSON: Oh, you mean the building itself as opposed to our signage? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah, I meant the building. The color gray can be in your logo in your sign. I'm saying the building, the structures. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's what I thought. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Yeah. MR. ANDERSON: Okay. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Removing drinking places in conjunction with hotels and motels. I understand if you have a restaurant like a Bennigans, there is usually a bar inside or family-type restaurant. What I'm concerned about is a club popping up out there in association with a hotel or motel. So I want to remove drinking places in conjunction with hotels or motels, not drinking places altogether; because in conjunction with a restaurant, that's generally not a problem. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: You're talking about a lounge. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah. No it has to be a restaurant. It's got to be in conjunction with something. You can't have a stand-alone drinking place according to the PUD. I just don't want a hotel or motel providing a lounge. MR. ANDERSON: Okay. Would there be -- would that operate as a prohibition, because like some of these -- some of these chains nowadays, as a convenience to their guests -- and it's just available to the guests -- they have like complimentary cocktails in the evening kind of thing where it's not advertised to the public. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm not sure how to word that. I think you understand what I'm getting at MR. ANDERSON: Yeah. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Because I don't want -- like the Golden Gate Inn, you know. They have a stand-alone building that actually is now a bar. I don't -- I don't think that's appropriate that close to a residential area. MR. ANDERSON: Okay. Then no lounge, in other words. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Correct. MR. ANDERSON: No separate -- no free -- okay. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: No freestanding, open-to-the-public lounge -- MR. ANDERSON: Okay. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- is the intent in removing that. MR. ANDERSON: But it is okay to incorporate it with liquor service in a restaurant? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yes. MR. ANDERSON: Okay. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Loudspeakers removed altogether. You have in here "as required by law." I don't understand why. Maybe somebody can tell me there's good reason why you have to have a loud speaker, but the poor folks that live right behind this place, if there's going to be a gas station at all, you know -- COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: This says strictly prohibited. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, it says strictly prohibited, except the PUD says something different so which one governs? I want them prohibited. MR. ANDERSON: Okay. MR. HOOVER: Just to be clear on the restaurant, you can have a restaurant in conjunction with the motel, but liquor would only be served with foods, and there's no like -- no waiting area where you could just drink liquor before -- in there. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I -- I think that's fairly clear from what I said. MR. ANDERSON: Okay. Can I ask about that intercom system, about the -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah. I mean, you committed to not having them in here already. MR. ANDERSON: Right. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Good enough. I mean, it's in here, so -- MR. ANDERSON: Okay. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- I'm going to assume that that's the case, and we'll just make that a part of the -- and if there is approval today, that would be part of it. No loudspeakers. Maintenance of landscaping, requiring replacement of original within 90 days if plants should die. Again, you're so close to a residential neighborhood -- if the trees die, I know that you're required to replace them, but the reason I want this in there is the original landscaping, because you're exceeding the codes. MR. ANDERSON: Oh, okay. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I don't want that to deteriorate to where future owners are just meeting code and getting by with it. MR. ANDERSON: Sure. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Low -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Can I ask a quick question? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Certainly. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Was that a no to dumping the gas station? I assume by bargaining on the color of the paint, and so on, that you still intend to include that as a use. MR. ANDERSON: Yes, sir. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yes, you will lose the gas station? MR. ANDERSON: No. Yes, sir, we still intend -- we still request that as a permitted use. That's the only -- the only parcel in this that presently has a contract on it. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. I have two more to go through, and then I think we're probably close to wrapping this up. In area B to the rear, low-level lighting shall be used so we don't have pole lights. I know they're supposed to be shielded anyway, but I want to see low-level lighting that close to a residence. MR. ANDERSON: Okay. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: We have an affirmative on that. And 14, again, I don't know if this is unnecessary or not but it makes sense to me that the perimeter of the property in the -- the water travel flow direction should have test wells to indicate as a -- I guess a last resort and regular checking of those test wells to make sure there's no leakage into the upper aquifer. You know, maybe I'm going too far there. I just -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Isn't that a standard requirement anyway? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, I don't know. When Mr. Hissimer was talking about it, I didn't hear test wells. I heard, you know -- you said if everything goes bad, then it leaks into this area and ends up in the canal to the -- to the east. I would like to know about that before it got to that canal. MR. ANDERSON: I continue to suffer under my disability as an attorney. I'd like to ask Mr. Hissimer to address those test wells. MR. HISSIHER: When the DEP modified the underground tank rules several years back, they saw fit to say that if you're going to go to a double-wall-type facility with the automated sensors and inventory rectification, that they do not any longer require monitor wells around the system, and there's some reasons for that. The number three cause of contamination in modern gas stations are fueling trucks coming in and hooking up to the monitor wells and pumping it into the ground. Now, that's ridiculous and they should be locked and all that stuff, but I can cite three examples in Lee County myself that I've been involved in cleanups on that. But that's up to the -- you know, the owner whether or not some monitor wells can be placed there. That's strictly their decision on top of the automated system -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: You learn something new every day. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I think I'd like to lose that one requirement because, frankly, the DEP standards are already so stringent, and they are more expert than we are. That was the only one that I -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: My goal in all of this is not to throw the baby out with the bath water. I understand there has been a question and maybe some deferences to the gas station owner. I don't know how the rest the board feels on that matter, but what I don't want to lose is the folks in Livingston Woods that worked very hard to express concerns -- gateway concerns and so forth; and I want to make sure those are, at a minimum, addressed regardless of the permitted uses. That is the purpose for -- for this laundry list. And it seems like we have -- we're every -- in agreement on everything I've stated except for hours of operation of the gas station and convenience store. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Does anyone else have any questions for the petitioner or staff? If not I'll -- COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I was just thinking on the hours of operation, 11 a.m. to 12 noon, something like that. MR. ANDERSON: I'd like to explain to you what -- how Racetrac normally operates their stores. They normally close the convenience part of their operation, normally from like midnight to five generally, anyway. They do keep the gas pumps themselves open, and they have a little window that people can come up and buy gas or if they want the clerk to get them something from the convenience store and slip it through the -- the metal box. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: I hate those things. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You know what my impression of that is, Bruce? When I'm in Fort Lauderdale or somewhere and they do that, and my impression is, God, I must be in a lousy area of town, and that's the very first thing I think of. And I would hate to have that be our -- the impression we make here. MR. ANDERSON: Well, can I put -- a positive spin on that is that you've got somebody there watching the site 24 hours a day to prevent any loitering or transients. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: I wouldn't mind their selling gas, you know, because people may need it. I don't know what the hours of operation are of the other gas stations in the area, but if the convenience store were shut down, that would be important to me. MR. ANDERSON: And on the gray and black, we will -- we can live with not having the buildings gray or black. Can we have a gray roof? COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, if it's aluminum, it's going to be gray or tile's going to be gray. Yeah, I just -- if you want to put a gray on top of a pastel, knock yourself out. I think you're making a mistake. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. If there's nothing further, then I close the public hearing. Let's see where the board wants to go with this. Commissioner Constantine, do you have anything to say? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I do. I appreciate, Mr. Anderson, two things. One, the effort you've made on behalf of your client. I know you're doing the best you think you can. I also appreciate your comments that say, gee, the county is subject to pay damages. If they don't allow some sort of commercial use, that would be considered a taking. I'm not suggesting for a minute that some sort of commercial use shouldn't be allowed here. We apparently have a disagreement of how intense of a commercial use should be allowed, but not for a minute -- and please don't think that I don't think there should be anything but estates zoning there. And secondly, as long as our decision is based, as it is required to be, on the competent substantial evidence that is presented as part of this public hearing, then regardless of what that decision is, whether it's affirmative or not, I'm confident that it will hold up and that all parties will be properly served. I think in terms of -- when I talk about having things on both sides and all -- I'll give you the worst-case example I can think of, Exit 18. If you get off in Bonita and get fuel, on one side you have -- I think it's a Chevron, and on the other side -- they're both Pick Kwiks now. But one's an Exxon and one's a Chevron or something. You have a high element of people just hanging out there, and they go in and buy their beer and sit in their truck in the parking lot on both sides of that. It doesn't matter so much on the south side of the road there, because there isn't anything else. But on the north side of Bonita Beach Boulevard -- Road, whatever that is, there are residential areas, and I have thought oftentimes as I go in there, you know, goodness, there's -- that has just got to be a horrible impression, A, for anybody going into that neighborhood. But if I lived there, I would hate driving by there every night. It just causes an awful circumstance. So, again, the preference being to have some sort of a transitional use, and I don't think it's out of line that we request a transitional use rather than the same intensity that is on the south side of Pine Ridge. We heard testimony that less -- both from Mr. Milk and from your expert, that less intensive commercial use would have a more desirable impact on the neighboring properties, particularly those residential properties to the north. And so, again, I think that goes back and adds a little concrete to my argument that, yes, commercial is appropriate there but not in that intensification. So I'm going to make a motion we deny the petition, and I have a number of findings here. Under 2.7.3.2.5 of the Land Development Code I question the suitability of the area for the type and the pattern. The info provided today really does not support that this type and pattern is appropriate. The conformity of the proposed PUD with the goals, objectives, and policies of the county and of the Land Development Code -- I think our policy, and we could cite example after example, has been to have some transitional use between areas. And very intense on the south side of the parkway (sic) and extremely low-density homes on the north side, in my mind, requires that same policy of having a transitional use in between. While the interchange activity center provides for a mixture of commercial uses, it doesn't guarantee intense use, and with the surrounding properties on three sides having very little or no development and no plan, it's just not -- it doesn't conform; it's not consistent. The traffic circulation elements and some of the other impacts, I'm concerned -- again, going back to Commissioner Hancock's comments from the prior hearing and that is this sets a precedent, and with those most intense uses -- this individual 4.5 property isn't going to have more than a 5 percent impact, but -- the precedent is set, and the corresponding 30 other acres, approximately, doing the same thing is going to have an overwhelming impact on this major thoroughfare. I don't see its consistence with the Growth Management Plan -- the goals and objectives of the Growth Management Plan. Again, going to the three sides -- and that's under 2.7.2.5 of the Land Development Code. Nothing to the east, nothing to the west, almost nothing to the north except a few homes on 2.25 acres or more. I don't think the existing land-use pattern warrants it, because the existing land-use pattern is practically nonexistent. Whether existing boundaries are illogically drawn -- I tend to think they are. The transitional area would correct that. It would make sense and meet the policy the board has set. I think the proposed change can potentially influence the living conditions in the neighborhood from the standpoint I just mentioned, and that is according to your own expert and according to Mr. Milk, a less intense commercial use would create a more desirable situation for them and for their values. Would a proposed change be a deterrent to the quality of development in the area? Again, for the umpteenth time, I refer to the Hancock comment from before and that is that it's precendenting -- precedent-setting. I think with that in mind it does have an impact on the entire area long term. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: By the way we approved that one with the changes. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah, with the change. Gateway to community, you know, those are all -- again, I won't get off on the gateway one, because I don't know that -- if that's going to meet the legal burden, but as the gateway to the community, I think we expect a little more. And a couple other points at the end. One was the need. Does it meet the current needs of the county and of the neighborhood? And, again, referencing the testimony by the owner of an existing business in the area that's very similar who's having difficulties making it by, there doesn't appear to be that need there. Is it possible to find other adequate sites for the proposed use in districts already permitting such use? Clearly, yeah. All over the county, nearby and not so nearby, there are existing properties which would allow for this use. And, again, just to wrap up, the final question in there is -- goes back to one I've already mentioned which is consistency with surrounding properties. So with all those in mind, I make a motion to deny the petition as requested. And for the record I would note my main objection is the intensity of that use. I think it's appropriate for commercial uses, but not at this intense level. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I'll second the motion to get it on the floor. Is there any comment on the motion? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: The reason -- the reason I wasn't quick to second is that, again, I'm not so sure that -- I'm not a judge. I -- you know. I'm sometimes asked -- I ask myself have we met the legal merits to the point that this isn't going to end up being overturned and none of the caveats presented and things agreed on today are achieved. And like I said earlier, I don't want to eliminate the good things that we can accomplish here, and the gateway aspects, and so forth; however, I think the petitioner needs to realize that there is a motion and a second, which means there are two people out of the five up here -- at a minimum -- that are not going to support the petition as presented. That being the case I feel like -- that I would like to ask maybe the motion maker and the second, is it really the gas station in itself that is the linchpin, or are there any other uses that -- that make the intensity argument that you've stated? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: With the changes that you've suggested, then I think the fuel station is really the only remaining question. I know at four stories rather than two stories -- again, you get into that intensity issue. But I think, in my mind anyway and from what's been presented here, that appears to be really the main objectionable item. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Is that because there are already too many in the area? Because I think that we have addressed the health issues related to groundwater. I've got those satisfied. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No, it's just -- I thought I explained that. I'm sorry if I wasn't clear. The intensity -- trying to have a transitional area between the intense and the very low-density homes. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: I understand. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And we have done that in virtually every other case in the -- in the county. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: I guess my question then is -- and obviously you need four votes for this petition to move ahead, and it doesn't appear to be at least that minimum number here. And what I'd like to ask is, is the petitioner willing to revise their PUD, either today or in the interim, to eliminate the gas station and convenience store and pursue the other elements of the PUD. If so I would like to move for continuance, because I don't want to lose a lot of the gateway things that we have agreed upon here and the things that would, in fact, ensure a quality development adjacent to Livingston Woods. But it appears that what you've presented is not going to -- to succeed here today. Does the petitioner have a desire one way or the other? We can proceed with the vote -- COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, are we discussing the gas station and the convenience store? I need to understand exactly what it is we're asking them to remove as a use. Gas station and convenience store, just gas station -- COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: I think the two -- in the way they've -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: The public hearing is still closed. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: The two in the way they've been presented together and, you know, you're not going to get a little two-pump gas station there. You're going to get something of size. I think those uses are what is being argued as compatibility this close to a residential neighborhood. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: So the convenience store, however, would be okay? I'm just trying to understand what it is we're asking. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: I guess that would be a question possibly for the motion maker. With the -- the standards that we've put in -- COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We'll wait and see what Mr. Anderson says after he's talked to his client. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Why don't we call this motion and see if there is a substitute motion, an additional motion. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's fine. We can go ahead and call a motion, but that doesn't put the item to rest even if it -- you know, you'll still have an opportunity to continue the item if that comes back. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah, okay. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. Anderson, if I reopen the public hearing, are you ready to make a commitment? MR. ANDERSON: Yes. I'd like to hear what you were -- what you were discussing. I was trying to confer with my clients and I want to make -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Well, without reopening the public hearing, you may respond to the question of Commissioner Hancock. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Are you willing to remove from the PUD the gas station and convenience store use and maintain the balance of the commitments? One or the other or both? MR. ANDERSON: I would -- I would like to have some time, more time than I've had to contemplate that and discuss that, because that was the only contract that there was on the property. If we could -- if you could continue this for, you know, another month or so just to give us some time maybe we -- COHHISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. There's a motion on the floor to deny, so that motion will either have to be withdrawn and a substitute motion or that motion would be -- be -- I would be willing to continue -- COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Motion to table. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, this has to actually be continued, I believe. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Yeah, it does. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: So I would be willing to make a motion to continue based on the fact that it does not return with the gas station/convenience store joint use and the other commitments -- I would be willing to make that motion. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: While I would just as soon see the motion proceed, let me make a suggestion, because I can see everybody struggling with this. What you can do is make a motion to table the item for the time being. Once it's been tabled you can make a motion to continue the item. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Motion to table. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second to table, which takes precedence over the prior motion, so all those in favor signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm going to make a motion to continue the item with the understanding that at such time that the item should return for board consideration that the gas station and convenience store combination not be an element of the application and that all other elements agreed upon here today be incorporated. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm going to second your motion, and I'm -- I want to tell you why, though. I think if we can get quality commercial development on that property with the architectural standards and all the agreements you've made to -- in a less intense manner than you initially requested, it's good for not only that parcel but for the whole area. And so if that is a potential right now, maybe we won't be able to come to an agreement on that, but if at least that option is out there I'd like to allow you to pursue and the board to pursue that, so I'll second that. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second to continue for a period of -- MR. WEIGEL: We will need a date certain or it will have to be readvertised. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'll say four weeks. Is that within the advertising frame that does not require readvertisement? COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Wait a minute. MR. WEIGEL: I think that is the first advertised -- COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Wait a minute. Let's check our dates. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm sorry. We'll be on vacation in four weeks. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: No, we won't. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No, we won't. August 13th. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: One, two -- to August 13th. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Let the record reflect Miss Filson was incorrect. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: The motion then is to continue until August the 13th. Mr. Anderson, is that acceptable? MR. ANDERSON: That's fine. Thank you. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. We have a motion and a second to continue to August 13th. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: This was so much fun we want to do it again. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Yeah. That's just what I was thinking. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: I hope that the -- that the message that's getting across to staff is that we're just dying to see those architectural standards they're going to propose for us just any day now. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: And I think the residents of Livingston Woods may need to know that the motion included not having the gas station/convenience store as an element of this application, so that may be of importance to them. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Keep in mind, procedurally when the item comes back, on the floor will be a motion to deny. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Correct. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Assuming it's untabled. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Right. Or it just goes away forever. Item #12C1 ORDINANCE 96-39 RE FRANK W. COOPER OF F.C. PROPERTIES, INC., REPRESENTING CLUB MARCO DEVELOPMENT LTD. PURSUANT TO SECTION 2.2.24.10 OF THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE REQUESTING A TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS (TDR) - ADOPTED CHAIRMAN NORRIS: All right. The next item is 12(C)(1). This is to do with the TDR that we had seen before. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Good afternoon. This a TDR request. Frank Cooper is requesting a transfer -- MR. DORRILL: Chahram, this lady is new. You just need to give her your name for the record. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: I'm sorry. My name is Chahram Badamtchian. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Are there any public speakers? MR. DORRILL: We have none for the balance of the day. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: None for the balance of the day. That's good. I'll -- I'll close the public hearing. This is something that we directed you to do -- to continue with a couple of weeks ago. This is, as I understand it, the last of the TDRs under the old rules; right? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Motion to approve. COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: Second. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Can three of us do that? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Weigel, does that require three affirmative or four affirmative? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm in the room. MR. WEIGEL: I think -- this is not a fezone. I think three will do. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm in the room. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: How did you vote on that? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: In the affirmative. We had four votes in the affirmative on that, let the record reflect. Item #12C2 ORDINANCE GRANTING TO FLORIDA POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY AN ELECTRIC FRANCHISE FOR THIRTY YEARS TO CONSTRUCT, MAINTAIN, OPERATE AND RELOCATE ELECTRIC LIGHT AND POWER FACILIITES IN THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF COLLIER COUNTY PROVIDING FOR MONTHLY PAYMENT OF FRANCHISE FEE OF THREE PERCENT OF REVENUES FOR THE FIRST FIVE YEARS AND SUBJECT TO ADJUSTMENT THREAFTER - CONTINUED TO 7/23/96 AND STAFF DIRECTED TO GO FORWARD WITH ADVERTISING THE PRIVILEGE ORDINANCE Next item is 12(C)(2) having to do with utility power fees. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Just to make sure this discussion is in the right frame for me, are we deciding today to adopt -- if we approve this that we are going to adopt franchise fees at a certain percent? Are we making that decision today, or are we approving a contract presented to us that should we decide to proceed with franchise fees -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: According to Carl Loveday at 7:50 this morning, neither. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: That's what I heard yesterday. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Someone help me with that, because it may allow us to expedite the item or to enter into a very long discussion, I would guess. MS. ASHTON: If I could proceed it might actually answer that question. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. MS. ASHTON: For the record I'm Heidi Ashton, assistant county attorney. We had been directed to return with a negotiated ordinance agreement, and we've met with FPL, and we've had discussions with Lee County Electric Cooperative, and we've been unable to enter into a negotiated agreement. So the purpose of my being here today is to update you on what's going on and also to ask for a continuance for one week and a request to proceed with the advertisement of a privilege ordinance in the event we're unable to enter into a negotiated -- COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Can I just make a point about what I think is going to go on here about negotiations if we don't take some sort of a position. Why would a utility negotiate and say, yes, okay, we'll agree to this franchise fee when this board hasn't even, by straw vote or otherwise, said by the way we're going to do this. We're going to do it with a franchise agreement if we can, and if we can't we want to know how difficult a privilege agreement would be -- I'm sorry -- a privilege fee would be. But I think that the county's negotiating position with the utilities is weak when our staff doesn't have some indication from this board that, yes, we're going forward with the franchise fee. So how can they negotiate full strength when they don't even have that indication? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Question for Mr. Dorrill along those lines. One of the main rationales -- one of the main arguments for this during our budget hearings that you made was the over 10,000 mobile homes that pay little or no -- in the way of ad valorem tax. I think we've all received a package in reference to that disputing some of that now. I need some help here rationalizing the advantage of a utility tax. If their information is correct -- and it looks to be very well documented -- I need some information rationalizing the utility tax over ad valorem simply because ad valorem is deductible on federal income tax. If there is a logical reason that we are indeed actually spreading it out, maybe I can buy it; I don't know. But they've disputed what I remembered as the main reason, and I need a little assistance there. MR. DORRILL: I'm sorry. Who's they? COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: The homeowners. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, can I respond since I got the memo and know what you're talking about? We got a very well-reasoned memo from a mobile home representative just generally commenting about -- that mobile homes do pay their fair share because they pay taxes -- they pay those sticker fees, and they pay property taxes on the underlying dirt. But there was nothing there that rebutted the fact that -- I'm -- I'm personally familiar with mobile home parks where absolutely the association or the owner of the parcel of dirt pays property taxes on the unimproved value of that piece of dirt. But nobody is paying property taxes on the value of the mobile home or of the improved lot, and I know of hundred-thousand-dollar improvements that are mobile homes, and why they should not have to pay any property taxes or any taxes -- why they should not have to pay any property taxes is a question we can't change, but why they should get a free ride -- and, frankly, a lot of them are in my district and will be shooting me any minute now. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I think when you refer to free rides, you're talking about general fund revenues, because that -- that goes to the state -- motor vehicle registration doesn't go into our general fund revenue. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's right. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: But I need -- not only that -- what other reasons are there for us to do this in lieu of an ad valorem tax? MR. DORRILL: I haven't seen the information, and I'd like to have a chance to look at it. I mean, if we have erred in some way, I'll be the first one to admit it publicly. I was challenged repeatedly on the Loveday journal show the other day for a similar statement, and the statement that I've made consistently is that it's the improvements on the lot that are in question, and I'm contrasting that to -- and let's just pick the upscale double-wide, and it may not be a great example, but it was the best one that I could use. There are double-wide mobile homes today that have vaulted ceilings and that do cost a hundred thousand dollars. And just for the sake of iljustrating that, I had been advised that that type of double-wide mobile home or premanufactured home pays to the State of Florida the same registration sticker that you would pay on a trailer of similar size or weight or axle-bearing capacity something less than $80 petitioner year. That goes to the Florida Department of Motor Vehicles for which we see nothing. A similar masonry or frame home of a hundred thousand dollars that may be in -- I'll just say Lakewood of approximately 1,800 square feet would pay about $1,500 petitioner year in property tax of general revenue that then gets broken up between the school board and the county and the independent districts. That's the point that I was trying to make, and I applied that same rationale to whether extremely popular TT/RV parks now that by and large have people -- while they may not claim permanent domicile here, there are people who are living in those things year round. We had that problem several years ago out on the East Trail at the Imperial TT/RV park there. And there are thousands of those that are in the community and that was one of the main reasons, that and the fact that municipalities have charged utility franchise fees for the better part of 70 years is my information and, frankly, it has only been the last several years where nonchartered counties have been determined -- and then had that upheld by the district court of appeals that nonchartered counties had that available to them as a revenue source. There's really nothing magical to our seeking out the additional revenues other than three years ago we knew that we were going to need some additional revenues, and we wanted to provide options to the board. MR. HcNEES: Mr. Chairman, if I may provide another answer to that -- Hike HcNees from the county manager's office. You're asking what are the arguments for this revenue source. One of the other things that I don't think has been discussed too much is just from a -- from a general revenue standpoint, we are hugely dependent on the ad valorem tax. We have a very nondiversified general revenue stream. The other major revenues that we have, a gas tax is a very volatile revenue source. In recent years it hasn't been, but as recently as five or six years ago because of gas tax and sales tax reliance, we had huge budget problems when those things were volatile, makes us even more dependent upon the ad valorem tax. Having another revenue source makes us a little bit less reliant on only the ad valorem tax, spreads the tax burden among a little bit different group of people other than just the ad valorem taxpayer, and makes us more diversified, just like you'd diversify a stock portfolio with stocks that, you know, fluctuate for different reasons, gives us another revenue source in the general fund that's less volatile and moves on a completely different cycle than sales tax, gas tax, and ad valorem tax. Another argument, which is what you're asking for, why would we do this, just from a -- from a -- call it a portfolio basis, it's a good idea to have a more diversified revenue stream. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: From what I -- I understand from what Hiss Ashton was saying is that we don't have a franchise agreement we can approve or disapprove of today. I -- I would like for us to give some indication to our staff if a majority of the board supports the concept of a franchise fee, and then I'd also like to hear from Hiss Ashton how difficult a fight is a privilege ordinance if that's the road we find -- you know, if we find ourselves unable to agree with the two electrical providers. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Hiss Ashton, before you answer that particular question, would you clarify for me again what you said at the outset that you want us -- are you asking us today to continue these two items for a week and then to give you direction whether we want to pursue them or a privilege fee? MS. ASHTON: Well, we would like authorization to proceed with the advertisement of a privilege-fee ordinance. This is the first day that this ordinance has been advertised, so we could potentially continue it for five weeks; but we were hoping that we would be given one week to attempt to negotiate a final agreement with FPL, and at one point we thought we had reached a final -- or close to a final agreement, and that's the product that ended up in your -- in your package, but I have a copy for distribution for your information of the proposed ordinance. If that's acceptable to FPL, it's -- and we're pretty far apart now between FPL and staff. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What are the main stinging points, because when I -- MS. ASHTON: Pardon me. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What are the main stinging points, because when I had spoken with Senator Dudley, who's representing FPL to my understanding -- MR. DORRILL: There are two and I'll let her elaborate on them. The concern that I had was that they want an agreement whereby the fee cannot be changed for a period of 30 years, and this county has a poor history of entering into long-term cable and solid waste franchise agreements to where seven years from now somebody will rue the day that -- that we agreed to that. There's another section, a body of issues concerning what constitutes a utility conflict and then whose responsibility it is to pay for that utility conflict when it occurs, specifically the four-laning of Rattlesnake Hammock Road where you have an FPL power line that's running down one side of the road that must be relocated to accommodate the expansion of the road. Is that the responsibility of the electric facility, or is that the responsibility of OCPM to incorporate into the construction price -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Who does it today? MR. DORRILL: -- for the road. It's arguable in many instances. It can also include other utilities that are in that right-of-way or in that utility easement at the same time. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I think it depends on when the power lines were placed, what the road right-of-way at that time was, was four lanes anticipated and the FPL made a mistake and put them too close to the road, you know, no matter what's in the agreement, are they trying to lock in that it's always the county's responsibility? Is that the major difference here? MR. DORRILL: I need Miss Ashton to expand on that a little bit. I was not at the meeting, but those are two key issues, and I think that we need to take the side that is in favor of counties based on what has been upheld with case law and need to try and drive those home unless there were other issues that I'm just not aware of. MS. ASHTON: There were some other additional issues. I guess first I'll address some of the issues in the agreement, and then I'll respond to Commissioner Mac'Kie's question. Under the grant of franchise section, they would like the franchise to read that it's granted to them and that they can operate in accordance with their standard engineering practices with respect to construction and maintenance. That's something that you can't determine just by looking at this ordinance. It's not something that's written that we can go look at it and say, FPL, what are your standard practices, and we asked them to clarify that because they said it was based on federal, state, and local law. But we're still unsatisfied with that language especially because it's triggered later on in a forfeiture provision it says like FPL in its sole discretion can determine if there's one of three violations that's tied into that section and then they can withhold the franchise fee payments based on that forfeiture provision. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I assume you're doing the same thing with Lee County Co-op. MS. ASHTON: Yes. It's our plan to have the identical agreement for both FPL and Lee County Electrical Cooperative. I believe we have a representative who could respond to any questions that you may have from both companies, and Lee County Electric I believe is going to take a greater stand after we're able to negotiate something with FPL. At this point -- pardon me? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What does that mean, "They're going to take a greater stand?" MS. ASHTON: Well, they sort of stepped back and let FPL and the county negotiate an agreement and then they were going to provide comments to the final agreement once we had -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Call me crazy but wouldn't it make more sense to try to get one agreement that they can both agree to instead of going through the process once and then they disagree and go and find something they agree with and then go back to FPL? Wouldn't it make more sense to have everyone sitting down '- MS. ASHTON: Well, when we met with the representative from FPL -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- and talking the same language? MS. ASHTON: Excuse me. When we met with the representative from FPL (sic) they said that they had no objection to the imposition of a franchise fee, and they would do whatever FPL -- or whatever they agreed to. They felt that they would be represented enough through FPL. That's what I was told by a representative who -- I don't know how high up in the company he is, but Mr. Goodlette is here if he'd like to comment on -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Is what you're saying that Lee County is basically deferring to FPL to negotiate the terms of the agreement? MS. ASHTON: Yes. They have a smaller piece of the pie here in Collier County so -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Let me ask a question here, Hiss Ashton. Why -- why would we want to at this point, since we've done this preliminary work, switch tracks and go to a privilege fee? MS. ASHTON: In the event we're unable to reach an agreement on the language of the ordinance, then we would go with the privilege fee, which is unilateral. It doesn't require an acceptance on behalf of the electric company. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: As I understand it, franchise we agree. MS. ASHTON: Right. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And if we can't agree, we impose a privilege. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You're suggesting we start advertising that so that in the event we can't come to an agreement, we have the option of doing a privilege fee and time for approving our budget. MS. ASHTON: Right. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I think that's a strong enough message to the -- the electric companies that we're serious about this. I have been someone who is a little vocal in -- in not wishing to pursue a franchise fee for nonspecific dedicated purposes, such as just subsidizing the ad valorem fund. I understand the other side of the argument, and I don't want to get into that today, but I'm almost to the point that I can see that we may not have any choice but to use some form of a franchise fee, and if it can be phased and determined, I may end up supporting that. So, you know, we're going to, in all likelihood, have some type of a franchise fee, time frame unknown, but let's negotiate for the best position, and if we cannot negotiate in such a way that is consistent with what other counties already have with FP & L, then -- then we'll move ahead with the privilege fee. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Well, let me ask you this: Why does it make a difference to us whether we go with a -- a utility fee or a privilege fee? What do we care? MS. ASHTON: Well, FPL's position has been that if we go with a privilege that they will -- they're threatening a lawsuit. There is -- there is a Baker County case, which has already gone through the lower court and found in favor of the county, and that's currently in the District Court of Appeals, and the District Court of Appeals has not rendered a decision on the appeal. So I guess the position is if you go with the franchise fee, you won't be spending the money in court costs and potentially if the District Court of Appeals rules, you know, in favor of the electric company, then that could pose problems. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Is the privilege fee calculated, as well, on the amount of the electric bill as a percentage? MS. ASHTON: That's right. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: No difference? MS. ASHTON: No difference in the calculation. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: So we'd like to agree with them if they could be reasonable, and if they want -- if they will not do that, then we need to be advertising the privilege fee ordinance just in case. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Well, let's see. If we go through that today -- if any of the board members -- if we have three board members that are willing to -- to go forward, we need to know that right now. Commissioner Matthews. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Go forward with what? CHAIRMAN NORRIS: With a -- with a fee of some sort. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: No. I'm not willing to go forward with a fee of any sort. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. There's a no. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: You mean do I -- am I committing today? CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Well, if there's not three members of this board that are willing to go forward, why are we having this discussion, is my point. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, I'll start here and tell you that obviously I am. I am in favor of a franchise fee and a privilege fee if that's not possible. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'll be absolutely honest with you. There are some conditions I would want placed on it to go ahead, and those conditions are a sunset or reallocation for specific sources over a period of three or four years. If those can be incorporated, I'd be supportive. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: But the -- but this money would go to the unincorporated general fund. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: First year. What I'm looking at is a two- or three-year phaseout, and if we wish to continue a franchise fee -- COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: It doesn't go to the unincorporated general fund. This is the general fund. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: No. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Yeah. MR. McNEES: That's what's been proposed, yes. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: The general fund. MR. HcNEES: The general fund, the county-wide general fund. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: That's right. The city then gets __ CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Well, why would you do that when the people that -- that are taking services out of general fund don't contribute? MR. DORRILL: Just because your general fund is the one that's sucking wind as a result of the sales tax being pulled out of the general fund to replace gasoline taxes and road enrichment. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: My point being regardless of the fund it goes into -- that may be a material discussion, but my point is that if we weren't having a tough budget year, we wouldn't be initiating a franchise fee in all likelihood. I mean, we may but I think this has come out of Mr. Dorrill's -- the direction we gave him to find revenue sources. So my point is I would like to see this the long term dedicated to -- you know, to benefit county citizens through burial or relocation of power lines to ease up our transportation dollars that we need so heavily. You know, I want to see that used in the future for that, and so for now if we need to use it to subsidize ad valorem and I can be convinced that that's a better tact than -- than ad valorem, then I'm willing to do it in the short term. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And I'd ask you please to listen and consider carefully what Mr. HcNees said about diversifying the income sources, the revenue sources for our tax base. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I understand. I'm undecided but I'm trying to give some indication that, yes, it's almost a foregone conclusion to me that some level of franchise fee is going to be needed this year. The question is what level, and how is it going to be implemented for me. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Well, the level that's being discussed is three percent. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm aware of that, and I'm not '- I'm sorry. I have some questions that I need to get answers to, and I'm trying not to get into a long discussion here. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Too late. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Too late for that. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Mr. Smykowski -- I'm going to go ahead and hit on this -- based on current millage, not rollback, based on current millage, what is our funding shortfall for what the board has approved and adopted as our '96-'97 budget? MR. SHYKOWSKI: At this point the general -- for the record, Michael Smykowski, budget director. At this point the general fund is balanced, but it does include two new revenue sources: the interim government service fee at 1.7 million, the franchise fee at 4.2 million. Currently, the general fund proposed millage rate is 3.5346 or $353.46 per a hundred thousand of taxable value. If you had neither of the two fees in place and went strictly to ad valorem, the millage would increase to 3.8604 or $386.04 petitioner hundred thousand of taxable value. Actually, I have a handout that -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. Smykowski, can I ask you what the millage was in the 1992-'93 budget year, the comparable millage rate they adopted. MR. SMYKOWSKI: For '93? CHAIRMAN NORRIS: '92-'93. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Fiscal '93. MR. DORRILL: While he's looking for that -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Hancock -- MR. DORRILL: -- I can explain -- go ahead. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Hancock, I want to back up. For a moment there while you were speaking, it sounded like you're not ruling it out at this point; you're not ruling it in at this point; you're willing to explore it and see -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: That's exactly where I am, and when I read today's agenda item, I didn't see this board making a final decision on the level of a franchise fee, and I'm not ready to make that decision today, period. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: But you're willing to let staff go and do their exploration. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I encourage staff to do it. And if they're not willing to negotiate one, let's proceed with the other, because we need it available as an option, period. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It seems to me that's what we were being asked. Miss Ashton, you wanted some direction from us, yes, go ahead and do it, or if we weren't going to -- if nobody had any interest, we'd stop it now. MR. DORRILL: It sounds like you have at least three people that are -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: It sounds like we have some interest, enough interest to go forward. So what you're asking us to do then, Miss Ashton, is to continue this -- today's discussion for one week and to direct you to advertise the -- the privilege fee. MS. ASHTON: That's correct. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. I'll close the public hearing. MR. SHYKOWSKI: Mr. Chairman, just so you're clear, next week you'll be presented with an executive summary to adopt the proposed attempted millage rate. That and there's no meeting scheduled on the 30th, so you will have to make a decision on the millages next week in keeping with the TRIM law, and we will have to make a decision next week then whether or not your millage rate will be based on including the franchise fee and the interim government services fee or excluding or without them. So we're -- the millage implications in the TRIM notice would potentially be based on a -- MR. DORRILL: There's a 10 percent swing there. You're either going to send a TRIM notice out with a 3.9 percent increase over the rollback or a 13 1/2 percent increase over the rollback. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: This is -- this is where I have a problem, because I understand the concept of rollback, but 9 out of 10 people out there, they get their tax bill, couldn't care less. They look at the millage rate, and they see last year's millage rate and this year's millage rate, and did it go up. MR. SHYKOWSKI: That's what this sheet shows. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. MR. SHYKOWSKI: It shows last year's millage -- general fund millage rate, 3.4889. The proposed with the two new fees is 3.5346, an increase petitioner hundred thousand of taxable value -- in the far right-hand column -- of $4.57. If you drop the interim governmental service fee at 1.7 million, the increase per hundred thousand of taxable value jumps 13 -- to 13.96 over what they would have paid last year assuming equivalent property values. The worst-case scenario, the general fund with neither the interim government services fee nor the franchise fee, would be a tax increase essentially of $37.15 per hundred thousand of taxable value. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I understand. I'm just looking for a clearer way to paint the picture, and it -- never mind. I understand it. I'm just -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But that's not rollback. That's -- that's actually what did you pay last year versus what are you going to pay this year. MR. SMYKOWSKI: That's correct. Because actually the rollback millage rate would be like 3.40, but this is all a function of the dollar increase petitioner hundred thousand of taxable value is calculated against what they would have paid one year ago. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Let me see if I've got it. Over last year's tax bill if I have a hundred-thousand-dollar house -- if this board adopts a 3 percent franchise fee and an interim governmental service fee, my tax bill is going up $4.57 on my hundred-thousand-dollar house. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: And if your home was not valued at a penny higher this year than it was last year. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Correct. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: That's the rollback. What I'm looking for is that second column of percentages that says increase, you know, county-wide. I mean, we know that values went up obviously, and at the same millage rate as last year, it generates more revenue than it did last year. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, we're still talking about petitioner hundred thousand dollars. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Can I just point out we are way, way adrift from the agenda. I think we were just looking to find out whether or not to give staff direction to keep working on this item or not, and it sounds like most of us said yes, and one of us said no, or maybe two of us said no. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I have closed the public hearing and am waiting for a motion. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Do we need a motion, or are we just giving staff direction? MR. WEIGEL: You need to continue the ordinance that's been advertised for today. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Motion to continue the item for one week. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And the motion includes advising staff to go forward with advertising a privilege ordinance. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Does it? MR. DORRILL: You do need to make a decision next week, or you need to have a special meeting on August the 30th -- or July the 30th in order to make the final TRIM notice. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yes. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Next item. Item #12C2 ORDINANCE GRANTING TO LEE COUNTY ELECTRIC COOPERATIVES, INC. AN ELECTRIC FRANCHISE FOR THIRTY YEARS TO CONSTRUCT, MAINTAIN, OPERATE AND RELOCATE ELECTRIC LIGHT AND POWER FACILIITES IN THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF COLLIER COUNTY PROVIDING FOR MONTHLY PAYMENT OF FRANCHISE FEE OF THREE PERCENT OF REVENUES FOR THE FIRST FIVE YEARS AND SUBJECT TO ADJUSTMENT THREAFTER - CONTINUED TO 7/23/96 AND STAFF DIRECTED TO GO FORWARD WITH ADVERTISING THE PRIVILEGE ORDINANCE Close the public hearing. We need a motion. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Same motion. Same deal. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll second it. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. Made. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? Okay. Those are continued. Item #13A1 RESOLUTION 96-318 RE PETITION V-96-10, STEVEN MAGNER REPRESENTING CREATIVE HOMES OF SW FLA., INC., REQUESTING AN 11.3 FOOT AFTER-THE-FACT VARIANCE FROM THE REQUIRED 30 FOOT FRONT YARD SETBACK TO 18.7 FEET FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2693 53RD STREET SW, LOT 21, BLOCK 182, GOLDEN GATE, UNIT 6 - ADOPTED COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: On this item 13(A)(1), is that a staff error, county error? MR. REISCHL: It was a permit approved in error. Fred Reischl, planning services. It was a permit that was approved in error. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: By county staff. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Let's be a little -- Mr. Dorrill, do we know who made this error? MR. DORRILL: No, sir, I don't. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. And has corrective action been taken regarding that employee, because this is -- this is stupid. This is an elementary mistake. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Say what you really think. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Don't hold back. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: This -- I mean, this is -- I was in this, you know, in planning in this county for two months, and I knew this; so I just want to make sure that we aren't telling someone, it's okay; you made a mistake, and it may affect some neighbor somewhere, but have a nice day. MR. DORRILL: And I'd be happy to give you a response as to what actions have been taken. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. I'd appreciate that, and I wouldn't ask for it publicly, but I would like to -- MR. DORRILL: I'll provide it to you. COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: Not publicly. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, if you'll close the public hearing -- COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'll second it. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- I'll make a motion to approve the item petition V-96-10. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second to approve the variance. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? Item #13A2 RESOLUTION 96-319 RE PETITION OSP-96-1, DAVID WILKISON REPRESENTING SHUDE-FAUST REALTY, REQUESTING APPROVAL OF OFF-SITE PARKING SPACES TO BE USED BY AN EXISTING REAL ESTATE OFFICE LOCATED AT 4950 GOLDEN GATE PARKWAY IN GOLDEN GATE CITY - ADOPTED Next item, petition OSP-96-1. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: For the record I've had contact in letters and in person and I think by telephone on this; however, my decision will be based solely on that information provided during today's public hearing. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Same here, but I've had no contact. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I've had no contact. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: No contact. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Chahram Badamtchian from planning services. This is an off-site parking petition. Smuder-Faust Realty, they own a building on Golden Gate Parkway. The building is 5,500 square feet; they have 13 parking spaces; they are six parking spaces short. They are proposing to build a parking lot in the back of the building. The problem is the parcel in the back is zoned residential, and this requires a public hearing in order to put the parking. They have a 14,000 square foot land in the back zoned RHF-12. They are proposing to use half of this lot for a parking lot. Today that lot could hold a four-unit building; however, by using half of this lot as a parking lot, they're going to only end up having 7,500 square feet buildable that they potentially can build a duplex on the remainder of the lot. I know that you have received letters. You've forwarded me copies of them from -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Would everyone that's going to speak on this particular issue please stand up. Would you swear them in, please. (The speakers were sworn.) CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. Thank you. Okay, go ahead. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Is -- you got sworn in as well? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Yes. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I wasn't paying attention. Is 500 square feet buildable something we try to encourage or allow generally? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: I'm sorry. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You said, you know, if there is a parking lot allowed, the six spaces allowed on half of the lot, it's going to considerably limit the other lot to -- what did you say, 500 square feet? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: No. Seventy-five hundred square feet COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Seventy-five hundred square feet. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: -- of buildable area -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I was going to say that's tiny. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: -- which would allow one duplex, a two-unit building. COHHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What's located on either side of this, east and west, on all three sides? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: On one side -- on one side they have a multi-family building. On the other side, I believe, right now is vacant, and across the street is the Golden Gate Middle School. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And why are the additional six spaces necessary? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Because the building is 5,447 square feet, I believe, roughly 4,500 square feet. They only have 13 parking spaces, and according to today's code, they require 19 and people -- they were parking in the back in the alley or in the landscaped area, and basically the petitioner is proposing to build a parking lot so people don't have to park on the side of the road. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: There's no alternative? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: There is no other alternative, no. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: How old is -- Clarence, how old is the building? How long -- you're going to need to come up to the podium, so she can get it on the record. MR. FAUST: Richard Faust, owner of the building. Yes, sir. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: How old is the building? MR. FAUST: I believe it was built in '89. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And it met all the parking requirements at that time? MR. FAUST: Yes, it did. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You just have a busier use now and are trying to find appropriate parking spaces? MR. FAUST: Yes, I am. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The -- it's obviously better to have them in a parking area then parked in places not designed for that purpose. The concern that's been expressed in a couple of the letters I introduced into the record are the use in the back and putting that use on the residential property. Do you have any particular plan in mind for the other 7,500 feet? MR. FAUST: No, I don't. I know there's been people saying we're going to put a duplex back there, but the land's so expensive -- to build a duplex it cost 85,000 plus the land. I can go down any place in Golden Gate and buy one for 70,000, so dollars and cents it makes no sense to build a duplex there. And I was the one who put the road behind the buildings for all the other businesses that were there, and we didn't receive any compensation, but we met all the criteria of the county at the time. So what we're proposing is instead of having cars all asunder back there -- not all are ours. But we planned this really nice-looking parking lot with a fenced in area so that everyone will have a better view of Golden Gate. Golden Gate takes a bad rap sometimes, and we built the best looking building on the parkway, and then we had two buildings built beside us that aren't so nice, but this is going to be a first-class parking lot. I live -- I've been living and working in Golden Gate for 27 years. It's my bread and butter, and I certainly don't want to hurt the Golden Gate image; I want to improve it. If I build a four-plex there, that's a real detriment to Golden Gate. We don't need any more duplexes or four-plexes or anything in Golden Gate. We need nice, clean -- either a commercial or in this case just a parking lot. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Are you willing to stipulate that should you choose to build on the other half of this lot that you will not request shared parking? In other words, if you did build a duplex or something else on that, within that 7,500 square feet separate from this parking lot, you would put in the appropriate parking? MR. FAUST: Certainly. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Okay. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Any other questions? If not I'll close the public hearing. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Move for approval. COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: Second. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second for approval. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? Thank you, gentlemen, for hanging around all day. I bet you enjoyed that, didn't you? MR. FAUST: Oh, it's been very interesting, I'd say. Item #15 STAFF'S COHMUNICATIONS CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Hr. Dorrill? HR. DORRILL: Communications, I have just two quick ones. As I'm sure all of you have been concerned about the further commercial construction at Pine Ridge and Airport Road. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I can't sleep at night. MR. DORRILL: Well, we are getting some calls and concerns. The first one had to do with how -- how in the world can someone bulldoze all the trees on a commercial parcel when we thought the county commission otherwise had a 25 percent native vegetation requirement in their Land Development Code. It seems that there was an exception or exclusion put in for commercial parcels less then five acres, and as a result of what we're seeing with out parcels and whatnot that that's the reason why. And I have asked the staff to do an evaluation as to when the exception was added and by whom, and if we can't make some correction, because if you compare what will be The Sports Authority next door to what is the Teddy Bear Museum, I at least felt that was your intent behind the native vegetation requirement. Likewise, I have stopped work on the Toys R Us facility for two reasons: to verify -- because we had not received a spot survey until yesterday afternoon, and it amazes me when they make a deliberate effort to get something up how fast they can proceed between the initial footer inspection and when the spot survey is received, and I needed to be convinced that they had met the front-yard setback of 25 feet. I'm also not convinced -- and I'm going to meet with staff tomorrow to determine how you can have a front-yard setback but then not face the front of the building to the road. And what appears to me to be -- is being built, the rear or either the side of the building is actually going to be 25 feet off of Airport Road. And you'll remember the city had the same dilemma when they built the new Eckerd drugstore across from the old post office, and so I've stopped work on that project until I can be satisfied that someone is not in the strictest adherence to your Land Development Code for that parcel. Because increasingly what we're seeing are overly large commercial developments that are applying the Land Development Code rules to their favor and also building elaborate, over-existing-grade, stormwater retention systems, and they're going way up in the air, and the retention is incorporated underneath the parking lot, or they're building all the way out to the lot lines with very high, artificial grades to then incorporate stormwater retention. And I'm just not sure that's what the board intended. So there have been some recent instances where I think your Land Development Code is being used against you, and I wanted to advise you that I've stopped work on the Toys R Us until we can get some answers there. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Great. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. Weigel. MR. WEIGEL: No comment. Item #14 BOARD OF COUNTY COHMISSIONERS' COHMUNICATIONS CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Commissioner Matthews. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I've got two items. The first item is that -- I guess we all read it in the paper over the weekend, on the natural resources budget. And I went back and checked my notes, and my notes indicate that, yeah, we did take a hundred and twenty thousand dollars out of the natural resources budget, but I think we told them to file a grant application with the TDC. So apparently natural resources doesn't know they're supposed to be filling out a grant application, and I think that I'd like to ask Mr. Dorrill to see that natural resources does that and that they not send a couple people packing. MR. DORRILL: I quickly checked my notes. My notes were that your current TDC ordinance may not have that as an allowed -- an allowed use, and we need to see whether it meets that category. It would otherwise fall under inlet management plans and beach renourishment and the like and see whether or not we can apply post-renourishment monitoring work that they may be doing on that -- COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I thought we were already doing turtle monitoring in the -- COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: In the TDC. MR. DORRILL: That's my note. I've not had a chance today to talk to the budget office to see if their recollection was the same. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Well, I think -- I've been getting a number of phone calls. I don't know about the rest of you, but I've been getting a number of them that a couple of our employees have -- are already being summarily dismissed, and I think we need to remedy that pretty quickly. MR. DORRILL: I don't have any reason to believe that anyone has already been dismissed, and that's a typical ploy of certain environmental groups in the community is to make a big deal over nothing. Those people -- COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, Mr. Dorrill, the bad news is that it was your staff, too, who released that kind of information to the press, and I would urge you, please, to clarify with them what exactly the board did. We did not tell them to fire people. MR. DORRILL: No. Nobody -- and that sort of thing's hard to prove, you know, who's leaking that information. No one has been dismissed from the Natural Resources Department. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: And all of the -- all of the duties that they normally do based on the money we approved will continue, because hopefully the money is available in the TDC, and all they have to do is fill out an application for a grant. The other thing also deals with the budget and that is getting the nexus and the information from development services to increase or expand the permit fees, and I haven't heard anything more in the intervening 2 1/2 or 3 weeks since then, and we're looking at October 1st. It's coming pretty fast. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, we have to know for next week for millage setting. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Yeah, because that's a million dollars we're talking about. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Because there's a million dollars of ad valorem dollars that I hope a lot of can get shifted back to permitting. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: So, Mr. Weigel, you gave us information that you thought a rational nexus could be built on that, and the fact that we're going to set the TRIM notices next Tuesday, is it still doable? MR. WEIGEL: Well, I think -- I think what we need to -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The proper answer would be yes. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: The good answer would be yes, Mr. Weigel. Say yes. MR. WEIGEL: It's doable; it just takes homework. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: It's going to take homework. So, again -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll buy the candles. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Can we -- MR. DORRILL: The work has been done by the community development staff and that executive summary will be on prior to your being asked to adopt the utility millage. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Good. That's what I wanted to hear. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. Commissioner Hancock. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: When I first brought up the idea of an architectural review board, there were a couple people up here that kind of scoffed at it. My experience with Toys R Us and with Sports Authority is the last straw. If there's no opposition from anyone on the board, I'll be working closely with staff in the next couple of weeks to try and find a way to develop an architectural review board for commercial projects within -- unincorporated area of Collier County, because -- and I have to quote it. The guy from Toys R Us, the architect, the head of their department said, our white building with our red, yellow, and blue tiles and our multi-colored sign is a trademark of the company, and we vehemently oppose any community that wishes to change that, the words "vehemently oppose." And I've got -- COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Why don't -- I'm sorry. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: You know, I've got a three-month-old daughter. I want Toys R Us here, but there's -- there's a price. And they do it at any -- at their price. And The Sports Authority telling me we want to be a good neighbor, and we'll FedEx those to you, and three weeks later I don't have plans. I just -- that's it. I mean, if they're not willing to be a part of this community and recognize the uniqueness of this community, then we're going to have to force the issue, and I'm going to proceed with that, if there's no opposition from my colleagues, and bring something back to you. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Not only is there not opposition, I think we should take a formal vote and require you to do that. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Encourage, not require. Let's encourage. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I'd like to interject one thought though, Commissioner Hancock. Please keep in mind that we have an urban era -- an urban area and a rural area whose building standards are different. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Easily incorporated. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Okay. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: He knows the difference. All right. Commissioner Mac'Kie. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Motion to adjourn. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Commissioner Constantine. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Quick musings. Well, actually one piece of information and one musing. As I -- my wife and I went up to St. Pete over the 4th holiday, and as you go up -- up by Charlotte on 1-75 it goes over the bridge, over some water there. As you get to the far side it was kind of interesting to notice a mangrove die-off for acres and acres and acres. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Well, what caused theirs? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And as you look all the way around, other than the bridge, there is nothing there, so maybe Mother Nature and the flooding last year and all of that had more to do with that than we're giving her credit for, but I took note of that and I was trying to -- MR. DORRILL: It was the cold last winter and it killed thousands and thousands and thousands of acres south of Tampa Bay, which is normally the cutoff because of the cold weather. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Interesting. And then just the other thing -- this is a funny little thing. We had our discussion on the computers and how much we were spending and how it had unnecessary toys and our computer people sat here and assured us that those disks and all that were absolutely -- and headphones and all were absolutely necessary. And like two days later they came into our office showing how you could hook up music and listen to CDs while you're working on your computer, so it seems like that might be a frill that we were mislead on during the budget hearing. MR. DORRILL: Those were cut out. I don't think you were here for that meeting. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: We did cut them out. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Oh, I know we did, but the argument -- just the argument that, no, it's an absolute necessity, and then they come in two days later showing us how to play whatever albums we want to play. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It gives us a level of distrust for the I.T. folks. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Well, let me just -- let me just ask Mr. Dotrill here before we get out of here, do we have a company policy on people listening to music during work hours? MR. DORRILL: Probably not. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Should we have a policy? MR. DORRILL: I don't know. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: As long as it doesn't distract them, but we probably shouldn't be buying the music for them. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I'm not sure that -- MR. DORRILL: I don't think we're buying any music. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I'm not sure that people are here to listen to music. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'd offer -- Mr. Dorrill, but I'm not going to require a prohibition against music. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Constantine's in trouble if we do. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's right. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We'll cut him right out. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: You're in trouble, too. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Miss Filson, do you have anything? MS. FILSON: I have nothing. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Miss Filson adjourns the meeting. ***** Commissioner Constantine moved, seconded by Commissioner Hancock, and carried unanimously, that the following items under the consent agenda be approved and/or adopted: Item #16A1 FINAL PLAT OF "WILSHIRE PINES" - WITH CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT AND STIPULATIONS See Pages Item #16A2 FINAL PLAT OF "FIDDLER'S CREEK PHASE 1B" WITH CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT AND STIPULATIONS See Pages Item #16A3 - Continued to 7/23/96 and to be placed on regular agenda Item #16A4 - Moved to Item #10D Item #16A5 ACCEPTANCE OF WATER AND SEWER FACILITIES FOR SAVANNA AT PELICAN MARSH - WITH STIPULATIONS OR Book Pages Item #16B1 - This item has been deleted Item #16B2 - This item has been deleted Item #16B3 ACCEPTANCE OF WATER AND SEWER FACILITIES CARLTON LAKES - WITH STIPULATIONS AND LETTER OF CREDIT See Pages OR Book Pages Item #16B4 - Continued Item #16B5 - This item has been deleted Item #16B6 RESOLUTION 96-307 IN SUPPORT OF THE SHORE PROTECTION ACT OF 1996 See Pages Item #16B7 SELECTION OF FOUR FIRMS FOR FIXED TERM AGREEMENTS FOR PROFESSIONAL ARCHITECTURAL SERVICES (RFP #96-2498) WITH BARANY, SCHMITT, WEAVER & PARTNERS, INC.; VICTOR LATAVISH ARCHITECT, P.A.; ARCHITECTURAL NETWORK, INC. AND GORA/HCGAHEY ASSOCIATES IN ARCHITECTURE Item #1688 SELECTION OF THREE FIRMS FOR FIXED TERM AGREEMENTS FOR MECHANICAL/ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING SERVICES (RFP #96-2497) WITH TILDEN, LOBNITZ & COOPER, INC., DSATLANTIC CORPORATION AND ANCHOR ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS, INC. Item #1689 - Withdrawn Item #16B10 - This item has been deleted Item #16Bll - This item has been deleted Item #16B12 BID #96-2532 FOR CHLORINATOR EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE FOR PUBLIC WORKS WASTEWATER AND WATER DEPARTMENTS - AWARDED TO WATER TREATMENT & CONTROLS COMPANY OF LEESBURG, FLORIDA IN THE ESTIMATED ANNUAL AMOUNT OF $51,000.00 Item #16C1 RESOLUTION 96-308 ALLOWING THE EXPENDITURE OF COUNTY FUNDS RELATIVE FOR THE PURCHASE OF A PLAQUE IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE MEMORIAL TREE PROGRAM See Pages Item #16C2 BUDGET AMENDMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF $20,000 FOR LANDSCAPING OF THE ENTRANCE TO EAST NAPLES COHMUNITY PARK Item #16D1 RFP 96-2470 AWARDED TO PDS, INC., FOR THE PURCHASE OF A HUMAN RESOURCES INFORMATION SYSTEM IN THE APPROPRIATED AMOUNT OF $273,500. Item #16D2 - This item was withdrawn Item #16D3 SATISFACTIONS OF NOTICE OF PROMISE TO PAY AND AGREEMENT TO EXTEND PAYMENT OF WATERAND/OR SEWER SYSTEM IMPACT FEES See Pages Item #16El BID #96-2558 AWARDED TO HWI CORPORATION FOR THE RENTAL OF TWO (2) HYDRAULIC TRASH PUMPS IN THE AMOUNT OF $72,000. Item #16E2 BUDGET ~MENDMENTS 96-490/491 AND 96-493 Item #16E3 FORM_~L APPROVAL OF CONSENT/EMERGENCY ITEMS SIGNED BY THE COUNTY M_~NAGER DURING THE BOARD'S RECESS: Item #16E3a BID NO. 96-2529 AWARDED TO VARIOUS VENDORS LISTED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY FOR THE PURCHASE OF MEDICAL EQUIPMENT FOR THE EMERGENCY MEDICAL DEPARTMENT IN THE APPROXIMATE AMOUNT OF $11,500. Item #16E3b RESOLUTION 96-309 AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF PURCHASE AGREEMENTS AND STATUTORY DEEDS FOR THE G.A.C. LAND SALES TRUST CONVEYED TO COLLIER COUNTY BY AVATAR PROPERTIES, INC. (AGREEMENT DATED NOVEMBER 15, 1983), BY THE CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD, FOR THE CURRENT CHAIRHAN'S TENURE ONLY See Pages Item #16E3c SUBLEASE AGREEMENT BETWEEN GTE MOBILNET OF TAMPA, INC., AND LEE COUNTY ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC. FOR RADIO TOWER SPACE AT THE IHMOKALEE COUNTY BARN FACILITY See Pages Item #16E3d AMENDMENT TO A FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT CONTRACT BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY AND THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF COHMUNITY AFFAIRS See Pages Item #16E3e RFP #96-2521 AWARDED TO PURE AIR CONTROL SERVICES, INC., FOR INDOOR AIR QUALITY SERVICES IN THE APPROXIMATE ANNUAL AMOUNT OF $100,000. Item #16E3f BUDGET AMENDHENTS 96-447, 96-468/469 AND 96-475/476 Item #16E3g INCREASE IN THE PURCHASE OF TRAFFIC SIGNAL CONTROLLERS FROM TRANSPORTATION CONTROL SYSTEMS UP TO AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $70,000 Item #16E3h AMENDMENTS TO THE COLLIER COUNTY WATER-SEWER DISTRICT CAPITAL BUDGETS Item #16E3i PAYHENT OF FEES FOR A TEMPORARY USE PERMIT FOR A FUNDRAISING EVENT TO BE HELD AT SAM'S CLUB BY SPECIAL EQUESTRIANS ON JUNE 28 AND 29, 1996 Item #16E3j APPROVAL OF A LISTING OF APPRAISERS AND APPRAISAL FIRMS FOR APPRAISAL AND VALUATION SERVICES WHICH THE COUNTY HAY REQUIRE FROM TIME TO TIME, PURSUANT TO RFP-95-2338 Item #16E3k WAIVER OF POOL FEES FOR TWO NIGHTS OVER THE SUHMER IN ORDER TO PROVIDE FOR A COUNTY SPONSORED "SATURDAY NIGHT LIVE" YOUTH NIGHT AT THE GOLDEN GATE COHMUNITY PARK AND INFORM THE BOARD OF THE SCHEDULE OF EVENTS FOR THE REMAINDER OF THE SUHMER Item #16G1 MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE - FILED AND/OR REFERRED The following miscellaneous correspondence as presented by the Board of County Commissioners has been directed to the various departments as indicated: Item #1611 STAFF DIRECTED TO PREPARE AN AMENDMENT TO COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE NO. 92-102, THE PUBLIC GUARDIANSHIP PROGRAM, AND TO PROVIDE A CONTRACT MECHANISM TO APPOINT A PUBLIC GUARDIAN TO OVERSEE THE COLLIER COUNTY PUBLIC GUARDIANSHIP PROGRAM There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 5:41 p.m. BOARD OF COUNTY COHMISSIONERS BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS CONTROL JOHN C. NORRIS, CHAIRMAN ATTEST: DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK These minutes approved by the Board on as presented or as corrected TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF DONOVAN COURT REPORTING BY: Helissa Hilligan and Barbara Drescher