Loading...
BCC Minutes 05/09/1995 R REGULAR MEETING OF HAY 9, 1995, OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COHMISSIONERS LET IT BE REHEHBERED, that the Board of County Commissioners in and for the County of Collier, and also acting as the Board of Zoning Appeals and as the governing board(s) of such special districts as have been created according to law and having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:03 a.m. in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following ALSO PRESENT: members present: CHAIRPERSON: VICE CHAIRMAN: Bettye J. Hatthews John C. Norris Timothy J. Constantine Timothy L. Hancock Pamela S. Hac'Kie W. Neil Dotrill, County Hanager Kenneth B. Cuyler, County Attorney Sue Filson, Administrative Assistant Deputy Paul Canady Item #2A AGENDA AND CONSENT AGENDA - APPROVED WITH CHANGES CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Call to order the May 9 meeting of the Board of County Commission for Collier County. Mr. Dotrill, would you lead us in an invocation and pledge? MR. DORRILL: Heavenly Father, as always, we give thanks this morning for the wonder and privilege that we have to live in what is one of the most beautiful parts of the world here in Collier County. Father, we give thanks for the wonderful quality of life that we enjoy, and we give thanks for the commitment of local government to make this a beautiful and affordable place in which to live or retire and enjoy raising a family. Father, this morning especially we want to give thanks for those citizens in our community who were part of the commitment to end the terror of World War II and the victory that we celebrate today on this the 50th anniversary. Father, as always, we pray that you guide the deliberations of this county commission and that you would bless our time here together today, and we pray these things in your Son's holy name. Amen. (The pledge of allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Dorrill, are there changes to the agenda? MR. DORRILL: Yes, ma'am. There's two changes today, and then I have some communication items that I'll hold until the end. I have one add-on item under proclamations and presentations. It will be item 4A(3) to be accepted by Jesse Costin, and it's the National Food Drive Week. That would be 4A(3). And then I have one other item that would be under the county commission's portion of the agenda which is 10A which is a discussion item concerning the county manager's ordinance at the request of Commissioner Hac'Kie. And I don't have any other changes. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: have changes? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thank you. Commissioner Norris, do you Nothing further. Commissioner Hancock? No, ma'am. Commissioner Mac'Kie? Just a brief explanation about the 10A item that I've asked to be added about the county manager's ordinance. This is at the request of the League of Women Voters in a discussion that I had with their representatives over the weekend where they asked that we discuss what I would call putting the teeth back in the county manager's ordinance, nothing to do with Neil's contract, nothing -- you know, Commissioner Matthews, of course, in deference to the scheduling of that item, this is completely separate from Neil Dotrill in particular but a generic discussion at the request of the League of Women Voters. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Mr. Cuyler. MR. CUYLER: Madam Chairman, on a separate issue, under 9A, I'm not going to change that. I'm going to go ahead and leave that on the agenda. That is a discussion of certain motions to dismiss on a quasi-judicial hearing we have scheduled for next week. I do want to leave that on to discuss in general where we're going and what it looks like on this item. The moving party, the motion maker on this are Mr. Gibson's attorneys. Mr. Anderson asked me to put on the record they object to it not being heard today, but that's my decision not to have it heard today. I think it's better heard next week. He said that if I would put that on the record, he wouldn't get up and take your time. So that's on the record. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Fine. Mr. Constantine. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah. I'm going to ask if we can take our regular scheduled lunch break at 11:50. I have a 12 noon meeting I need to be at that should only last about 45 minutes so we can still be back in an hour, but I just wondered if we can do it then rather than noon. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: And there's -- There's another conflict too. Commission Hac'Kie also is requesting that we take a break at one o'clock. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I have to be at my daughter's school at 1:30. I expect that to last about an hour. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Sounds like a two-hour lunch to me. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Let's see where the agenda takes us and what we can work with it, if we've got some natural breaks there. We'll move ahead with the CAFR discussion this afternoon. It looks like it's going to be a three or four o'clock day anyway. The only item that I would like to add to the agenda would be under communications this afternoon, and that's a discussion of the ordinance and the voting parameters established for the Citizen Advisory Council reviewing the Growth Management Plan. It seems to be -- Things have gotten a little unwieldy in the wording for that ordinance. So that's a discussion item. If there's no further changes, I'd like a motion. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: consent agenda? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: So moved. To approve the agenda and the Yes. Second. We have a motion and a second to approve the agenda and the consent agenda as amended. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Second. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: All those in favor please say aye. Motion passes 5-0. Item #3 MINUTES OF THE BCC REGULAR MEETING OF APRIL 18, 1995 AND THE SPECIAL MEETING OF APRIL 19, 1995 - APPROVED AS PRESENTED COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Madam Chairman, I would like to make a motion we approve the minutes of the April 18 regular meeting and April 19 special meeting. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Is there a second? COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Second. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second to approve the minutes of April 18 and 19. All those in favor please say aye. Motion passes 5-0. Item #4A1 PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING MAY 10, 1995 AS SOCIAL SECURITY EMPLOYEE RECOGNITION DAY - ADOPTED Next on the agenda are proclamations and service awards. First Commissioner Norris for "Social Security Employee Recognition Day." COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Thank you, Madam Chairman. Is Jack Fordham here for this today? MR. FORDHAM: Yes. COMHISSIONER NORRIS: There you are. Okay. Would you MR. FORDHAM: Do you want to have me come right here or what? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Come right up here and -- MR. FORDHAM: All right. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: -- face the camera there and get on national TV here. MR. FORDHAM: All right. Can't beat that, can you? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: We're feeding this in to CNN, you know. "Whereas, in honor of the employees of the Social Security Administration office located in Collier County, Florida; and "Whereas, 45,200 persons in Collier County receive Social Security benefits that total $32,016,000 monthly; and "Whereas, 200 persons in Collier County are provided a wide range of services each business day by employees of the Social Security office; and "Whereas, the aforementioned services are provided at a very low cost by dedicated Social Security employees whose numbers have not increased in ten years; and "Whereas, said employees are involved in other worthwhile services in Collier County that include outreach efforts, informational radio programs, presentations to community groups and organizations, volunteer work and educational projects; and "Whereas, without these employees, the residents of Collier County would be inconvenienced and sometimes unable to accomplish all that now occurs on their behalf. "Now therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that the day of May 10, 1995, be designated as 'Social Security Employee Recognition Day.' Done and ordered this 9th day of May 1995." Madam Chairman, I'll make a motion that we accept this proclamation. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll second that motion. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second to accept the proclamation. All those in favor please say aye. Opposed? There being none, motion passes 5-0. MR. FORDHAM: Thank you very much. Thank you, Commissioners, for offering me the opportunity to speak. I don't want to bore this audience that's here for important business with anything I have to say personally, but I would like to ask the employees that I was able to bring with me today to stand. Thank you. I want you to know that these people and those like them that unfortunately could not come because of pressing business are the people that make this Social Security office the very finest of the United States, and we're very proud to be here in Collier County. Thank you. Thank you, Commissioners. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thank you. COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Thank you. Item #4A2 EFFORTS AND COST SAVINGS OF THOSE PARTICIPANTS IN THE COUNTY'S ADOPT-A-ROAD PROGRAM - RECOGNIZED CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Next item on the agenda is a recommendation to recognize the efforts and cost savings of the county's Adopt-A-Road Program. Commissioner Constantine. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: George, maybe you can help me with this. We have over 35 firms in the county who help us out with the Adopt-A-Road Program. You may have seen the signs along the side of the road, a big blue sign that says the name of the firm, who was helping out. Twenty-five of those have been with us two years or more. And just to give you some idea of how much that assists us in our cleanup effort, they put in a total of over 8,500 hours annually doing that. If you start doing the math on that, that's about 175,000 bucks a year that -- of value that is put in. So we want to make sure that those companies are getting the appropriate recognition and I want to go through -- We have a list here and certificates for each of those companies who have been working with us. And, George, maybe you can help me as we go through here. I'm going to work from these because we're -- we're going to go backwards from the folks who have been with us the longest. Since 1990, we have a couple of folks. Damico Realty, Citizens Association of Bonita Beach, and Strive. If we could have all three of you come on up. That's since 1990, so all three of those groups have been with us five years now. Since 1991 -- These -- The original three set a pretty good precedent. We had a whole pile join us in 1991, including Barton Collier High School, Global Title Company, Golden Gate Estates Area Civic Association. Those who are here are more than welcome to come up and get your certificate. Golden Gate Moose Lodge 1654, Long John Silvers. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Come on, George. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Come on. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: George, I've never known you to be shy before. Marco Island Lions Club, the Marco Island Volunteer Firefighters, Margood R.V. Resort, Naples Detachment Marine Corp League, Philippine American Association, the Pilot Club of Marco Island, The Pines, David Lawrence Center, and I slipped by Long John Silvers, Damico Realty again. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: They have two roads? COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: They may well. And the remainder here, at least since 1992, Built-Well Fence Company, Capital Homes. You guys are just taking home a whole pile here. Dehart Alarm System; William P. Gutierrez, D.C.; Dr. Luc Mazzini, D.D.S.; Florida Council on Crime and Delinquency -- got the kids out there cleaning up streets -- Golden Gate Contractors Association; Immokalee High School Interact Club; Pilot Club of Naples; the Red Lobster; Rudy Ranch; and Truly Nolen. It's kind of nice. I think this is very much -- I think this is very much indicative of the pride our people have in our own community. They're willing to get out there and spend a Saturday or a Sundays or many Saturdays and Sundays cleaning up their own communities. So thank y'all very much. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: I think many times the only evidence, other than having clean right-of-ways, is if you ever drive by the sign and you see there's seven garbage bags all at the bottom of the sign, they've been there. So it's terrific to see that. Item #4A3 PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING THE WEEK OF HAY 7-13, 1995 AS NALC NATIONAL FOOD DRIVE WEEK - ADOPTED CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you, Commissioner Constantine. The next item on the agenda is another proclamation dealing in the National Association of Letter Carriers. Is that what that is? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: That is correct. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hancock. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: It's my pleasure this morning. Is Jesse Costin, president of National Association of Letter Carriers here? Branch 4716, to give you full and total credit there. Jesse, if you'd just come up and stand here at my left and face all of your public fans out there. "Whereas, letter carriers deliver to and have personal contact with every address nationwide; and "Whereas, Collier County organizations who feed the less fortunate in our area need donations of non-perishable food items for local distribution; and "Whereas, 32 million pounds of food were collected in 1994, the largest food drive in the nation, the National Association of Letter Carriers in cooperation with the Southwest Area Local of the American Postal Workers Union and the National Rural Letter Carriers Association and Postal Management are sponsoring the 1995 NALC National Food Drive to collect food directly from residents on HAy 13, 1995; and "Whereas, the Collier County residents have been encouraged to participate by leaving non-perishable food items at their mailboxes for collection by their letter carriers. The food items will be given to Collier Harvest who will then distribute it to charitable organizations within Collier County. "Now therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that the week of HAy 7 through the 13th, 1995, be designated as 'NALC National Food Drive Week.' "Done and ordered this 9th day of HAy 1995. Signed by Bettye J. Matthews, Chairman." Madam Chairman, I would like to make a motion to approve this proclamation designating HAy 7 through the 13th as"NALC National Food Drive Week." COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I second the motion. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second to accept the proclamation. All those in favor please say aye. Opposed? There being none, motion passes 5-0. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Jesse's going to give us some instructions on how to participate here. MR. COSTIN: First of all, I'd like to thank you for this opportunity to make the whole county aware of what we're trying to do. Real quick, once again, it's a national food drive. It's held once a year. It's usually in May, and it's the same date throughout the United States. And, as I said, we collected 86 billion pounds last year. We hope to better that this year. Anytime -- Any kind of help that you can give as far as spreading the word that it will be this Saturday. We ask you to set the food, not necessarily in the mailbox. It's non-perishable food, so if you just have it in bags which makes it much easier for the carrier to pick up and just set it beside your mail box, and then we'll pick it up and we'll have Collier Harvest -- we've worked real close with them, and we have distribution to all the -- They're going to take care of the distribution along with the people who have trucks and stuff like that to get it to the central points. So, again, I appreciate it very much. Any help that we can get as far as spreading the word to your condo associations -- we've contacted the newspapers and radio stations, so that word should be getting out but we can -- All the help we can get, we'd really appreciate it. I would like to recognize my chairman who has been taking care of this. I'm up here, but she's done all the work. Linda Kelly back there, she's done 99 percent of the work in trying to get this thing together so I really appreciate her. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Thank you very much. Item #4B EMPLOYEE SERVICE AWARDS - PRESENTED CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Next item on the agenda are service awards. Commissioner Mac'Kie. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Is John Hall here? If you'd come forward. I'm honored to present to Mr. Hall today from Facilities Management a certificate thanking him and recognizing him for 15 years of service to Collier County. Also if Peggy Jartell -- Am I pronouncing that correctly? Did I get it right? We'd like to thank Peggy Jartell for five years of service in the Building Review and Permitting Department. Also Richard Grigg. Mr. Grigg, we'd like to thank you for five years of service in Transportation Services Administration. And, finally, Steve Rasmussen, if you're here -- We'd like to thank Mr. Rasmussen for five years of service at the Waste Water North plant. Item #4C1 KEVIN HILL, AGRICULTURE EXTENSION, RECOGNIZED AS EMPLOYEE OF THE MONTH FOR MAY, 1995 CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Next item on the agenda, it gives me great pleasure to once again, as we do each month, recognize our employee of the month. This month it is Kevin Hill. You want to come forward, Mr. Hill. As he's coming forward, I'll begin to tell you a little bit about what Mr. Hill has done because he's done quite a lot since he's been employed with Collier County Agricultural Department since 1984. Spin around so we can all see what you look like. He's a recognized leader in the livestock agent beef industry. He's got a strong -- He has developed a strong relationship with the Cattlemens Association and with the Southwest Florida Research and Education Center. He's a presenter of programs, seminars, field days, and demonstrations, and I hear he does it quite well. He's proficient at computerized graphics, versatile in the Internet. He's learned it before a lot of us have. He's also been published. A very, very busy man. He works well with the 4-H'ers, and he works with the Horse Advisory Group as well as the Livestock Advisory Group in his persistent dedication as it's been seen each year, is one of the reasons those programs are so very successful at our fair. He has consistent superior ratings, and his peer group has chosen him as May's employee of the month. I want to congratulate you, Kevin. We have a few things here for you. First, we have a plaque. I'd like to read it to you. Collier County Board of County Commissioners, Collier County, Florida, Employee of the Month, official recognition and appreciation is tendered to Kevin Hill for exceptional performance, May of 1995. In addition to that, we have a letter which says pretty much the same thing, that it's indeed a pleasure to announce and recognize the dedicated service that you have provided to the county, and the proverbial fifty-dollar-very-spendable check. MR. HILL: Yes, ma'am. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: that each month. That's always a pleasure to do Item #5A BUDGET AMENDMENTS 95-244, 95-245, AND 95-279 - ADOPTED Next item on the agenda as we move into the balance of the agenda, budget amendments. Mr. Smykowski. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Good morning, Commissioners. For the record, Michael Smykowski, acting budget director. There are three budget amendments on the budget amendment this morning. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Motion to approve. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Second. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second to approve the three budget amendments. Any questions? Those in favor please say aye. Opposed? There being none, motion passes 5-0. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Thank you. Item #SA1 STAFF DIRECTED TO ADVERTISE FOR A PUBLIC HEARING TO BE HELD JUNE 20, 1995 TO CONSIDER THE ADOPTION OF AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO A ONE PERCENT LOCAL GOVERNMENT INFRASTRUCTURE DISCRETIONARY SALES SURTAX TO FUND A SECOND GORDONE RIVER BRIDGE CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. Next item on the agenda -- There are no public petitions. Into the county manager's report, the first item is 8A(1), a recommendation that the board authorize staff to advertise a public hearing. Mr. Perry. MR. PERRY: Good morning, MAdam Chairman and Commissioners. For the record, Jeff Perry from the Long-Range Planning Department staff. The recommendation before you today is seeking authorization to advertise for public hearing an ordinance and a companion resolution that would set forth the referendum on September 26 for the decision on whether or not a sales tax should be used to construct the second Gordon River bridge. We're suggesting that June 20 be the public hearing date for the ordinance. Originally we had suggested the 20th or 27th, and I understand you're on a vacation period the 27th so we're now -- You can't get away from it. We're back to the 20th. The draft copy of the resolution and -- which actually calls the ballot question and the ordinance which sets forth the creation of the resolution are in your agenda package for your review and consideration. If you have any other questions, I'll try to answer them for you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Questions? COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Question. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Constantine. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just one question or comment. When we voted on this issue initially, there was some question and I clarified. I think Commissioner Hancock made the motion initially to consider this, and I had asked for clarification at that time, that we were endorsing the idea of putting it on the ballot. The vote, at that time anyway, was not a vote in favor or against the sales tax itself. Item -- Under section one, item B, it says, "The levy of this additional 1 percent sales tax is the appropriate way .... this is one of the findings .... to fund an infrastructure such as .... If that particular section still sits in there, I'm going to have to vote against this because that's not my preference. I don't have any problem putting it on the ballot but I cannot -- I don't find that as one of my findings. I think you'll still have four votes, but if you want to remove that, we'll have a 5-0 vote. So we can just take that under discretion. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Do you have another recommendation for funding then? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah, but I don't think at this point that that's -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: That's not the appropriate time? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Commissioner Hac'Kie. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I had just a couple of questions. On the third page, Jeff, of the ordinance, it references -- it talks about the distribution of local government infrastructure surtax. It says that the proceeds will be distributed in one of the following methods. Either there will be an interlocal agreement, or if there's not, then the proceeds will be distributed in accordance with this formula set forth in the statute. I just wondered if you could -- I don't understand that part. We need an interlocal agreement to make the distribution, and what's the time-line for adopting one? MR. PERRY: The statute provides -- If you don't have an interlocal agreement, the statute provides that there is a formula for distributing the revenue. Our suggestion, of course, is that there be an interlocal agreement, that all of the funds be -- have to be earmarked for this particular project, so we want to make sure everyone is in agreement with that proposal and that there's no secondary distribution of the funds. Otherwise, we'd have the City of Naples paying for part of the project and the county paying for part of the project. All of the proceeds are supposed to come to the county. The county would then be paying for all of the project, and it's our intention to develop that interlocal agreement. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: In the event for some reason I can't fathom -- but in the event there were -- we were unable to adopt an interlocal agreement, what's the formula that we're saying? What does the statute provide for how the funds would be distributed? MR. PERRY: I'm not sure if it's the same as the -- The formula for our sales tax or gas tax is the distribution based on collections of the -- or the expenditures of a period of -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Maybe just if somebody could get that section. MR. CUYLER: I think it's the population based formula. David, do you remember what it is? I think it's a population. We can find out real quickly. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah. I think we just changed it to 11 percent or 13 percent or something. We had lowered it from 18 to 13 or something last year because of population. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. MR. CUYLER: While your public speakers are talking, I'll get that for you. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah. It would just be nice to read that. Just -- I mean, we know that there's not unanimous support for this issue on the city council, and I guess it's conceivable that we could fail to get an interlocal agreement. So it makes me -- I'd just like to know what the alternative distribution plan is. And the other question I had is about section five. Is it possible instead of saying that, "The Board of County Commissioners shall enact an ordinance repealing this ordinance after September 30, 1996," is it possible to enact that ordinance now so that there is more comfort in the community that it's dead? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Why can't we sunset this? I thought that's what its purpose was. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I don't want to enact this ordinance repealing the tax in the future. I want people to know when they vote on it, that it is repealed effective September 30, 1996. MR. WEIGEL: This is David Weigel, assistant county attorney. The provision in there concerning the repeal is after September 30 -- for instance, if the referendum fails, it would be appropriate for the ordinance to be removed. And this is merely assurance, a form of insurance placed in this draft ordinance so that the public, everyone will understand that the law that may be enacted on June 20 specifically provides that this ordinance will not continue to exist after that specific date. MR. CUYLER: We haven't found any reason though. You're saying you want some mandatory language that will sunset it. I don't think we have any legal reason why we can't put that language in if that's what your preference is. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's my suggestion anyway. Let's not have to take further action. Let's take it today. MR. WEIGEL: Some of the various elements in this ordinance are drafted purely in the draft phase without putting any presuppositions of intent or nuances, and that's what we're looking for today in that regard. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. That -- My only other comment so far has to do with the ballot language itself. The first time I've been so specifically misquoted, Michael Cody, it's exactly the opposite of what I said. Mr. Pennington suggested that the ordinance should include the location of the bridge. I, in fact, disagree with that, but would agree to bring to you Mr. Pennington's suggestion. But I do, in fact, have a question about the ballot language. How necessary -- I'm troubled by the language"including design and engineering costs incurred after adoption of the ordinance but prior to January 1, 1996." I would think, Mr. Weigel or Mr. Cuyler, that we -- that that's not necessary to be -- to appear on the ballot in order for that to occur, and that seems to me complicating and confusing. If it's absolutely necessary, okay. But if it can be done without inclusion of the language, that's my preference. MR. CUYLER: We think that you have a good argument. In our discussions with the financial people and bond counsel and discussions amongst ourselves, the clearer that can be, the better in terms of the legal defense of any cause of action that might accrue as a result of our use of the monies for that purpose. So we felt that the clearer we could be that the voters were not only approving the specific funding but they are also approving -- they understand they're approving those design and engineering costs; although, frankly, I do think that you have an argument anyway. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I think -- MR. CUYLER: The question is can you bolster it a little bit. Can you make it a clearer. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: For my vote, I think that the bolstering is useful but not necessary and that the confusion resulting from adding that language to the ballot question outweighs the bolstering effect. So I -- My suggestion will be that we remove that and just end it with "to fund the project costs for the construction of a second Gordon River bridge," period. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I would agree with that. MR. CUYLER: If you would like -- If that's what the board wants to do, since you're not actually adopting this today, why don't we get some clearer information on that. If we can do that, we'll try to go that way. If we can't, then we'll let you know at the appropriate hearing. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: We can -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Norris. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: We can decide on this at the public hearing? So we don't have to do it today. One easy way to amend that might be to say, "to fund the project costs including design and engineering costs for the construction of a second Gordon River bridge," and just end it there, and that should cover everything that you're concerned with and be a whole lot less confusing to the public. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: That was one of my questions with the wording Commissioner Hac'Kie brought up, is if we just include the construction, what do we do about all the costs for design, engineering, and so forth? So we need to cover that. MR. PERRY: Madam Chairman, this specific language was to address those costs that might be incurred prior to the election. You'll recall that we were directed to proceed with some portions of preliminary design prior to there being a referendum, and this was to ensure that we had some sort of language in there that realized that -- voters realized that they were not only paying for the costs incurred after they voted but there would be a reimbursement of some costs out of that collection that occurred prior to them voting, and that was the reason for that language. We prefer it to be clearer, but that was the best we could come up with at the time as to how to try to put that in the ballot question. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hancock. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yes. I have a discussion question for Mr. Constantine and then a quick comment. I understand your point of contention regarding the state of the appropriate way. What I'd like to ask is, in essence, we're asking the voters if, in fact, this is the appropriate way. We're asking for their opinion. If they vote no on this, they're saying it's not the appropriate -- and I understand your feeling of not wanting to support something that appears as if you are going against your beliefs. Would it make a little more sense for you to change that to "an additional 1 percent sales tax is an appropriate way"? And the reason I'm asking is, is that I think that someone who is looking at this needs to understand that by supporting it, they're saying that it is, in fact, an appropriate way. It may not be the only way. You know, there may be other ways out there. But I'd like to see that language state in there in some form, but I certainly don't want to lose your support on this going ahead. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The -- I guess if we can put that elsewhere, perhaps in the resolution as opposed to in the ordinance under findings because findings are, in essence, findings of fact, and that is we find that in the ordinance as opposed to the resolution and the ballot question. If we can shift that wording somewhere over to the resolution under, you know, form of the ballot or what have you, that's one thing. I guess under findings is why I'm uncomfortable, where it appears and in the context that is then read in is that we find that's factual. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. I understand. I just want to make just one quick comment. I know we have some public speakers; is that correct, Mr. Dotrill? MR. DORRILL: We have a couple. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: The discussion today is solely, as I understand it, on the wording of the ballot referendum and the findings that we're either going to approve or not approve today. I really don't want this to become a -- a -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We're just approving -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- rehashing. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We're just approving a public hearing today. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: So I just want to make that statement and ask the chairman to restrict that appropriately. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. We are only, I believe, approving a public hearing today; is that correct? MR. CUYLER: Correct. As a matter of fact -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We're not approving the ordinance or the resolution. MR. CUYLER: There will be another public hearing at which anyone who wants to can make comments. This is just direction to set it up and notice to you and the public that we're going forward. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So the discussion is only reasons you are for or against having a public hearing. The discussion is not for -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: The tax. MR. CUYLER: For all practical -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- or against the tax. MR. CUYLER: For all practical purposes, yes. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Mac'Kie, you had further discussion? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I can hold it. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Let's move to the public hearing. MR. DORRILL: We have nine. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Public comment. We have nine? MR. DORRILL: Ms. Taylor. Following Ms. Taylor, Mr. Lee, if I could have you stand by, please, sir. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I am going to ask the people speaking today if they will confine their comment to whether the public hearing should participate because you have the opportunity to come back on June the 20th to express your displeasure with it being on the ballot or what have you when we -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Or support. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: -- or support when we discuss the ordinance itself. MS. TAYLOR: Displeasure with me standing here. You must be able to read my mind. So what I'm going to speak on is whether I think there should be a public hearing; is that correct? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yes. MS. TAYLOR: And I do not think there should be a public hearing because I don't think there's been proper preparation. The wording of the ordinance, as I understand, talks about the design, engineering, construction of the bridge. It does not talk about the cost of the mitigation of traffic in our entire city. You're leaving the location of the bridge out of the ordinance, so we have to assume that it could go at Central, it could go at Ninth, depending. It's very vague right now. We are talking about a tremendous impact of traffic in our city. We're talking about -- We have councilmen talking about buying homes. If you do not include the cost of the mitigation of traffic in our city and have come forward with the plan and can show that you've hired experts to talk about what this traffic is going to do in Naples, we, the city taxpayers, are going to be double taxed because we're going to have to pay for it again. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. Mr. Cuyler, there's been some discussion -- at least I've been hearing some discussion both in the newspaper and on the radio about whether the location should be included in the ordinance. What is your opinion on that? MR. CUYLER: From the legal perspective, I think that the -- what you need to understand is that if you have a location in the ballot question, then you are tied to that location. If you just have the funding of a Gordon River bridge, you are not tied to a specific location. That gives you some flexibility if you want to have the flexibility. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Then in your opinion -- MR. CUYLER: But legally it could be either way. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Well, I'm trying to clarify the discussion I've been listening to. And that is, in your opinion, if we have a vote on the sales tax with notification of a specific location, then, in your opinion, this is not -- cannot be challenged unless we change the location? MR. CUYLER: I'm of the opinion that unless the location is in the ordinance and in the ballot question, then you have the ability to change the location. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: That's not the question I'm asking. MR. CUYLER: Okay. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: The question I'm asking is, if the ordinance contains the location of the bridge -- there's been some discussion that if it contains that, that the ordinance and the question can be challenged. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Can I clarify that? MR. CUYLER: No. I'm -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Just I've met with the city council yesterday so you're aware, and that issue came up in the city council's workshop. The city attorney's opinion was that in the event the location of the bridge is included in the referendum language, that it complicates the question, that it could subject a positive -- it could subject the adoption of the tax to more scrutiny and open it to more significant challenge. That was the advice she gave to city council, and I said thank you and would be checking with our attorneys too. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: That was a legal challenge, Commissioner Mac'Kie? COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: A legal challenge. MR. CUYLER: The only way that I would agree with that is from the same perspective that you were just addressing, what is in the question, and that is when you put any additional factors in there, I guess to some extent, you know, you can say that that opens it up a little bit for more challenge. But generally no. I mean, the fact that the location's in there, if you said, "Do you hereby vote for a bridge at this location," no, I don't think that there's anything illegal about that. I don't think that subjects you to more of a challenge. The only thing that it does, again, is if you say, "Do you vote for it in'X' location," and someone decides, "No. I want it at 'Y' location" later, you're tied to the "X" location. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: It seems to me that what we're looking here to do is to determine from the voters if the sales tax is the appropriate funding method. The location is something else again but -- MR. CUYLER: That is what we have viewed it as in the drafting of these documents. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hancock. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Unfortunately, as I hear the grumblings, I get the feeling that there's an opinion that we're trying some big bait and switch, and I wish I were that intelligent but I'm not. The simple reason that many Lake Park residents are here to object to this today is the same reason why the exact location should not be in it, and let me explain that. If we find that the location that the joint council and commission approve, if we cannot sufficiently mitigate the traffic impacts to Lake Park, we need an option. That option may not be the southern alignment but the other northern alignment which I tried very much to explain was better for Lake Park than the one that was chosen because we can control and divert the traffic from using Seventh. So there are two northern options here. It's not a north versus south. And I don't want to restrict us to the one single option that was chosen for the simple purpose that I don't think the mitigation for Lake Park can be as effective for that choice. I think it was alignment number four that ran directly into Seventh where it could be diverted was better for Lake Park. So I just -- I caution you against speaking against something that could eventually work against Lake Park. And that's just my only comment on that and I '- I'm sure we'll have more discussion on that at a later date. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Let's move forward with additional public comment. MR. DORRILL: Mr. Lee was next. And then I have Mr. Corkran, if I could have you be ready, sir. MR. LEE: For the record, Arthur Lee, Ninth Avenue North. I echo Ms. Taylor's sentiments. The discussion you just had and ones that I've been subjected to recently indicate that there's a good deal of prematurity in this thing. It shows a very definite lack of study. We have snake oil salesmen who are saying, you know, "We swear. You'll never lose a dollar," or"We'll buy your home and give it to people who are not as discriminating as you are," or, "You're not going to have a traffic problem, but here's a roundabout. Here's a stop sign. Here's a stop and go." All of this means that this requires a wail of a lot more study, not only on the -- from a traffic count standpoint but from the standpoint of mitigation. There's going to be a wail of a lot of mitigation. This has not been studied. It's not been funded. So we're dealing here in futures that I think are very, very wobbly. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. MR. DORRILL: Mr. Corkran and then I believe Mr. Case. MR. CORKRAN: For the record, Sewell Corkran, Ninth Avenue South, Naples. Madam Chairman, Commissioners, before I get to my point, I want to tell you a brief background story. This Sunday I met with some people to include the chief honcho, Ed Windstar, people on the county's side of the U.S. 41 bridges. And in spite of my efforts, they had no idea where I was coming from. And I said, "Guys, what do you think about the second bridge." And they said, "We're all for it." And I said,"You've got to be kidding. Why is that?" And they said, "Well, the second bridge is the only way to cure our problem of going over the U.S. 41 bridges into Fifth Avenue and down to the beach." And I said, "Haven't you ever heard of the DOT and eight-laning that six-tenth mile segment?" And they said, "No. The only thing we know is there is a proposal for a second bridge, and that is the only cure we know of for U.S. 41." To my point now. In my opinion, the official referendum ballot language as now proposed is disinformation to the public. It's not what's included in the referendum language. It's what's excluded. Many county residents do not know the DOT has funded and is ready and willing, and has been, to improve the U.S. 41 bridges in 1996. The public just doesn't really know and understand that, and so they are prepared to vote for a second bridge thinking this is the salvation for U.S. 41 and there's no other help coming of any kind. I believe to be fair and honest with the public, that they ought to know that as part of the second bridge package, regardless of where it's located -- and that's not my interest at all -- that the people ought to know as part of that package, the U.S. 41 bridges are being delayed no less than five years. That should be incorporated, in my opinion, in the language so the public is informed and not disinformed. And if that's not the proper place, the city government and the county government ought to undertake a publicity campaign outside of the ballot language to make certain people know what they're voting on. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. MR. DORRILL: Mr. Case, and then we'll have Miss Case following Chip Case. MR. CASE: Good morning. My name is Chip Case, and I live on Central Avenue in Old Naples, and I thank you for this opportunity to speak. I have a few questions about the ordinance and the referendum, and then I'm going to try and tie it together. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Case, we've asked people to try to confine their comments -- MR. CASE: I'm going to try to tie it together. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: -- And the first three people have gotten away from it, and I want to bring it back to whether there should be a public hearing or not. MR. CASE: Right. And I think these questions will help clarify these issues for the public to read this because they are about the ordinance themselves and then a comment on -- The first question is in the ordinance on the first page, it says, "shall approve a second Gordon River bridge and the imposition of a 1 percent sales surtax." That "and" logic does not carry forward into the ballot, and I'm wondering if that's by intent or what. The second question I have is, there's a lot of deliberation about whether or not there's a site stated in here, and I'm wondering if the commentary around endorse .... respectively endorse a site for the placement and construction of a second Gordon River bridge," on April the 6th, does that constitute actually specifying the location since that location is in the minutes of that meeting. That's on page one. And on page three, item C, I assume this is a typo. It talks about a preliminary engineering report dated May 1995 which obviously couldn't have been since this was drafted in April. So I assume that's a typo. Now, to tie this all together into the issue of whether or not there should be a public hearing on the 20th, I believe there should be a public hearing, but I also believe that we should consider a moratorium on this issue for 90 days, and the reason I say that is there is no plan. There is no plan for funding. There is no plan for mitigation. There is no understanding of how the bridge and the impact of the bridge is going to be integrated into the community on the west side of the Gordon River. There has been a lot of consternation, a lot rancor, and a lot of devices pitting neighborhoods against each other, and this has to stop. I believe that the only way it can stop is if we step back and we take an approach and say, look, if the bridge is right, the voters will vote it. If the bridge is not right, we need to understand what's wrong with it, and we need to understand how to fix that. Thank you for your time. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. MR. DORRILL: Miss Case. And then Jesse Hinson. MS. CASE: My name is Kim Case. I also live on Central Avenue. In order to keep this short, I think it's appropriate to have a meeting on June 20, but I would reiterate what the people from Lake Park and what my husband has said. I think it is premature. I think we have no plan to integrate the traffic that comes off of that second bridge into the remainder of the city. We have not looked at other roads. We have not looked at other ways of helping the neighborhoods. We have not looked at what closing one street would do to other streets or opening a street that is currently one way when it gets to 41 or adding a new traffic light. We have not studied those things appropriately. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. MR. DORRILL: Mr. Hinson. MR. HINSON: Mr. Dotrill, I'll waive my time. MR. DORRILL: Mr. Keller. MR. KELLER: George Keller speaking for the people that are in the county, basically the people from Golden Gate Estates, and I know that you don't want to get into a discussion as to whether it should be there or not. You're talking about a public hearing. So in the first place, the time between the public hearing and the election is far too short. Number two, on the June 20 date for the public hearing, there are going to be a lot of people who pay a lot of taxes in this county will not be here to speak. So, consequently, I think it's going to be ineffective to have the public hearing in June. And there's no emergency on this thing in the first place. The state has already had plans to go improve the traffic situation on 41. This is not an emergency. Number two, this road comes from -- would be taking the traffic from Radio Road, crisscrossing it all around the place. To put it into the city, it's going to be a bottleneck. It's not going to be an advantage at all at the present time. Unless you could go through the airport property, it would be no advantage at all. Secondly, it bothers me when special interest groups like the bridge committee can come and start a process and politics becomes involved and they get too much preference. I would say that the bridge group would be better off playing bridge. Thirdly, I've heard comments about who's going to pay for this thing, that this is a wonderful deal, get it in September. Then the tourists will be paying for it. I was on the sales tax committee, the last sales tax committee. I went over a tremendous lot of figures, that the county was very generous in supplying accurate figures. And during the sale -- During the tourist season, during that quarter, we collected 29 percent of the sales tax which was only 4 percent more than the average quarter. So believe me. Who's going to pay for this thing? The people in Collier County. And I don't think the people in Collier County as a whole are going to get enough advantage for this particular thing unless you can go right through the airport. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. MR. DORRILL: Mr. Erlichman. And then Ms. Corkran. MR. ERLICHHAN: Good morning, Commissioners. My name is Gilbert Erlichman. I reside in East Naples, and I'm speaking for TAG. First of all, I would like to thank Commissioner Hac'Kie for questioning the section five so far as the -- Let me get the -- the sunset of the tax and making it definite and to be voted on before and during the ordinance passage. I want to thank you very much, ma'am. In reading the executive summary on the first page, there was three interesting paragraphs. Now, this all pertains to the ordinance, proposed ordinance. It says, "As a result of the city council and board selection of alternate alignment number four at a cost of $20.8 million, a nine-month sales tax collection period will be necessary." Second paragraph. "Staff estimates that a sales tax collection period of January 1st, 1996, through September 30, 1996, will generate sufficient revenues plus interest to fund the construction of a second Gordon River bridge along the preferred alignment, alternate number four." "Additionally, on April 6, 1995, the council and board agreed to proceed with preliminary engineering, design work after the adoption of this ordinance but prior to the date of the referendum. This decision was made with the understanding that there will be no backup revenue source in the event the sales tax referendum fails on September 26, 1995; and, therefore .... COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Excuse me, Gil. You're not going to read the whole -- MR. ERLICHHAN: .... any expenditures incurred .... COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Excuse me, Gil. You're not going to read the whole staff report to us, are you? MR. ERLICHHAN: No. No. I'm not reading it. I just want to reinforce -- to bring your attention to this. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Because we've read this. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We've read it. MR. ERLICHHAN: You've read it? Okay. Fine. I'd like to call your attention to section -- section one on page three of the proposed ordinance. It says, "The City Council of Naples and the Collier County Commission have selected a preferred alignment for the second Gordon River bridge based upon an analysis," et cetera et cetera. That's section C of -- That's paragraph C of section one. You have selected a preferred alignment. What is the alignment? You don't state anywhere else in this ordinance that it's alignment number four, that it's -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Excuse me, Mr. Erlichman. MR. ERLICHHAN: Pardon? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We're discussing whether a public hearing should be held on June 20, not the merits of the ordinance itself. We'll discuss the merits of the ordinance on the June the 20th if we vote to have a public hearing. MR. ERLICHHAN: Well, I believe that this input is important, ma'am, and regardless of whether -- I mean, you are going to hold a hearing whether I say I don't feel that the hearing is necessary or not. I mean, I think that that statement to limit my remarks is out of order, in my opinion. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: That's your opinion, sir, but the question on the agenda is whether there should be a public hearing. MR. ERLICHHAN: Well, wouldn't you want -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: And that's what we'll vote on today. MR. ERLICHHAN: Don't you want some input and information that I as a taxpayer am willing to give you right now? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Gil, we do. Gil, we do but CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We do. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- we try to limit discussion to whatever the agenda item is. When we talk about the bridge itself will be June 20 most likely. MR. ERLICHHAN: Well, okay. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Then I presume you're opposed -- MR. ERLICHHAN: Thank you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: -- to a public hearing? MR. DORRILL: Mrs. Corkran is your final speaker. MS. CORKRAN: Good morning. I'm Virginia B. Corkran. I'm president of the Old Naples Association. I came to listen, but after hearing about bait and switch which you yourselves are talking about, I had to rise to tell you that the Old Naples Association residents will be just as agitated as the rest of the community if that, indeed, is what you've set up here by your language and for consideration at a future public hearing. Certainly a public hearing is in the interest of good government, but it seems to me that we are holding a discussion on the location of the bridge today which is not a publically advertised item. As the chairman said, it's sort of slopping over, don't you think? And to that end, I believe in the interest of good government, this discussion should be -- indeed should be postponed. I would like to add that the Old Naples Association has passed a resolution to request you to request the DOT to get going on the repair and improvement of the existing U.S. 41 bridges. I am happy to bring that to your attention and urge you to communicate to the DOT and not hold up those bridges up for five more years or so. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. Commissioner Constantine. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let me address a couple of things that were said by Mr. Keller first, and then I've got some comments of my own. First of all, you criticized the bridge club for getting together and pushing this issue. While I favor the bridge, I don't happen to favor the sales tax, but I would never criticize any group of citizens who get together and push any issue they want. That's the beauty of the process here, and whether you and I disagree with them doesn't matter. Anybody has the opportunity to get up and share either in this forum or anywhere else get together as a group and try to push what they believe is the right issue. And that's the great thing about being in America, and I think we see it probably here in our little community more than anywhere in the State of Florida, groups getting together trying to make things happen, whether it's the Old Naples Homeowners Association or the bridge club or the Golden Gate Civic Association. So I don't think we can criticize them for that. From virtually everyone except Gil that we heard from today who are both pro or con of the bridge or both pro and con of the tax, we have heard we need more information, we need more education, and I think that's the purpose of a public hearing, is to make sure we get that information out and also that we accept new information in that either we may not be aware of or that has not been emphasized properly. So I think the public hearing is answering what everyone, again with the possible exception of Gil, has been asking for. I'm going to make a motion that we go forward with the public hearing on June 20, that we direct Mr. Cuyler to put together the draft of the resolution and ordinance -- draft ordinance and resolution with a couple of changes -- and I think there may be some amendments to this -- but a couple of changes as suggested, adding the specific language on the sunset to make that crystal clear as Commissioner Mac'Kie suggested, to clear up the ballot wording as it appears on I think page 11 of our agenda, whatever, page two of the resolution, and perhaps there we need to lose "including" on and just put "design, engineering and construction," but I think you know the basic content of what Commissioner Mac'Kie suggested there. And, finally, I'd ask that we delete -- simply delete under section one, item B. And I agree with the other findings which are simply the Florida Statutes allow us to have a ballot item such as this; that the commission has selected a -- both the city and the county has selected a preferred alignment; third, that the MPO has completed their study; and that the need -- fourth, that the need is documented. And I think all those are factual. It's the other one I have a problem with as a finding of fact. So I would ask with all those three criteria that we go ahead with the June 20 hearing. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Cuyler, you need to add something? MR. CUYLER: When you get the second -- we will do that. Two things I want to point out. First of all, I will assume you will leave to me the discretion to change anything else from a legal perspective that I need. We were talking about changing an item as far as cleaning it up that you won't be concerned about. It's a legal issue. And the other thing is obviously at the public hearing, you have the ability to tweak the ordinance if you deem it appropriate at that time. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Just a moment. Commissioner Hancock. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: To avoid a misquote or misstatement since it's already been incorrectly characterized by Hiss Corkran that I have some intent of applying a bait and switch to this, that is the opposite of what I said. So I wanted to clarify that for the record. What I said is, that is not what we're trying to do, and the appearance is incorrect, and the application is incorrect. before that went any further, I wanted to clarify that. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hac'Kie. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'd like to second Commissioners Constantine's motion and just ask if you would consider instead of deleting this finding about the appropriate method, if we might be able to include it and just say that,"The levy of an additional 1 percent sales tax was selected by majority of the board as the appropriate way." COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's a fact, so I can put that because that's factual as opposed to this kind of -- COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Right. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: That's factual. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah. I can accept that. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: That satisfies my concerns. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Then I would like to second the motion. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Norris. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Thank you, Hiss Chairman. I just wanted to point out for the record that it's really funny that for years we've been discussing and studying this issue. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Twenty now. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: And we've been -- We've been criticized up till today for overstudying the issues, study after study after study. That's all the criticism we've heard time and time again, but today things have changed, and now we have people coming up here and telling us we haven't studied enough and we shouldn't -- we shouldn't go forward with it because we haven't done enough studies. I just -- It's humorous to me to see this turn of events all in one day. So I just wanted to point that out. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. It's well noted. We have a motion and a second. The motion maker did accept the amendment; is that correct? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah. That's correct. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: And we have a second. Is there further discussion? There being none, I'll call the question. All in favor please say aye. Opposed? There being none, motion passes 5-0. Did you get all the motion? MR. CUYLER: (Nodding head) CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I guess we'll see you all the 20th of June. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Did you restate the motion? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Did I restate it? No, I did not. Are there -- Okay. Item #SB1 CULVERT CROSSING REPLACEHENT REPLACEHENT FOR S.R. 29 LOCATED .8 HILE NORTH OF C.R. 858 - APPROVED Next item on the agenda is item 8B(1), a recommendation to approve State Road 29 culvert crossing replacement. Mr. Archibald. MR. ARCHIBALD: Board members, agenda item 8B(1) is somewhat unique in that the staff is coming before the board and requesting approval to perform work on a private crossing that is to the east of State Road 29 and north of 858. As outlined in the agenda item, there's a current crossing that is in disrepair. It serves a small number of owners. And currently the staff is recommending not only to replace the crossing but upgrade it. Tentatively we're looking at replacing the 48-inch crossings with 72-inch crossings. The cost of the county when you subtract out the cash payments that are proposed by the property owners and materials to be provided by the property owner, the out-of-pocket expense to the county is going to be approximately $14,000 if, in fact, the board directs the staff to go ahead and proceed with the work as outlined in the agenda item. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Are there questions? Commissioner Hancock. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Archibald, I note that this is a private crossing. Is our expenditure for the replacement and improvement of this crossing simply because -- is it -- is it because it wasn't sized properly initially? Is it because of other county actions? In other words, are we or are we not subsidizing an improvement of private property here o are we doing it for county benefit? I'm looking for justification of the cost. MR. ARCHIBALD: The reason -- and, again, I should have made it very clear -- is that -- The reason the staff is involved and we're recommending upgrading it is -- in fact, this particular crossing serves the Immokalee area in regards to drainage, and that drainage over the years has increased, and what we're looking at is a need to increase the pipe size from 48-inch to 60- or even up to 72-inch. So we're looking at doing work on private property for a public purpose, and the public purpose is the drainage system for the Immokalee area. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Constantine. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Motion to approve staff recommendation. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Second. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Motion and a second to approve staff. Is there further discussion? There being none, I'll call the question. All in favor please say aye. Opposed? Motion passes 5-0. Thank you, Mr. Archibald. Item #882 ENVIRONHENTAL PERMITTING FOR THE NORTH NAPLES ROADWAY HSTU (LIVINGSTON ROAD) PROJECT, AND ATTENDANT RECOHMENDATIONS FOR COUNTY PURCHASE OF REQUIRED MITIGATION LANDS AND PUBLIC/PRIVATE FINANCING OF FINAL HIGHWAY ENGINEERING - APPROVED WITH STAFF RECOHMENDATION AND STIPULATIONS AS AMENDED Item 8B(2), status of environmental permitting on the North Naples roadway HSTU, otherwise known as Livingston Road. MR. ARCHIBALD: Board members, this item 8B(2) is really two items. One is an update to the board following the board's direction on 20 December to investigate and develop and finalize a mitigation plan based upon off-site mitigation away from the Livingston Road corridor itself. And the second item is to present to the board an option to implement that mitigation and, in fact, to consider the purchase of the acreage identified by the permitting agencies that would, in fact, mitigate the adverse impacts of Livingston Road. To step back to item one, the South Florida Water Management District has been involved with the selection of the 422-acre site that's being proposed for mitigation. The location is approximately three miles to the northwest of the Orangetree development. It supports the CREW Trust efforts relative to preserving our wetlands for that particular project, and it meets most of the mitigation requirements in regards to improving, supporting, and offsetting the adverse impacts of a future roadway. So, in fact, the staff is here today to advise the board that we're really at a very important point in the environmental permitting of the project itself. We've got over six miles of roadway at stake, part of our arterial road network that's identified in our comprehensive plan. And the staff feels that we're not only at a critical point, but we're also at the point where we may be able to be take action, proceed with final permitting submittals. And, in fact, as we've outlined in the agenda item, before the end of the year, possibly have permits in hand from South Florida Water Management District, from the Corps, and also the necessary approvals from the Department of Environmental Pollution Control and various federal agencies. Again, we've had correspondence from particularly South Florida Water Management District in support of this, and again it supports the general policy in regards to the CREW Trust. So we're looking at a very key element in terms of the mitigation. It should be recognized that all projects today are involving mitigation to one degree or another. In comparing this level of mitigation to that on other projects, your staff will be first to indicate that the proposal here is cost-effective, and keeping in mind that our game plan from the very beginning was for the county to pick the alignment and for the county to do the design and for the development community to step in and do the construction. And to that end, not only do we have PUD commitments that are out there for construction of segments of the roadway but we also have the HSTD that although it's been amended in size, the HSTD is out there as a mechanism to be used by the board to not only work out the allocation of the construction cost but also to direct staff to negotiate on behalf of any design cost or mitigation cost. So there's an ability to recoup some of the cost that the staff has outlined in this particular agenda item. Again, we're looking at the ability of continuing a project that will become very important to the county in the future. Recognizing that, no, it's not in our five-year plan that the roadway is not in place, but it needs to be recognized that there are commitments out there that will, in fact, create segments of this roadway at developer expense. In regards to the mitigation, the second item, what is the staff recommending, the developers out there have gone ahead and negotiated an option agreement for the properties that really have been identified by the South Florida Water Management District as the appropriate properties for mitigation. The cost of that -- Again, we're talking about 422 acres. The cost of that in terms of unit price is $1,200 per acre, and the total cost of that as outlined on page three would be a total of $506,400, a fairly substantial amount, but again recognize that this is the amount that we would foresee being the off-site mitigation, what we would refer to as mitigation banking that will satisfy not only South Florida requirements, but we expect to, in fact, satisfy the Corps requirements at the federal level. There's quite a number of issues as outlined in the agenda item, but that's one issue that we're bringing to the board and recommending that the board go ahead and consider some of our reserve dollars, particularly impact fee reserve dollars in North Naples, to be able to fund the purchase of the 422 acres. On the down side, there is a reason for the timing of this particular agenda item. It involves the option agreement and whether or not the county may want to consider the assignment of that option agreement and the time table in that option agreement relative to the purchase. If a purchase is made before the 10th of June of this particular year, again, that price of $1,200 per acre would hold. After the 10th of June, the option agreement indicates a price increase to $1,400 per acre. The staff is in a position to negotiate an amendment to that. But, in fact, the board has to consider whether or not they want to consider an assignment of that option agreement with the idea that this may be the important step to get the final permits in hand for a project that will accrue, a benefit to the county as a whole of long-term. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: George, could I on that point ask you a question, please? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Miss Hac'Kie, I have a question I have to clear up first. It's a conflict question. Mr. Weigel -- Oh. I'm sorry. Mr. Cuyler is back in the room. MR. CUYLER: It might be Mr. Weigel, but go ahead. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: This -- If the board agrees to move forward with this purchase, it's to benefit the CREW Trust, and as a trustee and the treasurer for the CREW Trust, do I have a conflict even though I don't receive any monetary reward for this good service? MR. CUYLER: The CREW Trust is a not-for-profit -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Not-for-profit. MR. CUYLER: -- corporation? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Corporation, non-governmental. MR. CUYLER: You are non-compensated? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Uncompensated, yes. MR. CUYLER: The general rule is that if you were non-compensated, you are not retained by the entity; and, therefore, no conflict comes in. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: But as a corporate officer, does that change that any as a treasurer? MR. CUYLER: I don't believe. I think you could be an officer or a director, and it wouldn't make any difference as long as you're not compensated. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I am not compensated. Okay. Thank you. Commissioner Hancock I believe was first. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: George, you said a little phrase that I'm beginning to love, "at developer expense," and I think that's an important element of what you're bringing forward because this is, in fact, a joint effort to where we're carrying less of the burden than others. If I understand this correctly and understanding the history, the volatile environmental history that this particular corridor has had, what you're asking us to do, in essence, is to look at this and lock into an environmental mitigation strategy that will allow the roadway to proceed in a nutshell; is that correct? MR. ARCHIBALD: Yes. The plan of the county historically has been one of the county being the driving force behind picking the alignment, doing the design, doing the permit, providing the rights-of-way, and then either the HSTD or the developers either together or in segment would end up building the segments of the roadway that would serve their projects initially but serve the network the long-term. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. So, in essence, we found what we think is a solution that satisfies the CREW properties and our mitigation responsibility, and we have letters to the effect that if we go ahead with this plan as proposed, we're going to be in good shape. Is that -- Is that a fair assessment? MR. ARCHIBALD: Right now we've got commitment letters that very strongly support this mitigation purchase and also the mitigation that will occur on site for this location by South Florida Water Management District, very strong indication there. The Corps has indicated that not only the purchase of the land but also some of the on-site mitigation. There's a 36-acre farm field that's going to be restored. They're looking at both the purchase and the restoration. So there's a very strong indication there, but, no, we don't have a letter indicating that if we do it, we'll have a permit within so many days. Those agencies don't provide that kind of response unfortunately, but we've got strong enough letters, I think, that indicate that this is the property, this is the restoration and mitigation plan that would result in permits. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. And we're not going to proceed with significant expenditures until such time as we do have a more firm I guess confirmation from those agencies on the mitigative balance. Is that -- In other words, we're not going to go spending five or $600,000 if we're still unsure if the agencies are fully going to accept it as a mitigation plan for this roadway? MR. ARCHIBALD: That's part of what the difficult decision the staff is bringing to the board today. Under the option agreement, there's two forces at work, a possible increase in the price of what we have to buy on one hand. That total increase may be in the neighborhood of $84,400 by the middle of the year or directing the staff to try and negotiate the continuance of that, but we're also looking at the continuation of the permitting process. So those are two issues that remain out there. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I've got two quick questions and then I'm done. I promise. This roadway is planned to extend beyond Old 41 to the regular 41 at some time; is that correct? We have that right-of-way? Is that dedicated? MR. ARCHIBALD: We have a segment of that right-of-way. That is in our comp plan. That's part of our planning effort. There's been some developments that are on the books that, in fact, have made pledges to provide that right-of-way. And, yes, ultimately this east/west roadway as part of this project will connect to U.S. 41. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. And the last question is this right-of-way was given by the folks who own Landmark Estates, and there is some agreement regarding buffering, a wall, because of the encroachment into Landmark Estates and what they've given. Is that -- I know it's not a part of this particular approval, but I just want to get on the record that we are addressing that issue with the owners of Landmark Estates; is that correct? MR. ARCHIBALD: We don't have a so-called two-party agreement at hand, but we would -- we talked and we've outlined what the elements of that would be and the importance in that particular instance of a buffer and probably a wall and that the county would have to absorb that cost because of the location of the dwelling units in relationship to the roadway lanes. That would come about as part of the design effort, and part of the recommendations for staff is that if we proceed -- if we're talking about proceeding with the purchase of that property, if we proceed with that as being recommended, we would also proceed with the design. And although the design has always been driven by the county, the developer has submitted a proposal to subsidize the cost of that design. Approximately $135,000 is part of what he's proposing to subsidize for the design cost in addition to his requirements to subsidize the construction cost. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Mac'Kie. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: My questions have to do with the cost of the property and the fact that we do have to make a choice about whether or not to step into the shoes in this option that exists. Do we have any information about whether or not -- Have they made a good deal? Is $1,200 an acre, $506,000, a good price for this property, or do we have any information on that at this point? MR. ARCHIBALD: Yes. There's been some what we call review appraisal work done relative to the price. But as you see in your agenda item, the board considers this. There's 12 specific items that the staff is recommending, one of which is to consider the assignment of the option wherein we have to consider being at risk for $5,000. The next concern would be to perform appraisals to, in fact, verify the question in accordance with Florida Statutes as to the value of that property. If our purchase price is below the appraised value, then, in fact, the board can direct staff to proceed with the closing on the property. If, in fact, it is -- the unit price is above the appraised value, then that has to come back to the board, and the board has to consider that based upon a super majority vote, four of five. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And in that case, if we have taken an assignment of the option, in the case of the appraisal being too low for the purchase price under the option, we will then have lost $5,0007 Is that -- MR. ARCHIBALD: Yes. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No. They're shaking no heads over there, so I guess we'll hear more. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Constantine. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I think you've kind of answered this question for Commissioner Hancock, but in a word you said earlier you expect that the Army Corps of Engineers will accept this. This will satisfy them, their requirements as well. We expect, but we don't know; is that correct? MR. ARCHIBALD: We've gotten written correspondence from South Florida. There's not the same level of written correspondence from the Corps, but historically that's been the position with the federal agencies. They'll wait until -- They're typically waiting on what the state does and then respond accordingly, and we expect that's the case here. But, no, we do not have something in hand now. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Archibald, let me ask you a question that might solve some of these questions. It's my understanding that any sale contract that we would enter into would be contingent on the permitting; is that correct? MR. ARCHIBALD: Depending upon when the board wants to take -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Not this one. MR. ARCHIBALD: -- advantage of the change in unit price, it becomes effective in June. So we -- Really what's at risk in the option -- in assignment of the option -- I may be corrected on this, but what would be at risk is to go ahead and consider the assignment of that option, the ability to buy the land that the environmental permitting agencies want and then recognize that depending upon when we close on that land may depend upon what the price would be. Before June, it would be 1,200. We would not have the permit in hand. If we close after June 10, then what we're going to end up with is possibly -- based upon the option agreement, possibly paying a little more for the land. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And that was my second question, is -- in my mind, if you've established or any other staff members have established that 1,200 is an acceptable price, then that should be the price. I can't believe that this pristine swamp land's value is going to increase by 16 1/2 percent as of June 10. And CREW being a non-profit group that is looking to do the best interest of the community and the best interest of the environment, I would hope that we can come up with one set price assuming -- it appears we're going to move forward with this. I understand the mechanism is probably there to make sure we have a good faith effort, but I would hope and it would be my preference that we have our staff negotiate that if we enter into an option agreement at this point and the contingency is based on our permitting and so on, that it stay at that standard 1,200 rate. I don't think we need to expend an extra $80,000 just because it falls after June 10. MR. ARCHIBALD: That, in fact, could be one of the steps that we outlined being the 12 steps here that, in fact, in addition of the board's approval of the chairman to execute and sign, it would be to confirm that that price would remain at 1,200. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Norris. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Let me -- Just to clarify, George, I think you said that the county is going to fund the engineering and design and that -- Did you say most or all of the construction money would come from PUD commitments and the HSTD? MR. ARCHIBALD: What's historically occurred is that the county has handled the design. What is being proposed by developers in the northern segment of the roadway is to, in fact, step in and subsidize at their cost the remaining design cost for the northern segment. There would still be the southern segment that the county will have to continue to be responsible for the design cost. So it doesn't include all of the road, but it does include the majority of the road north of the so-called wetland problem or north of the S curve. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: And the idea of the option -- The whole idea of the option is so that we can have a chance to get our permits in hand before we physically close on the property. I think that's probably what we're trying to do. MR. ARCHIBALD: Yes. That -- COMHISSIONER NORRIS: I don't think -- MR. ARCHIBALD: One of the -- One of the issues that's difficult to bring to the board, in fact, do we make a decision to buy it before the permits are in hand, or do we make that decision at the time when we get the letter indication of approval. That's the difficult decision. And, again, if we're successful in negotiating a price of 1,200 acres for the remainder of the year, then I think we would be in a very good position to have the permit commitment by the time the properties are purchased. From an environmental permitting criteria, no, we don't have to have the lands purchased prior to permitting. COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. MR. ARCHIBALD: I need to ask for a little help from the development community in that they have put together the option agreement. They can probably tell you a little bit better what some of the stipulations are and how those may be re-negotiated. COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. The expenditure today if we approve this will really just amount to the two appraisal reports and the land survey then, and the rest of it will be contingent on other things happening; is that correct? MR. ARCHIBALD: The way we have drafted up the agenda item is that if, in fact, all of those items fall into play; if, in fact, the appraisals come in; if, in fact, we exercise the option; if, in fact, the funding is available through the reserves which it is, then if all those things fall into place, then, in fact, the county could proceed with purchase. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. I see. Do we have public speakers? MR. DORRILL: Only one. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Can I -- I just want to -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Mac'Kie. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: I just want to -- I think -- I'm trying to go through the 12 steps here and come up with something that I can support and I think -- I think it is going to just require some sort of combination of them, and I wonder if I could just run through that. That what it seems to me would be appropriate to do is to direct the staff to expedite step three which is the appraisals. MR. ARCHIBALD: Yes. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: And then if the appraisals support the price which is step six, then we authorize the chairman to exercise the option and to do step two which is executing assignment of the option. It's just important to me that we lay it out, that the fundamental premise is if the -- you know, the first thing that I'd like to authorize is the appraisals, and then if the appraisals support the option price, then the chairman execute the option. Then the exercise of the option. And then I get confused when we get to the business about the $5,000 non-refundable deposit described in step seven, and I'm also confused about step nine. If we're authorizing Hole, Montes on behalf of some private group to design a roadway segment and then their contract for that is $135,000, why would we -- why would it be necessary for us to authorize that since it's somebody else paying the bill? Do I understand that? MR. ARCHIBALD: Yeah. We would still control the design contract. So we would be looking for them to pay the county. And the county, in turn, would pay the consultant as the work is performed. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: So understand this -- under step nine, $135,000, the east/west segment of the roadway, we would control the design. Hole, Hontes would do the design, and the Livingston Road Landowner Group would pay for the design of that segment, the east/west segment? MR. ARCHIBALD: Yes. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And then Collier County would pay for the north/south design segment to the tune of about 200,000, $195,0007 MR. ARCHIBALD: Yes. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And so the county spending 195,000 and 506,000, and does that total what you've described in -- I don't think so -- in number four, $806,450? I don't know where that number -- MR. ARCHIBALD: If you go back to page three of the agenda item, there's a complete breakdown on page three. It outlines all of the individual costs and how we would come up with the 806,000. Now, currently, and as part of your growth management plan, $672,000 has been set aside for this project. So we don't have all $806,000 to subsidize this at this time. But we, in fact, would subsidize it to the degree we could, recognizing that some of this activity may occur in the following year in which we would have to come back to the board for funding to finalize that. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That also includes the extra $84,000. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Purchase price. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Let's hear from the public speaker, Mr. Dotrill. MR. DORRILL: Mr. Goodlette. MR. GOODLETTE: Thank you, Madam Chairman. I'll try to be brief. I'm Dudley Goodlette, law firm of Cummings and Lockwood. We represent the Landowner Group, what has been described as the Landowner Group. Let me just make a couple of comments at the outset. First of all, this has been a -- as all of you know, has been had a road segment that's been important to the community for some period of time. We've discussed it. We've discussed the environmental mitigation issues. We've discussed the Corps of Engineers and the South Florida Water Management District. We believe that the window of opportunity, as described in your agenda packet materials, does now exist. We obviously would urge you to vote favorably on the recommendations that staff has brought to you. And we would obviously be remiss if we didn't tell you that Lad and George and members of their staff have worked extremely hard with us assisting them in the way that this option agreement comes to you today to posture this for your hopeful approval. Let me come back to a couple of questions that I'd like to focus attention on. Commissioner Hac'Kie, page eight of your materials, article number three of the option agreement -- COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah. $100. MR. GOODLETTE: -- I think you're becoming a little confused. We're asking for two -- two things. We're asking today for you to simply accept an assignment of the option. That doesn't cost anything. When you exercise the option -- that is, when you decide that you can obtain the permits, if that's the way you've decided to proceed, then you pay $5,000 that's non-refundable, but you don't pay 5,000 unless and until you exercise the option. So what you're doing here today isn't costing $5,000 for accepting the assignment of the option. It merely puts you in a position to negotiate with the current -- with the Fisch Trust, the current landowner regarding that price. Now, I want to comment just briefly on the price. If you read the option agreement that is in your materials from pages I think seven through 22, you would see that basically the price we've agreed upon is a $1,400-an-acre price, but they've agreed to discount that price to two -- to $1,200 an acre if the option is exercised by June the 10th. That's the way it was drafted. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I see that. I just -- I just have no idea if you guys got the best price you could get or if we could get a better price. MR. GOODLETTE: And I agree, and I think that's what the appraisals are for and that -- again, in your -- on page three of your agenda materials, there's a $3,400 item that it will cost you to obtain consistent with what the law requires for you to do two appraisals on the property. We believe that that appraisal is going to come in at an amount greater than 1,200 which is the discounted price which is why we negotiated a discounted price and probably in -- It might even be a little less than 1,400. But we really do believe based upon a lot of work that we have done negotiating with this landowner that the price is a fair and reasonable price, and we would encourage you to obtain those appraisals and the survey necessary to proceed. I'll be glad to answer any other questions. I think those are the two points that I wanted to clarify based upon the discussion that I've listened to, and I'll be more than happy to answer any other questions that you might have. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Constantine. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Goodlette, I appreciate the wording that it is, in fact, a discount and so on; however, you know, in essence, if you boil it down, if we purchase it before June 10, it's $1,200, and afterwards it's $1,400 and -- I think that's the date. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Sounds like a federal discount, doesn't it? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And I'm just not sure again referencing the CREW Trust and what we're trying to accomplish here is in the best interest of the community, best interest of the environment. I'm not sure that the value of that property is going to change by 16 1/2 percent magically a month from now. My hope is that if it's $1,200 value as long as the county does, indeed, show good faith, that that's the price we can get it. It may be June 17. It may be July 17. I don't know how long it would take to get the word from the Army Corps. But if this board makes it clear that our intent is to do that contingent upon the Army Corps, then my hope is that we wouldn't extort an extra 16 1/2 percent. MR. GOODLETTE: I think a transcript of this proceeding delivered to the property owner might be helpful to them in that regard. The $1,200, obviously if you accept an assignment of the option, you're then free to negotiate the price with the current landowner. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Norris. COHHISSIONER NORRIS: Thank you, Miss Chairman. I'll make a motion that we approve the staff's recommendation here with the limitation that -- that the -- concerning the option, the maximum price that the county will enter into the option would be 1,200 an acre. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll second that. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: So we have a motion and a second to accept staff's recommendation and limiting the price on the option to $1,200 an acre. Commissioner Hancock. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I just want to make one point of clarification. Both Commissioner Norris and Constantine had talked about the Army Corps of Engineer permit, and since this transcript may be delivered to the property owner -- George would probably back me up on this -- the South Florida permit is the more restrictive of the two generally. Army Corps' line is -- and delineation probably won't be as accessive. So just -- We mentioned Army Corps, but I imagine South Florida is going to be the one we do a little more work with, and the Corps may eventually sign off on South Florida's work. So I just wanted to mention that so it's not contingent solely upon Army Corps, that there's something from South Florida that's positive will be a very, very good step. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a letter from them. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah. My hope is that that's the case. I understand we already have acceptance from South Florida Water Management on this. I thought that's what you had said. Obviously, if not, then we should probably be contingent upon that as well. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Kind of like a mega concert. It's conceptual. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Or moot at this point. I did have one question. It's on item 11. "Final motions to include a board commitment to South Florida and the Army Corps to fund perpetual maintenance and undertake on-site restoration/enhancement work." Do we have a dollar figure on what that will be for the rest of our lives? And, also, what is perpetual maintenance on swamp land? MR. ARCHIBALD: What they're looking at doing is extracting from the county or the permittee really -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Extorting or extracting? MR. ARCHIBALD: -- a dollar amount and the value of that in regards to restoration and the payment that we may end up making or the activity that we undertake over a period of years may approach a quarter of a million dollars or more. So we're looking at an added cost that is fairly typical. They want you not only to provide the property but provide some payment so that that property either is restored or the hydro period is extended or some other environmental improvement occur, and what we're asking the board to do in that item is to authorize us to include that element in the permit and mitigation package. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Archibald, is it possible to include the cost of the mitigation land in the HSTU to be refunded to the general fund? MR. ARCHIBALD: Yes, it is, through the HSTD that's in place. That district or the HSTU that's in place that the board modified in late '94, that's a mechanism that's available to the board not only to allocate the construction cost but to go back and consider allocating the cost of either design or cost of mitigation so -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I didn't read that recommendation in the list of recommendations that we pass this cost on to the MSTD because it's part of building the road. MR. ARCHIBALD: I would foresee that at the point in time where we enter into an agreement with the developers to actually build the segments of roadway, that that would be the appropriate time for the staff to recommend to the board what degree of mitigation to be offset or reimbursed. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I think I just foresee that at some point in the future and I don't want it lost in the discussion when we get ready to build the road, and I'd like to ask the motion maker to incorporate that into his motion as well. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm sorry. You're incorporating? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: That the cost of this be considered as a pass-through to the HSTD at some future time when we work out the cost of the road. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I'll incorporate that. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Will the second accept it? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have an amendment then to the motion that the cost of the mitigation land be incorporated into the discussions and the -- and the funding for the HSTD at some future point in time. Is there further discussion? Commissioner Hac'Kie. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Just a clarification for me. The only expenditure that we're authorizing right now is the appraisal and then if the -- subject to the appraisals, then we'll go forward contingent on all applicable approvals, whether it's the Corps or simply whoever? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Well, the motion on the floor is to approve the recommendation of staff which is all 12 of these items, limiting the cost to $1,200 an acre. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: These things are self-limiting. If they don't -- If step one doesn't go forward, then step two doesn't go forward and so forth all the way down the line. They're contingent on each other happening. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And is -- Maybe somebody can just show it to me. I'm missing that, that there is a contingency in here for governmental approvals or acceptance of the property. Which one is that? I just want to be sure that that's here. MR. ARCHIBALD: I think the comments that were made is that we would rephase or resequence the items. They wouldn't be one through 12. They would, in fact, be three, six, two, and then follow through and -- COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I understand. But my other question is that I see in number 11 -- and I'm sorry to beat this to death. It just seems real important to me -- is that the board is making a commitment to the management district and to the Corps, but are we making our obligation to spend additional money contingent on acceptance of this mitigation plan by the Corps and South Florida Water Management District? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: That was part of the motion. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I don't see it in the list but if COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I don't know that it was part of the list but I -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: It was verbalized. COHHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- think that -- COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I want it to be is what I'm trying to tell you. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I think Commissioner Norris made that verbally -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- as part of his motion. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Let me see if I can restate the motion to clear the record. We are recommending -- or we are approving the recommendation of staff in a resequenced natural order, and that approval is predicated or conditioned upon permitting from South Florida Water Management and the Corps and that we -- and we are limiting the price of the property to $1,200 an acre and -- COMHISSIONER NORRIS: And there was -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: -- the last thing was to consider the cost or that the cost of the mitigation land will be included in the MSTD. COMHISSIONER NORRIS: And the motion maker accepts that restatement of the motion. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. The second? COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yes. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Is there further discussion? If there isn't, I'll call the question. All those in flavor please say aye. Opposed? There being none, motion passes 5-0. Thank you. Let's take a break. It's ten minutes to 11:00. Five after 11:00 let's return. (A short break was held.) CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: To reconvene the Board of County Commission meeting for May the 9th, 1995. During the break I reviewed our agenda, and we have two commissioners who have luncheon commitments to deal with and I'm going to ask in effort to handle their problems, that the two items listed under the county manager's contract, items four and five, that we attend to that at about 11:30, and that will allow us to maybe be a little bit short on commissioners for an hour or so but also accommodate the afternoon agenda which we -- some items require four votes. I'd like to ask this board if they're in agreement with that. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Absolutely. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Absolutely. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. We'll do so. Mr. Cuyler, can we notify Mr. Ayres then that these items -- we'll address them about 11:30. MR. CUYLER: We are in the process of doing that, and I understood that you understand there are no four-vote requirements left on the agenda. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: There are none this afternoon? MR. CUYLER: The two items -- There would have been, but those items show as continued. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Except that I think we have one item that I have to -- I have to abstain from. MR. CUYLER: Right. That -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: So we're already -- COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Passed on a 2-0 vote today. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: handle things. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: get our agenda completed. Yes. We're -- Don't worry. John and I will Okay. Fine. Well, as long as we Item #883 RESOLUTION 95-326 ESTABLISHING 25 HILE PER HOUR SPEED ZONE AND "NO THROUGH TRUCK" RESTRICTIONS IN THE HILLTOP AND RIVER REACH RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS - ADOPTED Next item on the agenda is item 8A(3), a recommendation to approve a resolution to establish a 25-mile zone. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Motion to approve. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion to approve. Is there any discussion? Commissioner Constantine. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I just want to thank George for the presentation. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I think there are probably -- I think there are public speakers. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Are there speakers? MR. DORRILL: There are two. I don't know whether they're supportive or not. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Let's hear the speakers and ask if they are supportive in view of the motion that they pass. MR. DORRILL: Mr. Feil. MR. FEIL: I am supportive, but I would like to address the council. MR. DORRILL: And Mr. Feil will follow Mr. Fernandez. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I can feel my support slipping away now. MR. FERNANDEZ: Michael Fernandez. I'm a member of the River Reach Single-Family Homeowners Association. We did petition the county for this to reduce -- to handle some of our traffic problems. We have a unique traffic calming problem on our street in that it's terminated by River Reach Apartments, and we've got about 3,600 trips a day that go down our street. We've actually asked for three considerations. One was to actually lower the speed limit to 20 miles an hour. Two was to look at lane striping. That's a traffic calming measure to reduce the apparent width of the roadway which is probably the real problem here. And we would like to see as part of your motion today, consider an additional line that would form that nine-foot width down River Reach Drive. And in the last resort, if that proves unsuccessful, in the future consider increasing the width of the three landscaped median islands, again a traffic calming measure. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Thank you. MR. FERNANDEZ: Thank you. MR. DORRILL: Mr. Feil. MR. FEIL: My name is Carl Feil, and I'm the president of the River Reach Homeowners Association, and we're in accord with the 25 mile-an-hour. We do have a severe traffic problem. There's not much I can add to what Mike has already said, so I'll make it short. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. Commissioner Hancock. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Archibald, do you have a problem with a restriping of River Reach to a nine-foot lane, and do you see that as an effective measure to slow folks down? MR. ARCHIBALD: We can do that. It's going to entail a cost I think from a funding standpoint, something we can incorporate into our striping efforts. I see the real calming mechanism out there being to curb and control the radiuses for the islands in the middle of the roadway. Ultimately reconstruct those so they function like an approach to a traffic roundabout where the speed is physically reduced because of the curb and the approach. That ultimately I see is the most effective calming device, but youwre calming task force is just about to the point of bringing to the board a whole host of devices, mechanisms, and also procedures to follow. But, yes, we can follow through with that striping and will continue to keep in touch with the association about the islands and creating curbing that will positively reduce the speed. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Iwm -- Based on what you said, Iwm not going to ask the motion maker to amend because it sounds like if we go expending money on striping now, we may turn around and expend additional dollars to achieve the same result on medians in the very near future. So Iwm not going to ask the motion maker to amend. Iwm satisfied that the traffic calming task force may bring something forward that will benefit this particular neighbor but I -- Youwve answered my question. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Mac'Kie. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I was just confused. Mr. Fernandez spoke -- and I'm sorry. I lost your name. But one person said 20 and the other person said 25, and is there an official position of the River Reach Association? Is 20 the preferred or is 25 the preference, and do you have a recommendation regardless? MR. ARCHIBALD: I believe the -- and I'll stand corrected if not, but I believe the River Reach Association has petitioned for I believe 20. Our recommendation is 25. But recognizing that at some point in time when you install a traffic calming device, you're going to physically prohibit speeds probably in excess of 20 miles per hour, but if the board wishes to reduce to 20 we can. Again, I wouldn't expect a whole lot of compliance. We've got a roadway there that has a very high volume, and the 85 percentile speed is about 40 miles an hour. But, again, we can consider 25 or 20. Our recommendation at the staff level is 25, and that's consistent with the Florida Statute that typically allows cities and counties to reduce their speed limit to 25. You can go below that with a study. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: My only other question is, can you give us more specificity about when we're going to hear from the traffic calming committee because I -- we had this discussion with the Marco Island speed limit, and I just hate to keep waiting. MR. ARCHIBALD: I can't at this time. Again, as quickly as that is completed and signed off on. I know that Development Services and Planning would like to get that to the board in a complete package but it -- I'll be the first to say that there is lot of information that has been put into a package that hopefully will come to the board in the near future. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Can we get an interim report, say, if the final is not ready in 60 days? Can we get an interim report of when to expect it? MR. ARCHIBALD: If we could, let's go ahead and I'll give the Planning Department a range to submit a draft copy of the booklet that's been prepared to each board member. We can provide that. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That would help. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: That would help. MR. DORRILL: And my note here is also to give you the scheduled completion of that, what's currently contemplated, and does it go to -- you know, go to HPO, or does it have to go to the Planning Commission. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Thank you. MR. DORRILL: We'll do that before the end of the week. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. We have a motion and a second to approve the recommendation of staff. Is there further discussion? There being none, I'll call the question. All in favor, please say aye. Are there opposed? Motion passes 5-0. Thank you. Mr. Archibald. Item #8C1 AGREEMENT WITH THE COLLIER COUNTY CHILDREN'S ADVOCACY COUNCIL WORKING THROUGH THE CHILD PROTECTION TEAM TO PAY FOR THE INITIAL EXAMINATION COSTS OF CHILDREN WHO ARE THE SUBJECT OF ALLEGED PHYSICAL OR SEXUAL ABUSE - APPROVED Item 8C(1), Public Services, a recommendation that the Collier County Commission execute an agreement with the Children's Advocacy Council. MR. OLLIFF: Good morning. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Olliff. MR. OLLIFF: Good morning. For the record, Tom Olliff, your Public Services administrator. This item is one that we do annually. Collier County is required by state statutes to pay for the initial examination associated with children who are suspected to be the victims of physical and/or sexual abuse. The Collier County citizens -- I mean, the Collier County Children's Advocacy Council and they, in turn, work through a group called the Child Protection Team -- and just for the rest of this presentation, for ease sake, I will refer to them as the CPT. It is an organization by contract with the state's HRS is designated to coordinate all those aspects related to those children's sexual and physical abuse cases. This is, as I indicated, an annual contract that we do with the CPT, and the only issue that I need to at least make the board aware of is one that I bring up every year, only because I feel it's an obligation to, but the board generally agrees to fund a contract at the request of CPT. There is a minimum financial obligation on the part of the county to pay for these exams. There are certain of these exams that were Medicaid eligible. Certain of them that aren't. For those that are Medicaid eligible, the county's statutory obligation for financial support of that is zero. For those that are non-Medicaid eligible, the county's total statutory obligation is $75. The CPT has requested $100 per exam because they indicate that they are experiencing some additional administrative cost in order to bill Medicaid and to try and pursue payment from those parents, guardians, or custodians in each of those cases. The board last year approved an agreement with CPT for $100 per exam. This is not a major dollar issue as I indicated in the executive summary. The total dollar difference based on what they've requested versus what your minimum statutory obligation is, is less than $6,000. What we have done this year also in terms of differences in this agreement is to try and draft an agreement that would allow for some automatic extensions under these same terms for a maximum two-more-year period if that's acceptable to the county commission so we don't need to keep bringing this to you each year and then discussing this same issue. But the recommendation is that the board needs to decide again whether it wants to participate at that minimum funding level or at the request of the CPT at $100 per exam. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'd like to move approval of the request for the -- including the $100 -- the $100 cost for the request of CPT. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll second that. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion. We have a second. Discussion? I have one question, Mr. Olliff. Recently the state legislature passed a bill for funding examinations for rape victims. Would any of that money be available to the CPT? MR. OLLIFF: I don't know, but I will check and see, and I'll get you an answer to that. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Because that could be another method for funding this. If there's no further discussion, I'll call the question. All in favor please say aye. Opposed? There being none, motion passes 5-0. Item #8C2 DONATION FROM THE EAST NAPLES CIVIC ASSOCIATION OF A TOT LOT AND ASSOCIATED PROPERTY IN NAPLES MANOR - ACCEPTED AND FEES TO BE WAIVED Next item on the agenda is a recommendation that the Collier County Board of Commissioners consider a donation to the East Naples Civic Association of a tot lot. MR. OLLIFF: Again, this is an item which is actually a proposal from the East Naples Civic Association. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: "From." I said "to." I'm sorry. MR. OLLIFF: It's actually from the East Naples Civic Association and area firefighters as well. They are proposing to develop and then to deed to Collier County a small parcel of property in the Naples Manor community. They are proposing that they would construct a tot lot on a -- what is currently a single-family home property of approximately a quarter of an acre. They've requested that the county commission have the staff prepare the rezoning that would be associated with the construction of this and that they waive the fees associated with the development which would include the rezoning, the clearing, permits, the solid waste disposal fees and the permit fees. The estimated expense for all of that -- and I've estimated that between 1,000 and $1,200 in order to accomplish that. I think in the past any time that a request for waiver of fees has been presented to the board, it actually ends up being a transfer from general fund to those enterprise funds in order to cover the staff cost associated with those. The county has not built a neighborhood park of this size in many years; however, we do have them in our inventory. There are certain neighborhood-type parks. Most of you probably don't know where they even are they are so small. Coconut Circle Community Park. There is a Rock Creek Community Park. And both of those are about the same quarter of an acre in size. And there are some additional maintenance fees that -- I mean, maintenance costs associated with smaller parks and having a crew go there. But what I'm being told in terms of the development of this particular park is it is going to be an entire mulched area xeriscape, no requirement for sprinkler systems. The tot lot will actually be installed by local area firefighters, lighted at the request of the sheriff's department. Fencing now has been donated. So the executive summary had indicated there was a cost of the county for fencing, but I'm being told now that the fence has also been donated, in fact, by one of the people who was here accepting your Adopt-A-Road Program certificates this morning. Saw this item on the agenda and agreed to donate the fencing for the project. It's -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: How can we say no? MR. OLLIFF: The item -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Olliff, excuse me a second. Let me see if I've got this straight. The East Naples Civic Association is going to -- and the firefighters are going to build a little tot lot park completely outfit it, fence it, landscape it, and then donate it to the county? MR. OLLIFF: (Nodding head.) COMMISSIONER NORRIS: This is a very tough decision. Give me a minute. Motion to approve. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And the maintenance costs are nill. Second. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I think we might -- Do we have public speakers, Mr. Dorrill? MR. DORRILL: You do. And I do have one question. If we're going to ultimately be responsible for it, we need to have some idea as to what they're building. And a good example is these wooden modular playground systems. We've had very poor history and lots of first aid problems with splinters and things, and so we'd like to have some idea as to what it is they're going to build if we're going to be forever responsible for it. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Let's hear from the public speaker. While he's coming up -- MR. DORRILL: Mr. Gibbons has a presentation, and then I also have a Mr. Eifert. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Olliff, I have one question. I'm familiar with the community or the neighborhood park at Poinciana. How many acres is that park? MR. OLLIFF: Steve indicates it's about one acre in size. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: That's about one acre? And that's got a tennis court on it? MR. OLLIFF: That has a basketball court, a small playground area, I believe one -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: So it's more than a tot lot? MR. OLLIFF: Yes. I think we're talking about primarily equipment for preschool, very early elementary age school. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Swings, seesaws, those little rocking things? MR. OLLIFF: Spring chickens is what we call them. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Spring chickens. Yes, sir. Thank you. MR. GIBBONS: Good morning, Commissioners. My name is Richard Gibbons. I'm with the East Naples Civic Association, also East Naples firefighter. This tot lot is not going to have any wooden structure whatsoever. It will be steel vinyl coated if you can see in the packet I gave you. That gives you an example of a couple of pieces of equipment we're talking about. We may get it a little larger or whatever fits in the lot. I was told this morning by Darlene Coons from Habitat for Humanity who, by the way, gave us the lot, gave it to East Naples Civic Association -- that -- in that small area right down Scholtz Street, there is 32 children there in that very small area. That's mostly -- That's only the people that she knows from the habitat houses that would use the park and is walking distance. Scholtz street there is centrally located in Naples Manor. And as you see, the rendering of the sign that we'd like to put there too. It's by Signcraft. He made the sign. He's going to donate the sign to put up there which would be a wooden sign, and it's going to be dedicated to the -- in memory of the children of Oklahoma City. Now, I -- last week I went to North Naples Fire Department and spoke to the firefighters up there, and they asked me a lot of questions about what we're doing and everything, and then the following day they called me and they donated $4,000 towards the park, and that's only one local union that I talked to. I've got four more to talk to plus the Professional Firefighters of Collier County. Then we feel -- We feel that we're going to get all the money from the firefighters to build this park. Everything will be completely paid for, and the county -- won't cost them a dime. So I would appreciate if you would waive all the fees and accept the park after it's completed and will dedicate -- We'll have a dedication and everything. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Thank you. Do we have -- We have another speaker? MR. DORRILL: Mr. Eifert. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thank you for all your work. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you very much. MR. DORRILL: Then we'll have Mr. Carpenter if he's interested. One quick note. We can't waive the fees, but if you authorize it, then we will transfer money out of general fund reserves to pay for those fees. MR. EIFERT: Dave Eifert, president of Professional Firefighters of Collier County on behalf of the 200 organized firefighters here in Collier County. We will do all the work. It will be on safety standards, the fencing, the construction, the clearing. I am a -- also a certified Florida nurseryman, and at this point in time all the eucalyptus mulch will be donated by Home Depot of which I am the resident nurseryman. So everything will be above board and beyond safety standards, and we assure you that all the work will be top shelf. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. Mr. Olliff -- MR. DORRILL: Mr. Carpenter is saying that he doesn't wish to speak. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I'm sorry? MR. DORRILL: Mr. Carpenter is indicating he does not wish to speak. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Does not? MR. DORRILL: Does not. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Mr. Olliff, I have one question. Based on the drawings and so forth that we've seen -- and it looks like this is really a nice plan that they've got here -- will this be similar to other tot lots that we would consider building if we were going to do this? MR. OLLIFF: In fact, they've been talking to our park staff recently, and I think they had considered some wood equipment and they learned from our experiences, and I think they've looked at some of the equipment that we currently use. And I think, yes, in terms of design, they have been working with us and I think it's -- it's fairly similar to something we would construct. Specifically if the board wants to accept this and I've been here long enough to jump on and support some things when they're good like this one, there are three things specifically that need to happen. You need to direct staff to actually prepare the rezoning application for this, to authorize the budget amendments that would be associated with transferring funds from the general fund to the associated enterprise fund for that project, and then there will also be the title requirement search on the real property's part and acceptance of the deed that will come at a later date, but just basically directing us that you're supporting the idea of accepting that property assuming that the title is clear. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Motion maker, does the motion include these three items Mr. Olliff has laid out? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Yes, they do. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And the second. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: And the second accepts them? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Yes. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: If there's no further discussion, I'll call the question. All in favor please say aye. Opposed? There being none -- surprise -- motion passes 5-0. Item #8H4 ALLOCATION OF TOURIST DEVELOPHENT TAX REVENUES FOR ADVERTISING IN THE EVENT OF A NATURAL DISASTER - APPROVED At this time -- I see Hr. Ayres has come in. At this time, let's take up the issues that are items H -- 8H(4) and (5), the first one being item (4), allocate Tourist Development tax revenues for advertising in the event of a natural disaster. Miss Gansel. MS. GANSEL: Good morning, Commissioners. Jean Gansel from the budget office. This item is a follow-up to discussion that the TDC and the board had last summer regarding funding for media exposure in the event of a natural disaster. It was decided at that time that the best way to fund this advertising would be to transfer 5 percent of the tourist tax revenues from category B and category C to a special fund, and we would build up that fund over the years. We've been working with the EDC, the Accommodations Association and the chambers to determine the best way to set up this fund and to being able to allocate the money in the event of a disaster. After much discussion, actually the contract that Mr. Cuyler is passing out is with -- was with the chamber of commerce. And after much discussion, it was decided that the Collier County Tourism Committee would probably be the best entity for us to enter into a contract with. That's the entity that we at this point provide funding for our category B local promotions. So there is a change from the contract that you have in the executive summary. We're requesting in addition to the approval of the contract to set up a mechanism which is in the contract to allocate those funds. Obviously if there's a natural disaster, we don't have a lot of time to meet. So the procedure we've set up is that the Emergency Management director would declare what the emergency -- the amount of damages. We would have in place at the beginning of each fiscal year a blanket purchase order with the Collier County Tourism Committee identifying how much money is available in that fund. If a disaster hits, they would contact us to determine the amount of funds that would be available for advertising, and they would make the initiations with the different organizations that are identified in the package of information that you've received. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. MS. GANSEL: One thing. Finance had asked me to identify the fund transfers would be from fiscal year '94. We would start in that year making the transfers into this disaster recovery fund. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Constantine. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Ms. Gansel, the purpose behind this I think was inspired by Lee County's unfortunate run-in with Andrew that I think Dan Rather was the one who announced that Lee County and Fort Myers had been obliterated. The tourism industry took a hit because of that. I think the purpose -- and help me here -- is to make sure if we do get hit, that the word gets out appropriately. But if for some reason there is a report in error or there's a perception in error, that we get that word out as well. MS. GANSEL: Exactly, so that we don't lose tourism during that time when Collier County is in position to receive visitors. We would make sure that people are aware of that. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Are there other questions? Is there a motion? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Motion to approve the item. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second to approve the item. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? There being none, motion passes 5-0. MS. GANSEL: Thank you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. Item #8H5 FUNDING FOR A FILM COMMISSION OFFICE WITH TOURIST DEVELOPMENT TAX REVENUES - CONTINUED TO JUNE 6, 1995 MS. GANSEL: Commissioners, the next item is also a Tourist Development Council item, and this is to appropriate funding for a film commission office. TDC received a proposal from the Economic Development Council at their April 3 meeting and the proposal that was received was attached to your information. What they are looking for is for the TDC to share the cost of setting up a film commission office where they would have brochures. They would have information available. We would have a film commissioner who would be able to respond to requests that I understand have been received throughout the county to film here. I know you're all aware of "Just Cause" and the success that that was to the county. This would put us in a position to be more proactive and to solicit some of that industry into our community. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'd like to move approval. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I think that's premature. I've done -- I've got a number of questions and comments on this. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We've discussed it once last year -- COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- I could make a motion and you could decide not to second it, but I've made it. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Just a moment. We have a motion on the floor. Commissioner Hac'Kie has moved approval. We are awaiting a second. Is there discussion on the item? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I have discussion. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Constantine. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I think it's premature. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I had a feeling about that. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The -- You know, I've done a lot of homework on this, and for a number of reasons I think it's premature. I think -- Where is John? There he is hiding behind the shades looking Hollywood. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Appropriately today. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I know John and the EDC have done a lot of homework on this as well, and we will likely hear some of the reasons. I assume you may speak on this, but there are some concerns I have. I'd like to see us pursue the film industry, but I don't know that the format in which this is written today is the way to do it. I have a number of concerns. First and foremost I guess, as you go back to the back of our packet and look at what has been suggested for expenditures here and as you read through the suggestions, the development of a film library, development of production guide, and support services, all those types things, there are several in here, many of those exist for Southwest Florida right now. I've had a chance to spend a little bit of time with Beverly Fox from the Lee County film commission, and they break theirs down into different portions of Southwest Florida, but they do, indeed, already feature people who provide those services in Naples and places even south of here and have a very comprehensive guide to those various services. So I don't think we need to reinvent the wheel. They also attend trade shows and do the various things, and they have their little film sampling clips and so on. Much of that is inclusive of footage from Collier County as well. They're trying to push Southwest Florida. Obviously they prefer to have -- the way it's currently set up, the film industry come and spend their money in the Lee hotels and so on. But I've talked with Beverly about this. I've talked to a couple of the commissioners up there about this, and I think this may be an opportunity for us to do a regional project and rather than -- When you compete with the Hiamis and the Orlandos and the big metropolitan areas, you have not only a large geographical area but you've got a million or two million people in those areas from which to draw. And I think when you look at us as a little corner of 185,000 people trying to compete with them and trying to compete with Lee and everyone else, we're better suited to do that as a region. If you take us and Lee, we can broach the subject with Charlotte, but I think particularly us and Lee, you've got a pool of 600,000 people. You've got a much wider variety of area from which to shoot geographically and visually, and I think we need to pursue the film commission idea, but I think we need to pursue that on a regional basis. Lee spends about $80,000 a year doing this. They're on a tight budget as many of them are, but that is less I know than what is put forth here. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: What was the number in Lee? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: About 80,000 roughly, and that's serving from memory. I have a few questions for John, but I want to let you do your thing first, and then I've got a couple of questions for you on the idea. I think we're headed in the right direction, and I think we need to look at it, but two specific concerns I have here is if we're going to look at things for economic development, let's do that all in one big picture, not in piecemeal fashion. And we have -- We have appointed our Council of Economic Advisors -- they are due back with their annual report I think in September. So we're not that far away. And I'd like to see this as part of a complete picture of Economic Development. And also if we're going to look at altering the use of TDC dollars and I think after the mega concert deal, it's probably appropriate that we do that, but again we should look at that as one big picture rather than piecemeal but -- MS. GANSEL: Let me have Mr. Ayres respond to your comments. MR. AYRES: Thank you, Commissioners. I guess my response would be that you've given me reason to think about this regional idea. The very first meeting we had of the film commission, we had Beverly at that meeting so that we could learn a little bit about what Lee County had been doing in previous years, and in the spirit of not reinventing the wheel and we took -- just as we did with our disaster recovery program, we started that the same way. I think there are probably some areas where we could share and probably should share. We have been privy to all of their collateral and their various marketing information, and we have that from all over the -- we have a box that's moved from office to office that weighs about 80 pounds. It's full of various pieces of material on how to do it and how not to do it but -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's where you get those big arms. MR. AYRES: Yes indeed, but I don't carry it. But, anyway, so we took the opportunity to look at what everyone was doing, and I guess I would certainly bring it back to the committee and have the committee discuss it. I have one thought for you to ponder here. There's a film that's going to start production which we haven't even announced yet -- I guess it will be announced right now -- called "Wreckage" which is a -- which is a film which is currently being shot in -- off the beaches in Miami and a wreckage of a small cruise ship down in the Bahamas. So we didn't have to worry about that challenge here but -- and then it comes to Keewaydin Island for three weeks of filming. And, you know, when you look at -- When you look at millions of dollars worth of -- not the hocus-pocus of, you know, if you multiply seven times every dollar that goes through the cash register, but we had nine million real dollars that landed in Collier County as a result of "Just Cause" and the movie "Captiva," and I would caution that that's big money, and let me tell you, Lee County would like all of it. And if they could have, they would have had "Wreckage" in Lee County and not in Collier County, and that's three weeks of hotel rooms and all of the same kind of things that "Just Cause" did and we are -- My consensus is that we're probably too competitive to be doing too much of this on our -- on a joint basis. That would be my preliminary thought. THE COURT REPORTER: Sir, could you state your name, please? MR. AYRES: John Ayres, A-y-r-e-s. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I think as part of it we will find there are certain aspects that you're absolutely right, particularly if -- I mean, if someone comes to shoot a commercial, it's different than "Just Cause" where they're here in Gainesville and Lee County and Miami. If someone is shooting a commercial, they're likely going to do that in one or two locations, and I understand there are some areas where we're going to want to stand up on our own, but I think there are several areas where it is beneficial for us to do that as a region. I think we can become much more competitive if we do it as a region rather than little Collier County competing against Broward, Palm Beach, Miami. MR. AYRES: Well, except that the film industry is similar to the tourism industry. Little Collier County can compete head to head with Palm Beach County or Dade County, or Hawaii for that matter, and I think that in the film industry, I think from the vantage point that, you know, a year of messing around with this thing has come from, I think that, you know, we have a real opportunity to compete. For example, at trade shows, however, could we consolidate and save some money by -- you know, by sharing a booth and that kind of thing, yes, we've had those thoughts. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I guess I would disagree, respectfully disagree. We may have site locations that rival other places; however, we do not have the production services and so on, certainly not to the extent that other areas do. So I think if they're looking solely for a visual, you're right, we can compete with anyone in the world but -- MR. AYRES: But, in fact, that's what -- at the moment at least, that's what we're selling. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And, in fact, though, that's not all that they're looking for. Maybe all we're selling, but that's not all that the industry is looking for, and I think if we do that as a region, then everyone benefits. MR. AYRES: Sure. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Norris. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. Thank you, Miss Chairman. Commissioner Constantine brings up some good points in his discussion. I'm going to vote against the motion for a few other reasons. First of all, EDC has in the past opposed diversion of these tourist tax funds from their intended purposes, and now they have a proposal to do just that. Second of all, if I remember correctly, the voters were assured back when this was brought before the voters that this tax would not bring with it new bureaucracies and new agencies. I seem to remember that very clearly. And second of all, I'm just not -- or third -- I guess I'm down to third, aren't I? Third, I'm not comfortable funding a private organization with these taxpayer dollars. So, as I stated before, I'm going to vote against the motion. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hac'Kie. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I think that we're being short-sighted when we say we shouldn't do this unless we do it regionally. I think what would be the best plan would be to have a Collier County agency and instruct it to work where appropriate in conjunction with the Lee County agency. And if there are particular items on the budget list or -- you know, there, for example, that film library, if that $10,000 seems to be too much for that, I'd certainly want to hear about that, but I think it's just a shame if we continue to do nothing when we are presented with these kinds of opportunities. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hancock. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: The question is how much did the EDC spend last year in this regard, in this effort? What was the budget and expense last year? MR. AYRES: I would only be guessing when I give you an amount, but I'm going to say probably $35,000. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: $35,000 and netted nine million. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah, but it was catch as catch can. COHHISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. No problem. I understand. MR. AYRES: We were -- You know, we were fortunate. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I understand that. The reason I ask is sometimes our eyes grow big when the source becomes available, and I don't disagree that the expenditures may be valid for the county, but Commissioner Constantine's idea of a regional concept -- I see it as an opportunity, not a liability. If I am a movie maker, I look for typically -- and this is, again, just based on some discussions I've had with a very limited group of people. But I'm looking for selection. I'm looking for site. I'm looking -- you know, there's a concept, an idea, a location that I'm looking for. By joining with our partner to the north in an obvious 50/50-type agreement, we can present our wares alongside theirs initially. Where the interest then goes to either Collier or Lee, the representative from that county takes over at that point. So it's not a situation where -- you know, it's almost as if you have a division of sales and you have representatives, and we're trying to sell Southwest Florida, and when the interest begins to go to either Collier or Lee, that individual person takes over. So I don't see it as an elimination of one person or a total joint effort but a way to reduce the overall cost of stepping into that arena for us and then, of course, you know, selling our wares when the interest is shown. So -- you know, and I think there's some things out there I'd like to hear answers to regarding the regional concept before I am willing to fully support a local office. Now, if you can show me or if someone else shows me the regional concept is not going to work to our benefit, then I think we're back to doing it completely on our own. But just from a functional standpoint, I think there are too many merits to what Commissioner Constantine brought up that have not been looked at to go ahead and appropriate funds for this at this point, and I don't think it would take long to look at those merits and see if they're valid. MR. AYRES: No. As a matter of fact, the preliminary data that we gave you in terms of budgeting was, in fact, just that, preliminary, and what we have done subsequently is as a committee we have sat down and begun the process of really what do we really need to spend, and in that process was the thought that we might go to trade shows together, and we might be able to do some things together. So I don't disagree that there are some areas where we can share, and I think we'll also be able to show you why in some areas it doesn't make good sense to do that, and we will have no problem with bringing something like that back to you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Ayres, when do you think you could bring something like that back? Sixty days? MR. AYRES: Oh, gee, no. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No? MR. AYRES: No. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Sooner? MR. AYRES: Two weeks. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Two weeks? MR. AYRES: Oh, sure. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. MR. AYRES: I mean, we're in the process of -- in fact, I've got a rough draft that I was going to be reading right now but -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: In the interest of time, I'm going to ask if Commissioner Mac'Kie would like to withdraw her motion and substitute it with a motion to continue. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Reluctantly. I, frankly, have enough information obviously to go forward, and I caution, you know, for what it's worth, we're not the experts in this field, and we should take counsel from those who have studied the issue more carefully and thoroughly but okay. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: You can count to three. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Constantine. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let me express a couple of other concerns. Rather than simply continuing for two weeks, I'd like to take a little different approach and, you know, let's dive into the pursuit of how are we going to go about doing the film -- trying to draw the film industry here. But, again, I think if we're going to talk about TDC dollars, we need to look at the whole TDC picture. If we're going to talk about Economic Development, we need to talk about the entire Economic Development and not chip it away a piece at a time. A couple of questions, John. The proposed office shows film liaison salary at 60 -- I'm sorry -- at 30,000; a secretary, quarter time at 5,000; FICA; insurance; so on. MR. AYRES: Right. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: How many positions does the EDC currently employ right know? MR. AYRES: Not involved in this? In total? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah. Currently how many? MR. AYRES: Well, that's changed with the coalition but COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Whatever -- HR. AYRES: Three I would say. Three or four. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So are you looking at adding -- Okay. Can you tell me what those four positions are? MR. AYRES: Ross Hobley, Bill Neuron, Cindy Felter who has been the primary person, and a secretary/receptionist who sort of dabbles in everything we need help in. So it's a pretty lean little group over there. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Agreed. The question, though, is, are we -- Are you looking to add another person, add another position, or is this simply supplementing -- MR. AYRES: No. We're looking at adding a full-time person because the -- even -- and certainly we'll demonstrate this to you when we come back with some answers on your regional concept, but we're not looking at a budget like we often do in county or in business where you say, well, let's -- you know, let's wack three or four positions out of there. We have no position. So, you know, the funding that we have here is pretty meager, and all it provides for is one person. So even if -- Even if we're running the regional route, somebody needs to be toured around and shown around. Cindy just spent her entire day yesterday taking these people around for"Wreckage" which fortunately they're going to film here, but a lot of times you do that and you don't get the film. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm going to be very blunt. The word that I get -- and I need you to help me with this -- MR. AYRES: Sure. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- and clear this up if it is inaccurate -- is that Cindy has kind of filled that role along with half a dozen other roles that she fills at the EDC. MR. AYRES: Right. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The concern is that she'll simply slide into this, and that then becomes a position and suddenly it is paid for out of county funds. MR. AYRES: Well, I'll be very blunt. That's ridiculous. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Right. That's what I need to hear. MR. AYRES: First of all, Cindy probably will not take the job because of other things that she has in terms of school and her family. And, secondly, the full-time commitment now having talked to a bunch of these people, and as you've evidenced in speaking, you don't have much family life. I mean, once you get in the film business, you know, you can be working 18-hour days chasing around with these people so -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: It also becomes addictive. MR. AYRES: It's a big full-time responsibility unless you just want to play with it. We've gotten very lucky playing with it. So our sense is, imagine if we did this constructively and professionally what we could accomplish. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And when we get down into the details of -- I mean, how many tourists does the film industry attract to Collier County? MR. AYRES: Well, you know, I'm not personally aware of the definition that speaks to tourists. I guess I look at -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Or business. MR. AYRES: I -- Being involved in the tourism industry, it's filling -- putting bodies in bags and certainly this -- our experience with this business so far puts a lot of bodies in bags. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm sorry. That's visitors or tourists. Obviously if they come, we don't care if they're a tourist or here on business as long as they spend money. MR. AYRES: Yeah. They may be here filming but, nonetheless, they're visitors. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And, again, my concern being twofold with TDC dollars and also doing -- using TDC dollars for economic development. There's a balance there. MR. AYRES: If I could make a comment, when I brought this proposal originally to the TDC, we did not -- I did not have any consideration walking in the room that this was going to end up becoming category B funding. I mean, that was news -- that was news to me. My -- My intent when we walked in the room and Jean Gansel and I talked about it and everyone was -- in fact, Commission MAtthews, we felt that was it was justifiably going to come out of the category C funding. And, you know, sometimes you go in at three o'clock and you come out at 6:00. I was surprised, quite frankly. I thought that those available dollars there were exactly what we needed to help get this thing started, and it certainly has all the opportunity to attract visitors, and we should get a little help and then move on. We also never intended that this would be the kind of thing that the county would fund for the next 25 years. What we needed to do is get our collateral in place and get this thing up and running and then figure out how to support ourselves. At EDC we certainly believe in that. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What I would ask rather than simply continuing this item for two weeks is that the board works -- someone or -- either someone from the board or someone from our staff works specifically with you, with Beverly Fox, perhaps somebody from the Lee TDC and sits down and sees because I think you're right. There are certain things we cannot do together just by the nature of the business, but I think there are many things we can. I'm not sure we can get all those people together, sit down, and define those in a two-week span. And I want to pursue this, but I want to pursue it correctly. And I took a little offense, Commissioner Mac'Kie. You suggested that if we didn't approve the original motion, that we were doing nothing, and Iwm not suggesting that at all. Iwm just saying pursuing film is a great idea, but letws go about it in a little more comprehensive manner. MR. AYRES: Could we -- Could we set a time potentially to -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah. Hopefully we will. MR. AYRES: -- so it doesnwt get lost in the shuffle? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Hopefully we will before this motion is voted. Mr. Norris. Commissioner Norris. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Thank you. I donlt favor continuing this item for the purpose of bringing back something that may be completely different. I think our agenda says that we have this item to vote on today. I think the appropriate thing to do would be to vote this item and then perhaps give direction to bring back something modified in the future. But if we continue this item, then the inference is that youlre going to vote on this item at some point in the future, but thatls not whatls being discussed. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Could I make a suggestion how we might do that? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Just a minute. Commissioner Hancock was next. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Letls vote this one down. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I think what youlre hearing and I hope people are hearing is that there are people up here that think this is a good idea and one we want to approach. Commissioner Norris brought up a couple of points that are a concern of mine, that the TDC funds is becoming a local cash cow. Welre seeing requests come in from all angles for TDC funds because the money is there. There is going to be I would guess a significant restructuring of that particular ordinance in the -- in the -- I would guess coming months. I mean, theylre -- welre just getting hit from so many angles and the questions are becoming greater and greater and greater as we go along, that I think we need to take -- do need to take a comprehensive look at it, and that may very much open the door more for what welre discussing here today. So I donlt want to get lost in this that -- you know, that the votersi confidence in our ability to apply the TDC funds appropriately as they wish, that that gets thrown away. I think thatls an important element, and we need to be sensitive to that, and hopefully these two things can work in concert because I think we do need to take a look at the allocation of those funds, the way itls done. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Constantine. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just a suggestion. I think Iid agree with Commissioner Norris, in that rather than continue this specific item, letls set that aside but I would volunteer -- Having already had a chance to speak with a couple of the Lee commissioners about it, Iid volunteer to work with Mr. Ayres and with the EDC in organizing that effort and for a sit-down or sit-downs with Lee County and maybe have a report back within a 60-day time frame on some format. And then hopefully on a parallel course, we can begin our discussions on the TDC dollars and on -- I think welre due for our third quarter update from our Council of Economic Advisors in that period as well. So I think all that can gel together on the same time frame within 60 days, and I think that way welre all -- welre looking at a big picture item. Welve had an opportunity to look at the regional aspects. So I would -- Just as a suggestion, Iid volunteer to do that and suggest that way we can have all that information at the same time. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion to continue the item. Mr. Ayres, when do you think you could gather the information that was asked for? We do not meet in regular session on May the 30th. So that would be May 23 or June 6 or after that date. MR. AYRES: Well, you know, I certainly wouldn't be opposed to having Commissioner Constantine helping with this effort and if June 6 would -- you know, I sort of like dates positive because then you somehow figure out how to get it done so if that would be -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I'm just wondering if June 6 is realistic. MR. AYRES: -- agreeable -- You know, so much of the leg work on this thing has already been done. So it's not like we're going to start this new program. I think we've got a lot of it in place, and we'll ask some new questions and -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hac'Kie, do you want to amend your motion to a date certain on June 67 COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yes. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. We have a motion to continue this item until June 6. Is there a second? I'll second the motion and put it on the floor. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I have a -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Discussion? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- question just based on Commissioner Norris' statement. Is a continuance of this appropriate since what we're asking for is not really the same thing? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: It's going to come back in some form. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We're asking for -- May I? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: They're asking for a film commission, and we have asked them to go and talk with Lee County and develop some collaborative effort between two counties and bring it back to us, and that's what it is. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Is that a part of the motion for a continuance? I heard a motion to continue, but I didn't hear the other elements as a part of that motion. That's why I'm asking for the appropriateness. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: My motion is to continue. I trust that people who want to be able to count to three in a different way than they were able to count to three today are hearing what's going to be necessary to enable them to get three votes. I think this is a real simple question of a continuance being appropriate, and we've given them instructions, and they'll come back and try to pitch something that will sell better than this did. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Mac'Kie, would you entertain as a motion maker an amendment to request Mr. Ayres enter into collaborative talks with Lee County and develop a plan of collaborative effort? COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Where appropriate. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Where appropriate. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yes. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: And to include Commissioner Hac'Kie -- Commissioner Constantine in that and bring that plan back to us on June 67 COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yes. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Thank you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: The second accepts that too. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just a final suggestion. There is not an absolute urgency on this. I think to gather all those parties and to accomplish that in three weeks -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: And we may just get an update in three weeks. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: My suggestion, again, could be to do it in a realistic time frame rather than come back and have a half-hour discussion and say, well, we've still got to work more on it. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: But we hear that a lot of leg work is done and maybe we'll -- you'll be pleasantly surprised. So let's try not to drag this any longer than we have already. MR. AYRES: See, the problem is that the committee -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Let's not turn this into a second Gordon River bridge. MR. AYRES: -- and I beg your indulgence, but the committee has spent an enormous amount of time and effort looking at all of the ramifications of this and I don't -- certainly don't not accept the opportunity to look at it some more, but, you know, we've had a lot -- you know, when you look at staff people and you look at budgets, you know, I don't know what my hourly rate is, but it's been pretty extensive along with about 12 other people. So I do -- I would hope we could get it done by then. And if not, you know -- COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: If not, we'll hear from one of our colleagues that it's not ready to be looked at. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah. I'm going to call the question. All those in favor please say aye. Opposed? Motion passes 3-2, Commissioners Constantine and Norris being in the opposition. Thank you. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I apologize. I must scoot. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yes, sir. See you -- what -- in about an hour, hour and fifteen minutes? COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah. About an hour. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Well, you may get a double lunch. (Commissioner Constantine exited the board room and was absent for the remainder of the meeting.) Item #SH1 RESOLUTION 95-327 AUTHORIZING THE ACQUISITION BY GIFT, PURCHASE OR CONDEMNATION THE FEE SIMPLE TITLE FOR ROAD RIGHTS-OF-WAY FOR THE PROJECT PARCELS REQUIRED TO COMPLETE THE CORRIDOR ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS FOR VANDERBILT BEACH ROAD FROM U.S. 41 TO AIRPORT-PULLING ROAD, CIE PROJECT NO. 023 - ADOPTED CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Next item on the agenda, we'll go back to item 8H(1), a recommendation that the board adopt a resolution authorizing an acquisition. Mr. Conrecode. MR. CONRECODE: Good afternoon, Commissioners. For the record, Tom Conrecode from your Capital Projects Office. Item 8H(1) and 8H(2) are related, and they have to do with the extension of Vanderbilt Beach Road between U.S. 41 and Airport Road. 8H(1) is a resolution requesting that the board agree with staff findings of the need, necessity, and appropriateness of the alternative location, environmental factors, cost, safety, and so on and so forth, associated with the right-of-way and the parcels on Vanderbilt Beach Road for road right-of-way under 8H(1). COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Excuse me, Mr. Conrecode. MR. CONRECODE: Yes, sir. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I'll make a motion that we adopt the attached resolution and authorize the chairman to execute the resolution. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second. Is there further discussion? There being none, I'll call the question. All in favor please say aye. Opposed? There being none, motion passes 4-0. Item #8H2 RESOLUTION 95-328 AUTHORIZING THE ACQUISITION BY GIFT, PURCHASE OR CONDEMNATION THE EASEMENT INTERESTS FOR SIDEWALK, LIGHTING AND LANDSCAPE, SLOPE AND TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION PURPOSES FOR THE PROJECT PARCELS REQUIRED TO COMPLETE THE CORRIDOR ROADWAY INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS FOR VANDERBILT BEACH ROAD FROM U.S. 41 TO AIRPORT-PULLING ROAD, CIE PROJECT NO. 023 - ADOPTED COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Madam Chairman, as a companion item, I'd like to make a motion we adopt resolution item 8H(2). COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second to adopt a resolution authorizing the acquisition of the Airport Road property CIE Project 023. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm sorry. MR. CONRECODE: Vanderbilt Beach Road. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Vanderbilt Beach Road. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I'm sorry. MR. CONRECODE: Between U.S. 41. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I'm sorry. Vanderbilt Beach Road CIE Project 023. If there's no further discussion, all those in favor please say aye. Opposed? There being none, motion passes 4-0. Item #8H3 HEDIATED SETTLEHENT OF CASE NO. 92-0758-CA-01-TB, COLLIER COUNTY V. ENERGY RESOURCES, INC., AND AHWEEST SURETY INSURANCE COMPANY (1990 WIGGINS PASS DREDGING CASE) AND ASSOCIATED BUDGET AMENDMENT - APPROVED Next item on the agenda is 8H(3), a recommendation that the board review and accept a mediated settlement with Energy Resources, Incorporated. Mr. Conrecode. MR. CONRECODE: Yes, ma'am and Commissioners, item 8H(3) is staff's recommendation that the board review and accept the mediated settlement of the case between Collier County and Energy Resources, Inc., and their surety, Amwest Surety Insurance Company. In 1990 under bid number 90-1538, the board awarded the contract for the maintenance dredging of Wiggins Pass. Subsequently in Hay the board found that contractor in default and did a declaration of contractor default. Subsequent to that, the county sued the surety and the contractor to recover the cost to complete that work. In the process of going to trial, the mediation conference was held, and the outline of an agreement is what you have in your package today. Under this, Collier County will receive $94,000 from the surety and the contractor which is, in essence, equal to its cost to complete the work. The -- There's a number of other stipulations in which we would retract the declaration of default. Both parties would exchange mutual releases and dismissals associated with the case, and that each side would bear its own attorneys fees and costs. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Sounds good to me, Mr. Conrecode. It cost us 94 pay to finish it up and we're getting it from them; right? MR. CONRECODE: Yes, sir. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Motion to approve. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second to approve the settlement agreement. If there's no further discussion, all those in favor please say aye. Opposed? Motion passes 4-0, Commissioner Constantine being absent. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: I would like to take the opportunity to commend our staff for working on this. This could have become a much longer and more drawn out process, and I think Mr. Conrecode's staff deserves a hand for getting this resolved in the manner that it was presented to us today. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: You've done a fine job. MR. CONRECODE: I have to defer to Ramiro Manalich from the County Attorney's Office because he's really -- COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: We don't have to give him credit if we don't want to. MR. CONRECODE: He's the bull. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thank you, Ramiro. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you, Ramiro. Thank you, Mr. Conrecode. Item #9A DISCUSSIONS RE MOTIONS TO DISMISS - PETITION A-95-2 (GIBSON RESIDENCE, BLOCK 1, LOT 14, HIDEAWAY BEACH, MARCO ISLAND) Next item on the agenda is item 9A on the county attorney's report, a discussion of motions to dismiss. I understand this is going to be a very generalized discussion; is that correct? MR. CUYLER: It is going to be a very generalized discussion. We're not actually going to hear the motion to dismiss. I just wanted to give you a very brief indication of what's going on, and some of it you haven't dealt with -- and in fact, we haven't dealt with in terms of this kind of procedure. As you know, there's four or five law firms that are involved in a potential hearing next week. There have been some motions to dismiss filed by Mr. Anderson who represents Mr. Gibson who had a stop work order placed on his property. The motions to dismiss Mr. Anderson wanted heard today. I told him that I thought it was best that they be handled next week. I told Mr. Kobza that in the event the board does favorably consider the motions to dismiss, that since we're not hearing them this week, he's going to have to be able to react next week if we, in fact, go forward with those hearings at that time as scheduled. We have never had, to my knowledge, motions to dismiss filed in an appeal of this type, but it appears to me that a party does have the right to argue that the board doesn't have the jurisdiction of a certain item which is one of the motions -- the substance of one of the motions or that an appeal was not timely filed. We are still doing some research. We've done some research, but that coupled with two or three other things I thought dictated that they best be heard next week. Just so the board is ready, it seems to me that the scheduled hearing is probably going to take a minimum -- and I will emphasize minimum -- of three hours, and it could go much longer than that. We'll have to wait and see. MR. DORRILL: I wanted to add to that, as part of the legal aspect of this, I advised the board last week that the entire afternoon session of the agenda is going to be reserved for this matter as it has taken on what I'm calling O.J. Simpson proportions with at least two of the larger law firms in the state and co-counsel and three firms locally and firms from New York City and whatnot. The issue here from my perspective -- and I've been doing some research here -- needs a solution. And regardless of who's got the biggest and baddest lawyer, it is apparent to me and the staff that the home is seaward of where it needs to be. So we are working to develop a compromise to relocate the house to determine the extent to which the county has fault as a result of the staff not processing PUD amendments from 1986 or 1987, but it seems to me that as we determine the appropriate line, the proposal that we are working on, and then I will be prepared to recommend to you with or without full agreement from all the parties involved, is to recognize that the house is seaward of where it needs to be, and we need to get and be party to a compromise to move the home back and take additional action with respect to a dune and vegetative line that appears to be inappropriately excavated and to at least coordinate an appropriate response to the illegal excavation or destroying of a sea turtle nest. And those are the issues to which I am aware of. I have directed the staff to process the PUD amendment, albeit eight or nine years after the direction it was received, the last time that erosion problems developed along the pass, and I don't mind telling you that the direction that I'm pursuing is a compromise that will entail moving the home back and having a minimum rear yard setback 30 feet for the principal structures involved in this case and 20 feet for any accessory-type structure that I'm defining to be a swimming pool and the associated deck for that pool. All other PUD stipulations would apply. We are exploring also relocating a portion of the road in front of the residence, not at our expense, but as part of an agreement and in order to seek a compromise. And so I'm going to suggest to you that we move forward to try and rectify the problem with the house in order to lift the red tag that is there and to seek and recommend a compromise to you, but those are the general lines that I intend for it to take. I have met with both Mr. Varnadoe's firm as well as Mr. Kobza's firm. I think it's safe to say that they are not close to an agreement of compromise at this time, but it's certainly my desire to try and have that. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hancock. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: From -- Simply from a planning perspective, it would be in our best interest to go in and reach a compromise on the balance of the lots of Hideaway Beach that are yet to be developed, thereby isolating the issues regarding the Gibson residence to it in particular. And I know you have been flooded with mail -- I've been copied on most of it -- regarding this, and I think there is, in fact, a compromise that could be reached that does obtain a buildable lot down there while protecting the dune and sea grass area, and I would encourage the county manager individually to pursue that. I think it's a prudent direction, allows us to discuss the Gibson residence in isolation. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Commissioner Norris. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Does your suggested compromise at this point -- This is just an aside from our discussion. Does this address the problem that Mr. Jackson would be facing also on that lot? Would that -- MR. DORRILL: It would need to, and that's why I think Mr. Hancock's remarks are appropriate because none of the lots, to my knowledge, east of the Gibson residence are developed, or there are at least four or five remaining lots that are on the pass, and we need to have a solution that can be done in the compromise fashion that will result -- any of the remaining buildable lots that are on the pass itself, and that's why I've directed the PUD amendments. I think you're going to see those the first or second Tuesday in June after they go to the Planning Commission. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Thank you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. MR. CUYLER: And I'll just -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Another update? MR. CUYLER: -- say for the record that I think all of what Mr. Dotrill has just indicated -- as you know, this will be an interpretation that's being presented to you that the setback should -- the PUD says 50 foot. I think all of Mr. Dorrill's comments are in light -- even if you were to find that that is exactly what the interpretation is and exactly what the PUD says, I think that he's indicating these things -- it's something that staff may be recommending anyway. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. That concludes the update on this? MR. CUYLER: Yes, ma'am. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Next week we are definitely to bring lunch with us? Is that what we're hearing? MR. DORRILL: (Nodding head) COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, they'll solve it before then. They've got to work out a compromise by then. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Maybe they will. Maybe they will. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: This is Goliath versus Goliath. MR. DORRILL: Are you volunteering your efforts -- COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No, sir. MR. DORRILL: -- to represent the county commission -- COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No, sir. MR. DORRILL: -- in a special -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Let your mediation skills rise to the surface, Commissioner Hac'Kie? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Huh-uh. MR. DORRILL: You've had enough special assignments. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: No more. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I presume, Mr. Cuyler, I'm going to get lessons on how to be a judge between now and Tuesday? MR. CUYLER: We're going to have to sit down and talk about the proceeding, as I will be with the parties as well. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Thank you. MR. CUYLER: Then we'll all at least know what's supposed to be happening. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: There are some things about this job that are so exciting. Item #10A COUNTY ATTORNEY TO INCORPORATE PENALTY LANGUAGE INTO COUNTY HANAGER'S ORDINANCE AND BRING BACK AFTER BCC VACATION CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yes. Yes. Next item on the agenda is item 10A, a discussion of county manager's ordinance. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: This is -- This is a matter that I think had been under discussion at the League of Women Voters and was brought to my attention as a result of the newspaper report that came out of the review of the Development Services Division that I did on your behalf where one of the suggestions that I made is that perhaps we should as commissioners be more careful that we don't step outside the authority given to us as commissioners and policy makers in that part of the problem that resulted in the Development Services Division results from -- that at least the perception on the part of staff people, that the county commission had involved itself too much in the day-to-day operation of that division. One of the -- One of the things that I was happy to hear was that the league is interested in looking at what I would call putting the teeth back in the county manager's ordinance. I have copies -- I have copies of the county manager's ordinances historically and presently so that you can see what in the past had been the enforcement mechanisms that had existed in the county manager's ordinance. And I think Miss Fitch on behalf of the league had wanted to comment on this. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Miss Fitch. MS. FITCH: Thank you. Dorothy Fitch representing the League of Women Voters. We feel, as Commissioner Mac'Kie does, that this is an appropriate time to bring up the subject of putting strength back into the county manager's ordinance. For the record, we are not speaking about the county manager's contract. Also, we are not pointing a finger but do feel there is a need to restore public confidence in our local government. We have given this issue long and serious study actually starting in 1975. A strong county manager was on our first board agenda. In the 1984 ordinance, there was strong language about no interference regarding the appointment or removal of any of the county manager's subordinates. This ordinance had a violation clause punishable by fine and imprisonment. In nineteen eighty -- In the 1987 ordinance, the fine and imprisonment clause was still in along with the other language of the Board of County Commissioners dealing solely with the county manager. However, in the 1993 ordinance, the fine and imprisonment ruling was removed along with changing affirmative wording from three-fifths of the entire membership of the board to a vote of not less than three members. It was argued that this was the same. We feel that it's not the same ethically. In 1993, we made several other suggestions, some of which were retained, others not. It is our sincere conviction that the reinstituting the clause involving fine and imprisonment would, quote, "keep the air clear," unquote. Commissioners would know where they stand and so would the county manager. We feel it would eliminate many of the problems which exist at this time in the administration of the government. We support the statements made by Commissioner Mac'Kie in her recent report to you and hope that you will put this matter on your agenda in the near future. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you, Miss Fitch. I have one comment before we get started. Mr. Dotrill, our workshop for May the 30th, I believe Mr. Constantine is committed to the Administrative Code and that possibly one of the things that we may need to do, not only consider rewording our ordinance in this matter but also consider defining exactly what interference is. For instance, I had a discussion with one person and find when I really look at the literal wording in the ordinance prior to this change, said if I had requested the appearance of Mr. Archibald at a meeting in Willoughby Acres regarding traffic, I was in violation of the ordinance because I requested a county employee to do something, not just to supply information and I'm -- I, I think like the rest of us, are making those requests all the time, that staff attend various meetings with us as support staff to answer the questions and so forth. MR. DORRILL: I'd say that is probably beyond the intent and the interpretation because a staff person who assists or attends a public meeting is there to convey information and/or ask questions. There was a legal opinion years ago that was prepared as a result of a request from former Commissioner Saunders who directed a county employee to put something on the board agenda and was done without my knowledge in that case, and I think we determined that it is probably appropriate to ask -- a commissioner to ask for something to be put on the agenda. It is certainly helpful for that commissioner to advise the manager of that so that I can be prepared and anticipate it when I see the agenda item. So I think some interpretational rules would be very helpful, especially to the staff, if we could define specifically what the intent of the board is. I think that it is certainly the intent of the entire board not to give even the appearance of improperly interfering or intimidating the staff in any way. And if we can do that, I think it -- it certainly will relieve the anxiety on the part of the staff and will give you the latitude that you need to be able to answer constituent questions and get information that is important to you in order to be effective to do your job. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: This -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: This may well be something, though, that we can handle incorporated within the Administrative Code that we'll be discussing May 30. So that that's one of my concerns, is that we -- if we're going to make this change, that we not make it so confining that we find yourselves having to channel every request through the county manager's office, and that's just going to inundate him with a lot of paperwork that he's not going to appreciate. Mr. Cons -- Mr. Hancock. I'm sorry. Commissioner Hancock. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: It's always been my understanding -- and maybe some people on this board have a problem with this, but just to pick him out, if I asked Mr. Arnold -- if I tell Mr. Arnold, "I want you to do 'X,"' he can tell me, "Go fly a kite," you know. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But would he? Is he likely to do that, Tim? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: But the bottom line is I cannot remove him by myself. I cannot -- I mean, I just understand that that's not my responsibility nor can I physically do it. And it's okay, Wayne. You haven't told me to go fly a kite. I want to clarify that. But I'm not his boss. That to me is very, very clear, nor do I have any desire to act as his boss. If I have a problem with an employee's performance, I'm going to talk to Mr. Dotrill, and I don't think we've even had one of those discussions. So I guess I'm a little unclear -- if someone is out there running roughshod, then, you know, go after that individual but let's -- you know, to -- to -- you know, I have no problem with looking at this. I just -- I guess I'm at a loss as to, you know, where's the misunderstanding? It's very clear to me. It's been very clear to me and will continue. So, you know, I have a problem looking at something that has no enforceability. And, you know, talking about going after someone through legal channels, well, who's going to prove it, who's going to bring it forward, who's going to push the issue, I mean, those are all functional questions that I -- that may be difficult to answer. So I'm happy to take a look at this. I guess -- I guess I just have a problem identifying -- if somebody doesn't understand this, give it to them in plain English and see if the problem corrects itself. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Mac'Kie. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I like the idea you mentioned, Commissioner Matthews, about incorporating some more detail other -- you know, that the county manager's ordinance just says, you know, thou shalt not do anything except for inquire and get information, and I agree, Commissioner Hancock, that's about as clear as -- as -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: It's pretty clear. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Indeed, that's pretty darn clear. But I think that we might want to amend the ordinance or perhaps adopt some administrative rules to clarify that and that that makes a lot of sense. But the one -- The concern that I have is that staff people are not likely to say, "Go fly a kite, Mr. Hancock," even though they have the right to do that and you wouldn't be shocked if they did that. It's just -- It has caused problems, and I'd be glad to talk to you about, you know, what I think those problems have been. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Maybe it's the way I frame it because I can give you two examples. I had a constituent -- I mean, something as minor as shower heads at Vanderbilt Beach. They wanted a pull chain because they couldn't reach the button and it was always the two were point -- I wrote Mr. Olliff a memo in kind of tongue in cheek and said, hey, can you, you know, take a look at this, see if you can fix it. I get a memo back saying it's taken care of. It was done. Now, for me to have to send that through the county manager's office which seems ridiculous to me -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: That was my suggestion that in the Administrative Code we define -- COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Right. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: -- what -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: -- what interference is. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Because the flip side is that I've asked Mr. Archibald -- you know, "I've got this request. Can we do something about it?" And his response has come back to me and said, "No. We don't have the money." Okay. I've got the answer. You know, so be it. Now, if I then go saying, "Well, it's your job," or, "You do something about it," I am clearly in the wrong and it's in this ordinance that I'm in the wrong, and it's a violation, and that's where I say the clarity to me is there, and maybe it is just a conduct definition that we need in an administrative code. I don't know. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: If I could just finish my comment COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm sorry. I didn't mean to -- COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's okay -- that -- that -- one thing just for your information. The legal opinion that Mr. Dotrill referred to was one of the attachments to that thick report that I gave you last week if anybody wants, you know, to have that handy. I think for me the most important part of this is public confidence, public trust, public assurance that we know what the rules are and we're willing to play by them and we want to reaffirm that. So I think that that -- I think there's a need for that public reassurance and from a good government perspective. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Norris. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, I certainly think that if there's any lack of clarity in the ordinance, that we should take a look at clarifying what it is, although, as Commissioner Hancock has stated, I feel comfortable knowing what my -- how far my authority stretches. My concern is one of typical reaction to a perceived problem. Sometimes the tendency is to go in and go overboard in re-regulating and formulating new regulations that you don't know what the -- before you know what the final ramifications of all those new regulations would be. I think our county manager's ordinance does obviously give the county manager the status of the League of Women Voters strong manager definition. But, once again, if there's any clarification needed, fine, let's do that. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Well, I agree that the ordinance as it exists does give us a strong manager. The problem that they're pointing out to us -- and I certainly see it -- is that if someone chooses to violate this ordinance, there's nothing that can be done about it. There are no penalties. It just merely says you shant do it, but it doesn't say what's going to happen if you do and -- and there is -- therein lies the problem. We've said that we're not going to do something. We've even said that this ordinance prohibits you from doing it, but like any ordinance, if it prohibits you from doing something, there should be a penalty attached to it for having done it, whatever that might be, and right now we have an ordinance that, in effect, is not an ordinance because there are no penalties ascribed to having violated it. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Can I ask Mr. Cuyler if you violate a county ordinance, is there nothing that can be done? MR. CUYLER: There is a violation of county ordinance. They're generally treated as misdemeanors, but in this case and in the case of a number of our ordinances, there's two things. First of all, it doesn't provide a penalty in the ordinance which you normally do if you're going to penalize somebody for a violation. And, secondly, the board has specifically removed that. If, for example, you came to me and said, "There's an allegation I did this. Would you go to the State Attorney's Office, see if there's any chance there could be a prosecution?" I'd tell the State Attorney's Office. They'd say, "No. We're not going to prosecute this." I'm fairly certain, because they would say there is no criminal penalty. Your enforcement mechanism could be through some civil injunction or mandamns or something along those lines. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I appreciate the effort on the part of the League of Women Voters, Commissioner Hac'Kie. I just fear that a -- I guess that somebody needs to say this. I feel like there's a bit of a witch hunt out there, because problems have come to the surface, so let's kill them, and I'm reminded of the same reason we are now dealing with difficulties of the Sunshine Law in that it was a good idea at the time, that we needed something to fix the problems that were going on in Hillsborough County and behind closed doors, and then the application of that now has a situation which I can't even talk to constituents about things that are coming before this board if they're -- you know. So I guess that's why I'm very uneasy about -- you know, and obviously I have no question about proceeding. I just don't want to be regulation-happy and hammer-happy if we're going to turn around and handcuff ourselves to a point that we cannot at least do what our constituents ask us to do, and that's where I'm having an uneasy feeling, not with the idea of moving ahead, but I'm having a tough time seeing the end product at this point, and I'm a little uneasy with that. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Can I just respond to the witch hunt thing? That I'm certainly -- and I'm confident the league's not and I'm certainly not on a witch hunt. I am, however, troubled by the fact that we have -- we have an ordinance that regulates us and we took the penalty out. What kind of -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: They. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I know, but, you know, the board is regulated by this ordinance -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: You are now we. COHHISSIONER HAC'KIE: -- and the board removed the penalty, and that's a bad public perception. I think that we need to COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Agreed. Agreed. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: -- we need to confirm our commitment to it by reinstating a penalty. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: No question. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Are you suggesting an official Collier County gallows or something to that effect? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: No. A $500 fine would do though. I think it might get people's attention. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: So I guess then we're at a closure on this. Do we want to direct the County Attorney's Office to produce an ordinance with wording reinserted, and plus he's got to advertise it and so forth. We'll be discussing it again on a -- COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That was my intention. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: -- Tuesday afternoon. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's what I'm asking for today. MR. CUYLER: It would probably be after your vacation. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: After vacation? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Again, I do want to stress -- thank you for bringing this up because, you know, again, we do have to deal with the public perception problem, and let's just make sure the hammer doesn't stop what it's not supposed to stop. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Well, based on Mr. Cuyler's comment that we'll be discussing this is in a public hearing after vacation which will be sometime in July and our next workshop is Hay 30 where we'll be discussing the Administrative Code, hopefully we can get it all to gel and produce something that's useful and worthwhile. So we can assume that that's direction to Mr. Cuyler that he's to go ahead and do that? MR. CUYLER: Yes, ma'am. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm comfortable with that. Item #12C1 RESOLUTION 95-329 RE PETITION AV-94-023 JOHN F. MADAJEWSKI AS AGENT FOR OWNER, STERLING OAKS JOINT VENTURE, REQUESTING VACATION OF A DRAINAGE EASEMENT LOCATED ON A PORTION OF LOTS 83 AND 84, TRACT E - ADOPTED CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Next item on the agenda, we'll move into the afternoon items. We can probably -- I can't even see what time it is. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: to leave about one o'clock. 12:30. 12:307 Yeah. Okay. Commissioner Mac'Kie needs I think we can probably finish these up. The next item on the agenda is item 12C(1), Petition AV-94-023. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Just a quick question. Isn't this typically a consent kind of -- consent agenda kind of item? MR. MULLER: No. There are statutory requirements for a public hearing. Good afternoon, Commissioners. For the record, my name is Russ Mullet with the Transportation Services Division. Item 12C(1) is a public hearing for Petition AV-94-023 for the vacation -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Mullet, can I interrupt you and ask you to get on the record what you need to get on the record for the public hearing process? MR. HULLER: Certainly. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Are there speakers? MR. DORRILL: No, ma'am. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: In other words, Russ, you're not going to have a lot of resistance here so let's -- Is there anything you need to say specifically for the record? MR. HULLER: A resolution was prepared according to the Statutes 177.101. Staff recommends approval. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Is the replacement drainage easement within these documents? MR. HULLER: Yes. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. MR. DORRILL: Have the associated notices for all the other regulated utilities been received that may also have a common need here and they're stating no objection? MR. HULLER: Right. Letters of no objection have been received from Project Plan Review and the homeowners association which is responsible for bringing that. MR. DORRILL: That's probably all he needs to say. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: There are no public speakers. MR. DORRILL: No, ma'am. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I'll close the public hearing. Is there a motion? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Motion to approve Petition AV-94-023 per staff's recommendation. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Second. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second to approve Petition AV-94-023. If there's no discussion, call the question. All in favor please say aye. Motion passes 4-0, Commissioner Constantine being absent. Item #13A2 RESOLUTION 95-330 RE PETITION SPA-95-1, J. D. ALLEN REPRESENTING JOE DIHASSIHO REQUESTING APPROVAL OF SHARED PARKING ON LOT 21 OF CARINI'S AUTO IN ORDER TO PROVIDE ADEQUATE PARKING FOR TEO'S RESTAURANT LOCATED ON LOTS 22 AND 23 OF THE J & C INDUSTRIAL PARK - ADOPTED SUBJECT TO STIPULATIONS OF PAYING THE ADDITIONAL IMPACT FEES AND LIMITING 25 SPACES AT ALL TIMES TO TEO'S RESTAURANT Next item on the agenda is a petition for item 13A(2), Petition SPA-95-1. Mr. Cuyler, one of the participants in this petition is a client of mine, and I do receive compensation from him, and I presume that I do need to abstain from this? MR. CUYLER: Yes, ma'am. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: And this is a majority vote, a simple majority vote? MR. CUYLER: Correct. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Are three votes or two votes sufficient? MR. CUYLER: That would be two out of the three votes. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Two out of the three votes available. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: You people with other jobs. MR. HULHERE: Good afternoon. For the record, Bob Hulhere with your Current Planning staff. Petition SPA-95-1 is a request by J.D. Allen representing Joe Dimassimo for shared parking on a lot adjacent to Teo's Restaurant. The applicant is actually requesting approval to share a total of 34 off-site parking spaces. Petitioner seeks to increase the number of seats within the existing restaurant from 100 to 150 so that he can obtain a four-COP beverage license which would allow for distribution for on-premise consumption of alcoholic beverages, beer, wine, and alcohol. And staff has reviewed this petition with relation to all of the criteria in the code for shared parking, and the Planning Commission heard this petition on April 20 and unanimously recommended approval of the petition. Staff is prepared to answer any questions you might have regarding this petition. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Are there questions? Commissioner Norris. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Hulhere, in your investigation of this, did you check to see if there was proper spacing between such things as schools, day care centers and so forth? MR. HULHERE: Yes, sir. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: That's part of that? MR. HULHERE: Yes, sir. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hancock. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Hulhere, on your site visits to Carini's, obviously auto sales, if he gets a real big shipment in, boy, they -- you know, they can fill up those 34 spaces in a hurry. So how would we address that, and what do the site visits show in that regard? MR. HULHERE: Well, I was there, in fact, this morning, and the lot -- the lot which is the subject which is to be shared, those 34 spaces was currently occupied by a sale of vehicles. In discussing with the applicant, if this is approved, they will vacate those spaces that are the subject of this shared parking petition. They will remain open to be used by patrons of the restaurant. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: How can we be assured of that, that that will be the case? MR. HULHERE: Well, we can certainly put it in as a stipulation into the body of the resolution. We do have another stipulation that we have to add which I wanted to make you aware of which is that the applicant has agreed to obviously pay impact fees as may be appropriate based on the intensified use or the proposed 150 seats. You can certainly also add a stipulation. Basically currently the restrictive covenant in the shared parking agreement states that if the -- if the lease should fail for any reason, he has to reduce the seating capacity to what's provided for with the on-site parking. We can certainly add a stipulation that those spaces remain free and clear. Again, it's going to be an enforcement issue. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Agreed. Agreed. But it would be a specific enforcement issue. MR. HULHERE: We can put that right into the body of the resolution. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: What are the minimum number of additional parking spaces that his establishment requires? MR. HULHERE: Twenty-five. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Twenty-five. MR. HULHERE: Yes. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. So we can make a stimulation that 25 of the shared parking spaces shall not be used for the purpose of storage of -- MR. HULHERE: That's correct. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- sale vehicles for Carini's Auto Sales. MR. HULHERE: Yeah. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. MR. HULHERE: And they will be bringing that site up to compliance with today's code for landscaping and handicapped. They do have to add one other handicapped space, and that will be done on site. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Good. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Norris. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Hulhere, my understanding is that Carini's is leasing this lot to Teo's; is that correct? MR. HULHERE: Yes. That is correct. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, that's -- that's your control right there because if Teo's is going to lease it, he's going to want it. MR. HULHERE: Presumably. Presumably if he's going to pay to lease the lot, he's going to want it open free and clear for parking spaces. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: There would be very little sense in him paying Carini lease payments on something that Carini was using. MR. HULHERE: Correct. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Dorrill, are there speakers? There are no speakers. Further discussion? Close the public hearing. Is there a motion? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Motion to approve. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I agree with your logic -- COHMISSIONER NORRIS: With the stipulation -- with the stipulation assigned to the resolution. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: That I -- COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Hancock's stipulation. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Plus the second stipulation that you had noted. MR. HULHERE: That they would pay the appropriate impact fees based on the intensified use. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Yes. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion. We have a second. The motion is for staff -- the staff recommendation plus payment of the appropriate impact fees plus a limiting -- that 25 spaces be available to Teo's Restaurant at all times; is that correct? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yes. And 25 spaces not be used by Carini's Auto Sales for storage. That was specifically my concern. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: If there's no further discussion, I'll call the question. All those in favor please say aye. Opposed? There being none, motion passes 3-0. MR. HULHERE: Thank you. Item #14 (1) VOTING REQUIREMENTS FOR ADVISORY BOARD RE GROWTH MANAGEMENT - COUNTY ATTORNEY TO BRING BACK AN AMENDMENT TO RESOLUTION OF CAC RE SIMPLY MAJORITY OF A QUORUM PRESENT OF NOT LESS THAN 17 MEMBERS CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: That concludes the agenda for today. We are at communications, board communication items. Commissioner Norris? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: No. Commissioner Hancock? No. Commissioner Mac'Kie? None. I have one item that I discussed this morning somewhat, and this deals with the Citizen Advisory Committee. I've been made aware that the quorum for the CAC is 13 members, and at the same time I've been made aware that in order for this advisory committee to take any action, it must also have a vote of 13 members. So in the event that they just barely have a quorum to do anything, they're going to have to have 100 percent yes vote, and I'm wondering if that was the intent of whether the motion would merely need to receive a majority of those present. MR. CUYLER: You can legally do it either way. I think there is always a concern, particularly with committees that haven't been formed for very long and you don't know what their track record is, that if only, for example, seven people show up and you have four people dictating policies -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: But they have a quorum of 13. MR. CUYLER: Correct. Well, okay. Well, say 13 show up and you have seven people, that is only a fraction of the total group, but nevertheless can dictate the policies of the committee, but it's really a policy decision. I mean, legally you can do that. Two of you can decide an issue. If three people show up, you have a quorum, two people can make a decision for the Board of County Commissioners. It depends on how you want to handle it. I guess according to what you're saying, the current -- what's in there now is that the minimum necessary vote for approval is the same as the quorum vote. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Is the same as the quorum, yeah. MR. CUYLER: Yeah. That would have to be changed if you wanted it changed, but legally you can do it either way. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I'm just asking the board if that may be a bit restrictive on this task force to have to attain a level of 13 votes in order to do anything. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: committee? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: COHMISSIONER NORRIS: COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: What is the total number on the Twenty-five. Twenty-five. Twenty-five. Yeah. It's a valid point, that if they're less than full capacity, that makes it difficult to arrive at a decision. I think that's a reasonable assumption. Do we want to make it a simple majority of those present? MR. CUYLER: And there's a middle ground too. You can set another number -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We could say two-thirds of those present. MR. CUYLER: -- and you could say ten or you could say it takes nine or you could say a majority of those present. Any of those are legal options for you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Any one of those. But it is an ordinance we have -- or is it a resolution? It's a task force, isn't it? MR. CUYLER: I think it's a resolution. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: It's a task force. MR. CUYLER: I think it's a resolution which could be changed at any meeting. I could add it next Tuesday if you wanted. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Norris. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: If we have 25 members and we have a problem getting 13 to come, I think our other control would be that we need to make some adjustments on the committee immediately because the reason we appointed 25 is to have a broad cross-section of the community. If we're not doing that, if we're not getting that, then we need to take steps to ensure that we do. So there's really two ways that we could control how many people are voting on an item. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: By making ourselves aware that attendance is not what it ought to be. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Right. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: And to act quickly to replace members. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Exactly. And that may be the more appropriate way of doing it, although having 13 out of 13 does -- in that particular case would be a little restrictive, you know. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I would think at any given time, out of a 25-member board, you're -- you may have four or five that are not in attendance, and so even to get 13 out of 20 is quite a feat sometimes. MR. CUYLER: Commissioner Norris really pointed out the problem. If you have the same people showing up and some people aren't, then you get a small vote that can dictate the way the committee goes, but it's up to you. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Maybe we should increase the quorum and leave -- you know, do we want recommendations from this group if only 13 show up, or would we like to have 20 or -- you know, Some '- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: But then they're not going to be able to meet if you make the quorum too high. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: If the members we've appointed aren't interested in attending, they won't be able to meet. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But if they are -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Is this the standard two-meeting requirement for non-attendance, Mr. Cuyler? MR. CUYLER: I'm not sure whether -- Generally yes. It's -- It would be under the master ordinance. There are no specific attendance requirements because it's a resolution. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: And this committee is of short duration. You know, we've got to do something that's going to let it move very quickly. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Let me propose something and see where we go with it. How about changing it to a simple majority of a quorum present to constitute no fewer than 17 members. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Huh? COHHISSIONER HANCOCK: What I'm saying is let's increase -- let's increase the quorum so that we -- if we don't have enough participation, then we don't have an acting body, but let's just have a simple majority of that quorum making the decision. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. So you're suggesting we increase the quorum to 17 and a simple majority? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm just talking about 17 to see what the rest of the board -- That way if, you know, six or seven or even eight of the -- you know, you're talking one-third of the members are not there, we still have quorum, but if it gets much beyond that, I think we have a problem. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We probably shouldn't be meeting. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: So my suggestion is a simple majority of a quorum present to be a minimum of 17 people. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: It sounds like we want to increase the quorum to 17 and the voting to a simple majority. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Exactly. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I like that. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Can we -- We're in the communication part of this. I guess we have to give you direction to bring that back Tuesday. MR. CUYLER: I'll bring it back. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Thank you. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I see a worried face back there. UNKNOWN: (Shaking head.) COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: No? Okay. Never mind then. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I think that may conclude it from the commission. Mr. Dotrill, you have a communication item? Item #15 STAFF COHMUNICATION HR. DORRILL: A couple of things. The county open house, "Know Your Government Day" program was this past Saturday at the mall, and it was huge, huge success. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: It was great. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yes, it was. MR. DORRILL: In fact, we ran out of space for some of the sheriff's exhibits, and I need to call him and apologize because Dillards wouldn't let the guard dog that close to their front door, and the SWAT team could not display all of their equipment and whatnot, and the SWAT team and the K-9 patrols were the two of the biggest draws last year, and we need to make sure that the sheriff understands and appreciates our concern, but there were several thousand people. One person left a letter that is just like two sentences, and I want to read it to you. I think this is indicative of the spirit. It's to the commissioners. "The displays at the mall were very informative and especially for children. It's always good to inform your public. After living here for over 20 years, I finally see some hope for Collier County government. I'll keep watching. Roy Riggs." And I intend to write Mr. Riggs a nice note of appreciation. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I think with that note, I'd write him a nice note too. That's great. MR. DORRILL: On your behalf. A couple of reminders. In January the board directed us to set up a major water-related workshop with the South Florida Water Management District. I'm only reminding you because I've been told preliminarily that two or three of you may not be able to attend. And even if you can only come for the first hour or down until 1:30 or almost two o'clock -- This was a big deal to you in January and, in turn, to Ms. Boyd who is bringing the governing board of the South Florida Water Management District over here. And even if you can only be there at the start, the first item on the agenda and perhaps the most important is water resources county perspectives, and I think it's important for us to have a good showing. I would hate to go to our own workshop and have just me and two commissioners sitting there. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: The date? MR. DORRILL: Tomorrow -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Tomorrow. MR. DORRILL: -- afternoon at 1:00 p.m., and it will probably run until almost 5:00. But even if your appearance is just brief, it's -- these people have gone to a lot of trouble to bring the Water Management District to Bonita. I don't want to fuss at y'all, but it's important for us to have a good showing there. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: I may be there late, but I will be there for the duration. MR. DORRILL: Okay. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Up to an hour late, but I will be there until it's done. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: This is at the Lion's Club in Bonita? MR. DORRILL: Yes. And I have a map with me. If any of you need a copy of the map, I'll make them available with Ms. Filson. Just a clarification. Again, anticipating a long meeting for next Tuesday. I received a note and we've discussed with Sue briefly that there was a request for the board to have a working brown bag lunch next Tuesday with the Black Affairs Advisory Board and I was -- I didn't know whether the full board was aware or had discussed that or whether we had promised the Black Affairs Group specifically this day. I'm just -- I'm telling you the logistics of that may be rough if you're going to be here for a very lengthy meeting. COHHISSIONER MAC'KIE: I had a telephone call from Henry Tribble, you know, looking forward to that meeting on that day. I -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I had the same discussion with Bob Bennett. So I think we're -- I think we have -- we have identified it and we're locked into it. MR. DORRILL: Okay. I just -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I think we're locked into it at this point. MR. DORRILL: I'm going to show then for Sunshine purposes on the agenda index that you will be having a working brown bag lunch that would be open to the public in lieu of your normal recess. And I think that's all that I have that's important. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Anybody want to take a collection for a sandwich platter? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm having pizza brought in. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Well, that's good too. Mr. Cuyler. MR. CUYLER: I'm trying to get my hands on any legislation that's been passed. We'll try to update you as quickly as I can. I was told at a seminar I attended that the quasi-judicial legislation dealing with constituents meeting with the board members, under certain requirements that the board members disclose and such, did pass. I haven't seen the legislation, but I was told that it did pass. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: It did pass? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It did pass? MR. CUYLER: Yeah. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Good. That will make life easier. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: That will make life easier. That would make life harder for us. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: On that direction, it's not bad. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: We have to stay up for about 30 more seconds so he can get enough footage to show this evening. No? Okay. Never mind. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Never mind. He's taking footage of the wall. Miss Filson, we're finished; right? WORKSHOP RE 1994 COMPREHENSIVE ANNUAL FINANCIAL REPORT - CONTINUED TO 8:30 A.H. MAY 30, 1995 AT THE LIBRARY ON CENTRAL AVENUE MS. FILSON: You have a workshop. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a workshop? MS. FILSON: After lunch. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: That's right. Take a full hour? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Let me talk about that workshop for a minute. But, first, Mr. Dotrill, I started this conversation with South Florida Water Management District, and unfortunately I had a commitment on my calendar for tomorrow long standing before this meeting was called so I can't make it even though I'm the one who started this whole discussion. So I'm going to have to send a letter of apology to Ms. Boyd on that one. On this one, I'm not sure why we're having a workshop -- Maybe someone can answer it for me -- a workshop on our Comprehensive Annual Financial Report which seems to be a very straightforward document. Why do we need a workshop on this? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: The clerk had asked for that a couple of weeks ago. You were absent that day when the CAFR was presented on the agenda, and you had asked also for that item to be continued, and we decided that since all we were going to do was accept it and have a workshop at a later date, that we would go ahead and accept it in spite of your request to continue the acceptance of it. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. Have we ever had a workshop on it before? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: No. MR. DORRILL: No. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I mean, it seems to be a very straightforward document. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I think there's some explanations that they want to discuss as to continuing items in the representation and the management letter. It can be, I guess, as short or as long as we wish it to be. MR. DORRILL: Or if that's the only reason you're coming back -- and this is at your discretion. You have a workshop scheduled three Tuesdays from today, and not knowing if it's going to be a long presentation or if there would be a lot of questions -- we've got a fairly well developed agenda for that meeting already that I reviewed with Ms. Matthews but if -- That's just an alternative if y'all don't want to have to come back after lunch. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: That agenda is already going to cover -- going to carry us from 9:00 -- MR. DORRILL: Until noon. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: -- until noon. If you wish to have it expanded a half-hour and start it at 8:30 or to have it go until 12:30, we can certainly request the clerk to do that. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, it seems to me it would be more effective use of our time. At this point we're -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We're at break. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: We're at break and then we would have to come back for a 30-minute presentation. I don't know that that would be worthwhile, but it's up to the board. That's my suggestion. I would just as soon come in at 8:30 on that workshop day and hear it then as to come back today and hear it. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah. Let's do that. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Motion to continue. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Motion to continue to -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: -- 8:30 or to 12 o'clock? MR. DORRILL: 8:30 is fine with me. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: 8:30 is fine with me. 8:30 is fine? Yeah. Ms. Mac'Kie? It works for me. Okay. Motion to continue the CAFR report until 8:30. All those in favor? Opposed? Passes 4-0. We're adjourned. ***** Commissioner Hancock moved, seconded by Commissioner Mac'Kie and carried unanimously, that the following items under the Consent Agenda approved and/or adopted: ***** Item #16A1 RESOLUTION 95-321 PROVIDING FOR ASSESSHENT OF LIEN FOR THE COST OF THE REPAIR OR DEMOLITION OF A DANGEROUS HAZARDOUS BUILDING, COMPLIANCE SERVICES CASE NO. 40816-007, RECORD OWNER - MABEL H. & VICTOR CHARLES ALBRECHT See Pages Item #16A2 RESOLUTION 95-322 PROVIDING FOR ASSESSHENT OF LIEN FOR THE COST OF THE ABATEMENT OF A PUBLIC NUISANCE, COMPLIANCE SERVICES CASES NO. 40831-019, RECORD OWNER - MARCO CASTAWAYS RESORT, INC. See Pages Item #16A3 RESOLUTION 95-323 GRANTING FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE ROADWAY, DRAINAGE, WAER AND SEWER IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE FINAL PLAT OF IHMOKALEE AGRICOH PARK, PHASE TWO - WITH THE RELEASE OF THE MAINTENANCE SECURITY See Pages Item #16A4 RESOLUTION 95-324 GRANTING FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE ROADWAY, DRAINAGE, WATER AND SEWER IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE FINAL PLAT OF AUDUBON COUNTRY CLUB, UNIT TWO See Pages Item #16A5 RECORDING OF THE FINAL PLAT OF TIHBER RIDGE, UNIT TWO - WITH STIPULATIONS AND TWO LETTERS OF CREDIT AND A CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT See Pages Item #16A6 WATER FACILITIES ACCEPTANCE FOR HEATHERWOOD AT STONEBRIDGE, TRACT D - WITH STIPULATIONS AND CASH DEPOSIT AS SURETY OR Book Pages Item #16A7 SEWER FACILITIES ACCEPTANCE FOR STONEBRIDGE, UNIT ONE, PUMP STATION #2 - WITH STIPULATIONS OR Book Pages Item #16A8 WATER AND SEWER FACILITIES ACCEPTANCE FOR MIDDLEBURG AT STONEBRIDGE, TRACT B - WITH STIPULATIONS OR Book Pages Item #16A9 ACCEPTANCE OF REPLACEMENT MAINTENANCE SECURITY IN THE FORM OF A PERFORMLANCE BOND FOR THE INFRASTRUCTURE WITHIN SIENNA AT SOUTHAMPTON AND ENTER INTO A SUPPLEMENTAL CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT WITH THE DEVELOPER See Pages Item #16A10 AUTHORIZATION FOR RECORDING THE FINAL PLAT OF LUTZ INDUSTRIAL Item #16C1 PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTHENT TO OPERATE AN ADDITIONAL SUHMER CAMP AS A TRIAL THIS SUHMER FOR MIDDLE SCHOOL AGE CHILDREN AND AUTHORIZATION FOR THE ASSOCIATED BUDGET AMENDMENT Item #16El RFP #95-2340 FOR AN EMPLOYEE ASSISTANCE PROGRAM - AWARDED TO DAVID LAWRENCE CENTER, INC., D/B/A EMPLOYEE ASSISTANCE SERVICE OF SW FLORIDA IN THE AMOUNT OF $15.00 PER EMPLOYEE PER YEAR Item #16E2 BID #95-2349 FOR REPLACING THE EMERGENCY GENERATOR AT THE IHMOKALEE COUNTY BARN FACILITY - AWARDED TO BENTLEY ELECTRIC COMPANY INCORPORATED IN THE AMOUNT OF $20,900 Item #16F1 APPROVAL OF BUDGET AMENDMENTS TO PROPERLY ACCOUNT FOR THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS ON THE 800 HHZ RADIO SYSTEM PROJECT Item #16G1 APPROVAL OF CERTIFICATES OF CORRECTION TO THE 1993, 1994 AND 1995 SOLID WASTE SPECIAL ASSESSMENT ROLLS See Pages Item #1662 RESOLUTION 95-325 ADDING UNITS TO THE 1995 COLLIER COUNTY MANDATORY SOLID WASTE COLLECTION SPECIAL ASSESSMENT ROLL AND AUTHORIZATION FOR CHAIRMAN TO EXECUTE CERTIFICATES OF CORRECTION See Pages Item #16H1 - Deleted Item #16H2 BUDGET AMENDMENT TO FUND THE NORTH COUNTY REGIONAL WATER TREATMENT PLANT PUMPING STATION AND FORCE MAIN PROJECT UNDER NEW PROJECT NUMBER 70030 WHICH REPLACES OLD PROJECT NUMBER 70002 Item #16H3 BID 95-2342 FOR THE LEASE PURCHASE OF A HIGH VOLUME PRINTER - AWARDED TO SIEMENS NIXDORF PRINTING SYSTEMS IN THE AMOUNT OF $31,400 Item #16J MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE - FILED AND/OR REFERRED The following Miscellaneous Correspondence presented to the BCC has been filed and/or referred to the various departments as indicated on the Miscellaneous Correspondence. Item #16J1 SATISFACTIONS OF LIEN FOR SERVICES OF THE PUBLIC DEFENDER See Pages There being no further business for the Good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by Order of the Chair at 12:50 p.m. BOARD OF COUNTY COHMISSIONERS BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS CONTROL BETTYE J. MATTHEWS, CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK These minutes approved by the Board on as presented or as corrected TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF DONOVAN COURT REPORTING BY: Christine E. Whitfield, RPR