Loading...
BCC Minutes 04/06/1995 J (w/Naples City Council) WORKSHOP MEETING OF APRIL 6, 1995, OF THE COLLIER COUNTY COHMISSIONERS/CITY OF NAPLES COUNCIL LET IT BE REHEHBERED, that the Joint Workshop in and for the City of Naples, County of Collier, met on this date at 9:15 a.m. in SPECIAL SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRPERSON: Commissioner John C. Norris Commissioner Timothy L. Hancock Commissioner Pamela S. Hac'Kie Mayor Paul W. Huenzer Councilman Fred Tarrant Councilman Ron Pennington Councilwoman Harjorie Prolman Councilman Alan Korest Councilman Peter VanArsdale Councilman Fred Sullivan ALSO PRESENT: W. Neil Dotrill, County Hanager Richard Woodruff, City Hanager Maria Chiaro, City Attorney David Wiegel, Assistant County Attorney David Bryant, Assistant County Attorney CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I'd like to call to order the joint city-county meeting concerning the Gordon River Bridge. I want to thank the city council and the mayor for coming down here all the way out the old bridge in order to see us today. It's quite nice of them. Mr. Dotrill, could you give us an invocation and pledge of allegiance, please. MR. DORRILL: Heavenly Father, we thank you this morning. As always, we thank you for both Collier County and our community of Naples. We thank you for these opportunities for this joint session to be conveyed and conferred in order to make important business decisions that affect our community. We thank you for our elected leaders. We would ask that you guard and guide their deliberations this morning. We thank you for the support of the staff and also the support and participation of the many citizens who choose to participate in the governmental process in Collier County. We'd ask that you bless our time here together this morning. We pray these things in your son's holy name. Amen. (The pledge of allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you, Mr. Dorrill. I'd like to ask the board members here today if you would please try to remember that we have a court reporter trying to take all this down, and if we could please speak one at a time, it makes her job a lot easier. And with that we'll begin. Who's going to start, Mr. Perry? HAYOR HUENZER: Would it help the court reporter if when each of us spoke if we'd identified ourself? CHAIRMAN NORRIS: It would help indeed. HAYOR HUENZER: We would all do that then, council? If she doesn't know us if we speak, if we would identify ourselves by name first and then go ahead, that would make it easier for her. Item #2A RECOHMENDATION ON A PREFERRED ALIGNHENT FOR A SECOND GORDON RIVER BRIDGE HR. PERRY: Good morning. For the record my name is Jeff Perry, coordinator for the Metropolitan Planning Organization. Mr. Chairman, Mayor, Council Members, and Commissioners, the purpose of the agenda item today is twofold; first to present the findings and the results of the CH2H Hill preliminary engineering analysis of the second Gordon River Bridge, and the second, to have the city council and county commission by separate action this morning select an alignment for that bridge. Attached as backup material to your executive summary are a number of exhibits that have been extracted from and help summarize the technical analysis completed by CH2H Hill to date. The bulk of this report -- the bulk of this information is included in a draft preliminary engineering report that has been presented to you this morning. An advanced copy has been placed in front of you. Following your decision on the preferred alignment the report will be finalized and provided to both the city and county. The presentation this morning will concentrate on the materials in your agenda package and will be made by Mr. Ryan Fortestel, vice president of CH2H Hill and project manager of this project. Following the presentation Mr. Fortestel and the other members of the technical team; Mr. Richard Gatti, city engineer; Mr. George Archibald, the transportation services administrator for the county, will answer any questions that you have. MR. FORRESTEL: Good morning. For the record my name is Ryan Fortestel. As Jeff indicated, I'm the vice president of CH2M Hill, and I have been the project manager in this project and involved in it from our original selection five years ago to begin on this project. I would also like to introduce Dr. Bill Dunn with CH2M Hill. He is a senior environmental scientist with CH2M Hill. He has expertise in developing, facilitating, and applying decision-making processes and decision sciences. He will -- he facilitated the development of the decision process that we used with the technical team on -- on -- for the Gordon River Bridge project. My presentation today will be a brief presentation, and it will focus in on the agenda items or the information included in your executive summary. We will not -- or I will not spend much time going over a lot of the technical information that has been presented at previous joint meetings and at the public information meetings that we've had but certainly am -- would be glad to answer any type of question that you may have. My presentation, as I said, will cover the -- the decision process that we went through. It will make -- we will make our recommendation that's included in your agenda package. I will review the pros and cons of each of the three alternatives. The information that I will present is covered -- covers the factual information that's included in the -- in the advanced copy of the draft preliminary engineering report. The actual engineering report, the draft copy or the draft of it, will be available in mid-April, about two or three weeks from now or a couple weeks from now, and I guess that's it. Relative to -- I'd like to make one important note that as we went through the corridor selection process, we came in front of you several months ago, and alternatives 1 and 5 were deleted. Those were the unacceptable alternatives that didn't make sense to proceed with. What -- what it left us was with alternatives 2, 3, and 4. Each of those alternatives are good alternatives, and each of them are very viable alternatives. It was our job to go through and to -- through a selection process come up with a forced ranking of which of those alternatives, when you compare all of the factual information, falls out to be the preferred alternative. And that's what we've done, and we're here to make our recommendation based on that analysis. First I'd like to go through the selection process that CH2M Hill utilized. The selection process was a six-step process. It started out with identification of project issues. We developed objectives and criteria. We -- we then weighted the objectives and criteria. We measured the criteria to come up with the factual information. We made recommendations, and then we did a reasonable check or reality check. As we went through the -- the -- or as we identified project issues, there were several types of information that -- that had significant bearing on the issues and on the Gordon River project, and they included public -- public's opinions, public's -- impacts to the public, business issues, airport -- we needed to make sure that we met the airport requirements and met FAA requirements. There were data collection issues. We needed to -- as we went through this we needed to make sure that the information that we were going to evaluate, that there was actual data that we could collect to evaluate it; regulatory agency concerns, of course; and the last is the political bodies, you folks that we're in front of today. As we went through the initial identification of factors and issues, we identified some 30 to 40 factors and issues that -- that had bearing on this project we -- we spent through a two-day workshop, day-long workshops. We took those factors and boiled them down into what are the key items and elements for this project, and we identified four project objectives out of that. Now, this chart you have seen before. It was presented to you at the time, I believe, when alternatives 1 and 5 were eliminated. The 4 objectives that we came up with were traffic circulation, costs, permitability, and land use impacts. We took all of the information or all of the objectives or -- excuse me, all of the factors and the issues that we identified in our brainstorming sessions and then boiled those down and aligned them to each one of the project objectives and developed the 20 or so criteria that you see listed here. This whole -- through this whole process, as I indicated before, Bill Dunn was assisting us in coming up with a good process and making sure we were staying on track. Once we had -- once we had identified all of the four objectives and then the criteria aligned with each of the objectives, we went through a weighting process. And actually we went through the process five times. Once was for the objectives, and then we went through for each of the set of criteria that aligned with these objectives for a total of five times. I want to review the steps. We started out with a group discussion of -- of, for example, the objectives. Each -- each person of the technical team and myself identified the issues, spoke -- presented their opinions and their thoughts on the relative importance. We then had a balloting, and everything was normalized to a hundred percent. We took the results from the -- the written ballots so they were done independent of anybody else's ballot. We averaged them together, and we posted the results, and then we discussed the results of the weighting and made sure that people were comfortable with it. And through each time we did this we always went through and revoted at least one time until we were comfortable that the relative positioning of the -- of the weights seemed reasonable to us and made sense and were defendable. Now, this chart (indicated) is in your package, and it's -- it's got a lot of information on it. And that's exactly why we left it like this, because all the information can be presented and -- and presented on one chart. And I want to walk through this so that the information on here is clear. On the far left -- well, first -- first we have the information broken down by the four criteria, permitability, traffic circulation, costs, and land use. We then identified the weights that the technical team and myself developed. As an example, we said that permitability was 17 -- had a weight of 17 percent, and that would compare with traffic circulation at 37 percent or roughly one-half as important as traffic circulation. Next for permitability -- I'll just read across here -- we listed the criterion, and that's the same as the other chart we had, and then we listed the average weights. Going through the same process again you'll notice that it adds up to a hundred percent. And as an example here we said that wetlands had a weight of 15 percent, and contamination had 17 percent indicating that those issues were about equal concern to the technical team and myself. We -- we developed how were we going to measure that so that we could score those, and as an example for wetlands it was the -- the acres of wetland impacts that each alternative was creating. We came up with a -- with the measured value for the wetlands impacts, and it was ranged between 2.55 and 1.78 acres of impact. We scored it, and then we did the -- had the weighted criterion score, and this is simply some math. It's our percentage for the weight of 15 percent times the score. One and a half gives you point 22. We followed that throughout the whole -- for each one of the criterion that we did. When we were all done we came up with a final score. And as you can see, alternative number 2 came in with the highest of 3.7. And that would be out of a perfect score of 5.0. Alternative 3 was 3.15, and alternative 4 was 2.81. Now, had we left in the original alternatives 1 and 5, it's -- we didn't run through this process with alternative 5, but because of alternative 5's extremely high cost and very high environmental cost, I would anticipate just for the purposes of comparison that alternative 1 would -- or alternative 5 would have been down near a score of 1. So that kind of gives you the range that it starts to -- as you get lousy alternatives in there, or I should say less desirable alternatives, you start to get a wider range of scores. Because we were evaluating three good alternatives that are viable, you get compression, relative compression in the scores. Once we were done with that, we wanted to go through and do a reasonableness check; did alternative 2 make sense as the preferred alternative, and we developed a list of pros and cons. And I'm not going to go through all of these, but I wanted to just highlight some of the more significant ones. For alternative 2 the -- on the advantage side it provides the most benefit to U.S. 41 and to Davis Boulevard. And going into this project right from day one a long, long time ago, relieving traffic on U.S. 41 both during the construction period and in the long term was one of the prime objectives of the project, and alternative 2 does that the best. It also provides for the first time a direct connection between the airport and the City of Naples. With the relocation of the EMS station to the southwest corner of the airport, we now have a direct connection from the EMS station for emergency vehicles to come out of there and go directly into the city as opposed to having to come around North Road to Airport-Pulling down to Davis Boulevard to 41 and make the -- make the big loop. The other one is that it's the least -- least expensive and -- and also a seven-month sales tax will -- based on the figures that the county has put together, a seven-month sales tax initiative will cover the costs of that. On the negative side there are more residents along North Road that will be impacted because they directly front on North Road, or they have direct access off of North Road. Also on the negative side it does not directly connect eastward to Livingston Road, but through the work that the MPO has found the alternative to go up to Radio Road is really -- is really quite an acceptable alternative. And from a modeling perspective and a transportation planning perspective we believe that works very well, although it's not as convenient as a direct extension to Livingston as one of the northern alignments would give you. For alternatives 3 and 4 we lumped those together because they -- they basically are for the purposes of what we're doing right here right now in this analysis of pros and cons; they're the same alternative. And you can see some of them have alternative 3 and alternative 4 as they get down to specifics. The advantages are that it does extend to Livingston Road to the east, and it does have less direct residential impact because there are no facility -- there are no residents that front directly on or access directly onto the proposed right of way. On the negative side, however, it does have the greatest impact on the folks that live out in Lake Park off Seventh Avenue if alternative -- really if alternative 4 was chosen because of the difficulty in controlling traffic. On the negative side it's the less benefit to U.S. 41. It has greater construction costs, and also the right-of-way costs are going to be a lot higher because you're going through established developments. Not only is right of way acquisition going to be more difficult -- I mean more expensive, costly, it will also be more difficult because of the negotiating that would have to go on. And the last one I wanted to point out is that it would probably require about a nine-month sales tax initiative versus the seven month on alternative number 2. That concludes the remarks that I wanted to make here, and we're available for questions and answers. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Councilman Pennington. COUNCILMAN PENNINGTON: Few things first. Certainly the technical team is to be commended for the obviously great effort that has gone into this -- MR. FORRESTEL: Thank you. COUNCILMAN PENNINGTON: -- and then to the degree that you have gone into some of these. That's not to suggest that I agree with all these, but I think you have really put a great effort into it. Some of the individual things, obviously I think there was a lot of subjective considerations involved in this, and it depends upon one's perspective as to what may occur, but some specifics along the way. For one, under permitability on contamination, what was the contamination that was identified for 3 and 47 MR. FORRESTEL: Evans Oil is located on the north side COUNCILMAN PENNINGTON: But my understanding is, though, the route was adjusted to the south, so that was not a problem. MR. FORRESTEL: No, that's correct. However, the contamination type that they have on site there is petrochemical. It's petroleum because it's -- they've got all the fuel tanks and whatnot. And it has gone into the groundwater according to DEP. There has never been any analysis that identifies how big that plume is. COUNCILMAN PENNINGTON: Uh-huh. MR. FORRESTEL: There's a significant likelihood that that plume has extended outside of their property line, and to what extent and to how much, no one knows. But it's -- if it's a big plume and it comes even south into the airport property, then it's something that would have to be dealt with during the construction of the -- COUNCILMAN PENNINGTON: Okay. That's an unknown. MR. FORRESTEL: Yes, sir. COUNCILMAN PENNINGTON: We're assigning it a positive value in this case but -- MR. FORRESTEL: Correct. COUNCILMAN PENNINGTON: -- I think it's certainly a questionable one. A major concern that I have as I have looked at this -- and in retrospect when we approve the criteria, I think there are some other things that now I wish we had added to that. For one, this does not consider the impact on the downtown City of Naples, and that is a -- certainly a big concern for my part. In the cost area the additional cost for a good connection to 41 or Livingston Road -- now these are applied the same weight, same criteria, and it appears to me that this is somewhat of an apples and oranges comparison in these. I question really the validity of doing a direct comparison between those. MR. FORRESTEL: I presume you are working off of -- COUNCILMAN PENNINGTON: That's correct. I'm working my way down the chart. MR. FORRESTEL: Okay. Can you -- COUNCILMAN PENNINGTON: The additional -- under costs, item three, the additional cost for good connection to U.S. 41 or Livingston Road based on dollars per mile, lane mile, therefore, alternative 3 and 4 are assigned the 2 million dollar costs. And they are really given a significant downgrade on that because it would cost money to connect over to Livingston Road, but the objective is totally different for that than the considerations of U. S. 41 on the south side. And so I question that that should be a direct comparison. that's -- that's a matter of concern, and that has a significant numerical bearing on the viable -- MR. FORRESTEL: We considered that at length, Councilman. In fact, this was probably one of the individual items that got the most discussion, I would say, as we went through this -- COUNCILMAN PENNINGTON: Uh-huh. MR. FORRESTEL: -- is how do you exactly compare that. There was a lot of discussion, well, maybe we delete it, maybe we don't. And where we ended on that is that we looked at that, and we said the alternatives for alternative 2 currently extends to Central -- to U.S. 41 which we viewed as being a -- a critical factor. We needed the network connections, and going out to U.S. 41 was important, and also going out to Livingston Road was important. Now, we could -- we can hook by -- with Central Avenue we hook -- by alternative 2 we hook into Central Avenue. There's no cost to improve Central Avenue. Maybe you have to retime some signals, but there's no capital involvement. To -- to build alternative 3 and 4, in order to get out to Livingston Avenue transfer, Enterprise Boulevard must be improved and must be expended -- extended, so that's -- you have to expend some capital, and we estimated about 2 million dollars. On the other corners -- and this is where we got into a lot of discussions -- what happens on the opposite corners of the project along Seventh Avenue, for example. If you were -- if we were going to allow Seventh Avenue to be opened to through traffic on alternative 3, some improvements clearly would need to be made there. You can't have that four-lane roadway dumping into Seventh Avenue, and you're going to have to widen out Seventh Avenue to four-lane it. COUNCILMAN PENNINGTON: Which won't happen from a staff perspective. MR. FORRESTEL: Correct, it won't. And conversely down in the other corner for the eastward extension of alignment number 2 out to something, there would be some costs there, but that's not going to happen. That's not in anybody's plan either. So we eliminated the southeast and the northwest corners, and we just dealt with the other two, and we said that those are reasonable extensions into the network system to go along Central Avenue to U.S. 41. There's no cost. There's costs to go up there. And that needed to be figured into the whole cost of the project in -- in -- for the purposes of rating and evaluating the alternatives. COUNCILMAN PENNINGTON: Okay. Well, in my view, though, they are not a comparable situation to be competed on certainly. And on the -- in looking at pros and cons, and which gets back to some of the other areas there, though, too, the benefits of connection through Central Avenue to 41 again depends upon from whose viewpoint. Certainly from mine that is not a benefit adding that much additional traffic into downtown Naples, so I would suggest not. Benefitting the EHS station, that is certainly questionable because the service area for that EHS station is to the east, and they do not have direct travel from the EHS station itself into the city. That's not in their service area. That service area extends from Golden Gate Parkway on the north all the way down to Windstar, the east side of Naples Bay on the south, including Royal Harbor, which is right by the existing Gordon River Bridge. So I don't see that as a benefit. In fact, in discussion with emergency service people, it could be a negative because of the increased traffic on North Road which would be where they would have to get to the area of need. So that certainly is questionable. The extending to 41, as I said, I do not agree that that's an advantage from the city's perspective. We have as a benefit to the CRA -- I would say that has not been recognized by the CRA since the CRA are those of us sitting up here from the city, and that is something that has not been done. The question about allowing for future alternative 2-A, I'm not sure what that is. I -- I think it's a -- we mentioned briefly prior to the meeting that that was a way of connecting from option 2, the -- Central Avenue on the south side up to the north side, and I think from at least what I initially heard of that that would give me a great deal of concern. The -- on the con side about alternative 2, it seems that certainly there's a greater impact to downtown and the Olde Naples area that is a con coming into that side. The advantages of 3 and 4 about the extension to Livingston Road certainly from an HPO perspective, that is something that is extremely desirable as opposed to with going the southern route and terminating it at Airport Road. It appears to me that that attributes to a problem rather than a solution. On the con side of 3 and 4 stating that those would be of less benefit to U.S. 41, I would question that from the city's perspective. I think it is better, in my opinion, on that. The high business damages and disruption, I don't recognize what that is by coming in 3 and 4. In the case of option 3 there -- there could be some because of the office area there, but other than that, that's somewhat questionable. The no benefit to the airport terminal, now, I recognize from option 2 that that would pass by the entrance to the airport. It appears to me as a possibility, though, if we were to go on the north side of the airport that there would be a possibility in the airport master plan, which we're working on now, of having an internal roadway to connect around to the terminal such as is done over in Lauderdale and other airports. So those are things I think that could be worked out and certainly not be negative. The greater impact to Lake Park area -- and Lake Park is an area of great concern to us, and whichever way we go, we've got to provide protection to Lake Park. Something that has occurred since the public meeting, though, and in the last several days, we, and I think all of us of both city and county, have had a lot of input from people that live along the Central Avenue area. MR. FORRESTEL: Uh-huh. COUNCILMAN PENNINGTON: And we had at least one petition there with 126 names, I think, on it expressing their concern in a -- in discussion with one of them they said, well, they hadn't shown up at the public meeting because they felt that this was going to go north from all the earlier publicity, therefore, they didn't attend. I might point out to the public that those that attend meetings of that sort often are the ones that inherit the earth. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Councilman Pennington. COUNCILMAN PENNINGTON: Yes, I'm about to conclude. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I was just wondering if you were going to get around to ask a question. This is kind of our question session. COUNCILMAN PENNINGTON: I understand. And so it is more of a statement than a question. I did have the question, though, which dealt with the aspects of the contaminated area was a question. The rest of it I agree is more of a statement, and I have reached the termination at this point. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you. Councilman VanArsdale. COUNCILMAN VanARSDALE: I have a couple of questions. On the 2010 traffic study we received, it actually shows a -- shows the differences in traffic counts on certain roads depending upon a southern and a northern location. MR. FORRESTEL: Uh-huh. COUNCILMAN VanARSDALE: The southern bridge actually reduces the traffic on this whole Livingston Road, Golden Gate Parkway, Enterprise, and Airport Road, in fact. Is that a -- would you view that as a positive or a negative element of this plan? MR. FORRESTEL: Can I defer traffic questions to -- Jeff Perry of the MPO has generated all the traffic data on this, and I would like Jeff to respond. MR. PERRY: Can you repeat that? I think you're referring to something that Barr, Dunlop did for us. COUNCILMAN VanARSDALE: This is a 2010 study, and if you'll look at what I got in yellow is the areas that actually have less traffic on the southern bridge and the ones that aren't -- have more. This -- this shows less traffic on the -- potentially the Golden Gate Parkway from Airport Road up to Livingston. It shows less traffic on Livingston and less traffic on Radio Road from Airport to Livingston Road. And I'd just like to know if that's -- is that a positive factor for this southern route or -- MR. PERRY: If you pick the southern route. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We're referring to this. I just thought that might be useful for people. MR. PERRY: Yeah. By utilizing the southern route, there is a shift in the travel patterns that people perhaps that are headed down to the downtown area, if they have an alternative 3 or 4 to -- that connects to Livingston Road, those people might continue beyond Golden Gate Parkway and go to that connection with -- with the Enterprise connection to 3 and 4 and then might use that alternative. If you eliminate that possibility by putting in a southern route, then there is perhaps less traffic that would make that final journey down between Golden Gate Parkway and Radio Road, so you have a change in the travel patterns simply because people make different choices in moving from point A to point B. COUNCILMAN VanARSDALE: But my question really was just is that -- is that a positive element to this? Can you say that or maybe -- I mean the numbers are -- MR. PERRY: It's certainly a -- it's certainly a positive benefit to Livingston Road inasmuch as it then leaves more capacity for north-south movements that are going to be ultimately generated beyond 2010. If that, you know, creates a burden on some other roadway, then you have to look at it in the context of other segments of the network that are affected by those types of changes. I think the point is that the amount of change we're talking about is fairly small considering the accuracy of these kinds of projections 20 or 30 years out into the future. So when you're talking about a difference between 22,000 vehicles and 21,000 vehicles, those are differences that you could see on a daily basis, and we get down to an hourly basis or peak-hour basis, they're -- COUNCILMAN VanARSDALE: I think -- but the converse of that, in other words, the perception is that this north crossing is going to have a really positive impact on -- or at least the perception is that the north crossing has a very positive impact on that area in terms of handling more traffic where, in fact, the south route actually just reduces the traffic in that area to a certain extent. There's fewer cars. MR. PERRY: I think the northern route affects in a positive manner the traffic that's moving east and west and north and south on Livingston Road, and it gives it greater opportunity to travel and make those connections. In other words, the northern route reduces the amount of traffic that would be on Golden Gate Parkway, for instance, because people coming out of Golden Gate would have an opportunity to come down Livingston Road and connect and get into the city or get out of the city in that manner whereas the southern route does not give them that opportunity, so they are forced to use Golden Gate Parkway because they have no alternative route. COUNCILMAN VanARSDALE: The other question may be for Dick, or maybe you can answer it. It has to do with the Barr, Dunlop study we had done on the Gordon River, the north route analysis. And essentially what happens when -- when we have the north in that study -- in that traffic study when cars were coming across the north route, in other words, we show -- it created an impact, an increase in traffic on the section of road east of 41. But on every street on Seventh, Central, Fifth it showed very little impact on -- on traffic west of 41, or it didn't show an increase. In other words, over -- in fact, it even showed a decrease to some -- in other words, when they put the bridge in, it showed less traffic from 41 to Third Street. I'm not quite sure why that would happen, but, you know, in 20 years out it shows essentially a 4.1 percent increase in traffic with a bridge or without a bridge on Seventh Avenue North from the point at 41 westward, and so -- and that happened also at Central. And so one of our concerns here is the impact of traffic essentially on the west part of -- of Highway 41. That's a big concern to everybody, but these numbers that you gave us really say that there isn't an impact, at least on Seventh Avenue North. And I guess you could probably say that the same would probably be true with Central if it were to come across in a Central location. Have you thought about that in terms of why traffic to the west of 41 is not impacted by this roadway coming in from the east? MR. PERRY: We have talked about it, and it's a function of dispersion or the opportunity for individual motorists to make decisions about where they're headed and which routes they're going to take. A lot of the traffic that would be using Seventh Avenue North or Central Avenue today west of 41 will continue to use it regardless of whether there's ever a bridge built or regardless of where that bridge is built. If it's a northern alignment, people -- traffic on Central Avenue may be exactly the same as it is now. In fact, it could go up simply because people now have another alternate route about a mile north of there. If they use Central Avenue, they might find it easier to use that than some other east-west corridor. But when you're bringing in or exiting the City of Naples from the north-south arterials, those are the major carriers of your traffic. You have Goodlette Road, Tenth Street, U.S. 41, and Eighth Street as your north-south facilities that are carrying traffic to and from your east-west facilities. And the further west you go from the terminus of the bridge, if you call the terminus Goodlette Road, let's say, the further west you go the greater opportunity you're giving motorists to make some decision about turning right or left. And as further west you go, unless someone has a direct destination directly west, they oftentimes will make a decision to turn and follow some arterial to some other route. If they're going to the hospital or they're going to downtown rather than going across the highway through a signal, waiting at a signal, they might choose to make some other movement. It's simply a matter of choice. Giving people as many choices as possible, the traffic is dispersed, and the further west you go the less amount of traffic you would see impacting those particular areas. But that's not to say that you won't see some traffic that -- that could extend west that perhaps would not make that choice today, and those types of issues have to be dealt with if they are presented. And -- and they can be dealt with as the city is trying to do on Seventh Avenue North. If you have problems that get created whenever you make a network change, people start to make changes in their travel patterns. You change the signal timing on the highway on U.S. 41, people will begin to make changes in their travel patterns to a point as we've learned, and those have to be accommodated and dealt with. COUNCILMAN VanARSDALE: Okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Commissioner Hancock. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Perry, what's the current level of service on Airport Road between what is called alternative 2 and Davis Boulevard? MR. PERRY: Between alternate 2 and Davis Boulevard I think the current level of service is D. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: On Airport? MR. PERRY: Yes. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: On Airport, D about a year after the completion of the six-laning? MR. PERRY: Yes, sir. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I have expressed concern from day one that if this project doesn't go beyond Airport Road, what we're in essence doing is further impacting already one of the most congested segments in the balance of the county. I understand traffic is currently using it, but as your numbers show, the southern alignment would, indeed, increase the amount of traffic using that -- that portion. The consultant mentioned something of interest to me about alternative 2 possibly reaching Radio Road. Could you elaborate on that? MR. FORRESTEL: As -- when we went through our analysis and we were trying to respond specifically to what costs do you assume are going to have to be incurred because of construction of this bridge beyond the limits of the project, that is west of Goodlette-Frank and east of Airport-Pulling. And we -- we continue -- we considered all four possible extensions, and we looked at and just in discussion considered, well, what hap -- is it feasible to extend North Road to the east and do something with it, swing it up or tie it out to a exten -- possible extension of Livingston even further to the south. And it was concluded that that's not on anybody's radar screen. Technically it's something that is possible as -- as almost COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: If we buy about 8 condo buildings, 36 homes -- MR. FORRESTEL: Right. Technically it's possible. We recognize it's very expensive. It would be very difficult to do. And no further consideration was given to it other than that. I mean that's something that is on a -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: It's at best an unreasonable expectation of expansion to the east. MR. FORRESTEL: Right, and that's why we never did anything further with it. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. Perry, following up on Commissioner Hancock's question there, the HPO or county commission has never been presented with any alternative that would extend alignment number 2 to the east and somehow connect it up with our roadway. Is that feasible? Do you have any -- has there been any thought put into that at all? MR. PERRY: It involves not only extending North Road or the alignment number 2 to the east, it would involve extending Livingston Road south below Radio Road which is presently also not in the plan. So it involves two problems, two major problems, unless you go diagonally and deal with it at one particular point. It is -- it is not -- it is not a good idea at this point to be considering that. We're looking beyond 2010 now, and ultimately we may have to bite that bullet, and it could be very painful to have to do that. But I think as Commissioner Hancock pointed out, there are condominiums. There are single-family homes. There would be a tremendous amount of taking, both for the east-west connection as well as the Livingston Road connection even just to get down that half a mile. Keep in mind the distance between Radio Road and the alternate 2 connection is only half a mile, so that is the bare minimum connection that you would want to make. If you were ultimately going to bite that bullet, you would probably want to bring Livingston all the way down to Davis Boulevard, which would be a tremendous improvement to the facility, but the absence of a corridor in there right now just makes it a very unlikely project at this point. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: So for the purposes of our discussion, are you saying that we can just forget that possibility? There is nothing that we can do there? MR. PERRY: That was not an alternative that we wanted to consider in this particular project. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: You're saying that alternative number 2 for our purposes is going to dead end at Airport Road? HR. PERRY: That's correct, sir. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: To me that's a fatal circumstance. I can't see that that does -- that doesn't address our problem enough to justify the problem that it's going to create there. Further questions from the board? COUNCILMAN TARRANT: Yes. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Councilman Tarrant. COUNCILMAN TARRANT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Fortestel, maybe you could help me with a few quick questions. I'm -- I'll save my statement or my comments or remarks regarding this tax and spend project for later. My question is in your studies what percentage did you give to a contingency since, as we all know, the best laid plans of mice and men or even grown-up mice called rats and men often go astray. What dollar amount have you set aside for contingencies in case you run into native American Indian relics, endangered species, environmental hazards, and things of this sort? What dollar amount, please? Is that up on the chart? MR. FORRESTEL: No, it's not. We -- that's not summarized anywhere, and that -- there is some funds remaining in the contract that we have not expended, and I don't know exactly what that number is. It's in the neighborhood of $80,000. And relative to the three items that you pointed out, the native American relics, we did have an archeological study -- a complete and thorough archeological study completed for the entire area within the boundaries of the project along the Gordon River, and no such relics or even any implication that there may be any relics were found. Relative to the threatened and endangered species, we did go out there. Both our staff went out, and we met with agency staff out on the site, and the only species that was identified as being out there were occasional sightings of manatees in the Gordon River. There were no other species known to be out there according to the agencies, and none were sighted. And we already talked about the contamination site, and that's the Evans Oil, and that becomes a -- a design issue. It's certainly one that can be remedied, and it's -- sites like that are taken care of every day, and it would not be something that would stop the project. It would just cost some amount of money, and I have no idea how much because we don't know what the extent of the problem s, but it's something that can be dealt with during design and construction. COUNCILMAN TARRANT: Okay. So as I understand your answer, you do not have a figure up there on the chart for the public to look at that deals with potential contingency costs from toxic waste or environmental problems. You're indicating a possible amount of $80,000, and apparently this is an item that hasn't been studied too much. My next question is regarding the matter of a temporary bridge which was discussed early on in this project as a means of alleviating the discussed congestion problem, when our existing bridges come under repair and widening, that a temporary bridge could be used to relieve that so-called, quote, gridlock problem, unquote, that many people have kind of used as a major reason for rushing forward with this new bridge. Now, I understand that the state has temporary bridges in their inventory. Mr. Perry has explained that to me, that the cost for such a temporary bridge might not exceed more than about 2 million dollars, which is a lot different than 20 million dollars. Where is that in your study here, and is that up on the chart? Is that any part of your presentation to the public here? MR. FORRESTEL: No, sir, it's not. A decision was made by the city and the county some time ago, probably last fall, to eliminate consideration of a temporary structure, and that was done outside of CH2M Hill. That was an agency -- a local agency decision, and, as I said, we were not part of that. Relative to the contingency for the type of study that we're doing here, it's not necessary to have a contingency to do that. Where the contingency needs to fall is in the construction, and there -- built into our -- our construction estimate and the total project costs we have included contingencies. And right off the top of my head, Councilman, I don't know what those are. COUNCILMAN TARRANT: Okay. Thank you. As I understand your answer, you're saying quite clearly that the temporary bridge that the state has in inventory is not part of this study. Now, moving on I'd like to ask you about signage. Has that been part of this study? Everyone with any common sense here in this room knows that great big, fat billboard-sized signs up on Immokalee Road and Pine Ridge Road telling drivers coming down from the north clearly that if they want to go to Miami or points east, they don't have to drive down into the four corners and clog up downtown Naples. Has that matter been discussed, because we know now that such signage could affect tens of thousands of motorists who would otherwise pour down and go over our existing bridges? CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Excuse me, Councilman Tarrant -- COUNCILMAN TARRANT: Yes. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: -- our discussion today is to determine whether we are going to favor alignment 2, 3, or 4 -- COUNCILMAN TARRANT: Yes. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: -- of the state. We've been through the process that has gotten us to this point. We've eliminated the temporary bridge. We've eliminated all these other things. COUNCILMAN TARRANT: Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Excuse me, Mr. Tarrant. You're not going to take over this meeting. COUNCILMAN TARRANT: Go ahead, please. Don't let me stop you. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We are not going to use our time here today to discuss something that's not on the agenda. We're going to limit our conversation and our discussion to determining whether we want to pick alignment 2, 3, 4, or nothing. COUNCILMAN TARRANT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I hear you're telling me that I do not have the right as a city councilman sitting here today to ask for clarification on these points; is that correct? CHAIRMAN NORRIS: No, sir. What I'm telling you is that we have a discussion item on our agenda, and we're not going to bring up other items that are not on our agenda. That's what I'm telling you. COUNCILMAN TARRANT: I think you're telling me that I'm not entitled to have clarification, Mr. Norris. I'm asking about signage -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. Tarrant, we're going to conduct this meeting in an orderly fashion. If you are not going to comply with that, we'll have you removed. COUNCILMAN TARRANT: Well, that's a wonderful democratic sentiment. Thank you. I'm finished with my comments. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. Hancock. COHHISSIONER HANCOCK: I almost forgot what I was going to talk about here. In fact, I have forgotten what I was going to talk about. Anybody else have a question? CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Peter. COUNCILMAN VanARSDALE: I'd like you to address the issue of dead-ending into Airport Road in terms of how that -- obviously I think it is -- I mean we like it to go further east, but that's not going to happen, I don't think. But -- so the question is how do you weigh that element in your pro and con analysis. MR. FORRESTEL: We -- in our analysis that we did we did not give -- we did not give any consideration to the dead-ending of -- of alternative 2 into Airport Road and the dead-ending of alternatives 3 and 4 into Goodlette-Frank. We viewed those as being approximately equal negatives and that ideally the ideal route would go from Livingston Road all the way to U.S. 41, and the only route that could possibly do that would be alternative 3 if it went through Seventh Avenue, and clearly that -- that decision has been made not to allow that. And so we in effect have the dead-ending of both of those two. And we looked at that and said that there -- though the negatives associated with those are approximately equal, and then no further consideration in terms of sensitivity was given to those all -- those two scenarios. COUNCILMAN VanARSDALE: Thank you. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Commissioner Norris. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Commissioner Hancock, then Commissioner Hac'Kie. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: My memory came back here for a second. At our previous hearing -- and, Jeff, I want to ask this for clarification. All along a few people have been saying if we wait the DOT will come down and build this bridge for us. And as someone who spent a number of years working in the consultant capacity with the DOT, I know better. If we sit around and wait for the DOT, we're going to be sitting on our hands 20 years from now waiting for this decision to occur. I believe it was in the paper, and I'd ask for clarification from you. The DOT has stated that it would probably be, I believe, 20 or 25 years before they even get around to looking at this; is that correct? MR. PERRY: At the last HPO meeting the district director of the planning programs, Mr. Norm Feder, discussed during the discussion that the HPO had on alternative funding. And I think that's where we'll be dealing with this question a little bit more. But for the purposes of your question, the district director did indicate that there would be a significant amount of time, and I think he used 15 years before the -- before there would be available project money that was not committed already in some form to other projects already in the pipeline. Keep in mind that we have sections of U.S. 41, Davis Boulevard, 951 that are in the pipeline in some form or another, projects that are under preliminary engineering today that are going to be constructed ten years from now, and there has to be money available for certain projects 10 or 15 years out. So what he was pointing out was that if you add another project to the list, you're going to have to set some priorities because there's only a certain amount of money available. The federal and state money can be used on a project like this. The project can be made federally eligible. It will cost a lot more most assuredly than what it's costing in terms of this project because of the federal requirements. But the most important thing is there's only a limited amount of money, so some other project is going to have to get bumped. The earliest that you would probably be able to see the construction of a bridge like this using federal or state funds I believe is 15 years, and that's if you bump somebody else's project. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: So if we cut out a number of programs on state roads that are currently proposed that we have deemed necessary in the past, that would be the only way to make that project possible on a time line earlier than 15 years? MR. PERRY: That's correct. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Thank you. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Commissioner Hac'Kie. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: It's a question for you, Jeff. It's again referring to this 2010 traffic report. I'm confused about why is it that alternate 3 results in a -- well, let me start by telling you, one of my motivations is to -- is to discourage traffic at four corners, Fifth Avenue. And why -- it makes -- I don't understand why alternative 3 results in more traffic in that area than alternative 2 when -- when you can see alternative 2 from the present bridge. Can you talk about that? Is my question clear? MR. PERRY: More traffic on -- left on U.S. 417 COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Yes. Well, actually what I'm looking at -- what I'm looking at are all of these numbers here. MR. PERRY: Okay. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Can you -- can you give us some idea on those? MR. PERRY: Yes. What happens is -- if you're building a facility to help the motorist who is coming from the east Naples vicinity, either Davis Boulevard or U.S. 41 or Radio Road, for that matter, headed towards the downtown area or any point that he would find convenient from that downtown area. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Assuming south of Golden Gate. MR. PERRY: Let's say south of Golden Gate Parkway. If you want to help the motorist who is traveling U.S. 41, you would logically build the facility as close to or parallel to that. When you go out to build a new facility to carry traffic that is currently on one facility, you don't go out and build a road five or six miles away, because people aren't going to use it. They would like to be able to travel in that same direction the same vicinity that they're traveling, the same corridor, if you will. So logically you would build that parallel facility as close to the existing facility as possible -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I see. MR. PERRY: -- so that the motorist has an opportunity to make a decision. If he's traveled the road before and he says, well, it's probably congested at this hour of the day, I'll go half a mile a north, and I'll get on the other facility, and it still takes me within, you know, a half a mile of my destination. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So what you're saying basically is people who presently come across the existing bridge are more likely to use the alternate 2 route which would discourage traffic in the four corners area? They're more likely to use alternative 2 than they would be to use, for example, alternate 3 because that's too far out of their normal traffic pattern? MR. PERRY: If their destination is anywhere south of Seventh Avenue -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. MR. PERRY: -- they would be doubling back. If they had to go north to alternate 3, 4 alignment, they're going to cross the river and double back south to let's say the hospital, for instance, so those people would not make that choice. They would not divert off of U.S. 41 simply because it's out of their way. But if you give them an alignment that's south of the airport at Central Avenue, the only people you're losing as far as doubling back that would not want to use that new alignment would be the people that would be doubling back heading south once they hit Goodlette Road or going 41 heading south using the Central road alignment. You are able to capture along that new alignment anybody who would be traveling north because it's perhaps a better alternative than going all the way to Golden Gate Parkway, so you're able to -- the motorists that would use that facility basically from Central Avenue north to whatever point north would consider that as a viable alternate route. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And one other question that I have is it has to do with the need for connection with future Livingston Road. What's -- can you tell us what is your concern, or do you have any concern about the fact that alternate 2 doesn't provide that direct connection and does provide a dead end into a level of service D capacity road? That -- that is -- if there's a fatal flaw, that's one that's concerning me. MR. PERRY: I need to -- I need to correct my -- my guess as to what the current level of service was. It is currently operating at level of service C. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It's C. MR. PERRY: In the year 2010 or the point we're talking about I think we'll all expect the traffic to continue to grow, so the current level of service perhaps is not as critical as what it will be when the bridge opens in 1999. Regardless of where it is, the level of service on that particular roadway is likely to be D or even worse. The interconnection to Livingston Road is an important factor, and it's why routes 3 and 4 were given the points and route 2 was not given the points. It is not an easy connection to try to get North Road, alternate number 2, somehow connecting directly or indirectly to Livingston Road. A lot of the traffic that is going to use the bridge is coming out of Radio Road. Some -- some percentage of the traffic is currently coming up and down Radio Road gets to Airport Road and must go either right or left now. Right now the southern traffic is coming south to Davis or to U.S. 41. If they're headed westbound, they're going to go to Davis and head into town so that a southern alignment at North Road actually shortens that trip. They don't have to go all the way to Davis. They're now able to get to North Road and make their connection. If they were -- if the connection is built on the north side of the airport, those people headed westbound will turn right, and they will go to the alternate 3, 4 alignment, and they will shorten their trip because they would have otherwise gone to Golden Gate Parkway. So both of the alignments will serve the Radio Road traffic. The only thing -- the only disadvantage is that the southern alignment does not serve the Livingston Road traffic as well as -- as the northern alignments do with the direct connection along Enterprise Avenue. So there is some loss there, and that's why in the point ranking system there was no points given to number 2 for a connection to Livingston Road while the others got the highest levels of points for connecting albeit there was a cost associated with that simply because it's not free. We're going to have to build a good connection. It's going to be through an existing industrial park and connecting to a future roadway. So it's important, but there was clearly an advantage to the northern routes for connecting to Livingston Road that was not there for alternate number 2. The T connection I don't think is a bad connection. I think the T intersections obviously you have one less phase to worry about it. You have a heavy right turn movement in this case that would be able to be accommodated almost continually. You have a -- a southbound Airport Road to westbound North Road alternative movement, those people coming out of Radio that would almost be a continuous right turn movement. That intersection can work very well, perhaps better than the Enterprise intersection will work with people traveling -- having that extra movement. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Why is that? MR. PERRY: Because you're dealing with an extra movement. You're dealing with an extra phase in the cycle. You're dealing with traffic that has three opportunities for turning; left, right, and straight ahead. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Instead of just left or right? MR. PERRY: In a T intersection you're dealing with simply a right turn movement and a left turn movement. Many of those opposing movements are continuous without disrupting the opposing movements. So there's nothing wrong with a T intersection. The problem with the southern alignment is that it doesn't go out to Livingston Road which is where we would just love to take it. I say it doesn't go out there without a lot of pain. We all know that we can buy up property. We can tear out homes -- COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Realistically -- MR. PERRY: -- go through golf courses and condominiums. We can do it, and if push comes to shove 20 or 30 years from now to accommodate traffic, the sitting MPO at that point in time and the sitting county commissioners may have to bite that bullet, but it's not in our plan today. It may be in the coming years. It may be something that we have to deal with, but it's not something that we wanted to plug in here and say, oh, well, we can make this connection because it really cannot be made in a way that we can make the northern connection. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Just my last little comment. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Excuse me. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm sorry. The thing that surprises me the most that I want to be sure that people who live down there understand is to get up and look at this map where the numbers show that this -- this Central -- the southerly connection, in fact, gives more traffic relief to the four corners area than the other -- than 3 or 4. It makes no sense to me logically, but that's what their numbers are showing us, and then I can hear some logic in the explanation about proximity to the former route. But if my motivation is to give some protection or relief to that area, they're telling me that alternate 2 gives the most traffic relief to that neighborhood. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Councilman Prolman. COUNCILWOMAN PROLMAN: I wonder if in -- in your -- in your calculations in your recommendation for route 2 if you considered the effect of the population and the direction it's moving. Was that a factor as -- as say the county grows out? MR. FORRESTEL: We did not specifically look at that and give consideration to that. That all would be taken into account in the modeling effort that the HPO does. Because in their 2010 model it looks at where is the future development going to occur, and so by -- through that modeling all of that traffic that's being generated in 2010 is being assigned accordingly to where that traffic is coming from. We did not give any specific consideration to say -- to look out anytime in the future and say, well, this is where all the people are going to live. That would be incorporated into the modeling effort. COUNCILWOMAN PROLMAN: So, therefore, can I assume it was incorporated somehow into the recommendation here or not? MR. PERRY: What he's saying is that CH2M Hill was not charged with doing traffic. Our office did the traffic assessment and provided that to them, and those numbers, those results were used in the deliberations of the traffic circulation component of this report so that when you look down the chart and you start looking at the issues related to traffic circulation, that's as a result of the MPO's computer modeling and the traffic studies that were done to develop this and that it, in fact, does take into consideration the development out to the year 2010 that is going to be occurring in east Naples and in south Naples along Radio Road that causes these numbers to grow and causes those motorists to get that increase in traffic that is causing the need for this particular bridge. COUNCILWOMAN PROLMAN: So -- so you're seeing it then as being a south and east as opposed to say north -- north and east? MR. PERRY: Well, it's all around. COUNCILWOMAN PROLMAN: Yeah. MR. PERRY: It's definitely all around. All of the growth that is projected in the entire metropolitan area is counted into these -- into these computations. The growth in Golden Gate causes the traffic along Golden Gate Parkway to increase. The traffic out of east and south Naples causes the traffic along Davis Boulevard and U.S. 41 to increase. The net result is the closer you build the alternative to either Golden Gate Parkway or U.S. 41 the more benefit that is derived by that facility being located parallel to it. If you build a facility next to Golden Gate Parkway, the people who use Golden Gate Parkway have another alternate route. If you build a facility next to U.S. 41, the people who use U.S. 41 have an alternate route, and it is less benefit to the people up a mile and a half or two miles away. That's the reason you're seeing the difference in the volumes. And, quite frankly, the people that would be avoiding the four corners area to get to the hospital or to get to the library or to get to any point north of Fifth Avenue and south of Seventh Avenue will not divert around the airport and come south. They absolutely just will not do it so that you're losing the opportunity to capture those people and move them onto an alternate route. If you move them onto Central, then you have that benefit, but it's offset by the ability for that facility to carry the north-south facility -- excuse me, the east-west facility -- 3 and 4 to carry people out to Livingston Road. So it's a positive on one end and a negative on another which has been the problem I think in looking at these alternatives. It depends on your perspective, as Councilman Pennington has pointed out, whether or not you consider the impact to the downtown area as being positive or negative. That really depends on who you ask. If you ask the Community Development Agency Advisory Board, they were not quite unanimous in their support for the southern alignment, but they seemed to think that it was beneficial to the CRA, and that's why it was listed in the pros that way. Now, city council sitting as a CRA authority may have a completely different opinion, and it was pointed out by -- by the Councilman. I don't think that the CRA governing board has taken a position on that, but the advisory did. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mayor Huenzer. HAYOR HUENZER: I heard your answer to Commissioner Hac'Kie and the extra turn lanes and all this, and logic says this, and computer says this, and everything. And I go along with computerization, but I still go along a bit with logic. And I can't understand one thing, how you're going to solve it. And that's that if you've got traffic coming in Radio Road and hits Airport and then it has to go down Airport and turn and go North Road, correct -- MR. PERRY: Right. HAYOR HUENZER: -- you're going to have that -- you're going to absolutely add all that traffic to Airport in that one stretch which I don't see how you're not going to shut Airport -- MR. PERRY: It's already there. Those people are now going south to Davis Boulevard. If they're headed to downtown going to Fifth Avenue shopping district to work or wherever they happen to go, they're presently turning left onto Airport Road from Radio Road heading south on Davis Boulevard -- HAYOR HUENZER: I thought we were looking not only for what's there but for what's coming in the future. MR. PERRY: And they will still continue to make that movement if you build a northern alignment. HAYOR HUENZER: But, see, that's where I get lost. If they're there now, and I hearsay we're talking for future, I'm trying to think what in the future is easier to get that Radio people off of Radio -- from Radio Road in and off of Airport. And as we get growth in the future, we're going to continue to dump more on Airport on that one stretch. It seems between there and North we got such a bottleneck piling in. And the same way people coming home at night; they're going to come down North, turn on Airport, and you've already got growth on Airport. You've got more growth in the future on Airport. And, you know, it just seems like we're constantly asking Airport to accept more growth, more growth. And I would think we'd be trying to relieve and not put any on even for that half mile but just get them the heck over or through. MR. PERRY: I would agree one hundred percent, Mr. Mayor. The advantage to the southern alignment -- the person who is using Radio Road, which alignment you pick doesn't make any difference because they're going to be a half a mile away from it regardless of which one you pick. HAYOR HUENZER: But as we grow on Airport -- MR. PERRY: Right now if you were to pick an alignment based upon Airport Road traffic, you would have to pick alternate number 2 because today there are 35,000 people south of Radio Road. You got 35,000 motorists south of Radio Road between Radio Road and Davis. There's 50,000 motorists traveling the distance between Radio Road and Golden Gate Parkway because of the industrial traffic and industrial area. HAYOR HUENZER: But still 35,000, 50,000, overwhelm me with numbers. It doesn't mean that everybody is going to be coming into the city. It doesn't mean -- most of those and many of those are still going to be on Airport. Airport is going to bear the brunt. You know, it doesn't mean every time we say there's 35,000 out there they're all going to want to fight to get into the city tomorrow. MR. PERRY: Right. From a capacity standpoint of Airport Road being able to handle the Radio Road traffic, it has to handle it whether you build a new bridge or not because it presently has to use Airport. Unless we move the airport, there's no way Radio Road is going to go beyond Airport Road. HAYOR HUENZER: But this is where we go back. If you're shooting it over or through, you don't have to handle it even for that half-mile stretch. MR. PERRY: But there's no way you can shoot it through. A person on Radio Road has to go either right half a mile or left half a mile. And from that standpoint you can pick 3 or 4 or number 2, and it makes no difference -- HAYOR HUENZER: I thought your alignment was to come Enterprise and bring it to -- MR. PERRY: But those people are not on Radio Road. HAYOR HUENZER: Well, they'll go from Radio onto Enterprise and line up. That's what I thought you were going to line up. When I say shoot it through or shoot it over, I always thought that you were looking to bring the Radio down and then Enterprise and out so that you had a straight shot. MR. PERRY: If the motorist traveling on Radio Road chooses to go up on Livingston, north on Livingston Road and west on Enterprise, that's correct, they would avoid that section. HAYOR HUENZER: That's what I always thought was your ultimate destination to bring it on Enterprise. And that's -- when I say bring it through or over, I always thought the Enterprise is where you bring it through and over, and they never see Radio except if they went across it or waved down or looked down from an overpass. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Councilman VanArsdale. COUNCILMAN VanARSDALE: Jeff, on -- in looking at the -- and I know these numbers going out to 2010 are just projections. How much -- we have variations and differences, okay, between the two alternatives that range from four-tenths of 1 percent to like 16 percent. How would you -- where would you -- is there a cutoff point where the numbers, the difference in numbers are immaterial, In other words, 5 percent, 10 percent, in other words, where -- where can we place significant value to that differential? MR. PERRY: That's a -- that's a question like where do you draw the line. If you consider that the -- that the approximate increase or change in traffic could be as much as 4 or 5 percent per year and as high as 15 percent per year on any given roadway, if you look at these numbers and you assume a 10 percent change for 50,000 -- a road carrying 50,000 vehicles, you're talking about 5,000. In terms of peak hour, that's not a whole lot of change. It would not be noticeable to the motorists during peak hour. There's been that kind of change. So certainly 10 percent would be one point where you draw the line and say if -- COUNCILMAN VanARSDALE: So any variation less than 10 percent between the two alternatives is really not a significant difference. MR. PERRY: It is not -- COUNCILMAN VanARSDALE: You would -- you wouldn't worry about that? MR. PERRY: No. COUNCILMAN VanARSDALE: Thank you. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Councilman Korest. COUNCILMAN KOREST: I was interested in following up in -- on a couple of things. Jeff, what you're saying as far as Airport Road between Radio and if alternative 2 were picked, that traffic is already there is what you're saying. We're not -- that would not represent -- Airport wouldn't take any increase in traffic? MR. PERRY: That -- that's correct. Airport Road traffic coming out of or going to Radio Road is going to be there one way or another whether this bridge is built or not. COUNCILMAN KOREST: And that T intersection is an efficient intersection, in your opinion? MR. PERRY: Yes, it can be. COUNCILMAN KOREST: The other question I had is -- and I'm a little confused about this one. I think we're all concerned about what happens in central Naples, downtown Naples, and particularly in four corners, as Commissioner Mac'Kie mentioned. And if you look at these 2010 numbers with a southern alignment with the number -- with the alternate 2, we show 57,800 cars coming into the four corners area, which is sig -- which is 10,000 cars less coming in to that area than as compared with -- with the northern alignment. MR. PERRY: That's correct. COUNCILMAN KOREST: That on the surface would indicate that there is a substantially less impact on the -- on the downtown area and in particular four corners. And just to carry it one further, if you look at what's going -- and that's what I'm curious about and want to make sure I understand this. You've got 57,800 between Goodlette and 41 of which 51,000 are going north. That leaves roughly 5,800 that will somewhere disperse in central Naples, is that correct, the difference between fifty-seven-eight and fifty-one? MR. PERRY: There's a lot of interaction in those numbers because -- COUNCILMAN KOREST: Okay. With a northern alignment we have 67,000 cars and fifty-one -- we still have -- and we have 50,000 going north, which means over 17,000 cars are going to disperse in that area; is that correct? MR. PERRY: That's correct. COUNCILMAN KOREST: So the ratio is almost three times as much impact with a northern crossing as compared with a southern crossing. MR. PERRY: That's correct. COUNCILMAN KOREST: Thank you. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Councilman Pennington and then Councilman Tarrant. COUNCILMAN PENNINGTON: With -- in regard to Mr. Korest's analysis and Commissioner Mac'Kie's, I think the thing that's not being noted here is that coming into the five-block area from Central Avenue down to Fifth Avenue South, yes, we have the 85,000 vehicles shown coming across the bridge there in both directions with the southern crossing. But in addition in that area there's the 37,200 that come into Central Avenue, come in and go through Central Avenue. So the total in that five-block area then is a hundred twenty-two and a half thousand. And so that -- that is the big concern. The number, yes, decreases between Goodlette Road and four corners itself, but within the entire downtown area it is 122.5. And my long-term concern, which I feel is not being addressed -- and Jeff and I have certainly had some discussions about this, though -- is when we did an origin destination study, this pointed out that only 40 percent of this traffic that comes across the Gordon River Bridge is downtown destined, 32.6 into the immediate downtown area, 8 and a half percent go into -- south into the Olde Naples area. And it's 60 percent of that traffic is through traffic. It's bypassing. It's going from the inbound -- from the east it's going either to the mall or further north. So that is the concern and why I have been continually concerned about a means of bypassing this traffic around the downtown area. But when we're counting these numbers into four corners, I think we also have to count what would be coming across on that southern route, that additional 37,000, so that's the big bunch. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Councilman Tarrant. COUNCILMAN TARRANT: Thank you. Thank you, Chairman. I have a question for our city, Naples city attorney, please. Is Maria here? MS. CHIARO: Yes, I am. COUNCILMAN TARRANT: Thank you. Maria, would you please give me a legal opinion? Does Commissioner Norris, in fact, have the legal right to gag a city councilperson from asking questions that he believes -- that I believe are relevant to the route of a bridge or bridge over the Gordon River? Is that a legal process to have me threatened with being removed from this chamber by a sergeant of arms? Am I not a duly elected official? MS. CHIARO: Well, your last question is, yes, you are a duly elected official. It's my understanding that the chairman of the body or the controlling officer of the body has the ability to control that which occurs during the deliberations. Insofar as his ability to have you physically removed, I don't know. However, he does have the ability to control the agenda and to control the discussion. COUNCILMAN TARRANT: I would like it to be noted that Mr. Pennington asked a series of questions and made a rather lengthy series of comments as his opening statement here, and he was allowed to go on for a considerable period of time. And I think Mr. Pennington had every right to do that, and I think his questions and his comments were totally appropriate and totally important. Miss Prolman asked a question about population, and she was not shot down for doing that. I do not believe that I need to sit here as an elected person representing people that went to the polls in the City of Naples and be gagged and sit at a star chamber type of fascist type of meeting where I cannot ask questions. This is not Judge Ito's courtroom. What is the answer on this, please, Miss Chiaro? Am I being gagged here? Am I being limited as to what questions the -- Chairman Norris is to be the judge and jury on whether a question is suitable or unsuitable? MS. CHIARO: Mr. Tarrant, I'll take a look at the county ordinance. I think it applies insofar as the conduct of the meetings, and that is as I previously stated, the chairman or acting chairman has the ability to set forth in any -- in any reasonable manner that which is discussed. There are certain limitations that are set forth under the county ordinances. I can take a look at those and see if they apply. COUNCILMAN TARRANT: Well, I would like the record to show that I was cut off by Commissioner Norris. I was not allowed to finish my line of questions. And I frankly resent it, and I do not wish to sit here at a star chamber, because I cannot represent the people that elected me and sent me here to do that. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. Tarrant, you're welcomed to ask any questions you want as long as they are pertinent to our agenda items. We are talking about a specific agenda. If you want to ask questions about that, please feel free to do so. COUNCILMAN TARRANT: I believe you have effectively gagged me, sir. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: That's not true at all. We welcome your comments, but we just ask you to keep them -- COUNCILMAN TARRANT: My questions related directly to the subject at hand. You cut me off and threatened me. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: That's not correct, sir. COUNCILMAN TARRANT: The record will show it. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: The record will show that your question had to do with realignment of Highway 41. That's not on our agenda today. MR. DORRILL: Mr. Chairman, I want to remind you you do have a number of people in the audience. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: How many public speakers do we have? (Councilman Tarrant left his seat at the commission board.) MR. DORRILL: About eleven. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: About eleven? MR. DORRILL: For those folks who are in the audience, there are some slips on the table in the hallway. And if you're interested and would like to speak, if you would just simply fill out one of those and hand it to either myself or Dr. Woodruff, we'll call you in the order in which they are received. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. We -- we will take a short ten-minute break before we go to the public speakers. We'll recess for ten minutes. (A short break was held. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We're ready to start with the public speakers now. Mr. Dotrill will call their names and have them come up, if you would. We'll call two speakers. The second person be ready to go -- standing ready to go so we can move along. We ask that you keep your comments to five minutes, and if you -- if you agree with some previous speaker and would like to just acknowledge that and pass your time for speaking, that would be acceptable also. Mr. Dotrill, how many speakers do we have now? MR. DORRILL: Mr. Chairman, I'm going to say about 15. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay, let's begin. MR. DORRILL: First speaker is Mr. Hogelvang. Following him if I could have Ms. Jones standby, Betsy Jones. Mr. Hogelvang. DR. HOGELVANG: My name is Dr. Christian Hogelvang, and I thought about whether I should just as one citizen get up and have anything to say. There have been a lot of studies, and they're still debating it, and so I figure that they -- that some input is needed. Just as qualification, I would like to say that I have an intimate understanding of the area because if you'll permit me -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Dr. Hogelvang, we're going to need you on the record. If you're going to go over there, we need you to get that hand-held mike. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It's been fixed. DR. MOGELVANG: I live in the area where I just pointed to which is directly in front of the entrance. My office is right across the creek from there, and I go around onto Airport Road and back in on Davis. I go to the hospital at all hours of the day and night and also have a background in biology, botany, ecology, and have testified before the county commission as an expert in these areas as well. And, therefore, I would like -- and I would also like to say that the areas that I'm going to point to right now (indicated) are jurisdictional wetlands which I own and would be able to offer as mitigation in -- in certain ways and feel I do have an interest in the -- in the county as a whole and our long-term interest. And I would just like to make the following comments. I offered to donate a right of way directly out of the airport across Rock Creek one time -- a long time ago. The advantage of that was going to be to take traffic from the airport off of Airport Road, and the disadvantage was going to be that it was going to result in a three-way intersection at Davis Boulevard. I'm not putting words in anybody's mouth. I'm just repeating what was told to me. There are some heavy hitters involved here, people with large land ownings. And I don't mean that as any negative impact. I mean it's just that there's going to be some development by Westinghouse and by Barton Collier Corporation and others along the Livingston route, and that seems to be a focus of interest to everyone. And I would just like to make -- to offer a proposal that I think has come up in discussions by Mr. VanArsdale, by Mr. Norris, and by Mr. Hancock and has been expressed by others. Living out in that area and having traveled that area many, many times, I think I know what I'm talking about, and since we're still debating this, I have to say that -- that I believe that there's a little blind spot, and I just offer this as a -- as a constructive thought. The southern route in itself enhances the usefulness of Radio Road in my view more than the northern route. And the heavy hitters, the people who are going to be impacted in terms of long-term residential development and so forth out there seem to have focused on the northern route as the more desirable route in that it will network with Livingston, but I would offer this thought. If I could get Mr. Archibald and the other people who are focused on development and traffic to look at the southern route in a little bit different fashion, I'm going to point on the map to what I'm referring to as an area, Radio -- Radio Road not showing on that map, but being just north of there. What I'm saying is that there's not a structure that would be impacted by extending across there, and the big leap is to forget about extending North Road, because there happens to be a segment on the other -- on the east side of Airport Road that's called North Road. Just forget about that. To access Livingston, to enhance the need for Livingston, I would offer the southern route and an extension of the southern route across Airport Road at this -- at this time entering at Industrial and call -- and entering at Industrial and then offering all of the side roads off of Industrial to communicate with Livingston. And the advantages in my way would be no three-way Airport Road bottleneck, less Airport Road traffic, multiple access to Livingston Road from the west off of Industrial Boulevard, no destruction of existing structures, and enhancement of the smooth function of the Livingston Road-Radio Road connection. Thank you. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you, Doctor. MR. DORRILL: Ms. Jones. Thank you. And then Mr. Erlichman, if I could have you stand by, please, sir. Hiss Jones. MS. JONES: My husband and I live on Seventh Avenue North, and I have to put up with over 9,000 cars and trucks a day right now. This is not an ideal situation for a neighborhood street. Host of the people on Seventh Avenue North have remodeled and added to their homes and don't want them destroyed with the bridge. With all the trucks coming up and down the street every day, night and weekends emitting diesel fumes and going through all the gears shaking the houses and creating quite a hazard is something we don't need. The street is posted in four places no through trucks. Can you imagine how many more trucks and cars we would have if the bridge was built on Seventh Avenue or Ninth Avenue North? As for the traffic at the post office, I don't think you have given much thought to the backup of traffic that there is around the post office most of the day. People who don't live on heavily traveled streets don't know what it is like. I have asked some of the city council members and city staff to please come spend a day on our front porch. So far no one has taken me up on my invitation. The evenings aren't much better. At least two out of every eighth car that goes by has the radio turned up as high as it will go with rap music, and does that shake the house. Sometimes we have to wait 3 or 4 minutes on a side street to get out onto Seventh Avenue North. Then we have the emergency squads that are supposed to be using Fifth Avenue to the hospital according to the DOT but instead are using Seventh Avenue at all hours of the day and night with their sirens going and scaring people. This bridge isn't really going to help the city people, just the county. If you are going to put a bridge in, put it in at Central Avenue which is already four-laned and is not built around a neighborhood. Give our neighborhood a chance. Every time something is brought up pertaining to the city they say put it on Seventh Avenue North. Think what it would be like to have this monstrosity on your street and in your neighborhood. Thank you. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you. MR. DORRILL: Mr. Erlichman said he actually prefers to talk about the tax related issue, and I didn't know whether you wanted to call all these at once or wait and call all the -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: That's actually on our agenda for a little later. Mr. Erlichman, would you prefer to wait until we actually start talking about the tax? MR. ERLICHMAN: Yeah, but I'd just like to make one remark, sir. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: All right. MR. ERLICHMAN: I find that your remark as a chairman to threaten Mr. Tarrant with removal from this meeting is arrogant, insulting, and dictatorial. And I would remind you, sir, that there are people in east Naples in your district who at some future time or even presently might want to ask for your recall. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you, sir. MR. DORRILL: Mr. Coomes. Following Mr. Coomes we'll have Mr. Goodlette. MR. COOMES: Jerry Coomes, Greater Naples Civic Association. Mr. Chairman, Mayor, members of the commission and council. Very briefly, we are here to congratulate you for bringing this project to near term at least. It's been a long time and -- but we recognize that making a decision about where this bridge is to be placed and where the traffic is to be deposited is not an easy decision. We take no position on that. We leave that to -- to you. We do take a position that in the overall future interests of this county we need a transportation network desperately, and we recognize that this bridge is the first compelling link in that network. And for that reason we sincerely hope that when this decision is made, all the members that can in good conscience of the city council and the commission publicly support the decision through the September 26th ballot election is very important to the success of this project. We thank you. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you, sir. MR. DORRILL: Mr. Goodlette and then Mr. Cameron. MR. GOODLETTE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is Dudley Goodlette. I'm here this morning on behalf of the Bridge Coalition. And I think we have made a sufficient number of presentations to the City Council, Board of County Commission, or the Metropolitan Planning Organization so that you know of our effort that the bridge -- the Bridge Coalition has been in existence for almost two years, in excess of 18 months now. We have had the issue of a second east-west corridor across the Gordon River at the top of our agenda. I should remind -- and for perhaps those who may be present or who are watching -- that the coalition consists of the Greater Naples Civic Association -- Mr. Coomes just spoke to you on their half -- the East Naples Civic Association, the Naples Area Chamber of Commerce, the Economic Development Council of Collier County, the Collier Building Industry Association, and the President's Council. I want to just suggest to you that -- that some of you may recall that early on before you commissioned a consultant report, that you received the benefit of their report today, the Bridge Coalition was suggesting that the -- an alignment -- the appropriate alignment would be what's today before you as alternate number 4. Based upon our Bridge Coalition's careful review of the report of the four matrix; the land-use issues, the cost issues, the permitting issues, and the traffic circulation issues, we are satisfied as reported to you by the consultant that any one of those alignments that you select today will be an acceptable alignment, and the coalition we want to assure you will support that choice. There are many issues that affect various neighbors in -- in various communities. Some you have already heard from. Others I'm sure in the remaining speakers you will hear from. And I think your decision today needs to be based upon the input that you receive today and upon your own instincts as it relates to the appropriate alignment. I hope, and it is our -- our desire that today as -- before this meeting is -- is adjourned, that in one way or another you will have as a city council and as a county commission selected an appropriate alignment along which we can proceed. In that vein it would be remiss if I did not suggest and say to you and compliment you, as Mr. Coomes just did, on bringing the effort to where it is today. I think that the people in the state who are looking for examples of intergovernmental cooperation can see this as a model. I think what this commission and this council have done, you are to be congratulated for -- for commissioning the work that's been done today. I think it's important to note, and some other comments may allude to this, that this project -- and you know that it is not a concurrency driven project. That's why it's not funded in your five-year plan. This is a community-driven project, and I think that's extremely important to keep in mind. That's why we've identified in the referendum that you previously discussed and approved for September an identifiable funding source which is a 1 cent sales tax for either 7 months or 9 months depending upon the alignment that you choose today. And I think that's extremely important that you recognize that this is not one of the ordinarily considered aspects or parts of your network, but it's an important part of the network nonetheless. It's particularly important for the issues that we've previously mentioned to you from the standpoint of just public safety, from the standpoint of -- of the -- of anticipating the widening of the existing bridges in the August of 1996 time frame if this does not go forward. And we would suggest to you that as alluded to earlier by Commissioner Hancock and responded to by Mr. Perry and I think supported by your agenda materials, vividly supported by those materials, Norm Feder of the Florida Department of Transportation has indicated to you that if -- that -- that simply accepting the proposition or -- or -- or believing that this is a bridge that the state will eventually build is nonsense. It's not going to be built perhaps in my lifetime, and I think the report that -- and the materials in front of you clearly point that out. Again, in -- to conclude within the time allotted, I would just indicate to you and urge that you select an alignment today, that the alignment that a majority of you select -- and I'm not -- I'm not naive enough to believe that there's a consensus that all of you sitting on the dais today are going to agree on one alignment, but I hope you can agree on an alignment, and I hope that you will make that decision today. And thank you very much for your attention. I'll answer any questions. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I have one. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Please do. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Just as much as I appreciate the support that the bridge club will support whatever choice is made, I find it very disappointing that you guys have not come forward with a recommendation. Obviously we have to make the choice, but you've spent a lot time. How did you come not to make a recommendation on an alignment? MR. GOODLETTE: We previously did make a recommendation. We made a recommendation of alignment, number 4, as I mentioned, Commissioner Hac'Kie. And all I'm suggesting to you is a lot of the information that you now have available to you as a result of the consultant's report we did not have available to us when we previously made that recommendation to you. We understand the different needs of the different communities. We understand the matrix. We understand the four criteria that have been evaluated. We understand the input that has been provided that they have received. And we understand the recommendation that they're making to you for the Central or the North Road or the southerly alignment, and -- and -- and we don't disagree with that. Having said that -- and so we want you to know -- and the reason why I think we frame it in the context in which I attempted to frame it is because we want you to know that we support whatever decision you make. We don't believe that there's any compelling reason why any one of the alignments should not be selected. And so I guess for that reason, if no other, if you were to poll our group, and I have done that, I think the northerly alignment would still be the preferred alignment from the standpoint of the conversations that we've had because nothing has really changed. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I appreciate that. Thank you. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you. MR. DORRILL: Mr. Cameron and then Mr. Fish. MR. CAMERON: Thank you. Good morning. For the record my name is Scott Cameron. I'm actually here representing a couple different groups this morning. In -- in just a quick follow-up of some of Mr. Goodlette's comments I also am a member of the Bridge Coalition, and at the time we recommended the north route. Just for a little further clarification, we were under the impression that the southern route would not be supported or allowed actually by the FAA because of potential interference at the airport. And we have always held that we did not want to create an air access problem and solve a road access problem. So we now find that that's not the case, and, in fact, the FAA is able to work it out through the efforts of the engineers and some jiggy-jogging on the south end of approach to runway 4. And so that's why we can stand here and support any of the alternatives. I also stand before you as a member of the board of directors of the Southwest Florida Land Preservation Trust. And as you are most likely aware, we have done a great deal of study up and down the river corridor in anticipation of completion of the Gordon River Greenway project. As -- as a member of that board, I am authorized to tell you that we are one hundred percent behind a bridge and support your -- your decision. As to which alignment you should choose, we would ask that you hopefully keep in mind the Gordon River Greenway project. We would like to be included in the planning for a crossing of the river, but we do strongly support this bridge at any of the chosen alignments. I also -- as a member of the Economic Development Council and the immediate past chair, I would also like to thank you and congratulate you for bringing this as far as it has come. Some twenty years ago when this -- and even more than that, every time this has been discussed the whole decision of a bridge sort of went away because nobody could seem to agree on where it should go, and so we never got to step 2 which would be taking a strong look at this and perhaps funding sources and actually creating alignments. And you are to be congratulated for moving it to that step, and now you stand upon what will be a historic decision today, and I think that's a terrific position to be in. You should envy your position. It's a tough one, but I think it's a great position for you to be in. Also back in the '70s, about 20 years ago, you may recall that there was a 1 cent gas tax issue that came before the voters of this county. And we had relatively good north-south access and roadway network, but our east-west roadway network for the visionaries at the time was not going to be sufficient. And so at that time those visionaries stepped forward and said we need to pass this 1 cent gas tax. We need to start creating some better east-west portions to our transportation network. You're in the same position here today. Now, there were naysayers then, and they stood back and said, you know, we won't need this for another ten years. Perhaps if we wait, somebody else will pay for it, blah, blah, blah. However, the point remains that we passed the gas tax, and the result is we have a better transportation network now than we did then. And now you're in the same position today to be asked to be visionaries and to figure out which of those three locations is going to be the best location and to move this thing forward. There were sticks and stones thrown at the -- at the public officials back then. They called it a tax and spend project. All those things came up. None of this is new. The fact remains they -- they took grasp of the situation, and they created part of a transportation network. And as Mr. Coomes alluded to, this is part of a network. It's not a bridge. It's not a road on either side of a bridge. It's part of a network. The experts have studied it. They've made recommendations. This has been studied and studied. Choose a location. We will support you, and we will work to get the sales tax referendum completed so that we have this bridge. And I'm happy to answer any questions you may have of any one of those groups I happened to speak on behalf of. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you, Mr. Cameron. MR. CAMERON: Thank you. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Cameron, there is a two-hat maximum here when you speak. MR. DORRILL: Mr. Fish and then Mr. Lee. MR. FISH: Good morning. My name is Allen Fish. I'm feeling very inadequate. I can only wear one hat this morning, but I'm proud to wear that hat to represent the Naples Area Chamber of Commerce who has been an active player in the Bridge Coalition since it began. The Chamber's initial support for a new bridge, a northerly corridor and an additional temporary 1 cent sales tax to fund the project, has remained consistent throughout the process. And as this process has unfolded over time and the reason behind the staff's recommendations and the consultant's recommendations that have come before you today with regard to route alignment have been made more clear. The only change in our position is that we can support any one of the three alternatives that you should choose. However, I think it is safe to say, as Mr. Goodlette said, our preference remains the same. That is not a strong preference. Unfortunately, you'd like to have one I think. The notion that if we don't do this now in this community that the state is going to come in and do it I think that's been dispelled. I hope that you all understand that. It's pretty clear to us. And that only is an excuse for delay. So on behalf of the Chamber I'd simply like to encourage you to reach consensus today on this matter and move ahead. That's not going to be easy necessarily. I guess it's part of what you've been elected to do, and you must possess the wisdom of Solomon and the patience of Job and know that no matter what you do, you're going to be criticized by some. But we will support what you do in the future, and we appreciate the attention. We appreciate your commitment to this whole process. Thank you. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you, Mr. Fish. MR. DORRILL: Mr. Lee, and then Mr. Pointer had just asked to be on record of supporting any bridge and consideration for long-term property acquisition for a third bridge if necessary but does not wish to speak. Then Mr. Stude will follow Mr. Lee. MR. LEE: For the record my name is Arthur Lee. For the past 17 years I've lived very, very happily on Ninth Avenue North until now. I -- you're going to love me because I have an opinion. I -- I'm not wishy and washy. We in the -- the area that is the Lake Park area is going to be heavily impacted if the northern route is chosen. This -- we're going to be impacted in two ways. One of them is by circulation. The other one is by the means I'm showing now. There's a -- a photograph being passed. The city council is on record as intending to annex a piece of property on the east side of Goodlette Road to be used for right of way. And a part of this deal is permission to construct an eight-story building. Now, this is an area where the property has been confined to two- and three-story structures. I have taken my mighty camera, and I moved an existing approximately eight-story building on Goodlette down to the end of Ninth Avenue North, and you can see what the impact is going to be on the people in that neighborhood. I want to describe this neighborhood. It's largely made up of the type of people who do the work for the City of Naples. These are, for the most part, modest homes. And a part of this going along with it is the fact that those homes represent the bulk and in some cases entirely the amount of capital that these people have been able to accumulate in the course of their lives. This estimate going around the neighborhood are that if the traffic is dumped onto Goodlette -- four lanes of traffic are dumped onto Goodlette with accompanying noise pollution, the air horns, the exhaust, the unmuffled exhaust of diesels, the air pollution from the diesels and other exhausts is going to detract -- I've heard estimates of up to 40 percent of their property values. Now, you're not talking about a neighborhood that's run down, that's going to the dogs. This is a neighborhood -- it's a vibrant neighborhood. It has a healthy mix of retired people and young people. There are kids running around. They -- the houses within close shot of my house within the past few years there have been three new homes constructed. There have been five major remodelings. We just had one swimming pool go in. Another one is a building. These -- and these are being built with people's own hands. They're putting sweat labor into all of this. Now we see this pretty well going up the flue. One aspect I would like to add is the fact that Goodlette, onto which you are dumping these four lanes if you go the northern route, has one of the better schools in the neighborhood. Lake Park Elementary faces on Goodlette, and it faces on -- on 14th Avenue which is very likely to absorb a lot more traffic as a result of any dumping of these four lanes of traffic onto Goodlette. I ask you to look very deeply into yourselves and see whether it is within you to take what economic advantages there may be one way or the other out of the hides of these people, the salt of the earth, living in Lake Park neighborhood. Thank you. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you, Mr. Lee. MR. DORRILL: Mr. Stude. Following Mr. Stude is Mr. Carpenter. If you could stand by, please, sir. MR. STUDE: For the record my name is Joe Stude, and I belong to the Bridge Coalition. I'm president of Kings Lake Homeowner's Association, and I'm on a board of East Naples Civic Association, but today I'm talking for the President's Council. The President's Council is an organization of 29 property and homeowners' associations, and in there there are about 25,000-plus families. And we would like to see a bridge built. I want to congratulate you city fathers, the commissioners, because it's taken a quarter of a century. That's over 25 years to get to this historical day, and you're here. And before you leave here, I know you're going to do the right thing because these fine voters here are waiting for your vote. The cooperation that has existed between the city council and the county commission, I've never seen in my ten years living in this area any better than it has on this bridge project. I've said that before. We need east-west corridors. All of you know that. And I know that you know that we've got to do one thing, is build a bridge. The President's Council has always voted for the bridge. Not any vote taken over the years -- and I'll go back all the way to Lyle Richardson's days -- and I was going to bring that tape he left me before he went to heaven, a tape of what I was to do to keep this bridge thing moving. That goes back a long time. I don't want anybody to know how old I am. And I should have brought the tape. It scares some people to hear some people that have already gone to heaven. The President's Council is for the bridge. In the beginning stages we voted for number 4, route 4 on the north. Today we will take any route that you people pick just so we build the bridge. And we favor the 1 cent sales tax. And at one time we started out with 6 months, and we'll sunset it. You know, it comes as a shock to you people, but not everybody trusts government. These people do. But when you put that 1 cent sales tax in, sunset it. And sunset it in such a way that there's no doubt, because I trust you, and Dudley does, but some other people. And you know with this cooperation -- I wanted to say the cooperation has been so great, except today it got a little queasy, but it will settle down, and you people will vote the right way. We'd like to say that we favor the alignment. We favor the 1 cent sales tax. We favor the bridge. But whatever you do, remember, we have to build a bridge. I thank you very much. MR. DORRILL: Mr. Carpenter and then we'll have Mr. or Ms. Case. MR. CARPENTER: Hi. I'm Dave Carpenter, and I'm here to represent East Naples Civic Association. First of all, congratulations. I don't think any of us ever thought you all would get this far this quickly. I've lived -- I've lived about 14 years now in east Naples, and I just -- I never thought that it would ever -- would ever progress this far. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Don't count your chickens. Don't jinx us. Hold off. MR. CARPENTER: The board of directors of East Naples Civic Association is firmly behind the construction of a new bridge over Gordon River, and we have been. We need it, and I think you all realize the necessity for it. We are in favor of using a temporary sales tax increase to pay for it. It seems like the most logical way to get the bridge paid for, get the bridge built, and an equitable way to share costs, particularly since you're looking at a 40 to 50 percent figure on the cost of this bridge will be borne by seasonal tourists. And I think that's an important thing to always keep in mind, because let's face it, gang, when the winter residents and the winter tourists contribute for the necessity of this bridge, and the sales tax offers the opportunity to allow these people to come down from Ohio, Massachusetts, wherever, and help us pay for the bridge, and I think that's great. As far as alignment, East Naples Civic Association has a preference for the southern alignment. We think, in all honesty, that this would probably offer the most relief for our community insofar as the traffic on Davis and the traffic on 41. And that's a preference that we have. However, we support the bridge, whichever alignment is chosen. To us the -- where the bridge comes out on Airport is far less important to us than the fact that the bridge be constructed. We don't -- what we're concerned about is the opponents of this bridge taking the alignment issue and trying to use it to divide the community to defeat the issue of the bridge when it comes up on the ballot. And we do not want to see that happen. We're exceedingly worried about that, and we will support the city council and the county commission on whatever alignment is chosen, and we will support them fully. Thank you. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you, Mr. Carpenter. MR. DORRILL: Miss Case will be fine. Then following her will be Mr. Case. MS. CASE: Good morning. My name is Kim Case. I live at 389 Central Avenue. And right now I'm representing the Central Avenue Coalition. We haven't had a lot of time to formulate our coalition. We came into action from an article on Saturday's newspaper. And since Saturday's newspaper article I have taken a petition or a poll of the people who live up and down Central Avenue. I've dropped that off at the city council. Well, the city council has it, but I don't think these two gentlemen have it. You will notice that there are 129 signatures there who are opposed to the bridge coming in at Central Avenue. There are 74 of them, of those -- all of those people are property owners. 74 of them are voters. Since the time of that I have had one more person that I wrote that letter. I have one more signature that is a voter and a property owner on Central Avenue, and I have a total of 12 voters and 19 property owners on some of the side streets who are also against the bridge coming in at Central Avenue. The area that is around Central Avenue and Central Avenue itself has -- has seen a very nice growth, and we have a lot of young families coming in. In fact, we have two babies that were born recently on Central Avenue. So it's a real family neighborhood, and I don't want to take away from the people at Lake Park, but there's a lot of trucks that come down there all the time. It is a designated truck route. It seems to me that a bridge coming in from Airport Road dumping down to Central is just real, real convenient for more trucks. It seems to be it's real, real convenient for the commercial people. And if it takes them -- and they have to go around. If it takes people a little bit longer to go an alternate route, then maybe they should leave their offices or their homes 15 minutes earlier. People are very concerned about traffic here, but those of us who travel the roads daily -- I know in season I have to leave 15 minutes earlier to get where I'm going. It's just a fact of life. I'm sure if I had more time, I could take my own traffic study on Central Avenue to let you people know how many cars and trucks actually go over Central Avenue from 41 on down, and I would be able to also get people who are -- were not home on Monday and Monday evening. It was only a one-day poll. And I would be able to telephone those that were -- that had already left or were somewhere else. But we are very much opposed to additional traffic coming in at Central Avenue. I think it's -- I understand all the experts, but I think that the people who think that traffic is not going to increase on Central Avenue west of 41, I think that's a mistake. I just know it's going to increase, although I do not have all of the lovely empirical data and the slides to prove it. I'd like to turn over the rest of my few minutes to my husband, Chip Case. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. Case, we don't -- we don't -- MS. CASE: But he could have -- he could -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: You can have five minutes. MS. CASE: Does he have to sign his own name? MR. DORRILL: No, it's not necessary. MR. CASE: We're learning how this works. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We limit our speakers to five minutes. MR. CASE: Okay, I won't take very long. And I appreciate Mr. Pennington's comment earlier about inheriting the earth. We woke up on Saturday, if you will. And I mean during that period, the stretch of time before that we fully thought that this bridge issue, although we don't understand exactly why we need it, we thought, okay, well, because of the airport and other issues it wasn't necessarily going to impact us. Just as a side note there were two previous speakers who spoke about Lake Park neighborhood and about the Seventh Avenue North neighborhood. And as I sat there and listened to them I could substitute Central Avenue in -- into both of those people's commentary. I don't think there's a single bit of difference between their neighborhoods and ours. And it -- it occurred to me, it's unfortunate, it's truly unfortunate that this is becoming a divisive issue in the city, and it's dividing neighborhoods and forcing them to look at each other and say not in my backyard, I want it in yours. Because the unfortunate downside of this is that it is in our backyard. Wherever you put it someone is going to get hurt unless you can get creative and come up with a way that will draw us together into a coalition to support not only the bridge, but where it's going to go and how it's going to be used. Candidly, I am personally confused. I have heard so many different reasons for this bridge and so much contradictory information here this morning that I don't know what we're really trying to do. Now, I don't know what other people think, but that's where I am. The other thing I would like to say is that when you consider where this bridge is going to go, when you think about Central Avenue, please consider the following things. Number one, Central Avenue west of 41 to the beach is the only current approved truck access. Seventh Avenue has a lot of trucks, but it's -- they have no through truck sign which everybody obviously ignores. We have a tremendous amount of traffic now from 6 a.m. till 8 p.m. at night. You cannot -- it is difficult to hear yourself think. The other thing I would like you to consider is that Gulfview Middle School, which is one block away from Central, has been expanded and is going to have an increased student body size. If you take the time to go to Central Avenue and Eighth Street and Ninth Street and First Avenue North and First Avenue South at 7:30 in the morning and sit and watch until nine o'clock when school starts, you will see that that is a playground. There are more children on bicycles, roller blades, skateboards. It's just -- you have to find an alternate route around that. And if we've got cars coming from the bridge down Central Avenue, I think we're creating a potential safety hazard for those school children. The other thing I want to say is if you do decide to put it at Central Avenue -- and I'm not saying I support this. I want to make that clear. But if you decide to put it at Central Avenue, please consider alternative ways of cutting down traffic from U.S. 41 west to the beach. Take the block between Eighth Street and Ninth Street and block it off. Make it green space. Make it T at 41. No one yet has said in here that one of the goals of this bridge is to dump traffic to the beach. They've all said they want to dump traffic to 41 or Goodlette Road. Then T it at Central. Make that green space. Make it a park and have the traffic make that decision, and don't have the decision to go straight past my house and my neighbor's house. We have the same property concerns that everyone else has. I appreciate your time. Thank you. And I'm glad it's you that has the decision to make and not me. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you, Mr. Case. We appreciate that too. MR. DORRILL: Mrs. Hinson. Following Miss Hinson I have Miss Blake. MS. HINSON: Good morning, Mr. Mayor, City Council, County Commissioners. My name is Erika Kelly Hinson, and I am not a public speaker. I am, however, a lifelong resident of Collier County and a lifelong resident of Olde Naples. Until six years ago I wasn't real concerned with politics and purchased housing on Central Avenue, which it's a perfect neighbor. It's mahogany lined. It's got nice palm trees. And my concern here this morning is that we're going to put a bridge at Central. The building of a bridge only five blocks north of an existing span to me dumps an awful lot of traffic into two bridges -- or two roads that can't expand. We can't make 41 any bigger, and we can't make Airport Road any bigger. And there's nowhere for the traffic to go except down my street or east and west on Airport Road. As Mr. Case said, we do have a lot of child traffic as well as a lot of pedestrian traffic at the library, and I don't know how many people travel Central, but nobody looks where they're going on Central. And as an emergency room nurse, I prefer not to have more people dragged into my emergency room being hit by trucks and other traffic. As for the EMS issue, EMS has stations all throughout the county. They're not specifically located at the Airport, so that's not a concern for me as a reason to put the bridge down Central. Again, Gulfview Middle School is a big concern. I really hope that you'll go north with your bridge. I think that we've had a lot of changes in our neighborhood. It's becoming younger. If we'd have had more time, we probably would have had more people, but until April Fool's Day I didn't even think the bridge was even going to come down Central. I woke up to the newspaper and went, oh. So we've been out canvassing people, and I hope that you go north with the bridge. Thank you for your time. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you. MR. DORRILL: Ms. Blake and then Ms. Corkran. MS. BLAKE: My name is Dianne Blake. I live off North Road. I have a concern about the contingency amount. I don't know whether we can put it at eighty or a hundred thousand. Regardless, I think it could be even two hundred thousand. When you start touching the mangroves, it becomes extremely expensive. There are all kinds of fines, and I think that should be a very big consideration going down North Road. It could be a lot more expensive than you're telling us. The northerly route -- and after listening to everybody, I'm not even sure I'd support the northerly route. It would disperse the traffic more evenly. I'm not sure I go with the opinion that two bridges side by side is going to improve it. You don't want four corners backed up. Put your two bridges side by side and see whether on 41 it backs up into the very area you don't want it in. Has the FAA given approval to these plans in writing? Can anyone answer? MR. GATTI: My name is Dick Gatti. We have nothing in writing from the FAA. We have had extensive conversation with the airport authorities. MS. BLAKE: I still think the FAA may not give approval simply because if you put a bridge across at the end of North Road, you are going to limit the area in which the planes can land and take off. If you put a bridge in there, I'm not sure you're going to even have enough height clearance for lights on the bridge. That creates a safety hazard. If you're coming down Davis and you get into a congestion before the Davis-Airport-Pulling intersection, and you see there are problems in front of you, you will automatically turn onto Airport. You will go down, and I'm not sure I agree with the opinion that North Road is where they'll turn easier. They -- excuse me, the southerly route, North Road, will be the one they use. If you put a bridge further down, they're going to go with wherever the bridge is, because they are still running parallel to 41. A lot of the use -- and we're looking towards the future -- is going to be for the high times in the morning when the workers go to work. And how much -- how many jobs are involved around the present Gordon Bridge now? Does it warrant another bridge right beside it? How many employees can be in that area to warrant a multimillion dollar bridge? A lot of the income here is from tourists. Tourists don't go to work in the morning. They may, in fact, tie up the traffic at five o'clock. Basically they go shopping in the afternoon, out to eat at night. I think this should be considered. They do not shop, I don't think -- I don't have statistics, but the amount of people shopping in -- going through the four corners into Fifth or Third is not as much as the people that are going to go to the malls which is, in fact, further north. Now, if you bear with me, I want to look at my notes and what I wrote down. You still have the problem that if you want to go straight across, the south side of the airport is sadly lacking. I think that widening of the bridge, the Gordon Bridge, and perhaps focal pointing it there, if that's what we need right now, will suffice. I don't think if you put up another bridge you're going to get enough traffic going across it on the southerly route to warrant paying the millions of dollars the taxpayers are going to pay. I don't think it's worth it. We want to look to the future. And the future is, in fact, a lot of the traffic is going to be on -- northerly side. And I'm not even sure the northerly side of the airport is north enough. Bottom line is if you widen the Gordon bridge, if you widen Pine Ridge, if you widen Golden Gate, and even all the way up to Immokalee -- you've got a lot of building now going out on the outer perimeters of Naples. I'm not sure that wouldn't suffice so that all this problem of disrupting neighborhoods can cease. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you, Mrs. Blake. MS. BLAKE: Thank you. MR. DORRILL: Miss Corkran and then Mr. Zmick. MS. CORKRAN: Good morning. I'm Virginia B. Corkran, and I would like to speak first as a -- as a resident of Olde Naples. This morning Neil Dorrill's prayer for wise business decisions prompted me to -- to point out to you that the second bridge will promote more and more traffic in the Olde Naples community. Many other speakers have been saying the same. More traffic will diminish property values in our area and to the south and Aqualane and in Port Royal. Just ask Crayton Road residents in the Moorings and their real estate agents how much traffic on Crayton Road has impacted the value of their homes. The conclusion is the dollar cost to build the bridges cannot exclude the decreased value to beachfront area properties along Gulf Shore Boulevard and a second street, Gordon Drive. That is something I have not heard added to the calculations this morning, but that is a fact, and the residents who are here have been telling you that. You are, indeed, therefore, making a significant business decision, and I'm sure that you can agree that this will impact future tax revenues. I am the recently elected president of the Olde Naples Association and for that reason putting on another hat. I would like to read into the record the letter which all of you have received as commissioners or as members of the city council. My letter requested that this be read into the record, and it was suggested to me that I do so. It states, the Olde Naples Association Board -- pardon me. The letter is dated April the 3rd, 1995. The Olde Naples Association Board opposes the Central Avenue location for a second Gordon River Bridge crossing. By unanimous vote following its recent annual meeting on March the 30th, the board of directors requested a letter be sent to you, other members of city council, and the county commission prior to this meeting, today's meeting, informing you of its opposition. And then the letter requests that it be read into the record. There are two other points to the letter. The second one is that -- now I'm reading again from the letter. In addition, a substantial vote of the Naples -- Olde Naples Association membership favors no bridge at all. In late January this year an informative meeting on the subject of the second bridge was held by the Olde Naples Association with five panelists representing different aspects of the bridge issue. Some of you attended that meeting, and we were glad to have you there. Some of you were participants. At that time Jeff Perry, one of the panelists, MPO coordinator and county planner, stated no bridge was necessary until the next century, year 2005 or later. The third point that the -- that the Olde Naples Association letter makes is in regard to the proposed referendum. It states, if the joint city-county commission officials move ahead with this unwanted, unneeded project regardless of the information and the financial responsibilities which you have to taxpayer residents, the Olde Naples Association wishes to go on record that said officials be obligated to recognize and accept the outcome of a proposed referendum as community approval or denial of the bridge proposal. And this is respectfully submitted, Virginia Corkran. Thank you. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you, Mrs. Corkran. MR. DORRILL: Mr. Zmick. Then following him we'll have Mr. Rich, and I could have you stand by. MR. ZMICK: My name is Don Zmick. I represent the Mr. and Mrs. Don Zmick Coalition. We live across from the entrance to the airport on North Road. If you've never seen it, you should take a look at the waterfront. It's a beautiful thing, and I've heard a lot of speaking about heart-rendering people losing their homes and so forth. Well, we are enjoying living in Naples for this short time, six months of each year. We have the privilege of coming to the intersection of North Road and Airport-Pulling at least two to six times a day. And if you people think -- I've waited there for a traffic light there every time. And if you people in all your wisdom -- you better call Solomon and Job to help you out -- think that putting a T intersection there is not going to plug that damn thing up, you're mistaken. Believe me. Thank you. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you, Mr. Zmick. MR. DORRILL: Mr. Rich. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: How many more speakers do we have? MR. DORRILL: Mr. Rich will be your final speaker. MR. RICH: My name is Paul Rich. I live at 340 Seventh Avenue North in Naples. I kind of feel like I'm on a ship that just hit a reef, and it's sinking, including my market value of my home. It seems like the council's already made up their mind to go the northern route. We had a meeting, as you know, last Thursday, I think it was, at the city council. And the preponderance of thinking there was to have the route go through the southern area down around the plan number 2. We had a number of people there that spoke rather strongly about that, and I got the feeling that perhaps that was the way they would go, but now things seemed to have changed tremendously. And I know that if we went ahead and got signatures, we could probably duplicate what this gentleman has duplicated here with 150 signatures or more opposing the Seventh Avenue, the Ninth Avenue route, but that's all a matter of academics right now, I guess. It just seemed to me because the landowners down on that southern route favor this, you'll have less opposition down there. You won't have the fiasco that we had at the -- what's the name of the -- the shopping center up there? HAYOR HUENZER: Coastland Hall. MR. RICH: Coastland Hall. That went around and around the horn with people opposing it. It went into a referendum, all kinds of money spent on that. You eliminate a lot of that by having the southern route, and I realize this steps on the toes of a lot of people that live there. And there's -- there's no easy answer to this. It seemed to me, though, from what was presented at that meeting on Thursday that the southern route was less expensive by 2 million dollars. There would be less diversion there because of the diverters that would have to go in on the Goodlette exit there at Seventh Avenue which would create a real botch, I think. And I guess in summary I just hope that the people here, the ones that make this decision, will make that decision based on what the people want and not special interests. It just seems to me that all logic would indicate a southerly route for them for the reasons that I have mentioned; the money, less opposition. It would corridor those people that want to go into Naples and funnel them right into Third Street or Fifth Avenue shopping center. And the people that aren't necessarily going into that area, divert them into the paths that are already there by possibly widening 41 or whatever you'd have to do to that Gordon River Bridge. I didn't prepare to talk today. I just saw this thing going down the tubes, and I had to say something. But it appears to me that all logic economically, every other reason, the southern route is the logical one. You have four lanes going in. It's already zoned down there. And as I understood it when I bought my house, that that was part of the original plan here, part of the basic plan years ago to have a route coming across Central Avenue. It's already zoned. It's already four-laned. This will mean destroying all of those houses -- the property values of those houses up on Ninth and Seventh Avenue. And if you -- having lived there 8 years, I have seen -- during the morning hours and during the evening hours it seems the bulk of the traffic is Golden Gate contractors, subcontractors going down to their jobs and the vice versa at night. They get their case of beer at the 7-Eleven and then just tear up and down that street. It seems to me if that could be diverted, that you wouldn't have these problems in the neighborhood. You would maintain your property values, and you'd do what the people want. What it has to do with north-south -- I mean east-west traffic, seems to me from what I've heard here, it almost appears that you'll have to go back to the drawing boards to find out what people really want. But I haven't seen anything here that shows any empathy for the public who is opposed to this. All -- it seems to me big interest, money, jobs, and maybe that's the answer to big government these days. I don't know. Anyway, I've said my piece, and I thank you for your time. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you, Mr. Rich. Before we get into discussions, there's been a request by one or more of our board members to take a lunch break. I'd like to ask what -- what's the pleasure of the board on taking a lunch break? Do we -- does anyone feel that our discussion is going to be lengthy from here or -- COUNCILMAN VanARSDALE: How many more speakers do you have? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: None. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: No more speakers. COUNCILMAN SULLIVAN: You've still got the other item of the -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We still got two more items. That's correct. COUNCILMAN KOREST: From my standpoint, I would like to see a lunch break. I don't know how the rest of them feel but -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Since I don't think we can complete the agenda in the next hour and a half or two hours -- maybe two hours, but I think a lunch break would be appropriate. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Is that a consensus of the board? Well, rather than get into our discussion, perhaps we should just go ahead at this time and be back at one o'clock. We'll recess till then. (A lunch break was held between 11:53 a.m. to 1:08 p.m.) CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Ladies and gentlemen, we'll reconvene our hearing this -- this afternoon, and we are -- welcome everybody back. And we're at the point of discussion, item 2-A. We're ready for input from the board. Does any board member have any questions or comments, any questions for the staff or the consultant? Commissioner Hancock. COHHISSIONER HANCOCK: Actually Mr. Perry and possibly -- possibly for Mr. Fortestel. Correct me if I'm wrong, alignment 4 is the only one of the three proposed alignments that does not meet with a street on -- on Goodlette-Frank Road; is that correct? In other words, alignment 4 dead ends -- MR. PERRY: That's correct. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- and there is not a residential street or a street that eventually ends up in a residential neighborhood directly. MR. PERRY: It would be opposite Ninth Avenue North. If Ninth Avenue North did connect to the bridge, it's about two blocks north of Seventh Avenue, so it also is a T intersection. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. But due to the good fortune and planning of former city council members that turned that area into a green belt along Goodlette-Frank, it does not connect to a residential street; is that correct? MR. PERRY: That's correct. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. There's a valid complaint, I think, that Collier County has in the past placed transportation needs before the protection of the existing neighborhoods. And I do have some difficulty with -- with any alignment that presents a problem of -- of negatively impacting an existing residential neighborhood on the other side of Goodlette-Frank Road. And with that I -- I would be getting into commentary, and I'll let the balance of this board stand with its questions, but I think that's an important point in looking at these proposed alignments. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Any questions or comments from the city? Commissioner Korest. COUNCILMAN KOREST: I have a question that we -- someone -- there was a brief discussion this morning about the need for a bridge in 2005 that would not -- that would be -- the bridge would not be required until that time. And I think there's some serious questions about that in terms of certainly the perception of the community who, I believe, feels generally that it's needed a good deal sooner, in fact, probably now. But the question dealt with the discussions, Jeff, that took place at the MPO meeting where Mr. Feder said that it would be something like 15 years perhaps, perhaps longer, before a bridge could be built with federal or state funds. And that was because of the fact that there are so many demands on existing funds, there would have to be a tremendous reordering of priorities in order to even build it at that point. Now, that's one part of it. But would -- what was the comment -- what comments are there -- what would be our ability to build a bridge 15 or 20 years in terms of the ability to get -- to purchase the necessary land for right of way and perhaps also the permitting in terms of environmental? Do you have any comments on that, because I think that's an important part of the consideration of delay? MR. PERRY: There are -- I think in your exhibits for the second discussion today on the back of funding source there is some discussion of the problems associated with waiting 10 or 15 years to build a bridge. The state has indicated that this project could compete -- could be made eligible and could compete for federal and state funding against other projects on U.S. 41 or Davis Boulevard, 951. I mentioned a couple already. Some of the problems, though, however, deal with the right of way, the cost of the project from an environmental standpoint. We're not sure today what the environmental rules or regulations will be 10 or 15 years from now. The bridge may not be permitable 10 or 15 years from now as it is today. The cost of the right of way and, in fact, the availability of the right of way, if nothing is done in the interim to try to protect the right of way, there may, in fact, be no opportunity, or it would just be so astronomically costly to be tearing down multistory office buildings where they don't exist today. So there are a lot of problems associated with waiting 10 or 15 years for anybody's money, even if there was a promise that 10 or 15 years from now money would definitely be available. Something would need to be done, we believe, right up front today to start protecting some of those alignments and right of way parcels. So that in conjunction with the extra costs associated with turning it into a federal project, the delays associated with it, and the competition with other projects that were already in the pipeline that might have to be bumped if in 10 or 15 years this road becomes a concurrency problem as we predict, then there's going to have to be some tough decisions made about which project is going to be built, because as we will talk about later, sales tax is a brand new funding source. It does not affect anybody else's projects. Whereas using federal or state money will affect other federal or state funded projects in the work program. If I could just also point out one thing as far as what Commissioner Hancock mentioned about impacting residential neighborhoods. We've talked about this before in that alternate number 4 from the standpoint of protecting the movements of those vehicles once they hit Goodlette -- Goodlette Road, we've lost that ability to dictate what happens to those cars once they get onto Goodlette Road, if they choose to make turns onto Seventh Avenue and use Seventh Avenue and the opposing traffic coming from Seventh Avenue turning left and going up to what would be Ninth and getting on the bridge. Those movements are -- are obviously out of our control once they hit Goodlette Road, whereas, one of the options of alternate route 3 was being able to strictly control those movements with traffic diverters if you -- if you oppose that directly onto Third, the connections. I just wanted to point that out because I know Commissioner Hancock was familiar with that. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. Commissioner Mac'Kie. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: If that's something that you wanted to follow up on Commissioner Hancock, I'd defer to you with your planning background, but I don't understand that. Why is that once it Ts onto Goodlette we no longer can control what happens as it leaves Goodlette and goes to Seventh Avenue? COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: I was just going to say that it stands to reason if someone comes across alternate number 4, they can make a left and then make an immediate right on Seventh Avenue and then end up over at 41. In fact, alternative number 4, even though it Ts, provides someone who is trying to get southbound on 41 the opportunity to utilize Seventh. I believe what Mr. Perry is saying is alternate number 3, because it goes into Seventh Avenue directly, diverters and other traffic control mechanisms can be used to keep that traffic off of Seventh North. MR. PERRY: That's correct. But you don't have that capability if you use -- if you offset the intersections. You don't have any capabilities to control unless you absolutely prohibit right turn movements onto Seventh Avenue along Goodlette, and that would stop even people who have a home on Seventh Avenue from getting to there. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: So on the surface number 4 would appear to be the best because it doesn't line up, but, in fact, for those people who live in the Lake Park area and along Seventh of the two, between number 3 and number 4, number 3 gives us the greatest control over keeping people from using Seventh as a cut-through to 41 after coming across the bridge; is that correct? MR. PERRY: That's correct. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Just to follow up on that, Mrs. Prolman said something on the break I think is the perfect word for this traffic thing. It's counter intuitive. And my way of saying is it does make sense, but what you guys are saying is if I'm looking at the northerly alignment, and say I liked either 3 or 4 -- and I'm trying to give some protection to the people who live on Seventh Avenue North -- you're telling me that in order to protect people on Seventh, 3 is my better choice because you can block traffic? MR. PERRY: That's correct. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: If I look at this map, it looks like if I want to dump traffic on Seventh, I should choose alternate 3. You're telling me the opposite is true. MR. PERRY: That's true. If you come off the bridge on alignment 3 directly into Seventh Avenue North, if you're faced with a median diverter -- COHHISSIONER HAC'KIE: What you need is a concrete block or something in the middle of the road. MR. PERRY: Anything out there you like, trees. It could be of any structure and substance that you wanted to make sure that it would be impossible for you to make a direct straight-ahead movement into or out of Seventh Avenue. If you were coming out of Seventh Avenue, you could go right or left, but you could not go straight across the intersection. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Why can't I make it where you can't turn off of Goodlette onto Seventh when they came across on 4 or they came across on 37 MR. PERRY: You could absolutely prohibit right turns onto Seventh Avenue for southbound Goodlette. I'm not sure how successful, and I'm not sure -- it can probably be designed, but anybody who has a legitimate reason for using Seventh Avenue to get to their home on Seventh Avenue or get to wherever side street along Seventh Avenue, they would also be prohibited. They would not be able to get in or out at all. So it can be done. There's a lot of geometric -- HAYOR HUENZER: Well, let me ask this. If you were to put a block, come across, I hit Seventh. I can't go down Seventh because you've got a block, and I work at the hospital, or I want to go to the hospital, how am I going to get to the hospital if I can't go on Seventh? MR. PERRY: You would turn left, go down to Fifth Avenue HAYOR HUENZER: I turn left. I go to Fifth. Okay. Now I go Fifth. And I hit Tenth Street. I got a stoplight. I got to go one block again right there past all that density and all those apartments on Fifth Avenue. I've got all those kids. I've got the most highest child area density in the greater Naples area right in that stretch. So I've got to send the traffic by there, stop at Tenth Street, all the kids coming and going to school, coming and going to the playgrounds. They go to your Lake Park or Gulfview at that point in time. Then I send them one block to Fourth Avenue. Then at that point I have them hang a right to cross Fourth Avenue to the hospital. Now, when they come home -- walk -- come back home from the hospital, I come across 41 and Fourth. I got a light. I reach Tenth. How do I get out onto Tenth, because that Tenth has got enough traffic on that stretch? How do they get out onto Tenth to go up to Fifth Avenue so they can hit Fifth and then go back to Goodlette? I mean I've got much zigzagging that doesn't seem very efficient when I look at where I'm denying people the right to use Seventh, which is wide at that stretch. And assuming that people are going to use Seventh as a point of entry in the city just like -- if Goodlette Road is used as a north-south artery, if we bring them across and they dead end -- let me be devil's advocate the other way. I bring them across and dead end. They're going to go north-south. They're going to go north-south most logically until they reach a point of entry opposite of where they want to be in the city, whether it's going to be 14th Avenue and Lake Park, whether it's going to be Fleishmann, whether it's going to be Golden Gate, whether it's going to be 26th, whether it's going to be Creech, whether it's going to be Solana or going south. You're going to go down Goodlette until you get that avenue nearest your point of entry; then you turn and go into the city. So now I'm scattering that east-west traffic out among all these east-west arteries at point of entry rather than loading them all up and sending them on a dance around Fifth Avenue or denying that. You know, this is where -- I drive it all the time, and I go down Goodlette. I use Goodlette. I go all the way up to Immokalee Road and go back and avoid traffic. I come back. I don't get off Goodlette at Seventh. That's not my point of entry for where I live. I come down. People come down until they get exactly opposite their point of entry, and then they enter the city. We've got all these points of entry from Solana south that they can use. What makes you think they won't come across, hit Goodlette, and do it? If I was going to go to the First Watch restaurant, I'm not going to come across at Ninth and then take and swing south and go down and around like that and go up. I'm going to go up and try to line up with what I want, probably Seventh Avenue, and then take and go through. But if I'm going to go to Olde Naples, I'm going to tend to go down to Third or First. Most likely I'd go to First. Then I'd hang a right, go over to Tenth and then take Tenth across. You know, we're giving people all these east-west arteries to use off of Goodlette Road and making Goodlette a north-south artery. Goodlette can handle it in the future, because from 22nd Avenue all the way to Pine Ridge Road, Goodlette has no more threat of commercial development. There's no strip malls. There's no shopping, and there's not going to be anything built where those golf courses are. So you've got Goodlette, which is basically a restricted area with no future growth, to handle all this north-south growth. I would think we'd be trying to encourage the use of Goodlette as a north-south and letting people pick their avenues of entry. Now, that's intuitive as you say, but this is from someone that drives. I also got to say this. I'm an old-fashioned person. I'm past my prime. I lived before computers, but I'm not intimidated by computers because somebody says a computer model says this, because anybody can put something in a computer and say 2010 this is what's going to be, and we aren't going to know if that computer is right until 2010. But I also have some seat-of-the-pants feel from having lived here and having lived a few years and know people think that I like to go by seat of the pants at times. So I'm not being -- I'm just not saying that because somebody says a computer says this, I'm not going to say, ah, oh, I'm sorry, I'll back down, computer says. I don't buy computers. I buy them for their purpose. But as far as their accuracy, we haven't had them long enough for long range to be able to say they sustained a record of accuracy. And so I think we've got to go by intuitive, as you say, and, again, I'm just posing. Tell me why the people won't use Goodlette Road between Ninth and Pine Ridge Road and use all these avenues as points of entry? Why won't they? MR. PERRY: I'm not going to argue with you. MAYOR MUENZER: Well, then in that case, coming at Ninth is exactly what I'm saying. We bring them in -- MR. PERRY: The point that we're making here, especially in the example that you gave about access or direction, someone heading to the hospital, if you access at Ninth Avenue or the equivalent of Ninth Avenue, where are they going to turn? They're going to turn on Seventh Avenue because they're not going to go down to Fifth. MAYOR MUENZER: No, they go to Fourth. MR. PERRY: They can't get through Fourth. Fourth doesn't connect. CHAI~ NORRIS: One at a time, please. MR. PERRY: The point we were making is that by connecting at Ninth Avenue, you are putting the traffic onto Goodlette Road. There is no other option. You must go right or left. And at that point we have lost control over which direction they move from that point forward. That's the only point we were trying to make, that if it was the intent of council and commission to protect Seventh Avenue, specifically Seventh Avenue from the bridge traffic, the best place to put the connection would be directly at Seventh Avenue where we can control the movements at the intersection. It's not -- it's not our decision as to whether -- HAYOR HUENZER: I read it. But then by protecting you're dispersing at all these others, and you're creating havoc at the Fifth and Fourth zigzag. MR. PERRY: Absolutely. That's correct. The more you limit those perpendicular facilities, the more burden it places on the remaining facilities. HAYOR HUENZER: And that's not bad to use that Fifth-Fourth zigzag. MR. PERRY: If you were to close off Seventh Avenue today, that traffic is going to have to get between U.S. 41, and Goodlette is going to have some other route, and they're going to use Fifth or Central or Fleishmann or 14th or some other route without question. HAYOR HUENZER: That's hospital traffic, but other traffic wouldn't use Seventh necessarily. MR. PERRY: Anybody who presently uses Seventh, if you were to blockade -- HAYOR HUENZER: Right. But for people going to the library, they aren't going to go Seventh. They're going to go down to Central. For people going down to Fifth Avenue or Third Street shopping, they're not going to take Seventh. They're going to go on down to Tenth. See, what I'm saying is we might protect Seventh, but we create havoc on all these others where if -- to control it where I'd rather send it on Goodlette. And I'm controlling it. Once I make it turn right or left on Goodlette, then I've controlled it. I'm making it go north or south, and I'm making them find an artery point into the city, so I've got the control I want, the nearest point of entry to the city where they're going to turn, and that's the control I want. CHAI~ NORRIS: Councilman Pennington. COUNCILMAN PENNINGTON: One of the factors on Seventh, the city presently is working totally apart from the bridge but toward traffic calming on Seventh. And we've been working with the people in Lake Park, and we're dedicated to assure that we're going to have the traffic controlled on Seventh Avenue. And so we're looking at everything from the mayor's favorite such as roundabouts to four-way stops, whatever. But we are dedicated to controlling that traffic situation on Seventh Avenue. There certainly is some appeal for the dead-ending at Seventh to prevent any traffic going in. But then one of the concerns I have about that, this is what we did at the exit from the mall onto Tenth Street. And it has closed off that as an entry for those driving through direct. Although, there are those, including myself, that went down to another exit from the mall and then came up and went south on Tenth Street anyhow, so there are ways of circumventing, but it does greatly reduce that. But it's also an inconvenience, though, for people that live in Lake Park that want to get down Tenth Street, so there's sort of a trade-off. My point being, if we dead-end Seventh, there are people now that commute back across there to the Collier Athletic Club or into the Commons, so it creates a bit of a problem for them. So I think our concentration from the city is on the traffic calming aspect to assure that we will not have excessive traffic on Seventh. And we're working on that diligently, and that will be done whether or not the bridge goes in there. For that reasons and others, I have concerns about the third option on the Commons end because as proposed, the route actually takes it across a couple of office building lots that are proposed for additional construction there. I think it would be very disruptive, both physically and aesthetically, to The Commons of making that transition diagonally across The Commons. So to try to bring this toward closure for the city part, I would move that we select option 4 as the desired selection. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. Excuse me. I need a clarification, I guess, from Mr. Wiegel. We need to take separate votes as city council and as county commission, I assume. And I'm not sure what we're going to do if they don't coincide, but we'll deal with that in a few minutes. MAYOR MUENZER: You get the final call. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Before we act -- I don't want to take the authority away from the mayor here, but before we move forward, I'd like to recognize Councilman Korest who had requested a comment here before we move on. COUNCILMAN KOREST: Yeah. Well, my -- my question deals in -- somewhat with the mayor's questioning, which I agree with, that the traffic once it comes across the bridge is going to be looking for whatever east-west corridor is most convenient to its destination. And my question of you, Jeff, is if we were to select the southern route that comes obviously on Goodlette, goes across Goodlette, it would provide, seems to me, an opportunity at that point for people who wish to go north to do so, and probably the majority might at that point want to go north. But it would also provide the opportunity for those who wanted to go to the hospital or to downtown to continue on Central and at that point make their -- their choice of -- of continuing north or south on 41. In line with your theory -- and I think it makes a lot of sense -- that this is basically just like a grid and -- and there are going to be various portions of the grid that are going to be equally used, or it's going to certainly divide up the usage based on the destinations. And that's the whole purpose of this is to even out this transportation network. In terms of the question about the northerly crossing coming into Seventh -- coming across at Ninth Avenue and hitting Goodlette, which provides then the opportunity for north-south or going into Seventh Avenue, either with or without a diverter, seems to me that it takes away some opportunities as compared in terms of evening out traffic flows as compared with the southern route where you would have people immediately opting to go onto Goodlette. And then those who wanted to go to 41 for their final destination would have that opportunity. And then those that wanted to go to the library or south would have that opportunity. It seems to me that it provides the opportunity to give people more choices with less disruption in any one area. Am I looking at that -- is there something wrong with my analysis? MR. PERRY: No, not at all. I think the point that we have to keep in mind is that all of these alignments are good alignments. They all serve a purpose. Your staff and the consultant will support whatever alignment you all choose as the preferred alignment. We have given you a recommendation that indicates that there -- we believe there is one alignment that's a little bit better than the others and have tried to state why we believe it's better. For the -- for the motorists traveling along the U.S. 41-Davis Boulevard corridor, we believe that the southern alignment gives them that opportunity to divert to a southern alignment and hit destinations like the hospital and the library and points in that general area. Whereas, the northern alignment for the motorists traveling on Davis Boulevard or 41 is not likely to go north that extra distance and come back south once he gets across the river. Now, for the motorist that happens to be headed from 41 or Davis up to the mall, he is going -- just as easily served by alternate number 3 and 4 or going all the way to Golden Gate Parkway and likewise any way further north. But you're correct. From Seventh Avenue south that particular area in there for the motorist in the U.S. 41-Davis Boulevard corridor, they have an opportunity to use this other alignment, is almost as good as staying on U.S. 41. Not likely for someone going to the library coming from Davis Boulevard -- is not likely to go up to Transfer Station Road and across to Seventh Avenue and then back south three or four blocks. He's gone at least a mile or farther out of his way. He, in fact, is not likely to have been diverted off of U.S. 41. So there -- for those people that have destinations in that particular area, they are better served by the southern alignment. MAYOR MUENZER: Aren't you looking primarily, though, from Davis southward anyhow -- aren't you looking mostly for people to be serviced from Davis all the way up to Golden Gate canal to be using this east-west crossing, a second bridge? You're really looking for those -- MR. PERRY: Once you get to Radio Road -- MAYOR MUENZER: It's the Radio corridor, Golden Gate, that whole area that's going to come in and use it. MR. PERRY: The Radio Road corridor is the point at which people have to make a conscious decision moving north to Golden Gate Parkway or south to Davis Boulevard. MAYOR MUENZER: Right. But when you were saying south of Davis, nobody -- I don't think I ever envisioned people south of Davis using the second bridge. I've always envisioned the second bridge to be the area north of Davis and south of Golden Gate canal, all that Radio Road corridor that now comes in and splits and overloads Davis and overloads Golden Gate. This was the third corridor is always what I figured about that. I wanted to ask Mr. Pennington -- because we had a motion, I want to catch up with -- COUNCILMAN VanARSDALE: Can I -- I don't know. I got a question if I can -- MAYOR MUENZER: Let me get my motion quick, because I had one. A motion takes precedent. I have to accept. COUNCILMAN VanARSDALE: Okay. MAYOR MUENZER: I wanted to make because it was -- COUNCILMAN PENNINGTON: My motion was for selection of option 4 for the city. HAYOR HUENZER: And that is the one for the public's information and ours that terminates, crosses where? COUNCILMAN PENNINGTON: It crosses to what would be recognized as Ninth Avenue if it were to come that far. It goes to the north of the -- HAYOR HUENZER: In other words, it's the northernmost route. COUNCILMAN PENNINGTON: The northernmost route. HAYOR HUENZER: Okay. Do I have a second before I subject for discussion? Do I have a second to that? COUNCILMAN SULLIVAN: I'll second that. HAYOR HUENZER: Mr. Sullivan has a second. Okay. Now Mr. VanArsdale. COUNCILMAN VanARSDALE: Yeah, Jeff, I'd just like you to -- of the -- which -- which of these three alternatives has the most negative impact on residential neighborhoods? MR. PERRY: I'm afraid that's a loaded question. COUNCILMAN VanARSDALE: I mean that -- to me, you know, that's -- that -- it's not in our $365,000 study, but, you know, we've got all sorts of concerns about the wetlands and the dry lands and all that, but we haven't -- in other words, that is a major environmental issue. MR. PERRY: We looked at -- it is in there, and we looked at it from a couple of different perspectives. We looked at the direct impact, those property owners, residences, residential units that had -- that were directly adjacent to or had access from particular alignments. We counted those home sites. We looked at those properties that were within a certain distance. So to try to pick up the neighborhoods that might be affected by some sort of flow-through traffic like on Seventh Avenue, for instance, is what might be affected there. And those numbers are in there and weigh in on one alignment or another. In fact, alignment number 2 weighed in less desirable from a standpoint of residential land use impacts because it directly impacts a greater number, meaning it -- I mean people that are adjacent to the particular roadway in greater numbers than the other two alignments. But you've heard today, and you've also heard that west of 41 there is concern from the residential neighborhoods west of 41 that there will be some outflowing of traffic that will cross over 41 and down Central Avenue and affect their property just as you have heard from Seventh Avenue North residents west of 41. So there are -- there are equal residential impacts west of 41 from our perspective regardless of which alignment you choose. COUNCILMAN VanARSDALE: West of 41. MR. PERRY: West of 41. COUNCILMAN VanARSDALE: But how about east of 417 MR. PERRY: East of 41 there is a greater number of secondary impacts to residential neighborhoods west of 41 for alternate 3 and 4 because of the Seventh Avenue road connection. Especially if number 4 is chosen there is likelihood that some additional traffic will find its way to residents along that street as well as the other side streets. Alternate number 2 has impacts directly adjacent to it in the condominium association you heard from today. Ironically there were several other property owners along alternate number 2 that do not object to it. Dr. Hogelvang, easternmost end, did not object to the project. So I would say on balance there is probably an equal amount of impact, albeit in different areas of the community. Different -- different people are going to be affected by the choice that's going to be made today. And I can't point to one particular alignment and say positively this alignment is far better because it affects less residences or less home sites because there's not that clear difference between them. Each of the alignments is affecting a different group of the population, and I wish I could give you a more clear answer than that. COUNCILMAN VanARSDALE: Thank you. MAYOR MUENZER: I was going to call on Ron, but go ahead, and then I'll get Ron for comments. COUNCILMAN KOREST: You say that there is going to be impacts. Obviously we all know that. In terms of a southern alignment what would be the degree of impact on the four corners area as compared with the northern alignment? MR. PERRY: I think we predicted that there would be a marginal improvement in the four corners area on a southern alignment as compared to the northern alignments, that the actual traffic -- because we're reducing -- we hope to reduce the amount of traffic along U.S. 41 with the southern alignment being closer to it that that would have a positive benefit in the four corners area. But there is some marginal improvement to that particular corridor, east Naples, U.S. 41 corridor, even with a northern alignment. We just don't think it's going to be as great. MAYOR MUENZER: Mr. Pennington. COUNCILMAN PENNINGTON: In support of the motion the major concern that I've had, once again, is that the majority of the traffic that comes across the bridge is not downtown destined traffic, 60 percent of it, according to our origin destination study. So it has been our view that it is paramount to get that traffic to bypass that downtown area. Now, we talk about the southern alignment providing some minor improvement in four corners, and it does directly at that intersection itself. But within five blocks, though, it adds a significant increase in the total traffic in the downtown area. The number there goes to 122,000 within five blocks. Another consideration that has not been mentioned that -- for traffic coming into the Central Avenue area, if it's to go north any significant amount on Goodlette Road, within a half block of Central Avenue we have a choke point on Goodlette Road where it narrows from three lanes to two lanes where the storm water lift station is by the police station. So that is an impediment from traffic going up Goodlette Road. So on balance in looking at this as to the major impact on the city of dumping that much traffic downtown, I would point out also downtown Naples has a finite capacity. And if anybody has been down in that area in the last two or three weeks, parking places are very difficult to find. Actually Fifth Avenue itself is designated a constrained highway because we cannot reach what would otherwise be recognized as an acceptable level of traffic for that. So it is constrained. And we are running it something like 23,000 vehicles on Fifth Avenue for our '94 count. The '94 count also coming across Gordon River Bridge peaked at 64,000 plus as opposed to what would be projected once we widen the existing bridge with six lanes. We will be adding two lanes to it for the widening of that bridge plus another four lanes of the new bridge. So if that stays in that southern area, we have doubled the amount of traffic lanes in and out across the bridge in that five-block area. I don't think we -- we can stand that. We do not have a capacity for that kind of traffic. I don't know where it would go. So for all these reasons I would submit that the northern route is the most advantageous for the part of the city. HAYOR HUENZER: Okay. I'd like to ask council, do you want to go ahead and vote on yours now, or do you want to wait for the commission to have a motion and vote, or do you want to proceed? COUNCILMAN PENNINGTON: We might as well vote on ours and move forward, I would suggest. HAYOR HUENZER: Okay. Then let's go with ours then. Normally we do roll call, so I'll just start from the right and -- and come this way then. Motion on the floor for option 4 by Mr. Pennington and seconded by Mr. Sullivan. Mr. Pennington, your vote. COUNCILMAN PENNINGTON: Yes. HAYOR HUENZER: Miss Prolman. COUNCILWOMAN PROLHAN: Well, I have a couple of comments to make, which is essentially that the dilemma here, of course, is that there are things wrong with both of the options. They impact on neighborhoods negatively. I think that the thing that we have to pursue with either -- with either choice is that we're going to have to really work at mitigation. That's something that I like -- I'd be much more interested in hearing about some of the options we have available for that. I am having a very hard time with this decision because there are -- there are such advantages to some aspects of it and such disadvantages at the same time. But I think overall I think for the reasons that we are building the bridge at all, I think I have to support Ron's motion and go with 4. HAYOR HUENZER: Yes, okay. Mr. VanArsdale. We're not in alphabetic. I'm just going as we come down here. COUNCILMAN VanARSDALE: Well, I don't know. Seems that we're defying logic to pay a lot of money for a study. We're ignoring the fact that the Seventh Avenue North between Goodlette and 41 is a residential neighborhood. There is no residential neighborhood between Goodlette and on Central between Goodlette and 41. Every -- all the experts -- basically there is no -- there is -- increase in traffic on 41 does not necessarily mean an increase in traffic in the downtown area, but these emotional issues have been raised and bantered around. So, like I said, it looks like we're defying logic for the sake of politics. HAYOR HUENZER: I'm sorry. COUNCILMAN VanARSDALE: But the problem is on the south. All along the problem has been on the existing Gordon River Bridge. It's the worst stretch of road in the county and has been for probably 20 or 30 years. It's quite clear the north route doesn't solve that problem, so we're not solving a problem. We're talking about spending more money and having the most negative impact on a residential community with the north route as opposed to the south route. And it seems like the north is coming that way. But I all along have supported the south route. I'll continue to support it, and I vote no. HAYOR HUENZER: No? Okay, Mr. Sullivan. COUNCILMAN SULLIVAN: I guess the basic -- the basic premise behind my seconding the motion was that I feel that there is going to be a bridge. I don't know -- I'm not quite convinced that there ought to be a bridge, but I am convinced there is going to be a bridge. Therefore, I chose what I felt was the least -- the least impactive termination within the city. I have viewed the second bridge for -- for all the time that I've been on council as a solution to a county problem and -- and I still view it that way. I empathize -- I haven't heard very many people talk about anything except the trips, the traffic counts, the impact on business. I am -- I'm trying to look at the impact on the City of Naples, and what's happening is we're using a methodology which is going to bring more traffic into the city. It's going to bring more traffic for the simple reason that there are more people coming into the county every year who want to come to the city because we provide beach access. And in order to achieve beach access, they move through our neighborhoods. I'm not happy with what's going on today on the beaches. I think that the citizens of the City of Naples are losing in many ways in the battle for the beaches. But as long as there's going to be a bridge -- and I'm convinced at this point that there's going to be one -- I want to see a T at Goodlette Road. And I realize that our traffic engineers tell us that if we go the southern route, unless they have a specific destination, they'll feed off left and right. Well, the specific destination is the beach, and they won't feed off until they get to Gulf Shore Boulevard and they're in the heart of the residential area and the traffic is increased up and down. We've lost control over the traffic when we simply T it. I would submit to you we lost control over the traffic ten years ago, and we haven't been able to get control over it since. And I really don't see that we'll ever -- we ever will. We have engineering principles which are designed to make life comfortable for automobiles, not for people, and that's what's happening. And I'd like to see us look at somehow making life comfortable for people. Right now at Central Avenue if you try to cross the street and you're a pedestrian, God help you, because you're -- you're a sitting duck, and you're a target of the moment when you step off the curb and try to cross in any direction. And it won't get any prettier if we put the bridge at alternative number 2. Therefore, I vote yes. HAYOR HUENZER: Mr. Korest. COUNCILMAN KOREST: Well, it's very apparent where we're going on this thing. And I'm delighted that we're moving in the direction of a bridge. My logic tells me that the engineer's recommendation of the alternate 2 had many advantages. And while we are going to disrupt people no matter where it goes, it was my feeling that we had some very, very strong pluses by going the southern route in terms of the advantages to the -- in terms of providing a direct link to the airport which we've never had before. It certainly does a tremendous amount for opening that access. It -- it, from my numbers, puts very little more traffic in. I recognize, though, the realities that no one wants any more traffic. We still probably have a number of people that would like to consider reinstallation of some major type moat or gate or whatever around this whole area. But in the interest of -- of moving this thing forward -- and I think the next step is going to be the most important one in terms of getting community support for a financing method for this -- that I think it's important that we all get behind a route, a corridor, otherwise known as a bridge, and to the greatest extent possible unanimously support it. So while I see some advantages for the southern route, I will cast my vote for the motion. HAYOR HUENZER: And voting last, I think it's pretty obvious from what I said; the suspense is over. I still agree with much that has been said. I think possibly, and I'm not faulting the engineers, alternate 2 may be best by their board and their figures and their scope, but Iwm strictly representing what I think is best for the city. And thatws my responsibility, not whatws best for engineers. And Iwm using my instinct from having lived here 25 years and driven the area to know the traffic patterns, and for that I vote yes, so the motion carries. So, Mr. Norris, itws in your hand now. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: All right. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. We are down to the point of making a motion from the county side. And before we do that, I just want to say that I appreciate the city councilws vote on this. Looking at the map, itws fairly obvious that -- that alignment number 2 would probably be -- it very possibly could be better for the cityws perspective, but it puts all of the negative impacts or most of the negative impacts on the countyws side, that being North Road and the T intersection at Airport Road which would cause a traffic mess there. The northern alignment over the long term I feel will -- will benefit the countyws traffic circulation more. The countyws going to be left with a responsibility of -- of hooking up the alignment through Enterprise to Livingston, so thatws going to end up being our responsibility. But if youwre going to ask the county taxpayer to get on board on this, therews going to have to be a lot of benefit to the county, and wewre going to have to look at the negative impacts to the county, not just the city. Itws not a city bridge. Itws not a county bridge, but both parties have to benefit. And I think the northern alignment does that much better. But wewre to the point now where the chair will take a motion from the countyws side. COMMISSIONER MACwKIE: Iwd like to move that we approve alternate 4. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Iim -- like the benefit -- if yould like to second it, I guess you can. Iid like the benefit of some discussion before going ahead with that. Iim going to avoid the long-winded speech version and be real frank about this. Alternative 4 I am going to disagree with in lieu of alternative 3 for the reasons cited by Mr. Perry. I think itls common sense that if you come across where alternative 4 is lined up and you start bringing 20,000 cars across there or 30,000 cars across there, a majority or least half of those are going to turn south. The mayor is correct. For those of us that know where welre going, we can -- we can make the cuts on the right roads. But for those of us that donlt coming across alternate 4 and making a left, youlre going to turn right on Seventh Avenue. Seventh Avenue is going to bear the brunt of the traffic crossing on where alternative 4 is. I donlt think that thatls a secret, and I have to agree with Mr. Perry that alternative 3 provides the folks from Seventh Avenue in that neighborhood the greatest security from having that traffic utilize their neighborhood street as a throughway to U.S. 41. I am in favor of a northern alignment, and I donlt think those reasons need to be restated time and time again. I think it is in the overall countyls best interest to align to the north, but I would ask the -- my two fellow commissioners to consider, and if therels additional input from Mr. Perry thatls necessary, I just see the folks on Seventh Avenue being hurt much more by alternative 4 than alternative 3. And I would like to take that into consideration in my vote and ask you to do the same. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I understand your concerns. I donlt happen to share them to the degree that you do. I second the motion to get it on the floor. If therels no further discussion, Iill call for the question. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. Opposed? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Aye. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Motion carries 2 to 1. And it appears, ladies and gentlemen, that we have an alignment. HAYOR HUENZER: Finally after 25 years. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: After 25 years we have an alignment. HAYOR HUENZER: Item B. MR. DORRILL: Mr. Chairman, if I could, just about a 30-second update, you may have seen Mr. Pineau come into the room and talk to both myself and Commissioner Hancock. About the time we broke for lunch today we had what appears to be a small tornado hit a North Naples community at the Caribbean Mobile Home Park. There were initially some reports that there were injuries. Those currently do not appear to be true. There were initially some reports that people were trapped in mobile homes. That apparently is not true. There was some widespread damage to the mobile home park as well as the -- is it the Circle K? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yes. MR. DORRILL: We've been in touch with the Red Cross. Commissioner Hancock is current chairman of the chapter of the Red Cross. We continue to be under tornado watch and will be until eight o'clock this evening. HAYOR HUENZER: Didn't they get hit last year, the same trailer park and Circle K? I'm almost sure they did. MR. DORRILL: I can't recall. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And just from that perspective, although Mr. Pineau has given his recommendation, the Red Cross is readying a disaster action team to respond if necessary and help those folks out, so send your checks in. Got a plug in there. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I know our thoughts and our prayers are with those people up in that area. Hope that everything is going to work out fine for them. Item #2B DISCUSSION OF ALTERNATIVE FUNDING SOURCE OPTIONS AVAILABLE TO THE CITY COUNCIL AND COUNTY COHMISSION IN THE EVENT THE INFRASTRUCTURE SURTAX (LOCAL OPTION SALES TAX) REFERENDUM IS NOT APPROVED IN SEPTEMBER We'll move along to item 2-B which is the discussion of alternate funding source options available to the city and county in the event that the referendum does not pass for the surtax. Before we begin this discussion, I might -- I might help speed things along by pointing out that we discussed this at length at the HPO where it was fairly well brought forward that there is no real viable acceptable funding source option. Ad valorem is not going to happen. A toll bridge -- if we all go back and recall the original construction, the toll studies, the toll was fairly marginal at 14 million dollar costs. Now at a 20 million dollars cost, it's just not going to happen. There would have to be some sort of a joint city-county guarantee, and there again you're looking at what funding source would that be. So I think maybe to preclude any lengthy discussion here in going over ground that we've covered before in detail at the HPO, there really appears not to be a viable acceptable funding alternative to the sales tax referendum. Now, if anybody has any information that has not been shared to this point, we'd certainly like to hear it. COUNCILMAN KOREST: Commissioner Norris, I concur with you. I was present at that discussion. I would like to make a motion that we proceed with the 1 cent sales tax without an alternative method at this point. MAYOR MUENZER: Your motion then is no alternative to the sales tax? COUNCILMAN KOREST: Right. MAYOR MUENZER: Do we have a second? COUNCILMAN PENNINGTON: Second. MAYOR MUENZER: Second from Mr. Pennington. Any other comments from council on this? COUNCILMAN SULLIVAN: As a point of clarification, if -- if this motion goes through, then am I correct in interpreting the referendum to be held in regard to the sales tax as also being interpreted as a vote on whether or not to proceed with the bridge? Would that be a correct interpretation? COUNCILMAN KOREST: I think that's going to be something that we don't have to decide. I don't want to be in a position of having -- of telling the taxpayers that if this doesn't go, then we're going to do something else to you, because you're going to have people voting against it based on, well, I don't want that to happen, so I'll vote against it. I think we have to proceed in good faith that this is the -- this is the preferred method. We have all endorsed it. It's -- it's something that I think needs no further discussion. But I think if we leave that as a clear-cut single issue and we all get behind it, it's going to be interpreted much more favorably than if we muddy up the water with alternatives and what-ifs and so on. COUNCILMAN SULLIVAN: And I'm not suggesting any what-ifs or any alternatives. COUNCILMAN KOREST: I think people can interpret it any way they want. COUNCILMAN PENNINGTON: If I may, I had asked for this as a discussion item for our last MPO meeting, and we did discuss it thoroughly, and we examined all facets, and our conclusion was essentially the same as Councilman Korest has stated. And we feel right now we're saying the sales tax is undoubtedly the best way to pay for this without question, and we need to move forward with that without further discussion of alternatives. MAYOR MUENZER: Any other comments from council? Okay. I'll start then yes or no then on this. We've got the motion, Mr. Korest; second, Mr. Pennington. Mr. Pennington. COUNCILMAN PENNINGTON: Yes. MAYOR MUENZER: Miss Prolman. COUNCILWOMAN PROLHAN: Yes. MAYOR HUENZER: Mr. VanArsdale. COUNCILMAN VanARSDALE: Yes. MAYOR HUENZER: Mr. Sullivan. COUNCILMAN SULLIVAN: Yes. MAYOR HUENZER: Mr. Korest. COUNCILMAN KOREST: Yes. MAYOR HUENZER: I also too vote yes, 6-0. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I'll entertain a motion from the county commission. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'd like to make the same motion. We'll proceed with that. I don't find an alternative at this point in time. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second. Okay. If there's no further discussion, I'll call the question. in favor signify by saying aye. All those opposed? That was unanimous. All those Item #2C DISCUSSION AND DIRECTION TO STAFF REGARDING PROCEEDING WITH THE DESIGN PHASE OF THE SECOND GORDON RIVER BRIDGE PRIOR TO THE PROPOSED SEPTEMBER REFERENDUM ON THE INFRASTRUCTURE SURTAX (SALES TAX) And that brings us to item 2-C, Mr. Perry. I think you have a little business here on 2-C, discussion and direction of staff regarding proceeding with the design phase of the second Gordon River Bridge prior to the proposed September referendum on the infrastructure sales tax. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Somebody pull out a coin and flip it, guys. MR. PERRY: This particular item was the discussion proceeding with the possibility of conducting preliminary design work, some of the work that needed to be done as part of the design contract prior to the referendum. It's now clear that there is no backup funding sources available that if this referendum should fail, that costs incurred prior to that time are for not. They're not recoverable and nonreimbursable. If it does -- if the referendum is successful, we believe we have a ballot question that would be considered as your ordinance in June, I guess, is that would allow for the recovery of those costs if the referendum is successful. We would expect there to be -- you could actually put a limit on the amount if you chose to. We're talking about funds for such things as additional aerial photography work that would be necessary, ground surveying work that would be necessary. We're not -- you know, it's not something that has to be done, but it would certainly be beneficial to the project keeping it moving by -- by doing a little bit of the work prior to September. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I understand, Mr. Perry. There's always the outside chance that this sales tax referendum would not pass and, therefore, as you pointed out, there may be some expenditures here that would go for naught. Could you tell us approximately what amount of money you're considering would be necessary, and what is it that we absolutely have to do to keep the thing on schedule, and what could be delayed until the referendum? If you could maybe explain to us a little bit about that, maybe we'd have a better feel for what we need to do. MR. PERRY: I'll let Mr. Archibald explain that. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: What I'm -- what I think I'm trying to get around to is that maybe we should look at not expending anything that we don't absolutely have to in the interest of being cautious. MR. ARCHIBALD: Recognizing that your staff will pursue the selection process in regards to a consultant and that that contract will exceed a million dollars, what the staff would be recommending is that approximately seventy-five to a hundred thousand dollars of available funds be set aside to perform some of those activities and that if we, in fact, go forward with the contract, that it be limited in that fashion. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. Do we have any -- yes, Councilman Pennington. COUNCILMAN PENNINGTON: George, do we not have some residue change, if you will, from the existing one, and from that is it possible that that would cover that interim period? As I understand, a contract could be let once the county commission passes the ordinance authorizing the election. There's -- that's the intent of framing the ballot question in that way which would permit the action then to go ahead for selection of the contractor for the next thing and start some initial effort. Do we have sufficient funds residual that would perhaps cover that obligation? MR. ARCHIBALD: Yes. Yes, we do. But, again, we may want to restrict that to somewhat less than a hundred thousand. COUNCILMAN PENNINGTON: Uh-huh. MR. ARCHIBALD: Probably between now and the time we go through that process we may be able to identify other funds that could be used in that interim stage, so staff could proceed with the selection process, also concurrently proceed with going ahead and allocating some funds and make that part of the process of selection and recommendation of a contract. COUNCILMAN PENNINGTON: Uh-huh, okay. So trying to scope this in then, the -- the concern, though, at this point would be for authorization and some tentative obligation then of something less than a hundred thousand; is that correct? MR. PERRY: All we're asking from you today is for the council and commission to provide us direction. If there's an agreement among you that you think it's an okay idea to proceed with something like this, we would go ahead and put together a package in an interlocal agreement to tell you exactly what expenses we think would be appropriate during that period of time and bring that back for you for final decision. We're not asking for you to vote on any funds or anything like that at this point. COUNCILMAN PENNINGTON: Okay. We would just be authorizing you to proceed to put it together to get ready to proceed then? MR. PERRY: Right. If you support the idea of using some funds prior to the election knowing that basically now that there's a possibility that you could not be reimbursed for them, you give us that direction, we'll put a package together, bring it back to the city council and the county commission. HAYOR HUENZER: How long would you guess it would take to get it together? What -- do you have an estimate? MR. PERRY: Probably 60 days. We would have it -- we would certainly have it prior to your -- HAYOR HUENZER: Maybe we should set our next date then so that we all -- since we have so much trouble getting schedules together, do it so it would be available for it. MR. PERRY: We could certainly do that and then work through your secretaries to make sure -- HAYOR HUENZER: We will be hosting the next one. COUNCILMAN PENNINGTON: Do we need a motion to that effect or -- MR. WOODRUFF: Before you entertain a motion, could I make a comment, please? CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Certainly. MR. WOODRUFF: Two things for the record. The city has incurred only nominal expense up to this point, and we will not be asking for the project -- whether it's approved or not approved, we will not be asking for those expenditures to be repaid to the city. Second point, city council members should be aware that I am of the opinion that now that we have gotten to this point, it is appropriate for the county to hire the consultant. We have discussed this with the county attorney through the county manager's office. It is possible for them to accept that contract. We have representation on the MPO, but I think given the size of the county staff and their expertise relative to road construction projects, it would be appropriate for us to continue to have good cooperation and good dialogue. But the actual management of the contract, the actual management of the project, I would recommend that that become a county issue. If, however, the county commission does not agree with that, then certainly we will continue in our previous position. MR. DORRILL: I add nothing other than to underscore the source of funds for any preliminary engineering would be those left over from our phase one project and I would presume a similar mix of impact fees, if there is a difference; as Mr. Archibald said, that we will evaluate the proposals that we have received, and we will structure the engineering contract in such a way that the risk is minimized. I think we'd probably have some type of lump sum task-oriented fee with an offset amount for out-of-pocket, spendables, that type of thing. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Let me make a suggestion here then that if it's essentially going to fall as a county responsibility, that we refer this item to the MPO and let the MPO make the decision on that rather than this joint body. Therefore, we won't have to reconvene as a joint body and -- and we still have the representation from both bodies. MAYOR MUENZER: What I suggest then, do it that way, and if we need to reconvene just for a vote to set a time certain on a Tuesday, which would be your regular meeting day, giving us time certain, nine, ten, eleven or something, we'd come out, reconvene and do it and then break so that it would be more convenient. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Let me ask Mr. Perry if the MPO has the authority to make this particular decision. MR. PERRY: I don't believe so. I think we need to have an interlocal agreement signed by the county commission and the city council. We can do that separately. I don't know that we need to have -- if the MPO reviews it and concurs with the mix and the terms of the agreement, they could recommend that it be sent to both of the bodies, and we would not have to bring everybody together at one time. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: That might be the best suggestion then. Let the MPO hash the matter out and make a recommendation which would be forwarded to the city council and to the county commission for their separate approvals. MAYOR MUENZER: Could I just -- in case we need a date, could I ask everybody to put a hold on a certain time in case we did meet 60 days out from now. We have so much trouble getting everybody together. Could we put a hold and say that 60 days out from now on Wednesday -- how would a -- Wednesday the 7th be like at one o'clock in case we need it? Could you all agree to that to just put a hold on in case we need it? COUNCILMAN PENNINGTON: Wednesday? MAYOR MUENZER: Yeah, we have a regular council meeting. We could do it time certain at one o'clock, and they just come in for it and get out. COUNCILMAN PENNINGTON: That would be fine. HAYOR MUENZER: Would that be agreeable to the commission if you don't put a hold on that? Council have a regular meeting that day, and we could just come in, do a time certain at one, handle this, and get out if we needed. COUNCILMAN KOREST: June 7th, Mayor. HAYOR HUENZER: That would be June 7th, one o'clock to hold for joint meeting. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And that's just in case? HAYOR HUENZER: Just in case. MR. DORRILL: Chances are we may be here doing budget workshops, and so that would work fine. HAYOR HUENZER: But this way we don't get scheduled and then try to find so and so has got this, and then it's hard to get together. If we do it this far out, we've got it reserved. So I'll put a hold, one o'clock, Wednesday, June 7th. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. Mayor, you understand that it may not be necessary to hold a meeting, though? HAYOR HUENZER: Oh, yeah. I'm hopeful we don't. In case we do, we don't want to hold up. We're running such a tight time schedule. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Let the record show Mayor Huenzer said he is looking for a date. HAYOR HUENZER: Let the record indicate after 41 years, Tim, I know better. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. That really concludes our agenda today. And if there is any member of the public that would like to speak, we'll entertain that for the moment. If not, it appears that we are adjourned. There being no further business for the Good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by Order of the Chair at 2:14 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: Barbara A. Donovan