Loading...
BCC Minutes 06/20/1995 R REGULAR MEETING OF JUNE 20, 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 9:00 a.m. in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the CHAIRPERSON: VICE-CHAIRMAN: following members present: ALSO PRESENT: Bettye J. Hatthews John C. Norris Timothy J. Constantine Pamela S. Hac'Kie Timothy L. Hancock W. Neil Dotrill, County Hanager Kenneth B. Cuyler, County Attorney Item #2 & #2A AGENDA AND CONSENT AGENDA - APPROVED WITH CHANGES CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I'm going to call to order the Board of County Commission meeting for Collier County for Tuesday, June 20, 1995. Mr. Dotrill, would you lead us in an invocation and pledge? MR. DORRILL: Heavenly Father, we give thanks and praise this morning for your honor and glory and your grace. We give thanks for this wonderful nation and country that we live in. We pray for our Commander-in-Chief, our various elected officials, and especially the officials here in Collier County. It is our prayer this morning that you would guide and direct the deliberations as the county commission makes very important business decisions for Collier County. We thank you for its people, its employees, and especially those who choose to participate in government and the governmental process, and we would ask that you bless our time here together this morning on this the final meeting before the recess for the summer. We pray these things in your son's holy name. Araen. (The pledge of allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Dorrill, I think we have agenda changes which are mostly add-ons to an already long agenda. Could you take us through it? MR. DORRILL: Yes, Ha'am. Good morning, Commissioners. We have quite a few add-on items in recognition of this being the final meeting before the board's recess for several weeks, and we can go through these quickly as we can. The first item is under proclamation and presentations; it is 4(C). It is a special recognition in remembrance of Robert Henry, who was the young gentleman who was tragically murdered in our community just last week. That will be 4(C)(1). Item 8(B)(3) is a recommendation to accept the four-laning project for Immokalee Road for the purpose of maintenance and operations and approving a supplemental agreement for that project; it is under transportation. Also under transportation is 8(B)(4), which is a request to have the board approve privatization bids for roadside mowing. That is 8(B)(4). 8(H)(12) is an authorization for the county manager to award the sale of certain refunding bonds during the board's absence subject to the number of financial conditions, 8(H)(12). 8(H)(13) is taking action on a request in support of the community focus visioning project. 10(C) under the Board of County Commissioners is declare a vacancy on the Black Affairs Advisory Board. 10(D) under the Board of County Commissioners is a presentation from the Collier County Golf Authority. We have one item that is recommended to be continued this morning. It may need a brief discussion on the record as it pertains to our somewhat complicated issue involving Hideaway Beach and the PUD amendment. It is requested that petition PUD-80-20 be continued for the moment indefinitely as a result of a lack of this item being heard at the Planning Commission meeting last week, and I'll let Mr. Cuyler elaborate to the extent necessary. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. Mr. Cuyler, do you have changes? MR. CUYLER: One change -- in addition 9(D), the resolution that we passed on the disclosure of quasi-judicial items, we have received information that that had become law; that was not law at the time we adopted it. If somebody ever gets creative with an argument, I want to readopt that today. You've already seen it. You know what it is, so it will take two minutes. The other item with regard to the PUD -- the Planning Commission, as you know, did continue the Hideaway Beach item, and they continued it indefinitely. There has been a request -- I know you have received a letter from Mr. Pickworth, and there has been some discussion as to whether the board is inclined to direct the Planning Commission to hear that item and if so -- if there is going to be any date certain. The attorneys for both parties have talked to me. They want to discuss the matter with the board. You may want to just indicate that it is a continued item -- that the PUD itself, obviously, has to be continued because the Planning Commission didn't hear it. Whether the board is going to direct the Planning Commission to hear it, you may want to set for a time certain this afternoon to give the parties a chance to discuss it, or you may want to handle it now. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Norris, do you have any input on that? COHHISSIONER NORRIS: Are you telling us that we don't have the ability to hear that without the Planning Commission hearing it first? MR. CUYLER: Correct. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hancock. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Cuyler, why did the Planning Commission choose not to hear it? MR. CUYLER: I was not present. Mr. Arnold is here and he was present. I think they raised some concerns. There were some arguments that were presented by the Vasey's attorneys regarding how proceedings were taking place, the staff proposal and the extent of the staff petition, who filed the petition and that type of thing. And, apparently, the Planning Commission was convinced through that they did not want to hear it. If you want more specifics, you're going to need to ask Mr. Arnold. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I guess I am trying to get to a direction. We either need to direct the Planning Commission to hear this item, or it just stays off the table until it comes out of court. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Do you want to -- does this board want to add an item to the morning agenda where we listen to the arguments from the attorneys present as to whether we should direct the CCPC to hear it? I mean, they have continued it indefinitely. It is apparently their intention not to hear it until whenever. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I would just like to hear from Mr. Cuyler as to whether it is appropriate for the Planning Commission to be hearing this or not, in your opinion. MR. CUYLER: Whether it is appropriate for them to be hearing it? I think that staff is going to again look at the submission they made to the Planning Commission, because, obviously, with all of our boards, if they raise an issue, the staff wants to address it. But ultimately if the board and the staff wants to proceed with an amendment, then, yes, it is appropriate, and, as a matter of fact, it's necessary that the Planning Commission hear that item. If -- as you know there is an appeal that is coming up on July 18. COHHISSIONER HAC'KIE: My question is what is there to talk about? I mean, don't we just need to direct the Planning Commission to please hear the petition? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: But they have continued it indefinitely. The question is whether we want them to hear it during our absence so that we can address it when we get back. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I would think if Mr. Cuyler tells us that should happen, I don't need to hear an argument from the other attorneys. Let's just give the Planning Commission that direction. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: My preference would be to direct the Planning Commission to hear it at their earliest opportunity. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: When is their next meeting? MR. CUYLER: We believe it is the third Thursday in July, and we can make advertisements for that. That would also be a couple days after your hearing of the appeal on this matter as well. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We're going to hear the appeal on the 18th? MR. CUYLER: That is my understanding. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Are there issues that we -- I don't want to cut anybody off if you want to come up and talk to us, but I also don't want to waste a lot of time if procedurally it is appropriate for this to go to the Planning Commission and go through the regular channels. Is there something that we need to know that we're not going to know if we don't hear from all these lawyers today? MR. CUYLER: I think the crux of the argument to you by the Vasey attorneys is that it is not in a position to go and should not be directed by the board, the appropriate analysis has not been made. And I'm sure there are other arguments that I just won't articulate for you, but they're legal arguments in nature, and I think that the staff and the county attorney's office needs to sit down. And if the board is going to go forward -- and there was some questions as to who is the petitioner, whether it is the staff, whether it's the board, whether appropriate things happened if it was the board -- I think we need to sit down with staff. I've indicated to the attorneys that the Planning Commission is not supposed to be listening to legal arguments anyway. Their function is to review the land use issues and to make a recommendation for or against or with changes or whatever. It is really the county attorney's office and the staff that is supposed to be determining whether the procedures are correct or not. I think they understand that. That is the best I can summarize. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So it sounds like it just needs to go back to the Planning Commission, and the legal arguments will be discussed in a more appropriate forum than this one or that one. We don't need to hear from the lawyers. MR. CUYLER: Ultimately the way I always look at the Planning Commission recommendations -- it has to come to you, and if there are legal arguments to be made they can be made in front of you if that is your wish. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I guess one of my questions is since they're not going to hear this issue now, if they don't hear it until their next scheduled meeting, which is the third Thursday in July, and this board has done it before, is to direct them to call a special meeting so that we can move this thing faster along the track. If they hear it the 18th or 20th, we're not going to hear it until earliest -- the 25th. MR. CUYLER: I don't think, frankly, the way things are going right now, that they could hear it much earlier than the third Thursday anyway. I think staff does need to sit down in response to the Planning Commission's concerns and attempt to look at the things the Planning Commission has said. I think they owe that to the Planning Commission. And we have got an advertisement of 15 days, so that is early July anyway. So we've really only got 10 days to work with it even if it goes on the 18th. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I am going to agree with Commissioner Norris that we direct the Planning Commission to hear this at its earliest convenience -- earliest possible date. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Earliest possible date. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Agreed. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Agreed. I would like them to hear it the 18th or the 20th, I'm sorry. MR. CUYLER: You may -- if that is your inclination, you may want to make a motion on that. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: So moved. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second directing the Planning Commission to hear the Hideaway Beach amendment -- PUD amendment on July the 20th -- that s the right date, yeah. If there is no further discussion, all those in favor please say aye. Opposed? There being none the direction is unanmmous. MR. ANDERSON: MAy I make a request, please? It's not a legal argument. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Real quick, because we haven't even touched the agenda yet for today. MR. ANDERSON: Would you please consider setting the bill hearing for a time certain on the 18th? COMHISSIONER NORRIS: That's a legal argument? MR. ANDERSON: No, it's not a legal argument. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We'll address that later. Is that all, Mr. Cuyler? MR. CUYLER: Yes, HA'am, except for one item and that is the pamphlet item that Neil has as a staff item that you will be hearing as part of your other Gordon River Bridge item. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: anything to add? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Norris, do you have Nothing further. Commissioner Hancock. No, Ha'am. Commissioner Hac'Kie. No. Commissioner Constantine. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No, I don't. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Nor do I. Could I have a motion? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I'll move that we approve the agenda and consent agenda changes. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'll second that. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second to approve the agenda and the consent agenda as altered. All those in favor please say aye. Opposed? Motion passes 5 to O. Item #3 MINUTES OF HAY 23, 1995 REGULAR MEETING AND HAY 30, 1995 WORKSHOP - APPROVED AS PRESENTED COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Madam Chairman, I would like to make a motion that we approve the minutes of the regular meeting of May 23, 1995 and the workshop of May 30, 1995. COMHISSIONER HAC'KIE: Second. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second to approve the minutes of our regular meeting, May 23 and the workshop of May 30. All those in favor please say aye. Opposed? Motion passes 5 to 0. Item #4A1 PROCLAivLATION DESIGNATING THE WEEK OF JUNE 19 THROUGH JUNE 25, 1995, AS "AivLATEUR RADIO WEEK" - ADOPTED Next item on the agenda is proclamations. Commissioner Norris. COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Thank you, Madam Chairman. Is Martin Pelt here today? Mr. Pelt, would you come forward and face the camera there where everyone in TV-land can see who we are dealing with here today. I'll read this proclamation for you. Whereas, there are more than one hundred licensed amateur radio operators residing in Collier County, Florida, who, from time to time have demonstrated their value in public assistance by providing public service and emergency radio communications; and, Whereas, the amateur radio operators donate these services free of any charge to local government of the citizens assisted by such services; and, Whereas, these amateur radio operators are on alert for any emergency, local or worldwide, and practice their radio communication skills during the American Radio Relay League, Inc. Field Day exercise; and, Whereas, Field Day is an annual, 24-hour amateur radio communications event held nationwide by amateur radio operators to practice technical and operational skills and provide for emergency preparedness of local radio amateurs. Field Day is generally recognized as a community service to the benefit of the public and in the interests of the health and welfare of the residents of Collier County; and, Whereas, this year's national and Collier County Amateur Radio Field Day exercise will take place on June 23 to June 25, 1995. Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that the week of June 19th to the 25th, 1995, be designated as Amateur Radio Week in recognition of this important emergency preparedness exercise, and call upon all citizens to join in tribute to the amateur radio operators of Collier County. Done and ordered this 20th day of June 1995, by the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida. Ms. Chairman, I would like to make a motion that we accept this proclamation. COHMISSIONER 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, it passes 5 to 0. Congratulations. (Applause) Item #4B EMPLOYEE SERVICE AWARDS - PRESENTED Thank you. Next item on the agenda is service awards. Ordinarily we would be honoring Mr. Richard Stefanko from our Wastewater North Treatment Plant, and I guess he is checking the water or the wastewater. He was unable to make it this morning, but I want to congratulate him for five years of service, and we'll see that he gets his certificate and pin through other channels. Item #5A BUDGET AMENDMENTS 95-257; 95-267/270; 95-320; 95-354/355 - ADOPTED Next item on the agenda is a presentation. I believe we have a little bit of a delay. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm going to ask if we just will continue this item until later in the day. The brothers of Mr. Henry are scheduled to be here. However, they're trying to -- I know his mother is trying to get into the country, and they're having some trouble with her Visa and all, so I believe the boys are trying to take care of Mom this morning. So we may see them later in the day. If we could just continue this item temporarily. MR. DORRILL: They may have just arrived. If you'll give me just a second. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Good. Okay. They may have just gotten here. Let's move on and do the budget amendments, Mr. Smykowski. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Good morning, Commissioners. For the record Michael Smykowski, acting budget director. There are eight budget amendments on your report this morning. The bulk of them are just minor clean-up issues as a result of issues identified during the budget process. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Move approval. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Second. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: A motion and a second to move approval of the budget amendments as presented. All those in favor please say aye. Opposed? Motion passes 5 to 0. Thank you, Mr. Smykowski. Item #4C1 PROCLAivLATION DESIGNATING JUNE 20, 1995 AS A MEMORIAL DAY IN HONOR OF REMEMBRANCE OF ROBERT HENRY AS A HERO Commissioner Constantine. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: This proclamation is a rather difficult one. We have -- in America you often hear of heroes. Sometimes people are talking about sport stars, or people talk about Scott O'Grady, our pilot who was shot down, or whomever, and there are any number of definitions for what a hero is. But a week ago we had a true hero here in Collier County and that is someone who gave their own life trying to save another. Robert Henry was killed at Wendy's about a week ago. His brothers are here today, and I would ask that they come up. Petris Henry and Emanuel. MR. DORRILL: They are also accompanied this morning by Mr. Victor Philogene, who is an employee of yours in our transportation department, and he is also one of your county interpreters. And so to the extent necessary, Mr. Philogene will also assist these gentlemen. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: If I could read the following proclamation. Whereas, all of Collier County joins the family and friends of Robert Henry in mourning his loss, a loss of immense proportion to those who knew him as a quietly courageous man; and, Whereas, Robert hated injustice and worked hard to see that justice was served as exemplified by his lead in a sit-down strike in Immokalee to bring equal wages to the Haitian employees; and, Whereas, he dreamt of a better future. So following that dream he secured employment at Wendy's restaurant. On June 9th, in an attempt to protect his supervisor during an armed robbery, Robert was killed; and, Whereas, some speak of justice, others work tirelessly towards justice for all. And some, like Robert Henry, make the ultimate sacrifice by giving their lives. Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that the 20th day of June 1995, be designated as a memorial day in honor of Robert Henry. Done and ordered this 20th day of June 1995. Board of County Commissioners, Bettye J. Matthews, Chairman. We have not only the proclamation, we also have an American flag which has flown over our building here at the county and a letter certifying that from our own skip captain. Madam Chairman, I'll make a motion that we approve this proclamation. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second to approve the proclamation. All those in favor please say aye. Opposed? Motion passes 5 to 0. (Applause) MR. PHILOGENE: On behalf of his brothers and the city, they thank you for what you do for them and for the recognition of that too. So they are appreciative of what you have done for them. (Applause) CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Philogene. Thank you, Mr. Constantine. Item #7A MS. BETSY PERDICHIZZI REGARDING THE SECURITY FORAN ARTIFACT FROM THE SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTE - STAFF TO PREPARE AND BRING BACK AS A REGULAR AGENDA ITEM Next item on the agenda is a public petition from Mrs. Betsy Perdichizzi. I'm sorry if I -- MS. PERDICHIZZI: We have a certain order to speak, Madam Chairman, and Charles Dauray, president of the Collier County Historical Society will begin. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Let me remind you that we limit our public petitions to 10 minutes. MS. PERDICHIZZI: We are aware of that, and we will adhere to that. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. MR. DAURAY: Good morning, Commissioners. We have been rehearsing this now for over a week, so we are aware of your time limitations. Today is a unique day in that we can participate in looking at a focus of a vision for the future and at the same time focus on the reality of the past. In today's Naples Daily News, the lead editorial referred to a marvelous artifact called the Key Island Cat. It is a very rare icon of native American culture. It also referred to hard-core history buffs who will be addressing you today. Mrs. Perdichizzi is president of the Marco Island chapter of the Collier County Historical Society and will be talking with you as well as Dr. Randolph Widmer from the University of Houston, archeologist; Dr. Quentin Quesnell from Smith College from Marco Island; and Mr. Norm Tengstrom, from Marco Island. Our purpose here today is to take advantage of the unique opportunity to retrieve this marvelous world renowned artifact and form a partnership with you and the people of Collier County in its display. I would like to say that it is a reflection, very positively, on Collier County in general and on your museum staff, Mr. Ron Jamro, curator, and in particular to the Smithsonian who has gone way out of its way to make an exception and possibly allow the cat to be displaced here in Collier County. Without further ado I'd like to introduce Mrs. Betsy Perdichizzi. MS. PERDICHIZZI: Thank you. Good morning. Thank you for hearing this public petition for funding to support the Key Marco Cat, otherwise known as the mountain lion god. The effort to bring this cat for its 100th anniversary falls upon the Marco chapter. As we were organizing in 1994, we had the idea of going to visit the cat at the Smithsonian. It's held under lock and key in a security warehouse in a box in the Smithsonian at Suitland, Maryland. We got the public loan request, brought it back to Ron Jamro of the Collier County Museum, because we chose this as venue to exhibit this cat. We were afraid that other large museums in the country would apply for this cat for the anniversary before we could. But our request was timely, and so it got in there. And the public support has been in the newspapers all year long concerning the Marco Cat, the Cushing expedition, and the dig that is related to it that currently is going on down there in Marco. Dr. Quesnell published this pamphlet that is available at the dig. Each of you will be receiving this at the close of the presentation. It contains the information about the Cushing expedition, the VanBeck (phonetic) expedition in'94, the Calusa Indians. He has also written about how the British Museum in London almost got the Key Marco Cat instead of the Smithsonian Institution. And it also contains copies of a hybrid document -- the travel copies of a hundred letters from Collier County school children who want to go to the Collier Museum to see this cat for themselves. The Marco Cat has never been loaned to a state museum, a university museum, or a county museum, never. This is a very rare privilege that we were granted on June 13, that the Smithsonian board looked at these letters, looked at the support of the community, and decided to loan us the cat for six months. We have a very rare opportunity to do this, and one that will not come again. So thank you. Dr. Quesnell -- I mean, Dr. Widmer, who is conducting the dig will give you the significance of this event. DR. WIDMER: Good morning. This cat is the single most important example of prehistoric native American art that exists in this country. It is recognized world-wide as one of the most spectacular works of art period. But not only is this a spectacular work of art, but also it is very important from an archeological point of view, because it represents an icon of the particular religion that was here indigenous in this area. More importantly, this artifact is probably the single best symbol you can have of Southwest Florida, because this symbol goes back a hundred years and not only is it part of the pre-history, but it is also part of the history of this region. This artifact has been exhibited in a collection of materials which has been sent around the United States, so it is not simply known as esoteric just by a few individuals but is recognized by the art and archeology community of this country and the world as being one of the premiere, if not the premiere, artifact that is found in the United States. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. MR. QUESNELL: I'd like to try to just as a Marco Islander and as a historian -- as a Marco Islander, this makes me proud, terribly proud. This belongs to us. I know that the whole world looks at -- I can give you a list of 200 -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Excuse me. MR. QUESNELL: Yes. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Would you identify yourself for the court reporter. MR. QUESNELL: Oh, I beg your pardon. I was riding on the -- I'm Quentin Quesnell. I teach at Smith College, and I live on Marco Island. I am so proud as such that I chose this place to spend the rest of my life. I can give you a list of 200 books that are either about Marco Island or have a chapter with extended treatment of Marco Island, and they don't mention the sunshine, they don't mention golf, and they don't mention the beach. They're talking only about the Key Marco finds of a hundred years ago that we are celebrating this centennial of the Cushing finds. Here is a sample of it right here. (Indicating) This latest one this year -- lost cities of the ancient southeast -- that is the ancient southeast United States -- and the last city in the book -- a ten-page treatment -- Key Marco. Now it is a thrill, I say, to know that we're cared about that way. I walk around and think that just below my feet are still the remains of the people that lived here and dreamed and enjoyed life and worked hard as all of us did. Then when I go to the schools, the reaction of the students is tremendous when they can tie in with it. This is isn't something just from the movies or just from books. This isn't the Wild West or the other side of the world. It's their island. It's their cat, and they can react to that. They've got something to tie in on. When we worry about generational gap -- that we worry, oh, is it going to happen? Can we even talk to these youngsters? Will they become civilized the way that we think we are? They can become civilized when they tie in with a piece of history like this. The other part of it is Marco Island is a place for retirees. When we retire here, we do not leave our brains up north some place; they're here. We want things to be interested in, to work on. This kind of a cultural feature provides that, and celebrating the centennial by bringing the cat back makes it alive and of interest to everybody. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. MR. DORRILL: This would be Mr. Tengstrom. MR. TENGSTROH: My name is Norman Tengstrom, and I have been a resident of Marco for the past seven years. I'm a trustee of the Marco Chapter of the Collier County Historical Society, and it is in that capacity that I speak to you today. I am a retired banker and life member and trustee emeritus of the Friends for Long Island's Heritage. I served as chairman and as a member of that 4,000 member museum support group for more than 30 years. You may recall the recent letters that I sent to you, and your most gracious replies were greatly appreciated. It is remarkable when you think of all the fuss and artistically-talented Calusa Indians started when 600 years ago he sat with a shark's tooth in hand and shaped it from a piece of wood, a panther god, the Key Marco Cat. We are indebted today not only to William David Collier, who owned Marco Island in 1895; and Frank Hamilton Cushing, who led the archeological expedition; and also Mrs. Phebe Hearst, wife of William Randolph Hearst, the financial sponsor of the expedition. It is important -- (Speaker alarm sounded) Is my time up? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yes, sir, but if you can wrap it up. MR. TENGSTROH: No more than two minutes. It is important to mention that Mrs. Hearst -- because nothing happens without money. That was true in 1895, and it is true in 1995. It took money to find the Marco Cat, and it will take money to bring it back to Collier County and properly exhibit it. I've distributed an estimated budget of monies that it will take to bring the cat back home. With your indulgence I would like to briefly review it with you. The first section of the hard expenses, which totals $9,700, are basically those expenses that we will be paying to the Smithsonian. There can be quite a variance in these. As an example, the board of the Smithsonian has the right to grant insurance and not require payment for it. We don't know whether they will do that or not. The exhibit case, which they -- the Smithsonian estimates -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm sorry to interrupt. Could I make a suggestion? MR. TENGSTROH: Surely. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We're not going to be able to make a decision today on the -- so rather than have the detail of all this, because we're going to have this back at public hearing at which time we'll go through all the details -- so if you can just boil it down to the overall request you're going to be asking us, then we can decide whether or not to put it before the public hearing. MR. TENGSTROM: The major request is in a section building modification. Those are items that must be started relatively soon in order to be completed by the time the cat arrives. Those are the items in particular that we're asking your consideration of giving the museum the authority to proceed with. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: When are you anticipating the cat to arrive? MR. TENGSTROH: In November. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: November. MR. TENGSTROH: The beginning of November. At the lower section we have offsets to the expense that we will be working on. The -- probably one of the major ones there is the last paragraph. We're not able to estimate the value of the publicity that Collier County will receive in terms of major magazine articles and newspaper articles. We know this will be substantial. Thank you, very much. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Ms. Chairman. I'd like to ask our museum director to bring this back in the appropriate forum so that we can discuss it at a public hearing and to also have our staff investigate whether this actually qualifies for tourist development funds. I'm not sure that it does, but at least we can ask the question. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I don't believe we need to have it as a public hearing -- as an advertised hearing, do we, Mr. Cuyler? MR. CUYLER: Just a regular agenda item. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Just a regular agenda item, I believe -- except, Commissioner Norris is asking that we direct staff to bring this back as a regular agenda item with the time constraints that we have been advised of and the fact that it may qualify for TDC funding, I would suggest that we try and do that as quickly as possible. The next Tourist Development Council meeting is August the 7th, and if we want to hear it then we certainly need to have it already prior to that. Is that the direction? MR. CUYLER: Yes. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Mr. Dorrill, you will see that Ms. Gansel has this notification to have this before the TDC? MR. DORRILL: Yes. Item #SA1 RESOLUTION 95-369 RE PUD-90-5, ARBOR LAKE CLUB PUD EXTENSION, DWIGHT NADEAU OF HCANLY, ASHER & ASSOCIATES, P.A., REPRESENTING SCOTT & STRINGFELLOW INVESTMENT CORP., IN CONFORHANCE WITH THE PUD REQUIREMENTS REQUESTING A 2 YEAR EXTENSION OF THE PUD ZONING - ADOPTED CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. Next item on the agenda as we move into the county manager's report is item 8(A)(1), PUD-90-5, Arbor Lake Club PUD extension. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Good morning. Charam Badamtchian. I believe you were presented an Arbor Lake Club PUD requesting a pier extension on the PUD zoning. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Excuse me, just a minute. I would like to make a motion that we approve the item. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second to approve -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- staff recommendation. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: -- staff recommendation on PUD-90-5. Is there further discussion? There being none -- MR. CUYLER: Two seconds either before or after your motion, because it is not going to affect it, but there is a sentence in here that says the county attorney's office said this should probably be by PUD ordinance. We have come off of that, but I think it does need to be addressed in the LDC. I'm a little concerned with the extension of the PUDs. There are no advertised public hearing, so we are going to be addressing that. You can go forward on your motion. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: But we will see a PUD amendment by the petitioner based on the staff recommendation; is that correct? MR. CUYLER: No. This is going to be a two-year extension under the terms of your LDC that allows the extension for two years. We may want to change that process a little bit. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We should change the process. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: But the staff recommendation says to direct the applicant to initiate a PUD amendment within 30 days? MR. CUYLER: Right. That has been the subject of some discussion of what the petitioner said. It is not what the ordinance says. It doesn't say we have to do that. It's probably a little iffy, but I agree that we'll just pass a resolution, and there is a resolution somewhere -- has the board gotten a resolution? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: No. We don't have it as a resolution yet. MR. CUYLER: If you will instruct us, we will have a resolution prepared to extend it for two years. But I think the Land Development Code process needs to be changed, perhaps make this an advertised public hearing in the future. It doesn't appear to require it right now. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: So we have a motion to approve, and we can move forward with that? MR. CUYLER: Yes. If somebody will save me a resolution number, then I'll make a resolution. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Will the motion maker include in the motion a direction to reserve a resolution number? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Certainly. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And a clarification that if the PUD amendment is not required, that this is the necessary action at this point. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Will the motion maker accept that? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yes. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: And the second? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yes. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I'll call the question. All those in favor of the motion please say aye. Opposed? Motion passes 5 to 0. Item #8A2 CONSIDERATION OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE TRANSPORTATION DISADVANTAGED AGREEMENT REGARDING THE REIMBURSEMENT FOR TRIPS PROVIDED BY THE TRANSPORTATION DISADVANTAGED PROGRAM - STAFF RECOHMENDATION APPROVED Next item on the agenda is 8(A)(2), a consideration of an amendment to the transportation disadvantaged agreement. Mr. Perry. MR. PERRY: Good morning. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Perry, unless you have something we should know about this other than what is in the executive summary, I'd like to make a motion that we approve the staff recommendation. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Second. MR. PERRY: I have nothing to add. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Nothing to add. We have a motion and a second to approve the staff recommendation of the agreement. All those in favor please say aye. Opposed. Motion passes 5 to 0. Thank you, Mr. Perry. Next item on the agenda is 8(A)(3), consideration of a resolution ordering and calling -- no, we have to delay that until after we hear item 12(C)(1) at the end of the morning agenda, and likewise for item 8(A)(4). Item #8A5 RESOLUTION 95-370 APPOINTING KAREN URBANIK AND PATRICIA CARROLL AS REPLACEMENTS TO THE CITIZEN'S ADVISORY COHMITTEE FOR PREPARATION OF THE EVALUATION AND APPRAISAL REPORT (EAR) ON THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN - ADOPTED Next item on the agenda is 8(A)(5), a recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners appoint two replacements to the Citizen's Advisory Committee for preparation of the evaluation and appraisal report. Mr. Litsinger. MR. LITSINGER: Good morning, Madam Chairman, Commissioners. For the record Stan Litsinger, planning department. Unfortunately I am here requesting that you appoint two replacement members of the Citizen's Advisory Committee for the evaluation and appraisal report. Unfortunately Mr. Flatto and Mr. Bisbee had to submit their resignations, and they asked that I convey their deep regret in not being able to serve on this committee as they have in the past. At the June 12th meeting at the CAC, the advisory board discussed the matter in which way we would recommend we fill these two vacancies. We had a discussion with the county attorney's office, and it was felt that within the intent of your resolution to appoint two replacements from your original list we had provided to you, or alternatively that you directed us to advertise and collect a pool of applicants. The reason this staff had -- the CAC recommends that if you could choose to, that you select someone from the existing pool -- that your next meeting is not until the latter part of July, and much valuable time would be lost. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Is there a recommendation from the board that we appoint from the list or we have a re-advertisement? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Cuyler, are you comfortable that we can do that from this? MR. CUYLER: I think you have the discretion to go either way that you wish to. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: The ones listed here with the X besides them have been appointed; is that correct? MR. LITSINGER: Yes. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Ms. Chairman, I would like to recommend Karen Urbanik. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And if we could add Pat Carroll to that list. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll make a motion we approve those two names. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Second. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second to approve Karen Urbanik and Pat Carroll to the Citizen's Advisory Committee for the EAR. All those in favor please say aye. Opposed? There being none, motion passes 5 to 0. Item #882 EXISTING CONTRACT FOR CONSTRUCTION OF ADDITIONAL COUNTY-WIDE PATHWAYS TO RICHARDS COMPANY, PER BID NO. 94-2287 - APPROVED Next item on the agenda is item 8(B)(2), recommendation to amend the existing contract for construction of county-wide pathways. Mr. Archibald. MR. ARCHIBALD: With your indulgence, I've got a handout. Board members, agenda 8(B)(2) is a recommendation to expand our pathways program, a program started as a result of a contract approved back in December of '94. We bid out over $200,000 in pathway improvements, but our funding at that point in time was only $100,000; accordingly, we reduced that. What I handed out was a list of the projects that have been completed. As a result of the board's action in amending the budget in Hatch of this year, an additional $120,000 became available for use in pathways for the current year. What the staff is recommending that the board consider doing is amending its current contract and, in so doing, adding those projects that were prioritized by the PAC, your Pathway's Advisory Committee, and going ahead and also taking advantage of the unit prices that are currently in our contract. As we have outlined in the attachment and also in the list of the PAC priorities, we plan on doing the following projects. The first one on the list is Orange Blossom between Mill Run and Airport Road. The second would be a portion of State Road 29 in the Immokalee area. The third one would be a segment of Hanatee Road. The fourth one is a segment of Collier Boulevard and finally a portion of Coronado Parkway. Recognizing that those total up to $162,000 and that the county has allocated $120,000, we're seeing reducing item 4 and reducing item 2 accordingly so as to assure that whatever work is performed is performed within the $120,000. Accordingly, the staff is asking the board to consider amending its contract to include this work or at its option can defer this work for a subsequent year. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Questions? Commissioner Constantine. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just a comment. I want to compliment Mr. Archibald. It was only but a few weeks ago we were commenting on how our sidewalk schedule has had trouble progressing. So it is nice to see additional work over and above what we had planned as we had requested early in the year. So thanks. I support the item 100 percent. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Motion to approve. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second to approve the item. I have one question. Mr. Archibald, you said you were going to reduce the cost of item 4 and item 2, but item 4 is only $5,000. MR. ARCHIBALD: Item 4, we have to gain a permit from the FDOT and we've got some water management problems that relate to providing that. It is very much needed. But between the shopping center and the drainage concerns, we may have a problem in getting the permits or getting a design that is cost-effective. The other project is 29 from Farm Workers Village up the urban section of the roadway. That particular project also is being restricted by the FDOT. We may only do a segment of that that would apply to the Greenway improvement, an improvement along the roadway rather than a pathway that would be located on the old railroad siting. So, again, those are the two projects that are subject to permitting and depending upon the status -- that is the permitting, the staff would recommend that we proceed accordingly but reduce that to the dollars available. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Thank you. We have a motion and a second to approve the recommendation of staff. All those in favor please say aye. Opposed? There being none, motion passes 5 to 0. Item #883 IHMOKALEE ROAD 4-LANING PROJECT FOR OPERATION/MAINTENANCE AND SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT - APPROVED SUBJECT TO LEGAL APPROVAL Next item on the agenda is the recommendation to accept the Immokalee four-inning project. MR. ARCHIBALD: Yes, Madam Chairman. Agenda item 8(B)(3) is an add-on agenda item dealing with the as-built quantity for the Immokalee Road four-laning project between U.S. 41 and 1-75. The final quantities have been signed off on by both your county staff, by the contractor, and the whole series of subcontractors. So staff is recommending a little different than we had submitted in prior weeks. We are recommending only to go ahead and sign off on final quantities and accept the road for operation and maintenance. To do that there are two documents as part of your agenda item. One is a supplement agreement number 9, which the chairman is being requested to sign upon approval of the board. That item, which summarizes all of the changes in quantity, totals $126,166.83 for the record. The second item is for staff to proceed with pay estimate number 25 which would, in fact, allocate two things; to allocate final payment for work completed; and, two, it would go ahead and allocate and make payment on any and all retainage. Those two measures are what your county staff is working -- county attorney -- working on. And, in addition, there are some outstanding items, but those outstanding items are not part of this agenda item. They will be brought back to the board at a future point in time, and they regard our continued discussions with the contractor about (1) a delay, and (2) about the time of the contract. So there are two outstanding items that don't reflect particularly on the final quantities and making payment under this agenda item. The staff is recommending both board approval and the Chairman's signature on the supplement agreement subject to final approval of those documents by the county attorney's office. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Madam Chairman, I would like to make a motion that we approve staff recommendation noting the two outstanding issues. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second to approve staff's recommendation subject to approval by the county attorney's office. Is that what you included in your request? MR. ARCHIBALD: Yes. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Is there discussion? There being none, I'll call the question. All those in favor please say aye. Opposed? Motion passes 5 to 0. Item #884 LOW BID OF SOUTHERN SERVICES FOR HOWING OF GRASSED OR VEGETATED ROADSIDE AREAS - APPROVED Next item on the agenda is another add-on item, a recommendation that the BCC approve the low bid of Southern Services. This is an issue initiated by Southern Services, the privatization plus task force that Mr. Archibald has worked with diligently on for quite some time. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It was just simply asking for approval of the lowest bid from the bidders? MR. ARCHIBALD: Yes, it is. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I make a motion that we approve. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Before you call it let me ask Mr. Archibald, are you familiar with the contractor? Have we done business with this contractor in the past? MR. ARCHIBALD: No, we have not, and we have investigated the contract fully to the degree of not only taking a look at contracts he had with Lee County but also inspecting his equipment. So we feel that by implementing this in the current year, that we will be able to judge his performance. As noted we're looking at full implementation in FY '95-'96. COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. So your comfort level is pretty high? MR. ARCHIBALD: Yes, it is. COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Thank you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: The price is great; it's $4 reduction per acre. We have a motion and a second to approve staff recommendation on this low bid. All those in favor please say aye. Opposed? Motion passes 5 to 0. Thank you Mr. Archibald. Item #SD1 STAFF REPORT ON SEWAGE SYSTEM AND FACILITY SERVING ROYAL COVE - COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE DIRECTED TO INTERVENE ON BEHALF OF RESIDENTS Next item on the agenda is item 8(D)(1), a staff report on a sewage system and facility serving Royal Cove. Is there anybody here from utilities? COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Dave Bryant recently transferred to utilities from the county attorney's office. (Laughter) MR. BRYANT: The reason I walked up here is that Mr. Clemons is supposed to be hear to speak on this to give you a report on what they have been doing, and he asked me to be hear because of the fact that the Department of Environmental Protection is performing an enforcement action against the owner of the package plant, because he says that he is going to stop serving people. I've talked with him about the county intervening in their enforcement action, and the reason is because there is no way for the county to get any funds from the person that is performing the sewage now. If we're not part of the lawsuit -- if the FDEP sends it in -- if we move to intervene -- and that is what he wanted -- Mr. Clemons wanted me to speak to you about this this morning. If we move to intervene, and the judge orders that damages be paid, the FDEP will then ask that those funds be ordered to be paid to the county. We're looking at $150- to $200,000 to take over that system and run a gravity line and to hook up those people to the county system. If we don't intervene there is no way we can even attempt to get any of the money because FDEP, as required by law, will put that money in their funds. But if we do, then we have that opportunity. I am not saying we're going to get it, but if we don't, we don't anymore. So I would suggest to you that you give approval that we will intervene in the FDEP enforcement action. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. Commissioner Mac'Kie. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That all makes sense. Just in the staff report it says, "After meeting with the FDEP, staff is recommending that the county not place itself in the middle of this issue, but let it be handled through the upcoming legal proceedings." MR. BRYANT: That was before they had a meeting with FDEP and before I spoke with FDEP on Thursday of last week. They didn't even know that that ability was there, because they didn't know the legal ramifications of it. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hancock. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I have had several meetings with Mr. Vetter who is the operator of that facility and with residents on that street. The problem is -- and I like the idea of what we're talking about -- if we intervene and we get damages in the amount that will allow for the running of the sewer line -- the problem is that sewer line has to go through a section that is on septic that doesn't want sewer. And I think this has rings of the East Naples situation to many of you. So the county is, in essence, in a position of either forcing a great number of people onto a septic -- onto a sewer line for the benefit of the few at the end of the line or not. If we don't intervene that cost is going to have to be borne by those residents. If we do intervene and get the judgment, the cost of constructing that system is not borne by the residents but instead would be borne by, I assume, Mr. Vetter and his company; is that correct? MR. BRYANT: That is correct. That is assuming that there are any funds that Mr. Vetter has and the company has. We don't know. The reason I am telling you this is the enforcement action is moving very rapidly, and there is a hearing set at the end of this month. So if we didn't bring the idea up to you today and find out what you wanted to do -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Bryant, if we intervene and the judge decides to put this into receivership, would the county then be the first step on that in order to take operation of the exiting package plan? Do we know that? MR. BRYANT: According to Mr. Clemons the county is going to be the ultimate party to be responsible for running that system and providing any kind of services. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: If it takes $10,000 to get that package plan on-line and operating, Mr. Vetter would then be required to pay those funds to the county? MR. BRYANT: If we intervene and the court orders him to pay that to the county and not to FDEP. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm comfortable with that. This is new information to me. The report reflects what I had understood. HR. BRYANT: It's brand new to me, and I didn't even know anything about this until Thursday of last week when utilities asked me to talk with FDEP, and I was glad to do that. It seemed like a reasonable way for the county to hopefully get some money out of that project. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, I'll trust your good legal judgment on behalf of the rest of -- relative to that. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: What is the downside? Is there one? MR. BRYANT: There really isn't. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: There is no downside? MR. BRYANT: No, Ha'am. We're going to be stuck with the plan eventually no matter what happens. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yes, I realize that. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Intervene away. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We need a motion? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We need a motion? MR. BRYANT: Yes, I would think so. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Motion to direct the county attorney's office to intervene on behalf of Royal Cove residents. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second to direct the county attorney's office to intervene on behalf of the Royal Cove residents, I presume. Is there further discussion? There being none, all those in favor please say aye. Opposed? Motion passes 5 to 0. Item #BE1 COHMISSIONER BOARDROOH AUDIO VISUAL IHPROVEHENTS - DENIED Next item is 8(E)(1). Recommendation to proceed with Commission boardroom audiovisual improvements. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Motion to deny. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll second. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Is there nothing in there that is worthwhile? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I think there is a lot in there that is worthwhile. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Not worth spending money on. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I just think in terms of our boardroom is operating pretty effectively right now serving the public. And I look here -- multiple monitors or monitors for the commissioners is certainly not necessary. I don't need to see what everybody on television is seeing. Video edit system to assist in the construction of public information videos -- the sheriff has an edit system. The school board has an edit system, both of which have said we can use that in our leisure. They're not using them with frequency either so scheduling time is not a difficulty. Remote camera use for use when the current provider discontinues their service. Jerry is on vacation, or I would ask him. I didn't realize cable was going to discontinue their service. I thought that was part of their franchise contract -- Charlie Andrews, today's cameraman. Enhanced picture quality -- Colony just put in fiber optics probably four months ago, so we have as good a picture quality as you can possibly get right now. So I don't see really anything on here that is going to enhance our service to the public. MR. CAMP: Before you vote we've been notified that Colony is interested in getting out of the broadcasting of our meetings. That instituted the whole deal. Also there was some concerns about being able to better show the viewing public what the commission and the some of the viewers in the audience are trying to see. For instance the viewers in TV-land out there cannot see the exhibits that you all see. Those kinds of concerns started the whole program. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Out of all these items that is the one -- that if there is a display, it would be nice if the television public could see that. I think the rest of this is unnecessary. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And, frankly, isn't there a way to direct the camera's attention to the poster or whatever is on the wall? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Because the camera is in the back of the room, and we're in the front, that obviously makes -- creates a problem. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: This rotating camera and stand would be in the recessed area, and they would be able to rotate to pick up both of the exhibits -- rotate to pick up speakers. MR. CAMP: Speakers also. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: So I mean that is the one item plus the monitors for the audience that sits here along the side of the walls -- those are the one items that I was really looking forward to enhancing the ability of the audience and the TV audience to see more about what we are doing. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: I just think priorities for county spending have to be elsewhere. We have to have something more worthwhile to do with this money than enhance the video presentation. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Agree. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Any further discussion? We have a motion and a second to deny recommendations to proceed with audiovisual improvements. All those in favor please say aye. All those opposed? Motion passes 4 to 1, Commissioners Matthews being in the opposition. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Madam Chairman, on the next item Mr. Dotrill asked me if he could just ask for a couple of minutes. MR. DORRILL: Go ahead and skip ahead. I've got one overhead. This is going to be about a five minute item, but if we can go to the next one, maybe we will come back to this one. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I do have a quick mention on the last item. If we're concerned about the people in the back being able to see, that is simple by just putting two monitors and running a line, so we can handle that internally. And then I think we're going to see some of these items in the future anyway. Item #SH1 RESOLUTION 95-371 FIXING THE DATE, TIME AND PLACE FOR THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR APPROVING THE SPECIAL ASSESSMENT (NON-AD VALOREH ASSESSMENT) TO BE LEVIED AGAINST THE PROPERTIES WITHIN THE PELICAN BAY MUNICIPAL SERVICE TAXING AND BENEFIT UNIT FOR MAINTENANCE OF THE WATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEM, BEAUTIFICATION OF RECREATIONAL FACILITIES AND MEDIAN AREAS, AND MAINTENANCE OF CONSERVATION AND PRESERVE AREAS - ADOPTED CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Next item on agenda -- we're going to skip over item 8(E)(2) temporarily and go to 8(H)(1), a recommendation the Board of County Commissioners adopt a resolution fixing a time, date, and place. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: This just primarily sets August 2 for that and whatever time it says -- 5:05. I'll make a motion that we approve that time and date and place will be -- COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: At the Foundation Center at Pelican Bay. Second. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second to the set the time, date, and place for the public hearing. All those in favor please say aye. Opposed? Motion passes 5 to 0. Further discussion held later. Item #8H2 BID NO. 95-2360 FOR AIRPORT-PULLING ROAD (C.R. 31) LANDSCAPING IMPROVEMENTS - AWARDED TO TURNER TREE AND LANDSCAPE IN THE AMOUNT OF $199,980.50 Are you ready? HR. DORRILL: We need -- you all are going faster today than -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We've got a big agenda. We're trying to get through it. MR. DORRILL: I know it. You can either stay with this one, or we can take a short break, and can get this up. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Why don't we keep going until 10:30, and we'll take a break and then we'll come back. MR. DORRILL: Then come back and get this one. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Recommendation to award construction contract for Airport-Pulling Road -- landscaping improvements. Mr. Conrecode. MR. CONRECODE: For the record, Commissioners, Tom Conrecode from your capital projects office. This item is the recommendation to award to the third bidder who we consider as the most responsive bidder, that is to treat landscaping. Both the low price bidder was 25 percent underpriced, and we looked at their ability to perform the contract and provide the materials. We also went to inspect the materials in the bed. In addition to that we checked their references and the references came up terribly. With the number two bid, it was submitted incomplete and, therefore, not recommended for award. The number three bid is Turner Tree and Landscape, the local contractor that we recommend the award to. I need to advise the board that there was an emergency protest filed in the courts with the purchasing policy and that has been answered and denied by the purchasing director. So subject to any questions or public comment, staff recommends that we go that way. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Are there any questions? MR. CONRECODE: One. I was just advised by the attorney's office -- I also need to advise you that they have filed an action with the court that would stay this award. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: They being -- MR. CONRECODE: They being the Reed Landscaping, Inc. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: That would stay our ability to vote or after we vote our ability to say the contract? MR. CONRECODE: They had asked the court to stop this, and the court has not. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: The court has not done that? MR. CONRECODE: Has not. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Commissioner Hancock. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: One quick question. Do these new specs -- it is something that I have mentioned to Mr. Dotrill before -- do these include in some way of reducing the manual weeding that we have seen going on Airport Road in the past? I mean that is a pretty labor-intensive process. Have we addressed that at all? MR. DORRILL: We have. This was a design that we actually did in-house. The design is a different type of landscape treatment in the median. And while we are still employing a lot of Xeriscape techniques, it is -- we are learning here as we go along. It is a different type of installation to take advantage of. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Other questions for staff? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Motion to approve. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Second. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion. Is there a second? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Actually I had already. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's okay -- third. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I'm sorry. I didn't hear you. We have a motion and a second to approve staff recommendation in awarding this bid. All those in favor please say aye. Opposed? There being none, motion passes 5 to 0. Item #8H3 RANKING, SELECTION, AND AGREEHENT FOR RFP 95-2371 WITH DUFRESNE-HENRY, INC., FOR SITE ASSESSMENTS FOR A LANDFILL DISPOSAL AND MATERIAL RECOVERY FACILITY - APPROVED Next item on the agenda is a recommendation that the Board of County Commission approve the ranking, selection, and an agreement RFP 95-2371. Mr. Conrecode. MR. CONRECODE: Commissioners, in January staff presented the preliminary analysis of potential sites throughout the county for the future landfill location. This was based on previous work done by the firm of Post, Buckley, Schuh, and Jernigan. But in February the board directed staff to issue an RFP to provide additional services and further evaluation, and it broadened the scope of the evaluation of potential sites. That RFP was left, and we're recommending that staff -- that the board adopt staff ranking which listed Dufresne-Henry, Inc. In a joint venture with several other firms as the number one ranked firm, and we're recommending award of that contract. The total cost of that contract, as you have it before you today, is $874,000 and that includes some additional services which allows the board or staff -- if the board so desires -- to conduct additional on-site investigations if the final ranking comes down to multiple sites. Subject to any questions by the board, the consultant is here and can answer any questions or make a presentation if the board so desires. Otherwise, staff is recommending that the board approve the contract as negotiated. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. Are there questions? Commissioner Constantine, your committee -- COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yes. Actually I was just going to say our committee has been working to select some of those sites and bring those back to the board after the recess, so it's kind of exciting, and it's just moving along on schedule. So I'll make a motion -- with that I'll make a motion that we approve the item according to staff recommendations. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Second. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second to approve the item recommendation. Is there further discussion? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Just one, excuse me. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Norris. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: The agenda item -- since this is not only to the landfill siting, but the material recovery facilities, I don't believe the board has ever made a decision before to the materials recovery facility. MR. CONRECODE: I don't think the board has made that decision, but they have asked staff to evaluate those options as well as part of this package. COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I think, as I read this, it says for a site assessment for a landfill disposal. I think the site assessment is the crux of it. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: And that is what I am getting at. It is mainly for site selection; right? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yes. Further questions? We have a motion and a second to award the contract as recommended by staff. All those in favor please say aye. Opposed? Motion passes 5 to 0. Item #SH1 RESOLUTION 95-371 REGARDING PELICAN BAY MUNICIPAL SERVICE TAXING AND BENEFIT UNIT - READOPTED WITH CHANGES MR. CUYLER: Madam Chairman, excuse me. We need to go back for just one second to 8(1). Mr. Ward has arrived. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The item should have been 6 p.m. we've been told. I'll make a motion we correct -- MR. CUYLER: No, no. He has two numbers that need to fit -- COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I have been told that as well, though. Ms. Filson has just filled me in. It's not 5:05, it's 6 p.m. MR. CUYLER: Okay. And so the motion will be -- you need to reopen the item and adopt the resolution with Commissioner Constantine's notation and the two numbers that Mr. Ward is about to give you quickly. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Ward, will you fill us in? MR. WARD: I apologize for being tardy. The two numbers we have to fill in -- we're going to make a change to the assessment and that will be $1,228,800; the number of the equivalent residential units based on 7,750.80 and that will make the assessment per unit at $158.5385. Those are the changes to the notice attached to the resolution. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll make a motion that we reopen the item, approve it with the numbers as outlined by Mr. Ward, and correct the time to 6 p.m. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Second. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Can we do that all in one motion, Mr. Cuyler? MR. CUYLER: Yes, Ha'am. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion to reopen the item and to correct the times and to include the information that Mr. Ward has just provided to us. MR. CUYLER: Correct. And that is all in your resolution. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Is there further discussion? There not being, all those in favor please say aye. Opposed? Motion passes 5 to 0. Thank you. Item #8H4 BID 95-2363 TO CONSTRUCT THE NCRWTP DEEP INJECTION WELL #2 - REJECTED AND TO BEREBID Next item on the agenda is to reject a bid to construct the North County water treatment plant deep injection well number 2. Mr. Conrecode. MR. CONRECODE: Again, for the record, Tom Conrecode from the capital projects office. Bid number 95-2363 was left with only one bid received. That bid came in over budget, and staff recommends that we rebid the project. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Actually I was going to cut to the chase on this one. After reading it if the contractor agreed that we increased the time frame to reduce the bid, that is fine and well, and they have the ability to do that under a rebid. So I would move that we rebid both the two wells at the same time. I think the risks there will be outweighed by the benefits and increase response hopefully. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Second. MR. DORRILL: We have some speakers, too, before you call the motion. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Conrecode, you're frowning. Is there a reason for your frowning? MR. CONRECODE: No, I'm sorry. (Laughter) CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I was wondering if you had more information that you needed to get on the record to go with the motion. Mr. Dotrill, you said we have speakers. MR. DORRILL: Yes, Ha'am. Mr. Musselwhite. MR. MUSSELWHITE: Yes. I'm Bill Musselwhite from Youngquist Brothers. In the interest of time, I'll defer my comments to Mr. Brantley, our vice president. MR. BRANTLEY: We bid this job -- this is the second time with Collier County that we have been the only bidder in a class-1 injection well. Youngquist Brothers started doing injection wells -- class-1 injection wells in 1983. And we have successfully completed over 25 projects, and all of those wells have operating permits or will have operating permits and nothing that we have done wrong has held any wells back. This injection well project that you are planning, we've already done one for you, that was completed, is very important to Collier County as it is to Youngquist Brothers. If a not-as-experienced driller was to get this project and had problems with this injection well, your county would go kind of on a blacklist with DEP, and you wouldn't drill any more injection wells. Well, the consequences that you might have to pay later for different ways of treating your effluent water -- I don't know what the benefit to the county would be. I do know that the benefit to this county would be to have Youngquist Brothers drill this injection well versus any other contractor. We bid this job. There were 31 inquiries that went out to other people. We were the only one that responded. We bid the job. We were a little bit over your budget. We sat down and negotiated with you, and the reason we negotiated with you -- and lowered our price $100,000 under your budget that you have committed to this project -- and the reason we did that is we don't want another contractor to come in and making a problem for us as Youngquist Brothers to continue our business, and for you people to have the ability to have an injection well in Collier County. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hancock. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: First of all, the idea that if you don't do it is going to be done wrong is probably not a good assumption. The second part to this is if you are so eager to be the only driller in Collier County, I suggest you bid even lower next time on the two wells. I don't see any compelling reason here not to rebid this, sir. You can issue the same bid on the re-bid for this one, and we're at the same place or it may be in an economy of scale on mobilizing your equipment for two projects to be done in close time frame. So I probably even see a reduction in the cost of the first well, if you're going to be mobilizing to do a second well also. So, you know, I think there is an opportunity to get more work. MR. BRANTLEY: To answer your question about somebody will do it wrong, that was not my -- I wasn't trying to imply that, but that has happened in the past. There are several counties that you cannot drill injection wells because of that. The other part is it's a little unfair to turn in bids and then reduce a price that has become public record and then have to go back and re-bid. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Constantine. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You know, I'm not a big fan of deep injection wells anyway, but I won't criticize you for saying you do it better than anybody else, because I suppose anybody who is in business should feel they do the best job. Mr. Conrecode, just help us out here a little bit. If they have negotiated and come down within budget, the purpose -- and I don't necessarily disagree with you, but I just need to have some verbal explanation why we're looking to rebid that. MR. CONRECODE: Our principal concern is with the competitiveness of the process. This process wasn't very competitive when we sat down and met our client utilities division and purchasing director and the county attorney's office, and we evaluated our options and checked with our consultant to find out how we could gain additional competitive interest from around the country, as there is a considerable amount of experience from around the country, but we are limited in the State of Florida. It was decided that this, by combining them and rebidding, we would probably have a very competitive process and have multiple bidders come in. And we're confident that is going to occur. The purchasing director has already received a number of letters from other drillers around the country who are confident that they can come in here and compete on a project like this. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So you'll make some changes in the bidding process which will likely result in the county benefiting dollar-wise -- MR. CONRECODE: Yes, sir. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- without compromising the quality of work we can get? MR. CONRECODE: Yes, sir. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Further discussion or questions? Do we have a motion? MR. DORRILL: You have two more speakers. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I'm sorry. MR. DORRILL: Patsy Vaughn. Okay -- Mr. Zak. MR. ZAK: Good morning. I want to clarify something. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Would you identify yourself for the -- MR. ZAK: I'm Gregory Zak, and I represent Greg Pittman Curtis (phonetic), who is a drilling representative here who spoke before this county before. And I have no qualms with discussions with Youngquist. I believe some of you people were not on the board, and the ones that have probably saw the proposal I was presented, and it was dated back in January of 1994 where we published our bid price on that well. I respect your decision. Our price at that time was $2.9 million, so we go back, and we put $500,000 in our pocket. And to my knowledge from the conversation yesterday, we can stand by this, and we are a qualified company that can do the work properly. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Are there other speakers, Mr. Dotrill? MR. DORRILL: No, Ha'am. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: You only get one shot at it. I'm sorry. You both had your opportunity to speak. Thank you. We have a motion and a second to reject the bid. Is there further discussion? All those in favor please say aye. Opposed? There being none, motion passes 5 to 0. Mr. Conrecode, you're going to rebid it; correct? MR. CONRECODE: Yes, Ha'am. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Let's take a break until a quarter of. (A short recess was taken at 10:30 a.m.) Item #8E2 UPDATE PRESENTED ON THE HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTHENT CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Reconvene the County Commission meeting. Mr. Dotrill, are ready to go back to human resources update? MR. DORRILL: Yes, Ha'am, I believe that we are. This is intended to be a brief oral report similar to the one from two weeks ago on several operational issues within our human resource department. I had told and committed to the board that from time to time for those areas that were important, I wanted to give you some specific operational status -- milestones of where we are. I indicated to the board about, I believe, four to six weeks ago that we were going to be taking a number of specific steps. And if Mr. Ochs will turn the overhead -- Hold that top too, or we will all get seasick. Thank you. We've taken eight -- actually, nine specific steps over the course of the last month. I just want to run through these for you and then answer any questions that you might have. The first thing that we have done -- prior to this time employees had the opportunity to make an exit interview statement or to be interviewed prior to their receiving their final check. We're now reinstating exit interviews for all employees from a mandatory perspective, and the effective date of that was Hay the 12th, a little over a month ago. To date we have had five exit interviews, and there is a procedure in place now that if someone makes critical comment, or a comment that is considered to be negative in anyway, there is a mechanism that requires the management or supervisory staff to perform and provide a response to any comments that show up on the exit interview form and turn those that are ultimately reported to senior management to the county manager office. The next one. In order to look for disturbing trends, we will now investigate within one day any requests for a voluntary demotion on the part of the employees. In many instances the employee who feels that they are in a potential source of intimidation or general unhappiness within the position on the job, who requests a voluntary demotion, those will no longer be processed in accordance with the employee's desire without an investigation as to -- is there anything that we need to know beyond that individual's personal request to be voluntarily demoted. And, again, the effective date of that was also Hay the 12th. The third area is to emphasize -- and this is going to be an ongoing item for us -- the sensitive role of the human resource department and, obviously, a great deal of the information in the advocacy role that they must play on behalf of the employees. And as part of that, we have developed individual and collective training sessions with the human resource staff that began in the first week of Hay to expressly emphasize the confidentiality of the role that the entire department plays; appropriate interactions with others -- and that can run the gamut of, in terms of what is appropriate. And this has been reduced to -- it is now a written policy and procedure within the department for specific disciplinary actions and the protocol associated with that. The fourth item. As part of revising the county commission's directive to update your 1992 sexual harassment policy, effective Hay the 8th we began incorporating the revised sexual harassment policy as part of the employee orientation process for any new employee who is hired after the first of Hay. And we have a monthly orientation for all new employees hired during the preceding month and a mandatory sexual harassment overview of your policy is now part of that. The fifth area. There are now detailed specific written guidelines concerning the investigation of perceived or alleged sexual harassment on a job. A specific policy in procedure for the investigation and the requirements to interview all parties was developed and reviewed by the county attorney's office and sent to all supervisory staff on Hay the 31st, as part of our revised sexual harassment policy which is the next one. Number six deals with now mandatory training, and we may need to process some budget amendments associated with this for not only sexual harassment, but diversity training for on-the-job activities for both supervisors -- and also beginning in June, on June the 30th -- for non-supervisors. But sexual harassment training for supervisors is currently scheduled for June the 30th and August the 8th prior to the conclusion of our fiscal year and will be rescheduled as part of ongoing quarterly human resource training beginning October the 1st for the '95-'96 year. Number seven was approved on Hay 23, and you recall that the board took and adopted a new policy as it pertains to fraternization. I won't elaborate on that one. I think we had a fairly expanded discussion of that on that day of the County Commission meeting. Number eight is a revised emphasis on the role and mission of the human resource department to county employees in general. In addition to aggressive in-service training that was already begun in Hay, the director will attend individual department and division staff meetings county-wide to discuss concerns with supervisors, to emphasize the staff can contact the county manager's office through a new mechanism and have independent access to the county manager outside of the traditional human resource department organization, or as part of the elected employee advisory council that meets every month with the county manager privately. And then the final area is to emphasize the role of the assistant county manager as part of this new process. I felt and discussed with each one of you privately, my desires to expand on the system that is in place now, through an assistant to the county manager who will report directly to the county manager any of these types of concerns and who will not be part of the human resource department. They, obviously, still have a role to play in collecting and investigating certain information, but outside of that there is a direct link right now to the county manager for any expression of concern. That is the nature of what I needed to tell you specifically, and the dates, and I had a chance to talk to all of you privately about some of these. But I wanted to take five minutes here today and run down through list of specific actions that have been taken in the last six weeks. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Questions? I have one question, Mr. Dotrill. On your institution of sensitivity training, harassment training, and whatever other training may be required through human resource development, have HR personnel been attending these training sessions for Q&A so that our employees understand our procedure? MR. DORRILL: My impression is, yes, that they are, that we do this type training through the Institute of Government at Edison Community College and the University of South Florida in Fort Myers. I'll let Mr. Ochs help me to elaborate on this. MR. OCHS: That is correct, Commissioners. Supervisory staff from human resources have attended previous sexual harassment training programs through the Institute of Government, and we will continue to cycle all of that staff, as well as the other staff and your agency through it. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: No, no. I think you are missing what I am asking. What I am asking is I know you have an Institute of Government person come and perform the training, but the training he is performing is -- I would imagine a generic type of these are what you should do, these are what your entitlements are, these are what you should watch for, and all these different things. My question is: Has a human resource person been on-hand at these training sessions to answer the attendees Q&A? MR. OCHS: For the most part -- I would say for the most part, yes. But I can't say that for every single training course that they are there. But that is an area that we will make sure we cover in the future. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yes. I think it is important that our people when they leave these sessions not only do we go through the mechanics of what the training is, but they understand what our procedure is for dealing with it. MR. DORRILL: Or to answer any individual questions that they may have. We will certainly incorporate that in. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Are there other questions? MR. DORRILL: If there are not, there is a member of your human resource staff who is here today. She may choose to speak, and she has expressed to me -- and has expressed a desire to meet with me privately about some individual and personal matters that are of concern to her. I hope that we have an opportunity to do that. And she may still wish to address the County Commission. And I'm certainly going to defer to the Chair on that. However, I have cautioned both her and her husband, who is also a county employee, and that I expect them to be courteous and not disrespectful to this County Commission and to address specifically the issues that are at hand. Otherwise, it is my responsibility and management prerogative to maintain a certain amount of decorum and discipline amongst county employees who may attempt or desire to address the board, and if I feel that any of Ms. Litsinger's remarks or that of her husband are out of order, then I will be quick to mention that. And if I feel that she is in anyway disrespectful, I'll also mention that. But I've told her that in no way would I attempt to block her access to the County Commission this morning. I'm at your discretion as to whether you would like to hear from her or not. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: It would be my preference that if she has communication that she wants to pass to us, that she confine her remarks to the agenda items that Mr. Dotrill has discussed this morning and not to other issues that revolve around that, but not directly related to. With that, Mr. Dotrill, if she still chooses to speak, she is a member of the public. Mrs. Litsinger, I want to remind you that I would like you, if you could, confine your remarks to -- MS. LITSINGER: Absolutely. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: -- to the innovations and the institutions that Mr. Dotrill spoke of. MR. DORRILL: Just so there will be no concern, she is not on county time this morning. She has taken some sick leave. We are in the process of reviewing it. She is not on the county payroll in terms of normal operation. She is here on her own bequest. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. MS. LITSINGER: I would just like to say I am here against my physician's direction. I have been off ill the last couple of days, but I thought it was important that I was here. I have a number of concerns. I will not address them because -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Can you pull the mike down a little bit? We can't hear you. MS. LITSINGER: I do have -- could you hear what I said before? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yes, just barely. MS. LITSINGER: I do have some concerns. If this is not the appropriate time, I understand that. Mr. Dotrill has indicated to me that there will be a public forum that will be held when I can discuss these issues. Is that something that you can tell me when that might occur so that I can be present for that? He told me that this morning while the board meeting was going on. MR. DORRILL: When I left the room earlier, I knew that she was here and had asked to speak. And I told her, specifically, and asked her to review the overhead that I had. And so this is what I am intending to say this morning, and I am not intending to discuss personnel matters nor employees within the current or former human resource structure. And I told her that I would be happy to meet with her privately, but then beyond that, that this County Commission every Tuesday has a public comment portion on the agenda and that if she wanted to discuss other issues under public comment, that having had an opportunity to meet with me, I'm sure that you would be happy to hear those as long as they were within whatever order that you chose to set. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: That public comment, Mrs. Litsinger, occurs every Tuesday after the morning agenda. So at any point that you feel that you want to make a comment on whatever situation -- you are a member of the public -- you're certainly entitled to make that. We do limit it to five minutes, and we take no action based on what the comment is other than to give a direction to staff to further investigate. MS. LITSINGER: When you say at any time? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Any Tuesday. MS. LITSINGER: What time of the day? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: It varies. It follows the morning agenda. MS. LITSINGER: Okay. You announce -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: There's a public comment section just before the public hearings, yes. MS. LITSINGER: All right. The only thing I can say with regard to the overhead is that, no, there really has not been much attendance of any supervisory or any human resources staff at sexual harassment. Initially there was a couple of times when Mr. Whitecotten -- and once when I was present at sexual harassment training, however, that it has not been an on-going policy. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Mr. Dorrill just told us they were going to correct that. MS. LITSINGER: But I believe they said for the most part it was being done and that is not accurate. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. MR. DORRILL: Mr. Litsinger, do you still chose to speak? He is indicating no. As I said, I would be happy to meet with her privately, and then if she is not satisfied with whatever I have to say and discuss with her, I have already offered her the public comment vehicle to bring her concerns to you as part of this meeting process. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. Item #8H5 OPTION #2 REGARDING BEACH RENOURISHMENT AND FINANCING APPROVED AND STAFF TO BRING BACK AN ORDINANCE With that, let's move on to agenda item 8(H)(5), consideration of the beach renourishment options and financing. My understanding -- we've received a spreadsheet from Hargett in the finance committee, and it is my understanding that Mr. Hargett has been called out of town on a family matter. So other than a discussion of whether we should direct staff to bring this back as a full-blown public hearing at some later point, the minutia of the table itself may not be available for discussion. MR. DORRILL: We certainly have the ability to present to you the executive summary this morning. And I'll say that we have four or five speakers. And then as part of that, though, Mr. Hargett had a death in the family, and he's out of town. So any specific or technical questions concerning the spreadsheet, I would want to wait and address it under separate cover to the County Commission, because staff isn't prepared to deal directly with that. With that, Mr. Conrecode, if you will walk the Commission through the option choices that have been identified, and then we've got a number of public speakers. MR. CONRECODE: For the record Tom Conrecode from your capital projects office. The executive summary 8(H)(5) proposes four funding alternatives for the board to consider for the beach renourishment and past maintenance projects. All of the options consider the repayment of Marco Island bonds. The financing that was used through -- in the formulas throughout the spreadsheets is based on the tax-exempt commercial paper program. Two of our options are pay-as-you-go options, and two of the options are not. And likewise, two options consider the addition of a third sent to the tourist development tax. The options are fairly easily summarized in the executive summary. If you would like, I could highlight those, otherwise just open it up for discussion or public speakers. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Norris. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Conrecode, explain to us how the total project cost is now up to $54 million. MR. CONRECODE: The total project cost between the options varies between fifty-one seven and fifty-four one-fifty in terms of total cost. That includes all expenses incurred and projected from 1993 through the year 2010. The largest bulk of that is the beach renourishment construction cost which includes between $22 million and $28 million in costs. The variance in that is largely attributable to multiple mobilizations. The engineering services cost is fairly consistent throughout and includes the monitoring post-renourishment. The only other significant addition to that would be the financing cost which are shown ranging from a million and a half to nearly $4 million in options one and two. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Constantine. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It doesn't seem like that tough an issue as far as deciding whether to do a single mobilization or a multi-phase. A single mobilization would get the beach done sooner, and we can do it cheaper than trying to do it in phases. That to me seems like it would be an easy portion of this. The other is the question of the additional one cent TDC tax or just to finance it out again. A couple of thoughts there. I think -- this is my thought -- but I think in 1992 the overwhelming sentiment in favor of tourist tax that passed was to get the beaches done. I hear virtually no one, and I'm sure there is someone in Collier County who would oppose it, but I hear of virtually no one who is saying, no, we shouldn't do anything to the beaches. I think the majority of the people agree that it needs to be done and pass that as the method to do it. I would think that the money to be saved by being able to pay that in four years as opposed to 12 years -- Mr. Conrecode, you said what is it, two and a half million dollars difference? MR. CONRECODE: It's almost $2 million. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: $2 million. Obviously, at the point by being able to pay it off in a short period of time, you have saved a substantial amount of money as well. So I think that first class anyway, it is appealing. The public has agreed that is an appropriate tool to pay for the beaches. They have agreed they want the beaches done, and if we can save $2 million by doing it that way, it is certainly appealing. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hancock. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm in agreement with Commissioner Constantine. I'll add an additional facet which is the single-phase mobilization and the ability to pay it off quickly gets a secondary benefit in that, one, we protect the taxable shoreline as quickly as possible, which can represent a significant loss if a major storm event occurs. And second is that by doing a single-phase mobilization and spreading it out over a period of ten years, we jeopardize the necessary maintenance on the beach to avoid deterioration and poor quality if a minor storm or a non-name-type storm hits. So I think being sensitive to trying to be frugal in the maintenance and not have to remobilize when funds aren't available, I think is the third penny dedicated solely to beach renourishment and for that time period to be sun-setting is really the prudent way to go. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Dorrill, I think you were indicating that you had something to add. MR. DORRILL: Just two points. We are aware of a requirement within the law that limits under a single mobilization the amount of tax that can be used for debt service interest payments, and the finances committee is still evaluating that. I just want you to know that it could potentially add one additional year approximately to any of the scenarios here depending on what the final legal and finance committee recommendations are. That is ongoing, so we do not have a final recommendation on that. I understand that the direction here this morning is to -- for you to pick an option preference and then have us bring a specific proposal back. Number two -- and I asked Dr. Stephen to be here this morning -- I have seen some correspondence, and I thought in the time that we had, we would give a brief update on where we are in the permitting process. It is my understanding that we are on schedule or had the ability to recover the permitting schedule. However, we were bogged down with state regulatory officials at DEP concerning permiable groins to the extent in which we will try to rebuild the permiable groins in the city limit segment of the beach profile, and I wanted to discuss that here so that at least to update the board as to what the issues are, whether that poses the potential to be a problem or whether in Dr. Stephen's position that it is just going to be easily resolved with the permitting agency. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Cuyler. MR. CUYLER: And to just add, obviously, any additional assent there is an ordinance amendment. You need to have an advertised public hearing on that future decision. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Dr. Stephen, do you want to give us an update on the permitting process? DR. STEPHEN: I'll be happy to. For the record my name is Michael F. Stephen. I'm the project manager for the beach restoration project. The status on the permitting process is as follows. We have received verbal notice of complete application with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. We also have received written notice of a complete application from the DEP Bureau of Wetland Resources and Regulations. We have a most recent letter of lacking completeness from the DEP Bureau of Beaches and Coastal Systems which, as Mr. Dotrill stated, focuses really on the terminal groins on the storm water out-falls and, of course, on the burrow area. We, today, are sending a response to the DEP and the Corps of Engineers that defines a new burrow area site located in the NB-2 area, which was presented to this board about the middle of March, I believe, or early April where we asked to go look at another site. We found a million and half yards of sand there. We have taken the fiber cores. We have completed the analysis and that is very compatible material. And we are requesting that approval from all of those agencies. The agencies have scheduled diver observations on the part of their staff in either the first or second week of July depending on whether they have staff availability. And we seek to have initial conclusions to the burrow area and permits from the DEP about the first or middle part of July -- excuse me, August -- the middle of August after those inspections have been completed. As part of the review process, and what has historically been a source of extreme delay is the analysis of the groin systems that was referred to earlier, the DEP has developed a procedural policy that allows us to present them with a letter defining precisely what types of evaluation and model we would use to evaluate the influence of those structures on the set of a transport along the beach. That letter is in their hands at the present time. We are awaiting agreement or acknowledgement from them as to those procedures. If they accept those procedures, then we will in the next two to three weeks finish our analysis in review of those structures for presentation to the DEP. If by the latter part of July, the early part of August, we have not received sufficient response from the DEP or positive response from the DEP such that we need to continue negotiations with them pertaining to the inclusion of the structures, we would then come back to this board and ask for your direction on whether to separate the two components of the project, that being separate the beach fill from those structures. It is our opinion that those structures are necessary and very important to the retention of sand that we are going to fill on the beach, that they have for decades provided positive beach form in the vicinity of where they are. We have a lot of evidence. We believe that we can be successful in influencing the DEP to leave those structures in place and restore them. But if we run into difficulty in those discussions, we do not want to cause a delay to getting the sand on the beach this season. We have the opportunity to continue the negotiations, perhaps, if we can separate those discussions and still have those structures come in at a later date. That is the current status. We are seeking to meet a very aggressive time schedule established jointly with the capital projects staff that will cause us to have the specifications and the design plans ready and available to go through the purchasing review process in the middle or late part of July. That should allow us to keep on schedule toward achieving a November 1st construction start date. There are a lot of things that could influence us, mainly the availability of the permits themselves. We would like to have them in writing and locked in to submit to the contractors. But we have -- we will work through that process. Finally, we have received word yesterday that a major element, the erosion control line hearing -- public hearing and approval -- it has been agreed and is scheduled for July 14th in this room, and we are required to publicws notice every week, once a week for the three weeks prior to that hearing. We are working on the language that has to be forwarded back and faxed back to the state. If it is approved we will start that advertisement process and seek to have the erosion control line hearings here on the 14th of July. So that is the next thing that will be of major public input. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Are there questions? Commissioner Hancock. I want to try to control this meeting to questions. Today is whether to direct our staff to bring back a full-blown public hearing on the additional penny and our probable agreement for the single mobilization at this point. So I don't want to get too far away from that. Commissioner Hancock. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm afraid I am going to stray just a little bit, but it is very quick. If you separate the issues of the groin and the renourishment, in your opinion, are you going to sacrifice any success in having the groins reestablished if you separate those two issues? By separating those is the reconstruction of the groins going to suffer? DR. STEPHENS: Well, we see it all as one project and in there, perhaps, is some leverage that is exerted. We're not ready to do that, but we're just trying to let you know what might be an option if we run seriously afoul. I feel like we're going to be able to demonstrate their performance successfully. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Thank you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. Are there other questions regarding the permitting process? We have public speakers. MR. DORRILL: I apologize for bringing it up, but I was anticipating your strong preference for a single mobilization, and I didn't want you to come in here and say August -- Mr. Dotrill you never told us the state had a problem, and there is potential for one, but we do have confidence that we're going to be able to work our way through that, but it does affect the city's portion of the beach. Mr. Ward. Following Mr. Ward we'll have Mr. VanArsdale. MR. WARD: Good morning, Commissioners. My name is Whit Ward. I represent the Collier Building Industry Association. I'll just take about 15 seconds of your time to tell you that the Collier Building Industry Association is very much interested and concerned about the economic growth and viability and well-being of our community. And in that light, we would encourage you to proceed forward with this issue. Thank you very much. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. MR. DORRILL: Mr. VanArsdale has left. Mr. Pennington is here representing the City Council, and then we will have Mr. Passidomo. MR. PENNINGTON: Good morning, Commissioners. Ron Pennington, bringing a resolution from City Council which I will proceed to read. I believe you all have copies, so I'll try to get through all the whereas's rather rapidly. A resolution of the mayor and council of the City of Naples supporting option 2 of beach renourishment options adding an additional one-cent TDC tax to finance beach renourishment, authorizing financing of four years, and the sunsetting of the additional tax in the year 2000 and providing an effective date. Whereas, the Board of County Commissioners will discuss the issue of funding of beach renourishment at its June 20, 1995 meetings; and, Whereas, the City Council desires to communicate to the County Commission the City Council's position relative to the possible action of adding an additional one-cent tourist development tax to help support the funding of this project; and, Whereas, the City Council has reviewed four options available to the County Commission for funding this beach renourishment program; and, Whereas, based upon that review the City Council supports option 2, single-phase mobilization utilizing existing TDC revenues plus an additional one-cent TDC tax to support interim financing of $14 million. Total project cost for the period 1993-2010, is $51,949,184. Term of financing is for 4 years. Construction in 1995. Additional one-cent TDC tax to begin in 1996 and sunset in the year 2000; and, Whereas, the City Council believes this option will ensure that the City's portions of the beaches will be renourished at an earlier date than would be accomplished through other options; and, Whereas, beach renourishment helps protect lives and property and assessed value within the city as well as in the unincorporated area; and, Whereas, the City Council is opposed to long-term borrowing for this project but can support short-term borrowing that would be fully paid by the sunset time of the year 2000 for the additional one-cent TDC tax. Now, therefore, be it resolved by the Council of the City Naples, Florida, the City Council supports option 2, a single-phase mobilization utilizing existing TDC revenues plus an additional one-cent TDC tax to support interim financing of $14 million. Total project cost for the period 1993-2010 is $51,949,184. Term of financing is for 4 years. Construction in 1995. Additional one-cent TDC tax to begin in 1996 and sunset in the year 2000. The position of the City Council is hereby transmitted to the Honorable County Commission with the request for them to consider City Council's input in this issue. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon adoption. Passed in open and regular session of the City Council of the City of Naples, Florida, this 19th day of June, 1995. Signed Paul W. Huenzer, Mayor. I thank you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you Mr. Pennington. MR. DORRILL: Mr. Passidomo and then Ms. Vaughn. MR. PASSIDOHO: Good morning, Madam Chairman and Members of the Commission. My name is John Passidomo. I serve as chairman elect of the Economic Development Council of Collier County. The TDC has for many years been a long-standing proponent of beach renourishment. We have recognized as vital to our quality of life and essential to the foundation for economic development that we need for our community. It is our privilege to participate with your staff, in recent weeks, in generating the series of four alternatives that are before you today, which we believe achieve our principal objective to ensure that new sand is put on the beaches in a one-time mobilization program beginning in the fall of 1995 and concluding next spring. We urge you to reject alternatives three and four which would delay putting new sand on the Naples beaches into the year 2004. We urge you to take advantage of the very favorable financing mechanisms afforded by your commercial paper program and extremely attractive interest rates it provides. We urge you to avoid the cost of multiple mobilizations. We urge you to eliminate the risks that permits require to construct the project may not be available in nine years. And, finally, we urge you to find a way to say yes to the substantial public safety, recreational, economic tourist development, and protection to our over $1 billion in beachfront tax base afforded by putting new sand on the beaches in a one-time mobilization project beginning this November and hopefully concluding less than a year from now. Thank you very much. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. MR. DORRILL: Ms. Vaughn and then Mr. Erlichman. MS. VAUGHN: Good morning. My name is Patsy Vaughn, and I'm president of the Naples Area Board of Realtors. I speak in favor of the single mobilization effort for beach renourishment. I brought with me some 60 or 70 signatures from members of the board who are very concerned about the issue. As everyone has said, and I concur, this is vitally important to the stability of the tourists that come to Collier County and vitally important to all of Collier County. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. MR. DORRILL: Mr. Erlichman and Mr. Freni. MR. ERLICHMAN: Gil Erlichman from East Naples speaking for myself. Good morning. I feel like a cap pistol in front of all these preceding speakers that are the big guns in Collier County. The real estate interests, the developers, et cetera. I think the commission has forgotten that when the tourist development tax was passed by the voters, it was passed with the meaning that it would be a pay-as-you-go plan to renourish the beaches -- pay-as-you-go -- not this one shot or single mobilization. What happens when you have committed yourselves to the single mobilization, and we get a tremendous storm after spending all that money and obligating the county to a nice big debt? The sand is gone into the gulf, and once again, the cry will go up, hey, we have to renourish the beaches, and all that money that we're going to have to be obligated to keep paying for is out in the gulf. Pay-as-you-go with renourishing the sections of the beach at a time will do the job. There is no rush. Why is there such a necessity to rush to spend all this money and throw all that sand on the beach? First of all, do we have any core samples that are going to be used? I haven't seen any of those samples yet. I don't know if the commissioners have seen the samples. But Dr. Stephen said they have samples, or I think he inferred they did, but I don't know. Going -- when I was attending one of the meetings -- financial meetings on this renourishment issue, they were talking about going out seven miles into the gulf to dredge for sand. Well, what happens to that dredge if a storm comes up? Don't they have to dismantle all the equipment and remove it or else they will lose it in the gulf? So this single mobilization idea may sound good to a lot of people who have financial interests in the project -- Coastal Engineering and certain other consultants, but, remember, the contract with the taxpayers and voters was for beach renourishment on a pay-as-you-go plan. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hancock, you had a question. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Cuyler, was there a written or verbal contract or promise to pay-as-you-go when this was approved by the voters? MR. CUYLER: Nothing that I recall. Not to my knowledge. I'm not sure I even remember the issue being discussed, but my memory is nothing you want to count on that far back. But, no, in terms of a legal commitment, no, there is no legal commitment of any sort. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Dorrill, was there a moral commitment to a pay-as-you-go? Or an ethical commitment? Was there a commitment at all? MR. DORRILL: I honestly would need to go back and check the information. I told you we have some flyers and whatnot, but if the individual commissioners said that at that time, I would have to verify that. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Beyond that I think we look at total project costs of being a benefit of single phase mobilization. In addition, I don't know, but maybe some of you are willing to roll the dice with the property destruction in the coastal manor. I don't know if it's worth that, and I don't know that I am willing to roll those dice for someone else's property. So I think that is an important part of this, and I have to rely on counsel. MR. DORRILL: Mr. Freni and then Mr. Herms. MR. FRENI: Good morning, Madam Chairman, fellow Commissioners. My name is Joe Freni, regional vice president for the Ritz-Carlton Hotel Company, and owner of the Ritz-Carlton Naples. I come to you today representing a very, very quick way, a general consensus of our hotel industry. Since this issue was brought to our attention that you would be deliberating it, we have had to scramble to try to get some feel for how our people felt since -- to remind you we are the collectors of the tax, and the tax is levied upon our hotel guests and seasonal tenters, no one in the community unless they check into one of our hotels or rents a home temporarily and pays this tax -- and also because between myself, the Marco Marriott, and the Registry, we collect the lion's share of the tax. So we come to you today representing that as well as my being a member of the Tourist Development Council. You will recall when this second initiative passed in the election, our industry was in favor of the 2 percent bed tax to do two things, renourish the beaches and promote the area. We continue to be of that opinion, and our industry is in favor of that. However, today realizing that the general consensus is to increase the bed tax by 1 percent, we, again, as the industry feeling that come to you reluctantly -- not happy about it. No one would be happy if they were suddenly -- if their businesses were taxed again. We recognize, however, that option two does make a good deal of sense for the community. Now, there are certainly members of our industry that don't feel that way. And so I say to you today -- I am speaking in a general consensus -- we were able to try to muster within the past 48-hours including talking to some of our colleagues in Marco Island. So we come to you today saying we're not particularly happy about having this third -- this extra percent placed on our -- to be taxed that we must collect. It puts us dangerously close to some of the other areas in the state that have higher bed tax percentages than we do, many of whom are supporting baseball stadiums that are operating at a loss. But we are concerned about the fact that this could be a beginning trend. We're very encouraged that you have sunsetted this, and we appreciate that, and we think that is essential for our feeling good about this tax. I'd like you to consider, however, since there is going to be an opportunity to formalize this ordinance, two other issues that we would hope you would listen to us and try to see if you could not assist us. That would be point number one is once the tax is sunsetted and it reverts back to 2 percent, we would like the County Commissioners to consider switching the percentage from 60 percent beach renourishment to 60 percent promotion, and 40 percent to beach maintenance. My estimates are that that would still give the community roughly around $1.8 million annually for maintenance, past-maintenance, whatever might be needed to take care of the beaches. If the money wasn't there, of course, it should again be reserved for any additional -- for a larger storm impact or something of that nature. I would sense that a $1.8 million annually would be more than enough to take care of the beaches after they have been fully taken care of. Secondly, we would ask that the commission would consider reserving the 15 percent currently identified as promotion event dollars in the $5 to $6 million that was collected earlier to be set aside for an emergency promotion campaign in case we do have a storm we would have monies available to promote the area to get us back on our feet. Most of the beachfront areas, including Lee County and Palm Beach have these kinds of funds. If you recall, yesterday under the auspice of Commissionws Tourist Development Council, we saw the campaign roll-out. That roll-out now needs to be funded. That would roughly mean that we could start that fund with somewhere around -- if we could add to that fund somewhere around 500- to $600,000. So those two areas are two areas that we would ask you to seriously consider as you write your ordinance. I would like to take just one minute to talk to you a little about why we think that is important. Without really trying to toot our own horn, you have an industry in this community that has done very, very well in terms of maturing very nicely and allowing the community to enjoy the best of the best in terms of the clientele that we host through out hotels and motels. We are now finding over the next three or four years that other destinations are going to begin to compete against us. Wewre fairly stabilized. Wewre concerned about losing market share. Within the next three to four years, destinations such as Cuba and other venues are going to become very, very attractive to the kind of client, both international and domestic who we currently enjoy. We need to maintain the image we have in this community of being a secure, safe, and quality-oriented tourist destination year-round. And so while we are doing relatively well now, we recognize that in three to four years the situation may change, and we ask your consideration in reviewing that 2 percent and the reserve fund for us to be prepared for those future situations. That is all have. Are there any questions? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Are there questions? Thank you very much, Mr. Freni. You have given us a different perspective on what to look for in the future on this. Thank you. MR. DORRILL: Mr. Herms and then Mr. Reynolds. MR. HERMS: Good morning, Commissioners. It is nice to be back and talking with you all, and some of you I havenwt had the privilege of working with. It is very nice to be here this morning. The issue, as many of you know, is one that is very close to my heart, and something that I have been following for about five years now. And I think that youwre in -- in my mind if I was sitting in your shoes -- itws a difficult position, because youwre being asked to fund a project that you really donwt know what the sand is going to be like thatws going to be placed on the beach. Wewve gone through about six years now of trying to find sand compatible with the Naples beaches, and we havenwt found that yet. In the end youwre being asked, at this particular point in time, to consider raising a tourist tax to be able to fund our beach. And I do believe that the concept of a one-time mobilization and doing our beach makes complete economic sense. The problem is we donwt even know where the sand is going to come from. The permits that are presently into the state show the possibility of three different sources for that sand. One is the Capri Pass area -- which has been decided that it wonwt be used. The other is inland quarries which we don't know whether that is going to be a possibility, and the third are three sites off of Doctor's Pass, which collectively, I think, had a little over 300 cubic yards of sand for an area that we need 1,300,000 cubic yards of sand for. At the present time, your consultant is seven miles offshore looking for a sand source to be able to dredge. But we've never seen the material, and I'm formally asking you to be able to present not only to yourselves but also to the public on behalf of the Olde Naples Association, we would like to see the specific core samples that they are finding offshore. We've gone through years of seeing core samples that weren't too great, and I have brought -- and I'll ask the Chairman if you want me to proceed with this. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I don't think so, Mr. Herms. Our question today is whether we're interested in the single mobilization, and I believe we are, and whether to direct staff to bring back an ordinance later this year to raise the penny tax. MR. HERMS: Then I will go back to that particular point. You may, if you find that the sand offshore is not suitable for our beaches, have to go inland for your sand sources. If you go inland for your sand sources, your cost of the sand delivered to the beach is going to run between $5 and $7 per cubic yard. You have 1.3 million cubic yards. If you utilize that mathematics, you don't come up anywhere close to the numbers that you are looking at. You're probably some place between $6 and $8 million to renourish the beach. One other option you have there is if you use the inland sand sources, you will not have to bond any of your funds. You will be able to do it on a yearly basis, expand your incoming funds, which, I think, is about $2.8 million to $3 million. You would be able to accomplish it over the next two or three years, and you'll be guaranteed one of the most beautiful beaches in the State of Florida of which the sand sources that we've already seen offshore would guarantee us the worst beach in the State of Florida. Thank you very much. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you very much. MR. DORRILL: Mr. Reynolds and then Ms. Taylor. MR. REYNOLDS: Commissioners, I am pleased to be addressing you this morning as a representative of the Naples Area Chamber of Commerce. The chamber, as you know, has been proactively involved for many years in moving renourishment from a preliminary concept to its impending reality. It is a credit to the leadership of this and the prior boards that we're finally poised to begin putting the sand on our beaches this fall. The positive effect that renourished beaches will have on public safety and recreational enjoyment in the tourist industry is without equal. The Naples Chamber of Commerce enthusiastically supports the implementation of beach renourishment starting this fall and to be accomplished with a one-time mobilization and in one phase. A response that we received from our 2,000 members on a recent survey reinforced the chamber board's unanimous position in that regard. Either funding option one or funding option two accomplishes that stated objective. However, we believe that you have an opportunity today to achieve one of those rare triple wins with the public, the elected leadership, and the affected industry all coming out ahead. You have heard legitimate concerns expressed by the hoteliers about incrementally throttling the industry with additional taxes, and at the same time we must enhance our tourism promotion, and fulfillment efforts to keep Naples competitive in the world market. Should you choose to support funding option two with a commitment to direct the surplus revenues created towards tourism marketing, promotion and fulfillment by reallocating the 60/40 split as has been suggested, not only will we all realize the immediate benefits of the renourished beach system at a lower overall cost, but we also gain the direct and the indirect benefits of a more meaningful and ultimately more successful tourism initiative. At the same time you will also be acknowledging the legitimate and reasonable concerns of the hospitality industry that is potentially creating a funding for this opportunity. Your staff has done an excellent job of outlining the alternatives. And on behalf of the Naples Chamber of Commerce, I urge you to respond to the input that you heard today and to move forward and fund the single phase renourishment of our beaches. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. MR. DORRILL: Ms. Taylor is your final registered speaker. MS. TAYLOR: Good morning. My name is Penny Taylor. I am speaking for myself as a 17-year resident of the City of Naples and someone who has watched these beaches go from wider beaches to lesser beaches. I don't think I would object or even deny that the beaches don't need to be renourished. I decided to speak this morning after listening to Mr. Freni and his concern about becoming -- Naples becoming increasingly more competitive in the tourist market in the world. Certainly, his establishment has been recognized world-wide as a fine establishment and sitting on one of the finest beaches in the world. However, I had the occasion -- and because I work as a photographer -- to be last weekend at the MArriott MArco Beach Hotel. I was there for the greater part of the day, and the wedding party that I was photographing had been there for three days prior. I was on the beach with them, and as I was photographing them, I noticed that on this beach everyone wore shoes right to the water's edge, and those that weren't wearing shoes were walking with their backs stooped over gingerly over the sand. Some of them turned around and went back and put on shoes. I was curious about this so I questioned the wedding party, who were from different parts of the United States, about this. They said, "This is the worst beach I have ever seen. It's like walking on daggers. Why, I would much rather go to Siesta Key." Now maybe this is a quiet rumbling. But if we're going to become more competitive in the world in terms of a tourist destination, I would urge you to see these samples and to make sure that the sugar sand that is on the City of Naples beach is replaced with sugar sand. Thank you very much. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. I think we're all encouraged to have compatible sand on the beaches. Commissioner Norris. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I would like to make a motion that we do the beach renourishment project in a single mobilization and that we direct staff to bring us back an ordinance to enact the third penny on the sales tax. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second. Mr. Cuyler, that ordinance when it comes back, does it need a super majority? MR. CUYLER: Yes. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: It will need one. Okay. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That would be option two, Commissioner Norris? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: That would be option two. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second to endorse option number two in a single mobilization and to direct staff to bring back an ordinance later this year to assess the additional penny tourist development tax. Is there any further discussion? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Just one question, Mr. Cuyler. When that ordinance is brought back, will we have an opportunity then to discussion the terms of it? I assume we will such as the length and the sunsetting and all the other items that we have not thoroughly discussed today. MR. CUYLER: You will, although it would be helpful to my office if you do want those types of things in for discussion that we draft up some language for you to look at. It is easier to take it out than to try to add it at the hearing. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Why don't you amend your motion then to include items like sunsetting and so forth so he knows where we are going? COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. I think that option number two does include sunsetting. But my only concern is that we have the tax imposed for the appropriate amount of time necessary to do the appropriate amount of funding, no more, no less, in our backup materials for these four years. I don't think we have ever had a thorough discussion of whether four years is the exact amount of time we need to do this for. MR. CUYLER: That type of thing I can leave blank. COHHISSIONER NORRIS: That's really my only -- MR. CUYLER: Yes, we can do that. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: -- real concern on this. Option two does say sunsetting, and we want to sunset that, but I think it -- I think we need some further discussion on the exact amount of time that is in place. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I agree. Commissioner Hancock? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: In addition, I would assume we're going to have some discussion whether it is generated by us or by the hotel industry regarding allocations. And it might be helpful if staff -- if the motion maker would like to direct staff to take a look at what reserves we need to build up and what the time line of building those reserves up for maintenance and possibly a future mobilization in the event of a storm. I just want to make sure our reserves are sufficient, and I need that answer as part of the overall question. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Good idea. Does the motion-- you're just asking for addition information when the public hearing comes back? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Correct. It may not need to be a part of the motion if the board agrees that is what they would like to see. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I don't really think that is part of the issue, although it is an interesting proposal to readjust. We have spoken about that in the past. I just don't think it's a part of today's particular discussion. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yes. I also agree with Penny Taylor and Mr. Herms about the sand source. And, again, as a part of this continuing discussion, I am very interested in the sand source not having -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: For someone who has played volleyball on Naples beach, I can tell you it is not all sugar sand. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Not all, but a great deal of it. I'm going to call the question. All those in favor of the motion please say aye. Opposed? There being none, motion passes 5 to 0. If this board doesn't mind, I have a luncheon engagement at noon, and we are very close to the noon hour. Do you mind? I am wondering if we would like to adjourn now for lunch. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Back in an hour? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Back in an hour. (A recess was taken from 11:55 a.m. to 1:10 p.m.) Item #8H12 RESOLUTION 95-372 AUTHORIZING THE COUNTY MANAGER TO AWARD THE SALE OF REFUNDING BONDS - ADOPTED WITH STIPULATIONS CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Let's reconvene the board of county commission meeting for Hatch (sic) 20, 1995. Mr. Cuyler, you have asked me during the lunch break -- the bond refunding question, a couple items away, we have an attorney that needs to catch a two o'clock plane? MR. CUYLER: Yes, ma'am. Item 8-H-12 which is an add-on to your agenda, authorization for the county manager to award the sale of refunding bonds, and I believe Mr. Yonkosky is going to make the initial presentation of this item. It should not take very long. MR. YONKOSKY: Good afternoon, Commissioners. For the record, my name is John Yonkosky. Agenda item 8-H-12 is a recommendation for the board to approve a supplemental resolution authorizing the sale of refunding bonds and delegating acceptance of the bond purchase agreement to the county manager. And just briefly as a way of background, the refunding was approved by the board on January 4, 1994. And it was approved with one major caveat, and that was to realize an 8 percent net present value savings. And shortly thereafter the board approved that and awarded Herrill Lynch the sale of the negotiated bonds. The market went away, and the 8 percent net present value savings went away with it. In the last few months it's come back. And your staff has been working with the finance team to get together the documentations to bring to you -- the documentation to bring to you for the sale. It's just unfortunate that your vacation is scheduled to go at a time when the -- we're real close in the marketplace. So the major thrust of this is to get you to approve the resolution and to authorize the county manager to actually award the bonds. And we have -- the county's finance advisor is here and the bond counsel who needs to go over the resolutions with you. And with that I can turn it over -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Our goal is still to have 8 percent net present value -- MR. YONKOSKY: Yes, ma'am. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: -- savings. MR. YONKOSKY: Eight percent net present value savings. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hancock. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I have a question for Hiss Hankins if I may, Mr. Yonkosky. MR. YONKOSKY: Okay. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Kathy, is this the bond refunding that I talked to you about several months ago? MS. HANKINS: That's correct. It's the very one. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. MS. HANKINS: We've been working with the finance committee and Merrill Lynch. Scott Wiggins in particular has been very good about watching the market, staying tight with it. It's been a very competitive process. The finance committee has one -- at one point about three, four weeks ago rejected it because we were not close enough to the 8 percent. We're there, and it's a good opportunity. I'm excited about being able to say that you can save five hundred -- almost a half a million dollars in your future seventh and ninth cent gas tax revenues simply by going through your refunding. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. And the reason I brought that up is this was brought to my attention by Mr. Wiggins whom I know from -- MS. HANKINS: Yes. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- several years ago, and I immediately turned it over to Miss Hankins for our departmental review. MS. HANKINS: And we brought it right to the finance committee. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: And if I understand it, this is getting to a point that if we wait one or two more years the fund balance may be small enough that the ability to have any realized savings goes away. Is that a fair assessment? MS. HANKINS: Yes. The -- right now the -- the interest rates are just right. We can come in, and we can realize our savings. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Are there further questions for staff? Is there a motion? COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Motion to -- MR. YONKOSKY: You do need to have the bond counsel explain the resolutions to you and the caveats, and it would just take him just a few minutes to do that. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. MR. CUYLER: And you've got the res -- should have the resolution in front of you. It's a package that's been handed out. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Oh, it's a thick one, this one. MR. MILLER: Hi. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Hi. MR. MILLER: Good afternoon. For the record, I'm Steve Miller with Neighbors, Giblin, and Nickerson out of Tampa, Florida, serving as bond counsel to the county. Tom Giblin who you usually see before you gives his apologies. He had a previous business commitment and could not reschedule it. As John pointed out, what this resolution does if you adopt it is it sets some parameters. If the parameters are met, the county administrator has the authority to go out and execute a bond purchase agreement with Merrill Lynch. The parameters for your information are set forth on page 5 and 6 of this resolution. The most critical parameter, as Kathy Hankins pointed out, was the present value debt service savings of 8 percent. If the market never gets to the point where you can save 8 percent, the county administrator does not have the authority to go forward with the bonds. If it does hit that point, he has the ability to pull the trigger and -- and execute the purchase contract with Merrill Lynch. Now, this resolution also requires at your next meeting, July 18, if those parameters are met and he has executed a bond purchase contract, you're required to ratify his actions at that July 18 meeting. There's also came up in the last few days the insurance commitment which they expect to receive any day. He also has the authority to accept that given -- we set a parameter in there with -- working with staff on what the premium would be for that insurance. If the insurance commitment requires any changes to this resolution, on July 18 we'll come back to you and point out these are changes. And you'll have the discretion at that time to say yea or nay on the deal. So we cannot close the transaction until you all take a look at it again on July 18. Any other questions? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: COHMISSIONER NORRIS: COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Any questions? Motion to approve. Second. We have a motion -- MR. DORRILL: I've got just one point that I would like to make. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Dorrill. MR. DORRILL: My understanding -- I'll probably need Mr. Yonkosky's assistance on this. The -- the original selection of this firm is probably almost a year and a half now. Wasn't this January of '94? MR. YONKOSKY: Yes, it was. MR. DORRILL: As part of the board's authorization for me in your absence, I'd like to at least be able to review some of the fees and out-of-pocket expenses and the spread and have those be whatever they were previously authorized at. But if we are able to negotiate a better fee for the county, I would like your latitude. I certainly don't think you'd disagree with that but at least an opportunity to review those. I have not had a chance to discuss that with Mr. Hargett again because he had to leave in a hurry on Friday. And since I have not had a chance to get briefed on that, if you'd at least incorporate that into your motion, and then hopefully we'll have some good news upon your -- your return. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Motion maker modifies to incorporate. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And the second. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second to give the county manager the latitude to refund these bonds provided we have a 8 percent -- MR. CUYLER: And you do that by adopting a -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: -- present value to adopt the resolution. MR. CUYLER: -- resolution. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: The authority that Mr. Dorrill has asked for to negotiate the fees to a -- to a lesser fee. MR. DORRILL: At -- at or less than what they may have previously been. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. All those in favor please say aye. Opposed? Motion passes five to zero. We will move back on the agenda to item 8-H-7, a presentation of the final Gordon River bridge tax referendum pamphlet. I'm wondering if -- Mr. Dotrill, if we should delay this until 12-C. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I was going just to ask that we do that. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah, can we do that? MR. DORRILL: So that -- so that I will know, have you all previously received those? COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: No. MR. DORRILL: Okay. Mr. Saadeh has those in my office. We'll -- we'll try and get them out here. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Actually mine was here this morning. MR. DORRILL: That's what I'm saying. Were they there? Very good. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah, I've got one. MR. DORRILL: That's fine. I just wanted to know. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. We will hear this item with 12-C-1 as well as the two items in the earlier part of the agenda. Item #8H8 PUBLIC HEARING DATES OF SEPTEHBER 6 AND SEPTEHBER 20, 1995 AT 5:05 P.H. ESTABLISHED FOR THE ADOPTION OF THE FISCAL YEAR 1995-96 COLLIER COUNTY BUDGET Next item is 8-H-8, to establish public hearing dates for the adoption of the fiscal year '95, '96 budget. MR. SHYKOWSKI: Correct. For the record, Michael Smykowski, acting budget director. This is an item a little more out of courtesy to the other taxing districts. Per Florida Statute the school board has initial priority in establishing its public hearing date. For their public hearing they have selected September 18. The hearing dates utilized by the commission and the school board cannot be utilized by any other taxing authority within the county for their public hearing. So they cannot fix their public hearing dates until the board has selected its dates. The proposed dates in meeting the trim calendar are Wednesday, September 6, 1995, and then two weeks later for the final hearing, Wednesday, September 20. Both would be at 5:05. Statute requires them to occur after five o'clock. So this is merely just establishing the dates. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Motion to approve. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second to approve the dates as outlined by Mr. Smykowski. Are there further questions? All those in favor please say aye. Opposed? There being none, motion passes five to zero. MR. SHYKOWSKI: Thank you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. Item #SH10 RESOLUTION 95-373 APPROVING THE TRANSFER OF FRANCHISE AGREEHENTS FROH COLONY CABLEVISION OF FLORIDA TO CONTINENTAL CABLEVISION - ADOPTED Next item on the agenda is 8-H-10, a recommendation to approve the transfer of franchise agreements from Colony Cable to Continental Cable. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Madam Chairman, this is a transfer based solely on a name change for Continental, is that correct, or is there a -- an operational change? MS. EDWARDS: It's a merger. It's a merger, and they did submit the required application package. It has been reviewed by county staff, county attorney's office, and the county manager's advisory committee. And everyone is recommending that the transfer be approved by the board. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Do we have public speakers? MR. DORRILL: One. Mr. Gaston. MR. GASTON: Yes. For the record, my name is William R. Gaston, president, Marco Island Cable. As this board is aware, Continental Cablevision of Boston is in the process of purchasing Colony Cablevision. In Collier County your ordinance 8890 as amended requires that Continental in association with Colony apply to this board and that at an advertised public hearing receive approval before this sale can be consummated in unincorporated -- unincorporated areas of this county. The sale's further subject to Collier County ordinance 8890, section 1713, which provides that the franchisee cannot assign, sell, or transfer its plant, system, or any portion thereof or any right under the ordinance of the franchise without prior consent and approval of the county which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld and only then upon such conditions as the county deems necessary and proper. While the previous section does not establish any specific guidelines for the county's withholding its consent to the approval of the assignment, sale, or transfer of a cable television franchise, it would seem, however, that the county's withholding its consent to the approval of the assignment, sale, or transfer. A cable company -- a cable television franchise would not be unreasonably withheld if the county were aware of information which would otherwise warrant non-renewal or termination of that franchise. Section 313, the renewal of the franchise, renewal franchise, subparagraph 1 of the ordinance provides that the county in considering whether or not to renew a cable franchise shall consider if the cable operator has substantially complied with the material terms of the existing franchise and with applicable law and pursuant to subparagraph 2 of section 313, if the quality of the operator's service, including billing practices, has been reasonable in light of community needs. In light of the foregoing, there is no question that the county in order to protect its citizens and to help assure continued growth and competition has the right, if not the duty, to conduct an inquiry into the renewability and, hence, the transferability of the franchise from Colony to Continental. I would like to respectfully request that you at least wait until the county's audit has been completed before a decision is rendered in this matter. This is allowed within your ordinance. No harm is done by waiting. Please note the sale cannot take place until and only if the FCC approves the transfer. The comment period for the FCC transfer does not even end until this Friday, making an FCC approval of this sale at least three weeks away. There is no need to make a decision today. You receive $10,000 to cover costs to assure the public is protected in this transfer. It was not the county's fault that Continental's check did not arrive until one month after the application was submitted. It's not the county's fault that the application was not complete until just several weeks ago. Please don't blindly approve this transfer. There are many, many issues still outstanding in this matter, and I've written you each individually. My attorney has written you each individually on some of these issues that need to be brought to light. Thank you very much. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Cuyler, Mr. Gaston bought -- brought forward the comment that a public hearing is required to transfer this franchise; is that correct? MR. CUYLER: I'll let my capable expert handle that. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: And does this qualify? MS. ASHTON: Okay. I'd like to respond to that. For the record, I'm Heidi Ashton, assistant county attorney. The initial application for a new franchise requires a advertising -- a duly advertised public hearing. We were of the opinion that the regular agenda which is printed in the paper would be sufficient for a transfer since the transfer was not addressed in that section that deals with the public advertisement. So it's our opinion that we complied with the ordinance. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Any questions regarding Hiss Ashton's interpretation? Commissioner Hancock? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I hear Mr. Gaston basically saying that we should not renew the franchise, that we should turn down Colony basically. MR. GASTON: No, absolute -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, in essence -- in essence, sir, the things that you cited as reasons for not acting today would be the same thing someone would cite to not renew the franchise. MR. GASTON: What I'm asking -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: So I'm asking for information to back this up. And, Hiss Edwards, do we have complaints and back-up that justify Mr. Gaston's position that we not act on this today? MS. EDWARDS: We -- we have Mr. Gaston's information and request for us to perform an investigation. We have told him that we indeed will perform an investigation but that we do not think that that is something that should cause us to hold up this transfer. It's not a part of the criteria that needs to be examined relative to the transfer. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And should the results of that investigation show that Colony or Continental at that time is not meeting its obligations as set forth in the agreement, we then have the right and ability as this board to revoke that; is that correct? MS. EDWARDS: Yes, we have action that we can take. MR. GASTON: If I could point out, Commissioner, it's very hard at that particular point once the -- you've allowed the transfer to take place. There are two places where a board such as this has very significant capability in regulating the cable industry: On transfer of control and renewal. And I think you're allowing, if you approve this today without a full investigation into this -- at least hiring a consultant. You've got $10,000 to hire a consultant to review this matter, look into the issues, look into a lot of the issues that are present here. At least take several weeks to do that. No harm's going to be done. They can't transfer control until the Federal Communications Commission issues their stamp of approval on this matter. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Gaston, even with our interruption of your time to speak with Mr. Ashton, your five minutes is expired. MR. GASTON: I'm sorry. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. Are there further questions? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Hiss Edwards, you've become intimately familiar with the cable laws in the last 18 months. Do you feel we're blindly moving forward with this? Or are you comfortable that we have appropriate information on which to act? MS. EDWARDS: I'm recommending approval to transfer. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Other questions? Is there a motion? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Hove to approve. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Second. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second to approve the recommendation of staff and transfer the franchise agreement. MS. EDWARDS: Although I do have two changes I need to -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. MS. EDWARDS: -- read into the record. I apologize. We have had to make some changes to the resolution. If you will turn in your package to page 3 of your agenda package, line 22 of the resolution, first word in the line is amended, comma, except franchise fee calculations which will be governed by the Colony franchise agreements as assigned. And then I want to add to line 27 which begins with 1991 to present, comma, however, Continental is not waiving the right to review said audit report and to object to miscalculations or errors contained therein. That's all the changes we have. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: accept the changes? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. Does the motion maker Yes. Second? Yes. Is there further discussion? Call the question. All those in favor please say aye. Opposed? Motion carries five to zero. Thank you, Miss Edwards. MS. EDWARDS: Thank you. Item #SHll CONSTRUCTION WORK ORDER VC-1 UNDER CONTRACT 95-2334 FOR IHPROVEHENTS AT BAYSIDE PARK - AWARDED TO VARIAN CONSTRUCTION CO. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Next item on the agenda is 8-H-11, to award a construction work order VC-1 under contract for improvements to Bayside Park. MR. CONRECODE: Good afternoon, board members. For the record, Tom Conrecode from your capital projects office. The item before you is the first work order under the county's new annual construction contracts. We have a -- four contractors, four general contractors, who are under the annual contract. We've bid them against each other for this work as it's proposed at Bayview Park. The low bidder under that process was Varian Construction, and we're recommending award to Varian in the amount $105,803.50, and it's budgeted. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Are there questions? COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Move approval. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second. Mr. Conrecode, I have one question. When we were discussing Lake Avalon and the list of items that was previously scheduled for that $500,000 expenditure or 800,000, whatever it was, there were Bayview Park improvements on that list. Is this part of that group of improvements for regional park impact fees? MR. CONRECODE: I wasn't a part of the Lake Avalon presentation. I'll check that with Tom Olliff to find out. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Dorrill, would you happen to know? MR. DORRILL: No, ma'am, not offhand. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Cuyler? MR. CUYLER: Madam Chairman, I don't know the answer to that. On another issue, if I'm not mistaken, Tom, I'm supposed to put on the record that we need to make some changes, not substantive changes, but some changes to the work order pursuant to conversations between you and Mr. Pettit? MR. CONRECODE: That's correct. Those changes have already been made, but they're minor and that the board will be presented -- MR. CUYLER: Well, they're a little different than the one in the agenda package. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I've -- I've -- I've got a little bit of a question about double spending this money. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Commissioner Matthews' question is valid. Until we can get an answer to that, I'll withdraw the second. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I'll second. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second. MR. CONRECODE: If -- if you'd like, we can go forward with the item. And if there's a problem, we can bring it back to you the first meeting in July. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Can we ask the motion maker to make the motion contingent on the monies not being double spent? COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Absolutely. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: So if you -- if you find that it is from funds we've already committed to something else, you will bring it back. MR. CONRECODE: Yes, ma'am. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Does the second accept that? COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Second accepts. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Good. If there's no further discussion, I'll call the question. All those in favor please say aye. Motion passes five to zero. MR. CONRECODE: Thank you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Conrecode. Item #8H13 REQUEST IN SUPPORT OF THE COHMUNITY FOCUS VISIONING PROJECT - STAFF RECOHMENDATION APPROVED Next item on the agenda is item 8-A -- 8-H-13. This is a request from the focus committee; correct, Mr. Dorrill? MR. DORRILL: Yes, ma'am. In fact, I had met with Mayor Putzell to review -- previously the board had approved your participation in this community endeavor. And, in fact, I think we're shown as one of the charter members or a -- a founding and sponsoring member of this very worthwhile cause. The board had reviewed a status report of this I believe in March. I might be incorrect on that. The total funding for their request is outlined in the executive summary. They have identified a portion of that funding to come from the various sponsoring entities. And the nature of that is $20,000 in total of which we will share. 15,000 is proposed to be our portion of the funding and then $5,000 in funding from the city of Naples which I understand has also been committed to. I had asked Mayor Putzell to be here in the event that you had any questions. But I'm seeking your approval to authorize a budget amendment based on prior direction and to coordinate the actual payment and disbursement of those funds through Ms. Hankins and the clerk's finance department under their normal required policy. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. Are there questions? Is there a motion? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Motion to approve. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second to approve the recommendation from staff, that is, to contribute $15,000 to the focus committee. If there's no further discussion, I'll call the question. All in favor please say aye. Opposed? Motion passes five to zero. Thank you. Mayor Putzell, an excellent presentation. MR. PUTZELL: Best one I've ever given. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: And a very short one. Thank you, Mr. Dotrill. Item #9A RESOLUTION 95-374 AND 95-375 AUTHORIZING THE HOUSING FINANCE AUTHORITY OF COLLIER COUNTY TO ISSUE MULTI-FAMILY HOUSING REVENUE BONDS TO BE USED TO FINANCE TWO QUALIFYING LOW/MODERATE INCOME PROJECTS; SAXON MANOR ISLES AND GARDEN WALK VILLAGE- ADOPTED Next item on the agenda is item 9-A, a request from the housing finance authority. MR. CUYLER: Madam Chairman, this is one of those items that Mr. Pickworth coordinates with our office to get on the agenda. I put it under the county attorney's report. Mr. Pickworth is present to make the presentation, and I would ask him to do so at this time. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Pickworth. MR. PICKWORTH: Good afternoon, Commissioners. I'm Don Pickworth representing the housing finance authority. These -- as -- as Mr. Cuyler mentioned, these are resolutions which we bring to you from time to time. These are two projects, one in Immokalee, one off of Radio Road, both of whom have approached the housing finance authority about the possibility of tax-exempt financing for these projects. We have held an initial public hearing on both of these projects and have at least to this point determined that they are worthy of further consideration. In order for that to happen, the next step is that the board has to give its approval so that we can apply to the state for one of these state volume cap allocations. So we are here today on that. These resolutions as always in no way abrogate your later zoning and land use power. One of these projects, as a matter of fact, will have to go through zoning at some point in time. And we -- as I said in my executive summary, we point out to the applicants that in no way does the housing finance authority's consideration of this in any way constitute any kind of a sign-off or an approval or anything else that has to do with land use. That's something they're going to have to separately bring up with you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Are there questions? Commissioner Hancock. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'll move approval. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: I just wanted to -- I haven't gone through many of these, but I -- is it my understanding that ad valorem taxes are not -- not allocated to back these bonds up at all? MR. PICKWORTH: That's correct. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: It's a revenue bond completely based on the success of the project. MR. PICKWORTH: That's -- that's correct. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. MR. CUYLER: MAdam Chairman, there are two resolutions. One is at page 3. I believe it's page 3 of your agenda package. And the other one is at page 9 of your agenda package. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Can we have a single motion for both? MR. CUYLER: Do you want two motions? MR. PICKWORTH: If I could because they'll probably be at separate times, and then when I do minute excerpts it's easier if I had separate motions -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. MR. PICKWORTH: -- if that's okay. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion for the -- we have a motion. Is that for the first one? COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yes, for 95, dash, blank, but it's the first motion on page 3 of this agenda packet. Move approval. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: housing bond. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: This is for the 16 million dollar Yes. Second. Okay. We have a motion and a second to approve the 16 million dollar housing finance authority. there further discussion? All in favor please say aye. Opposed? Motion passes five to zero. Is there a motion for the second one? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yes. Move approval of the second Is resolution, the 15 million dollar reference to Garden Walk Village project. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second approving a bond not to exceed 15 million dollars for Garden Walk Village project. Is there further discussion? All in favor please say aye. Opposed? Motion passes five to zero. MR. PICKWORTH: Thank you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Pickworth. Item #9B SETTLEMENT IN THE CASE OF MOLVIN W. OLSEN AND PATRICIA OLSEN, AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVES OF THE ESTATE OF SUAN ANN OLSEN, DECEASED, V. B & D TRANSPORTATION SERVICE, INC. D/B/A BUDGET RENT-A-CAR OF SOUTHWEST FLORIDA, GARY H. GREGORY, AN INDIVIDUAL AND COLLIER COUNTY (CASE NO. 94-1452-CA-01) - APPROVED Next item on the agenda is item 9-B. Mr. Cuyler, do you want to walk us through this? MR. CUYLER: Mr. Bryant is here for a presentation of this item. MR. BRYANT: May it please the board. This matter evolved out of a double fatality in southern Golden Gate Estates you might remember occurred almost a little over a year and a half ago at Stewart and Miller Boulevards. The matter is set for trial or was set for trial on both the Olsen and the Meyers case for July of this year. The court orders the plaintiff and defendant to go into mediation prior to the trial. After approximately an eight-hour mediation period with an initial demand starting off at $660,000, the county was able to reach a mediated settlement with the Olsen family of $40,000 based upon board approval. Our exposure's $100,000 in that matter. State Farm and the Budget Rent-A-Car company both are contributing along with Anchor Insurance another $200,000. We were able to settle our case for less than half of what the other defendants did. Our liability is alleged to be because of no signing at Stewart and Miller Boulevard which now is signed and was part of the signing plan that this board approved in April of last year. We would recommend to the board at this time that both risk management, our excess carrier, and the county attorney's office believe this is a very fair settlement to the county and that based upon our analysis of the case $40,000 is a fair settlement to the county. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Move approval of staff's recommendation. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Second. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second to approve staff recommendation. Is there further discussion? All those in favor please say aye. Motion passes five to zero. Item #9C REQUEST FOR REVIEW OF A MEDIATION IMPASSE IN THE CASE OF MARY LOU BROOKE V. COLLIER COUNTY (CASE NO. 93-4491-CA-01) - STAFF RECOMMENDATION APPROVED Next item on the agenda, 9-C, a request to review a mediation impasse. MR. BRYANT: May it please the board. The reason we brought this matter to you is that when -- we have an obligation to present to you offers for settlement so that you as the client can make the ultimate decision. The Court likewise ordered mediation in this course -- in this case, and it's set for trial later in the summer of this year. We went to mediation. The plaintiff initially demanded $100,000 of the county. This is basically a classic slip and fall on a sidewalk in Pelican Bay. The county rejected those amounts. We went back and forth as is done in mediation. We reached an impasse with the county offering $15,000 and the plaintiff coming down to a final demand of $48,000. We brought this matter to you and invited the plaintiff's counsel to be here to make a presentation to you. Staff is still recommending $15,000 as our cap at settlement. However, we told the plaintiff's counsel if they wanted to make a presentation the time would be at this time to go before the board. MR. CUYLER: Mr. Bryant, do we need to put on the record this is an ongoing case and has not been settled? MR. BRYANT: That's correct, just like the earlier one is, and it is -- that's why I said it's set for trial later this summer. I would require or request that counsel stipulate that any discussion here today be discussion based upon settlement and not be used or be able to be used at trial. MR. PARRISH: That would be fine. MR. BRYANT: Okay. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Constantine? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Bryant? MR. BRYANT: Yes, sir. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let me just make sure I understand the facts here as they've been presented. The plaintiff went for a walk with some regularity for 11 years on a particular route, unfortunately tripped and fell sometime in the eleventh year, and now wants $50,000 for tripping on that sidewalk. MR. BRYANT: That's it in a nutshell, Commissioner. In fact, I would use one of your comments that this case is a classic example of somebody wanting somebody else to take responsibility for their actions. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Are there other questions? COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: With that introduction -- MR. PARRISH: Yeah, with that in mind, I'm -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: You're on. MR. PARRISH: -- the attorney for the plaintiff in this case, and I have a feeling the facts as we see them are a little bit different. My name is John Parfish. I'm with Harter, Secrest, and Emery. I represent Mary Lou Brooke who's back there in the front row to your left I guess. The facts of the case are that we're dealing with an area of the sidewalk in Pelican Bay. This is a picture of where the incident took place. As you can see, there is a series of erosion and holes here which were in existence in February of 1992. Now, the county has a regular policy where they go and they inspect these areas of sidewalk yearly, monthly, drive-bys. That's all in the record. What happened was that this area of sidewalk had not been repaired at that time. Ms. Brooke was walking with her husband abreast, and her foot caught in the hole. Now, the county policy is that any hole that's in excess of an inch and an eighth deep as this one is by -- MR. CUYLER: You need to stay on the microphone. MR. PARRISH: I'm sorry -- as this one is as represented in this photograph, one and three-sixteenths inch deep, according to your own policies, that hole should be roped off and should be repaired. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: By one -- by one-sixteenth of an inch. MR. PARRISH: Now, you're all smiling. MR. BRYANT: That's correct, Commissioner, one-sixteenth. MR. PARRISH: Well, that's -- that's how much it exceeds the minimum. That's the farthest down on the scale that it goes; okay? In any case -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Can you go back to the first photograph just for a moment? MR. PARRISH: Sure. This hole is filled with grass at this point in time. This is February of 1992. It has since been repaired, and I should call to your attention the fact that another gentleman fell on this very same sidewalk and broke his wrist. Sometime shortly thereafter the sidewalk was repaved to fill in those holes. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: How far away would you say the photographer was when that picture there was taken? MR. PARRISH: How far away? COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: From -- from -- MR. PARRISH: I'd say that's probably 20 feet or so. I mean, that's a guess on my part. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Readily visible. MR. PARRISH: It would be partially readily visible, and I'll address that in a moment. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: exhibit, I'd -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: maybe. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Partially readily visible. Partially readily. Wait. Before you go to the next That's like yesterday's probable Your second exhibit, that measurement, what was the time lapse between the accident and when that was taken? MR. PARRISH: This measurement was taken about a year and a half after the accident. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: A year and a half after the accident? MR. PARRISH: Yeah, and since that time apparently someone had gone and killed the grass that had been growing up in the hole. That grass in a way disguises the location of the hole if you're actually out there and looking at it. What happened to Mrs. Brooke was a very severe injury. She had a patella fracture. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Excuse me. Excuse me. Commissioner -- MR. PARRISH: I'm sorry. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: -- Norris has a question. MR. PARRISH: Yes. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: On that you say it was a year and a half before you went out and took that photograph. MR. PARRISH: Yes. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Had it rained in that area in the interim? MR. PARRISH: Well, I would suggest it probably did. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I would too. I think that would probably make some difference in that depth of that hole. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Maybe a sixteenth of an inch? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: It could. MR. PARRISH: I think if I continue on with -- with what I planned to present to you, you'll see where I'm coming from on this issue because I recognize that you're suggesting there's comparative negligence in this case. While I'm not going to admit that because I'm an attorney, I would suggest that there may, in fact, be some hypothetically. However, the injuries in the case were very severe, and the question becomes how much of that injury is the county responsible for. We have a patella fracture. Following that we had a subsequent injury due to the weakness in the knee which was a hip fracture. Now, I've done a little research, and this is the research that was presented at mediation. And that gives you a range of some similar cases which dealt with patellar injuries and hip fractures. One of them is on a city sidewalk, and it's a patella fracture, and the awards ranged -- give you a range of four hundred fifty-one to six hundred thousand dollars. Now, the county's only liable for $100,000. That's sovereign immunity, and the comparative negligence statutes in this state would allow us to go into court in trial and claim the number that we have here in a similar instance. Miss Brooke has $30,000 in medical expenses on this case. And what would occur is that if she were found 80 percent negligent and were to receive this award, the county would still be liable for $100,000. We have presented a discounted settlement of $48,000 to the county. We believe that's fair. This sidewalk has since been repaired. Injuries were occurring on it. People were going by looking at it that were with the county, and it was never fixed before. Thank you. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Bryant. MR. BRYANT: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: If we went to trial on this, what would just our associated trial costs alone reasonably be? MR. BRYANT: Minimal. Less than $2,000. MR. PARRISH: It's a two-day trial. MR. BRYANT: One thing I would submit to the board also, $30,000 is what Miss Brooke is alleging total medical she's had. She's only got like $3,500 I think out-of-pocket expenses. MR. PARRISH: That's actually more like 6,000, but the way we gauge cases as lawyers is we look at total medicals, so that's what I was presenting. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Other questions? Commissioner Hancock? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: That was going to be my question is what insurance coverage was there, what out-of-pocket expenses. So obviously we're not talking about -- and I don't think anyone up here intends to make light of the injury suffered. MR. PARRISH: I understand. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: But there's a certain tolerance limit that -- that we all realize when it comes to personal injury, and it seems to be getting out of hand these days. And what you're probably seeing is a reaction to that. MR. PARRISH: I understand that. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: And to be out of pocket $6,000 and to request 48,000 seems out of line to me, and I certainly can't support it. MR. PARRISH: Well, let me clarify one thing before I'm through, and that is that this injury required three months of rehabilitation and about six or eight weeks of total immobility, and in addition to that, what has occurred to Mrs. Brooke is that she is getting arthritis as a result of this injury. It's a crepitus in the knee, and what happens is that her cartilage wears down. There's a crunching sound, and eventually that will degrade, and she will probably have to have future surgeries. So to clarify all that with respect to the medical would be important to put the whole picture before you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Norris? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: My inclination is to take our chances in court, although I know there is some associated risk with that. I'll make a motion that we offer the $15,000 that we have mediated to; if that's not accepted, that we go to court. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll second that motion. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second. Is there further discussion? There being none, call the question. All in favor please say aye. MR. BRYANT: Thank you, Madam Chairman. MR. PARRISH: Thank you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Opposed? None. Motion passes five to zero. Thank you, Mr. Bryant. Item #9D RESOLUTION 95-376 REGARDING QUASI-JUDICIAL ITEMS AND ACCESS TO LOCAL OFFICIALS - ADOPTED Next item on the agenda is -- Hr. Cuyler, do you want us to readopt the disclosure resolution? MR. CUYLER: Yes. You know what this is. You looked at it carefully a couple weeks ago. I would ask that we save a resolution number, just readopt that, and I'll put in this one that it supersedes the prior one. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Move approval of the readoption of the -- MR. CUYLER: It's -- I'm referring to it as the disclosure resolution. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Disclosure resolution. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second to readopt the disclosure resolution that was passed a few weeks ago. If there's no discussion, I'll call. All in favor please say aye. Opposed? There being none, motion passes five to zero. Item #10A RESOLUTION 95-377 APPOINTING MEMBERS TO THE SOUTHWEST FLORIDA PRIVATE INDUSTRY COUNCIL, INC. - ADOPTED Next item on the agenda is item 10-A, an appointment of members to the southwest Florida private industry council. MS. FILSON: I put that on. The JTPA -- the southwest Florida private industry council just needs the commissioners to confirm the appointments to this committee. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: They've already been appointed, and we just need to confirm them? MS. FILSON: They haven't been appointed. They want you to confirm the appointments. They're recommending them. They're submitting the names for appointment and requesting that the commissioners confirm. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Motion to approve. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second to confirm these -- these appointments. All those in favor please say aye. Opposed? Motion passes five to zero. Item #10B RESOLUTION 95-378 REAPPOINTING RHONA SUANDERS AND APPOINTING SHARON HANLON, AND J. P. GUNTHER-HOHR TO THE EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES ADVISORY COHMITTEE - ADOPTED Next item on the agenda is appointment of members to the emergency medical services advisory committee. Miss Filson? MS. FILSON: This item is to appoint three members, one reappointment to Ms. Rhona Saunders. As you know, she was serving the at large position, and we moved her to the district board because it was so hard to get applicants for that one. And then the other two recommendations for appointment are J. P. Gunther-Mohr representing district 2 and Sharon Hanlon representing the at large position. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Move approval of those recommendations. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: So we're appointing three members? MS. FILSON: That's correct. Reappointing one and appointing two. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Is there a second? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Wait a minute. Excuse me. I got a little lost there. There's four names. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: There's a -- the motion is to reappoint Rhona Saunders and appoint J. P. Gunther-Mohr and Sharon Hanlon. MS. FILSON: Yeah, there's three vacancies, four applicants. COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Might I suggest for the board's consideration to put Dr. Biles in as the at large? COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Who's -- who's presently recommended as the at large? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Sharon Hanlon. MS. FILSON: Sharon Hanlon. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Sharon Hanlon is the person who I thought of the applicants was the most qualified to serve, so -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. There is a motion to appoint Rhona Saunders, J. P. Gunther-Mohr, and Sharon Hanlon. Is there a second? COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll second the motion. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second. Is there further discussion? All those in favor please say aye. Opposed? Motion passes five to zero. Thank you, Miss Filson. Item #10C VACANCY DECLARED ON BLACK AFFAIRS ADVISORY BOARD FOR MR. HODGES' SEAT Next item on the agenda is -- I believe we're being asked to declare a vacancy on the black affairs advisory board? MS. FILSON: Yes, ma'am. That's on the black advisory -- black affairs advisory board. I received a memorandum from human resources director indicating that Clayton Leon Hodge has not attended the last eight meetings. He was sent meeting notices, and he has been verbally notified of the last two meetings and has not attended. They would like to declare that vacant so I can advertise over the vacation period. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Hove to declare a vacancy of Mr. Hodge's seat. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second to declare a vacancy on the black affairs advisory board. Discussion? All in favor please say aye. Opposed? There being none, motion passes five to zero. Item #10D STAFF DIRECTED TO ENTER INTO FORMAL DISCUSSIONS WITH THE COLLIER COUNTY GOLF AUTHORITY AND BRING BACK THE MATTER TO THE BCC IN AUGUST, 1995 Next -- COMHISSIONER NORRIS: stuff. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: And now to the really important Yes. The golf. We -- we have a presentation, and they have said they needed ten minutes from the Collier Golf Authority Incorporated. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Start the clock. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Glass is going to make a presentation. MR. GLASS: Actually two of us will be making. I'm going to talk just a second. First I want to tell you -- Arnold Lee Glass, Collier Golf Authority chairman, former commissioner too. I kind of feel funny standing up here on this end looking at you all like this. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Trade with you. MR. GLASS: I never thought I'd be back here. Anyway, Collier Golf Authority was founded in 1979 by Jack Breeden over here, the president of the authority, and been working ever since to for the citizens of Collier County who can't afford to play golf in the -- in the wintertime or other times of the year. They're working to build an affordable golf course, and we are looking at the land that's -- that we -- was designated as a potential expansion site for the landfill. And we are looking at a proposal that will not cost Collier County any money. We'll be funding it through a private source, and we can build a 27-hole course and hopefully expand it to 36 sometimes in the future as the demand would require. What we're looking for is your support from the point of view of allowing us to buy the land hopefully. We'll work out some way that we can negotiate. It's mutually beneficial for the citizens of the county and the government and everybody without encumbering any costs from the taxpayer. What I'm going to do now, I'm going to turn it over to the representative David Shaw who is the first vice president, Kemper Financial Investment Banking Incorporated. He's going to be the man that's going to be doing our financing. And I feel that's more important for you to hear than for me to stand here and just talk. David. MR. SHAW: Time is relevant then, isn't it? First off, I'm happy to be here, and thanks for giving us the time. These gentlemen promised me a beautiful Florida day and a great night's sleep last night, and I got neither one, so we'll be brief because I'm going to torture them later. Kemper Securities is the tenth largest brokerage firm on Wall Street. We specialize in unique financings. And many of you have heard of our Kemper golf tournament which we just hosted several weeks ago. We've been very active in the sport. Our first financing a golf course actually came about 15 years ago at a small golf course in western part of Chicago called Kemper Lakes. And Kemper Lakes has been the championship course for several PGA tournaments and several USGA tournaments. Since that time we've been financing courses around the country. As first vice president I work out of Chicago and out of my home in Indianapolis. But I spend most of my time in meetings like this day in and day out. So if you think it's torture one day, you ought to do this every day. At least you get a break for lunch, and you don't start at six o'clock at night and go to midnight. Yeah, it's relevant. But we feel that this is a great opportunity. We've worked with golf associates who would be the manager of the project in several different regions around the country in developing this concept. We've worked in cities like Denver, Cleveland, Portland, Chicago, Indianapolis. We think that the viability of this program is excellent. We think that we're at the very beginning stages, though. We don't want to sit here and say in ten months you're going to be teeing off on the first hole and everybody's going to be happy. But we think this is the beginning stage. We're very excited about the project. We see it as being very viable to everyone. And this is a unique area where you have a lot of golf courses with a lot of people who can't play them. And as you look at demand for public, reasonably priced golf courses, this seems to be a great answer. Kemper Securities wants to work with both the authority, the developers, and obviously the county commissioners in trying to make this project work for everyone at no cost to the taxpayers of the county, and that's the key. But we're at the beginning stages, and we'd just like -- I think what we're asking for today is approval to start the process to see how we can make this go forward, and I'll answer any questions. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Questions? Commissioner Constantine. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just a thought. Considering the 300 acres prior to any of us being on the board was scheduled to be a landfill -- it would have been about 100 feet from some folks' houses -- this is certainly getting lemonade from a lemon. I donlt know how we would go about it, but Iid be more than happy to make a motion to direct staff to open some sort of formal discussions to see if this is possible. Therels certainly a demand for affordable public golf. Itls a -- we have no shortage of courses here. We do have a shortage of affordable priced golf here. And I think if we could have something thatls at virtually no expense to the taxpayer and have yet that recreational activity affordable, everybody -- everybody wins on that. So I would like to make some sort of motion that we direct staff to sit down with these folks and see if and how we can make this a reality and bring us back some sort of report maybe mid August, somewhere in that neighborhood. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Iim perfectly willing to sit down and hear what they have to say and see what their proposal is, so Iill second that motion. MR. SHAW: Great. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Dotrill, who actually owns the land? Does the enterprise fund own it, or does the county general fund own it? MR. DORRILL: It is owned and the deed is held by the Board of County Commissioners as trustee and in this case but accruing to the benefit of the enterprise fund, solid waste. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Commissioner Hancock. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: If this were not used for another purpose, in all likelihood if we declare it surplus inventory and sell it, it would go towards probably residential use? MR. DORRILL: Thatls -- thatls my inclination. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: So is the board in agreement that we should give direction to further investigate this? I like the idea of it. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I think welre seeing a lot of -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I think itls worth taking a look, you know, whether you play golf or not, removing the potential for residences from inventory and maintaining open space and those types of things. Those are all benefits for a community. So whether you play or not, I think it has something in it for the community as a whole. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Well, also as a golf course it puts the property back on the tax rolls. MR. SHAW: Thatls correct. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Oh, therels a point. MR. SHAW: You know, itls interesting. This community, as we were driving through, I kept thinking with all the golf courses, this is like a community full of Rolls Royces. There just arenlt any Fords to drive. Thatls sort of the way I look at this. Maybe welre going to build a Ford for the regular folks. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Fine. Thank you. We have a motion and a second. Iim not sure that we really need it. But the direction is that Mr. Dotrill have staff work with the Collier Golf Authority to investigate this. Is there further discussion? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: One question quickly. Does -- welve talked about a 40-acre maintenance facility in that same area; is that correct? MR. GLASS: May I address that? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: So that -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Glass, you have to come to the microphone. MR. GLASS: Arnold Lee Glass again. That point has been addressed with us and Kemper. And if we have to, we'll even donate a portion of that land to help build that facility there. So the county will not be without a maintenance facility. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: So the two are not mutually exclusive. MR. GLASS: No, they're not because we can even put our maintenance barns over near the same area so it would be mutually beneficial for all of us. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. That was my concern. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: If there's no further discussion, all in favor please say aye. Opposed? There being none, motion passes five to zero. PUBLIC COHMENT - MARJORIE WARD REPRESENTING CITIZENS ASSOCIATION OF BONITA BEACH REGARDING OFFSHORE EXPLORATION - STAFF TO PREPARE RESOLUTION AND BRING BACK TO BCC MR. DORRILL: I will advise you you do have a public comment today, and now would be the time to accommodate that. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Now is the time for public comment. We do have a person requesting public comment? MR. DORRILL: Yes, ma'am. Ms. Ward? MR. GLASS: Thank you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you very much. MR. WARD: Excuse the delay. I didn't expect to be on quite so soon. For the record, my name is Marjorie Ward, and I am here representing CABB, Citizens Association of Bonita Beach, as its president. Last year you submitted a resolution passed by the board at our request and forwarded to the chairman of two different house committees in Washington, D.C. It requested support of a house bill then in that -- in those committees and asked that it be voted out of committee onto the floor of the house for a vote which we hoped would be affirmative. It had to do with restrictions and requirements on offshore exploration, leasing, and drilling of oil on the outer continental shelf lands offshore of Florida. Unfortunately, despite yours and other support, it languished in committee. So in this current session two new bills, HR72 and HR73, have once again been submitted by our representative Porter Goss on behalf of himself and Representative Johnson who is also representing Florida. I have copies of the two bills as well as a copy of the resolution that was used last year so that County Attorney Cuyler can redo the resolution in an effort to save time where he would only have to change the resolution numbers and those numbers on the bills. Copies of your covering letter by Commission Chairman Constantine is also attached where we have inserted the name of the current committee, the name of the chairman, address, et cetera, to expedite the process. We'd appreciate being supplied by you with a copy of the completed resolution and covering letter so that we may enclose the copies in a packet to Representative Goss with other governmental entities, chambers, and environmental groups who we're once again working with to protect the southwest Florida shorelines from pollution which would not only affect our beaches and our endangered species but the economy of our area as well. And these I have for you. And if you commissioners would care for a copy yourself, I've also made copies for each of you of the resolution from last year so that you would be aware of what was going on. Do you want me to -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: You can give those to Mr. Cuyler. MS. WARD: -- just pass it up to you? If you can do anything on this before you take your hiatus, it would be helpful as well because we're trying to move this along as rapidly as possible. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We don't ordinarily take any action at the public comment. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: But '- MS. WARD: Well, I'm just leaving it -- I'm just presenting it to you. And whatever you can do is for the benefit of all of southwest Florida and very much appreciated. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you -- thank you, Mrs. Ward. MR. WARD: Thank you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Is there direction from this board on -- on how we may handle this? Commissioner Mac'Kie? COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, I'm very interested in -- in reinstating that resolution. And, Mr. Cuyler, is it inappropriate for us -- are we unable to take action if I wanted to move approval of a resolution similar to that proposed? MR. CUYLER: You normally do not. It's not part of your agenda today, so other people wouldn't be able to make a comment on it. Is there truly something that's going to be happening between now and the 18th of July? MR. WARD: It's just the -- MR. CUYLER: And if there's not, then I would hold it over. If you've got an emergency, then, you know, if you need to do it, then do it. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And, Ken, isn't this -- I mean, is there anything illegal about it, or is this more of this county folklore kind of policy? I mean -- MR. CUYLER: Probably in between. I mean, agenda items, you're supposed to give notice of what you're doing in terms of your agenda. That's why you add things on in the morning so everybody knows what you're -- is there anything that's going to be happening between now and July 187 MR. WARD: The idea -- the only idea behind it is the faster we can get it into -- the input into this committee up there maybe we can get them off their derriere this year and get it on the floor of the house because they've been trying to do this rather than just have it a year-to-year proposition. However, it will be in the session until the end of the session, but I just wanted to get it to you as rapidly as I could. MR. CUYLER: If you don't hold me to this for future items, if you feel you need to move on this and it's that type of item, then I'll leave it to your discretion. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I -- I just wonder -- I don't want to call on you if it's inappropriate, Hiss Corkran. But Virginia Corkran and I had had some discussions about this, and I even have a note about a June 27 Florida cabinet meeting that it might be useful -- it might be relevant to this. So I'd -- I'd like to take some kind of action on it. MR. WARD: You -- I think, Commissioner Mac'Kie, you are talking about the state of Florida. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Right. MR. WARD: I'm talking about the federal government in Washington. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: I understand. But if you could -- MR. WARD: And the one at the federal -- on the state level is this one about coastal petroleum. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Right. MR. WARD: But this has to do with the -- a bill affecting federal waters out beyond where coastal petroleum has any permits at all. This is the entire coastline of Florida that they're trying to protect with at least 100-mile buffer zone and also to try to get some of the leases that were let in the area where we are down here many, many years ago bought back by the federal government because the federal government was the one who got the money on it. It's -- it's -- they're both oil, but they're two -- one's on the state level, and one's on the federal level. And this that I'm referring to is on the federal level. Of course, if you can do anything on the state level, we're all for that too. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hancock. MS. WARD: Okay. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Ms. Ward, as much as I -- I am sure what you're proposing is a good idea and one that we'll follow through on, the concept of approving something that we haven't seen or approving two bills that none of us have had the opportunity to review is something I would rather not do. MR. WARD: That's fine. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I would be happy to ask staff to bring this back at our first available meeting so we have time to review the two bills to make sure there's not something in there that may conflict with -- with a direction we're trying to take. It's just without having -- being able to review something, we'd be completely taking your word for it, and I think that -- no offense to you, but it would be a bad precedent to -- MR. WARD: Well, you -- you're not -- you're really not taking my word for it anyway, Commissioner Hancock. You're actually taking Representative Porter Goss's word for it because he drew the -- he drew them but -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'll take his any day but -- MR. WARD: And we've been working with him for years and years now in respect to this, and -- and we have developed a lot of confidence in whatever he does. It's -- at least we're working in the same direction, and that's to protect our shoreline. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: That's the direction I'd like to take, but I would just like to review the bills before '- MS. WARD: Fine, fine. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- supporting them. MR. WARD: Whatever you can do would be appreciated. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Norris? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, I just want to comment that we don't want to -- we don't need to take action on this today. It's not even on the floor. And it's not likely to be on the floor for some time. There's no emergency. And if we took action on it today, we would be denying those proponents of offshore drilling, which there are a lot more than you'd like to probably imagine, we would be denying them their opportunity to get involved in this. Plus as Commissioner Hancock points out, we don't know what the bill even says. So it would be totally inappropriate for us to take any action today. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Well, if -- if we are going to direct staff's attention to -- to bring it back to us for consideration, I'd like for us to include both the state and federal issues and to inject ourselves into the cabinet discussions to the extent it's necessary to protect our coastline. MR. WARD: Thank you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I don't object to that at all. Do we have agreement that staff bring this back the earliest possible meeting? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Yes. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yes. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Cuyler, you have your direction. MR. CUYLER: Yes, ma'am, it will be on your meeting -- first meeting when you come back. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you, Miss Ward. Item #12B1 ORDINANCE 95-42 RE PETITION PUD-92-7(1) THOMAS E. KILLEN REPRESENTING THE WYNN REAL ESTATE PARTNERSHIP, REQUESTING A REZONE FROM PUD TO PUD KNOWN AS SUNGATE CENTER FOR THE PURPOSE OF AMENDING THE PUD DOCUMENT AND MASTER PLAN FOR PROPERTY FRONTING C.R. 951 LYING BETWEEN GREEN BOULEVARD AND 15TH AVENUE S.W. IN GOLDEN GATE ESTATES - ADOPTED SUBJECT TO REVIEW BY THE COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE Next item on the agenda is in our advertised public hearings, item 12-B-l, petition PUD 92-7, first amendment. Mr. Nino. MR. NINO: Good afternoon. Ron Nino, your development services staff. The petition that's before you is for the purposes of amending the Sungate PUD which is located on the west side of 951 between Green Boulevard and 15th Avenue. That PUD was approved November 24 of 1992. No development has taken place there at this point in time. However, there is considerable interest in development at that site. The only change to the PUD is to the internal setback requirements which are actually kind of unique because if this is a shopping center, you normally don't expect to see internal setbacks from what are essentially driveways. Staff can't explain why those kinds of development standards are there and simply would remind you that it's not usual to have internal setbacks of that magnitude in a shopping center type of development on what are essentially driveways. There is no change proposed for this PUD which would affect the separation from any perimeter boundary, from any external boundary, that the PUD is contiguous to. The planning commission reviewed this petition on June the 1st and unanimously recommended that the revisions to the PUD with respect to the internal setback relationships be approved. As is our practice, there were some references that likewise needed adjustment in order to reflect the current references to the land development code, so you will see strike-throughs and underlines that are in excess of those that have to do with the internal setback relationships. Yes, Commissioner. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Nine, does this -- this -- you say this doesn't change the density or the -- the basic configuration. It's just setback proposal within a PUD. MR. NINO: That is correct. That is correct. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Is there any other unseen impacts that we haven't been notified of? MR. NINO: There are no other impacts that we -- concerned with this. We did take the opportunity to ensure, however -- because we thought the original PUD was deficient in that regard, we did take the opportunity to add to this PUD a requirement that all of the internal tracts be interconnected by common easements so that the parking functions as a unified parking lot. That to our point of view is the most important omission from the original one and is far more important than the issue of setbacks for internal driveways. We recommend your approval. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Is this a public hearing? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yes, it is a public hearing. Mr. Derrill, is there any public comment? MR. DORRILL: We -- we have no others except for the bridge issue this afternoon. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Are there further questions for Mr. Nine? I'll close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Motion to approve. COMMISSIONER CONSTANINE: Second. MR. NINO: In your -- in your resolution would you please reflect the need for legal staff to review the final document to make sure there aren't any mistakes in it? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I'll -- I'll add that to the motion. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Second amends. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second to approve the amendment to PUD 92-7 with -- with the adjustment that legal staff approve the final document. All those in favor please say aye. Opposed? Motion passes five to zero. Item #12C1 ORDINANCE 95-43 RELATING TO Ale LOCAL GOVERNMENT INFRASTRUCTURE DISCRETIONARY SALES SURTAX TO FUND A SECOND GORDON RIVER BRIDGE - ADOPTED And I guess we're at what we've all been waiting for. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: It's show time. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: It's show time. Item 12-C-1, consideration of an ordinance relating to the 1 percent local government infrastructure discretionary sales surtax to fund the second Gordon River bridge. Mr. Perry. MR. CUYLER: Madam Chairman, I assume you're also hearing your two companion items. We're hearing them all at the same time? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: The agenda says that items 8-A -- what is it? Three and four or four and five -- MR. PERRY: Three and four. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: -- cannot be heard until after 12-C-1 is addressed. MR. CUYLER: Okay. Well, a lot of your people are signed up for different ones of these. I assume you'll want to hear -- is there any problem hearing the various issues and then just taking the vote in the order that's set out in the agenda? MR. PERRY: Right. There's one public hearing, and that's on the ordinance. And then following the public hearing the items address the resolution and the interlocal agreement and then the pamphlet I think also. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: And then the pamphlet. MR. PERRY: We can take them all collectively together, but there is one public -- advertised public hearing involved. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Fine. Mr. Perry, do you want to -- MR. PERRY: Thank you, MAdam Chairman. For the record -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: -- get us started on this? MR. PERRY: For the record, my name is Jeff Perry, planning services department. The public hearing this -- this afternoon is consideration of an ordinance related to an additional 1 percent local government infrastructure discretionary sales surtax to fund the second Gordon River bridge project. For the record I'll very briefly go through the findings of this -- sections of this particular ordinance highlighting only those that are of specific interest to the public. Section 1 of the draft ordinance includes a finding section based on previous actions of the city council, this county commission, and the Naples MPO. Section 2 sets out the amount of the surtax, that being 1 percent for a period of nine months starting January 1, 1996, ending September 30, 1996, all of this being subject to voter approval on September 26, 1995. Section 3 includes provisions for adopting an interlocal agreement for the distribution of the surtax revenues pursuant -- pursuant to Florida law. That agreement is item 8-A-3 in your agenda package which will be taken up after this particular public hearing. Section 4 states that the proceeds received are to be used to fund the project costs of construction of the second Gordon River bridge and roadway improvements related thereto. Section 5 sunsets this ordinance automatically after September 30, 1996. This was a specific request, if you'll recall, of the board members at the point where you authorized us to advertise this ordinance. And section 6 requires the adoption of a resolution which is the companion item by the board calling for September 26, 1995, special referendum election by mail ballot. The actual ballot question is included in that resolution. As I mentioned before, there are two companion items, item 8-A-3 which is the referendum resolution and item 8-A-4 which is the interlocal agreement which indicates that sales tax revenues will come to the county for this particular purpose. And with that, if there's no other questions, I'll sit down, and we'll go to public comment. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Are there questions for Mr. Perry? Why don't we move onto the public comment, Mr. Dotrill. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Do we have any speakers? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Hmm? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Do we have any speakers? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Do we have any speakers? How many do we have? MR. DORRILL: Oh, I'll say about ten. Twelve. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Twelve? That's not too bad. MR. DORRILL: Mr. Carpenter, Carpenter. Hang on, Hiss Corkran. Mr. Carpenter's going to be first, this gentleman here. MS. CORKRAN: I misheard you. MR. DORRILL: That's quite all right. And then we'll have Mr. Lee next. MR. CARPENTER: Hi. I'm Dave Carpenter. I represent the East Naples Civic Association. We were founded in 1950. That's probably about two years before the bridge debate got started. We are long-time backers of the proposal for a second bridge. We understand the needs for it. We don't engage in fairy tales. And two great fairy tales wander around Naples right now, the first being that somehow or other the state can widen the existing bridge without snarling traffic for three seasons. I suggest those that believe it check under their pillows because the tooth fairy may have been there. Second fairy tale around is that if we just wait, the state will fund this bridge out of a magic pot of gold. Those of you that have looked down the road at potential DOT funding see that the pot of gold from DOT is shrinking, and it's shrinking every year. Any funding that would go for the state paying for a second bridge we're going to need for alternate road projects. As far as the sales tax, it does represent the fairest basis of rapidly solving the problem, coming up with the money to pay for the bridge. It's a specific use tax. It is borne substantially by seasonal visitors and tourists who actually in the -- in the season create a great deal of the need for the second bridge. As far as the wording of the resolution, I view that the county commission should retain whatever flexibility is necessary in case of an emergency situation where you wind up with unforeseen permitting problems that may force you to look at adjusting the route of the bridge. I view that all of the citizens of the county today realize that you have chosen the northern corridor. And I don't think it needs to be written in stone, though, in your wording of the ballot resolution. I think it's clear to the citizens that yes, this is where the bridge is going to be built barring unforeseen circumstances. Thank you. MR. DORRILL: Mr. Lee. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Carpenter. MR. DORRILL: And then Hiss Corkran will follow Mr. Lee. MR. LEE: For the record, my name is Arthur Lee, for nigh on to two decades resident of Ninth Avenue North. The conclusions I'm going to reach are I'm sure a surprise to none of you, but I would like to tick down some of my reasoning that goes along with it. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Lee, we -- we are addressing only the ordinance for the 1 percent tax. We are not addressing the location of the bridge. MR. LEE: Conceded. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. MR. LEE: As currently concede, construction of a second bridge would delay improvement of the existing bridges across Gordon River and Highway 41, though -- and I -- here is a point of disagreement: I am told that this can be accomplished without stopping the flow of traffic. Admittedly there's going to be slow-down. This bridge complex currently operating at more than its peak design capacity is a vital part of the basic north-south traffic flow and is essential to hurricane evacuation. From a safety standpoint delaying its reconstruction already designed and funded is unthinkable. Further, the delay proposed would imperil funds currently set aside for that bridge improvement or, at minimum, postpone their availability for an indefinite time. It should be noted that the county and city are failing to respect provisions of their comprehensive plans by letting this facility operate over capacity. Two, no serious study has been made of the impact of the proposed bridge on the people living on either side of the river, and no provision has been made for reimbursing them for the decrease in value of their property, nor for the deterioration in the quality of their lives that would result. Third, if located at the so-called 9th Avenue North location, the bridge would engender westbound traffic which would endanger lives of children going to school at the corner of 14th Avenue and Goodlette. Fourth, the proposed bridge would do nothing to alleviate the shortage of north-south traffic capacity, the area's greatest need since Airport Road currently is operating at above-peak design capacity and cannot be widened and Goodlette would be over capacity by the time the proposed bridge would be built. Connecting two roads, both inadequate to handle present and resulting traffic loads, will not let the county meet its legal obligation to provide its citizens with adequate transportation facilities. Fifth, I register a strenuous objection to any proposed wording which does not specify location of the proposed bridge nor its construction schedule. This gives you the authority to build any bridge anywhere at any time you choose regardless of possible danger to the environment or disadvantage to citizens. It is unrealistic to ask the public to write such a blank check. Furthermore, there is no need for an extra tax to fund the bridge. You have access to money from existing impact fees and gasoline taxes, and you can ask for special funding from the state transportation department. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you very much, Mr. Lee. MR. DORRILL: Hiss Corkran. MS. CORKRAN: Yes, sir. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Can I interject at this point? Mr. Lee had -- had voiced opposition to the location at Ninth Avenue and that proper impact studies have not been done. I talked Friday afternoon with the mayor in the city of Naples, and he has said that the city is -- is prepared to do whatever it is they need to do once they have been shown what the impact is. And with that in mind, I don't -- I don't know what else they can do because they've not yet determined what the impact is. And they may not know what that impact is until the bridge is completed. They have moved forward on Seventh with the roundabouts in an effort to slow traffic down. And -- but they -- he has stated the city is prepared to do whatever it needs to do in order to -- to mitigate whatever the impacts are going to be. MR. LEE: May I speak to that? The -- my problem with that is that this is one man's opinion made before an election. I've weathered many, many before-election promises, and I prefer to do it the other way, to have the law and then the action. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Then what you do is elect somebody who will handle it then. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Madam Chairman, may I suggest we need to ask our speakers to remain focused on the question today which is an ordinance relating to 1 percent local government infrastructure discretionary sales surtax? That's the question today. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: And the -- and the ballot question itself. COHHISSIONER HANCOCK: Whether to have it or not. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We'll be doing that second. MR. DORRILL: Hiss Corkran. Hiss Corkran if you will, and then we'll have Ms. I believe it's Hinson. MS. CORKRAN: I'm Virginia B. Corkran. I'm president of the Old Naples Association, and I am here to reaffirm the Old Naples position opposing the second Gordon River bridge at any location. Secondly, the Old Naples Association urges you, city officials, and the HPO to get the DOT started right away on the repairs and improvements on the existing U.S. 41 bridges maintaining all six lanes during construction. The existing U.S. bridges are needed for hurricane evacuation. That's what the DOT says. Our Old Naples Association resolution was read -- our first one was read to you on April the 6th, and it made a third point. And that is that city, county officials accept the outcome of the proposed referendum as a community expression of denial or acceptance of the bridge proposal. I bring that to your attention again. But due to statements made by officials since April the 6th, I think clarification is needed. And, therefore, I have two questions that need answers. The first one is, if the second Gordon River bridge referendum fails, can the county fund a second bridge by other means and go ahead and build a bridge anyway? That's number o~e. Number two, does the county retain under law the option of constructing a second bridge, how ever funded, at a location of its choosing in agreement with the city of Naples? I would say again I think that you need to answer these questions for clarification for the voting public and -- and prior to this important vote. Then I would like to ask since all of these matters pertaining to the bridge this morning have been concentrated at this one point in time, are we also supposed to be speaking to H-7 in regard -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: The pamphlet? MS. CORKRAN: -- to the county's pamphlet? MR. DORRILL: I would say yes. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah. MS. CORKRAN: Thank you. So I have a question to ask you on that one as well. When will this county-approved fold-out or pamphlet with the details on the bridge be mailed out? What week? What month? MR. DORRILL: I'll have Mr. -- Mr. Saadeh needs to go to the offset printer today, and the process is entailing information that is being compiled by Ms. Morgan in order to save approximately $17,000 in additional postage costs, but I don't know when the actual final printing or stuffing of the envelopes will be. MR. SAADEH: Good afternoon, Commissioners. For the record, Sam Saadeh, acting assistant to the county manager. The -- as soon as you vote on the resolution, we have the printer ready to go on -- on starting with the prints for the final pamphlet itself. We should have a few thousand copies by the end of the day if everything is okay with no changes. We should have the balance by the end of the week and ready to go with the mailing that Mary Morgan is sending out to save the 17,000 plus in costs for mailing. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. MS. CORKRAN: Thank you. And -- and I -- I would like to hear the answers to the first two questions that I had. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I can handle that. Question number one, no. Question number two, absolutely of course. MS. CORKRAN: I would repeat, Mr. Norris is saying that the county retains the option. Yes, the county retains the option of constructing a second bridge, how ever funded, at any location of its choosing. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Miss Corkran, we can build roadways in this county based on existing ad valorem dollars today. The question is how much roadway can we build and what is -- what is a -- MS. CORKRAN: Considered priority? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- large single chunk that would shut down the rest of the county. That's the question, so the answer is yes, we can. MS. CORKRAN: Okay. And the answer to the first question? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: No, flat no. MS. CORKRAN: If the second -- and I will repeat it for the benefit of those who are listening. If the second bridge referendum fails, can the county fund a second bridge by other means and build it? No? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Sure we can. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yes, we can. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yes, we can. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: We'd have to raise property taxes to do it, Hiss Corkran, and that's not going to happen, and you know it as well as I do. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: The operating word there is can we do it. Yeah. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Will we? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Will we? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: No. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We need to address that. But can we? Yes. MS. CORKRAN: I would like to say that at the April 6 meeting I was assured by the mayor and Mr. Norris who was then presiding officer that you would accept this as the answer of the community. So I am glad to hear, if I'm hearing this, that you reconfirmed that position. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, I'm not sure that that's what we've said. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: What we've done. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I think -- I think what we said is in answer to your question -- if your question is will we accept this as a -- I don't know, Mrs. Corkran. Do it again because I'm not sure I agree with John's answer. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I think it -- MS. CORKRAN: I think you need to talk about this then to let us all know what your position is. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: John's giving -- MS. CORKRAN: I look forward to your answers -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We will -- we will talk about it. MS. CORKRAN: -- and your discussion. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: We have talked about it on many, many -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Commissioner Norris is giving a hybrid. The answer (sic) is can we raise property taxes to build the bridge. The answer is yes. But tell me the last time the county decided to raise 21 million in one year to build a bridge, and I think you're going to find a very thin answer there. So it's -- it's not an absolute. If the referendum is not successful, it doesn't mean a bridge will never be built. I think that's short sighted. But I think if you're asking will the county realistically step in and raise 21 million dollars in taxes to do it right away, I don't think that's a realistic approach. So, you know, it's not an absolute no, but the likelihood is very slim at best. But that's -- I mean, that's an opinion from each of us. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Well, you know, there's -- there's other ways to fund this bridge. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Right. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I mean, we have -- we have done some interesting financing in the -- in the last eight weeks even -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I was going to say today. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: -- to -- to -- to fund various projects, the -- the beach renourishment project only being one of them that we're going to be considering. And, quite frankly, we do have additional space in our -- in our one mill capital ad valorem cap. What do we have there, Mr. Dotrill? A quarter mill still available, a little more than that? MR. DORRILL: In what sense? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Between what we're currently assessing on our county-wide capital millage and the cap on that of one mill. MR. DORRILL: Well, there is no cap. But as it was originally conceived, it was, yes, initially a one mill cash generated capital improvement fund. And we're just about six-tenths of a mill I think -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: It's at six-tenths of a mill. MR. DORRILL: I think so. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: So we've got about four-tenths of a mill that we could -- that we could do, and that would raise about six or seven million dollars a year. So, I mean, it's not a question of can we. The question is would we. And, quite frankly, I can't imagine that we would want to put this entire burden on the property owner, that the sales tax is going to generate, if it's approved, 55 or more percent from -- from our tourists who are equally going to use that road. So, I mean, I don't want to say that this referendum is a referendum on the validity of the bridge. It's a referendum on the sales tax. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And -- and -- and since we're all sort of taking positions, I -- I want to echo what Commissioner Matthews said. This -- I will not commit to you that the bridge -- that -- that I'll never try to get the bridge done another way if this referendum fails. I will try to get this bridge built through other means. Right now all that's presented itself is the property taxes that I don't think we have the will on the board to -- to pass, but -- but I will bring the bridge up again and again and again whether the referendum passes or not. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I can't see property taxes, but next speaker. MR. DORRILL: Miss Hinson and then following her Miss Jones. MS. HINSON: Good afternoon. My name is Erika Hinson. I'll make my comments brief because I gotta go to work. One, I think on your ballot, your yes vote needs to be yes means yes, not yes means no, I don't want the bridge as in the past ballots. It's very important especially to some people who don't have time to read all the things and they'll just vote, oh, yes means yes. Second, I think the location of the bridge needs to be on the ballot. And my third thing was if the sales tax didn't pass how will the bridge will be funded. Got my answer. You all have a nice day. MR. DORRILL: Miss Jones and Mr. Tarrant. Is he still here? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: That's interesting, though. MS. JONES: I'm Betsy Jones, and I'm speaking for Lake Park residents. We were very pleased in the way the traffic circulation survey for our neighborhood turned out showing that our neighbor -- neighbors think that there will be a major impact and will damage Lake Park neighborhood. Also on the vote -- also the vote was against the north route by 74 percent. In a telephone survey most people did not want the 1 percent sales tax. It is not only our neighborhood that is against the bridge to nowhere but neighborhoods like Old Naples, Coquina Sands, Aqualane Shores, Golden Gate to name a few of the neighborhood groups. With the two additional lanes on Golden Gate Parkway and two on the present Gordon River bridge, that's sufficient to relieve our problem without spending 21 million. And speaking for myself, I would like to see Ninth Avenue North on the referendum as that is the route you chose. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. MR. DORRILL: Mr. Tarrant and then Mr. Corkran. MR. TARRANT: I got there. Thank you, Commissioners. For the record, Fred Tarrant speaking as a Collier County taxpayer, a resident of Naples, and an elected official on the Naples City Council. I left with Mr. Dotrill copies of a -- of a legal opinion dated June 19, 1995, from the city attorney. I don't know whether he's passed that out to the commissioners or not. But there are copies available for the commissioners. That is a legal opinion that I requested from our city attorney. I want to address this -- I consider this an emergency. I consider it a matter of critical importance, and I'm going to stick to this legal concern that I have and ask for your opinions and input, please. The -- as I interpret the opinion of the city attorney, the metropolitan planning organization obviously has certain powers and abilities to do certain things. But it does not have the legal authority to do anything that violates, that is in violation, of a locally adopted comprehensive plan. The local government, local government, sets -- sets the level of service, the LOS or level of service, within their jurisdiction. And the level of service on the 41 Gordon River bridges is currently at level F, F as in Frank or F as in frightful. F is below the accepted standard. The -- get my necktie out of my writing here. The -- the improvements to the 41 Gordon River bridges as I interpret what the city attorney has written cannot, repeat, cannot be delayed with -- without an amendment, without a formal amendment, to the existing adopted comprehensive plan and without submitting that amendment and the back-up material to the department of community affairs for a review and for review and acceptance or denial. So my -- my point is that in all of this process, we have a schedule I believe that was signed by the chairman of the metropolitan planning organization that was sent to the Florida state department of highways or transportation in -- recently in -- in the last month or so that indicated that the position of the HPO was that the work on the Gordon River bridges, the rebuilding and widening of the present 41 Gordon River bridges, would be delayed pending the building of the second bridge or the outcome of the referendum. As I interpret the city attorney's legal opinion, that cannot be delayed either on a temporary basis or on a long-term basis. It appears to me, Commissioners -- and I'm not a lawyer. I'm simply interpreting what the city attorney has written in response to my questions. And it seems very clear to me that to go forward with this project without amending our comprehensive plan and having that submitted and reviewed and approved by the department of community affairs at the state level would be a clear violation and would put this project in legal difficulty. That is really all I want to say, and I -- I hope that you will give that serious consideration because certainly I for one am very serious. And when the mayor -- in closing, when the mayor, God bless his soul, our good mayor in Naples, made the statement on the radio that he would do all -- that we, the city, would do all in our power to satisfy the good neighbors in Lake Park, he also said that we would buy their homes if necessary before the Gordon River -- second Gordon River bridge is built. Surely the mayor was speaking for himself, not for the city council because we have not reviewed such a plan. We do not have any way of identifying the money for such purchases. And we have heard nothing from the good people in Lake Park that they wish to sell their homes. Thank you, Commissioners. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. MR. TARRANT: They have the copy. I gave it to Mr. Dotrill. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Dorrill, the next speaker. MR. DORRILL: Mr. Corkran. He's not here. Mr. Fernandez. Following he, Mr. Goodlette. MR. FERNANDEZ: Michael Fernandez. Good afternoon, Commissioners. I'm representing the River Reach Single-Family Homeowners' Association today as well as myself as a taxpayer. We are very much in favor of the bridge going across, and we would like to see the north alignment. We're hopeful that that might aid our particular neighborhood in removing some of the traffic that now goes through our neighborhood from the River Reach apartment complex which may have the potential of gaining direct access to the bridge corridor. It seems that that's a possibility. It's one we'd like to see explored through the process of the design of the bridge if the northern corridor is indeed selected. Regardless of whether or not that route is selected, our association would like to endorse the bridge -- the second Gordon River bridge. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. MR. DORRILL: Mr. Goodlette. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Quickly, Mr. Fernandez, the northern alignment has been selected. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Please '- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: That's not even a question. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- clarify that. MR. DORRILL: Then Mr. Cameron. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Goodlette. MR. GOODLETTE: Thank you, Madam Chairman. I'll be brief. Dudley Goodlette. I'm here on behalf of the bridge coalition before -- before whom I have spoken to each of you previously and collectively on this subject. We would encourage you to proceed with the only issue that I understand is before you today which is the need in order to utilize the sales tax, the one cent discretionary sales tax, for a period of nine months. It requires, state law requires, that you submit that to a referendum. That's all we're here about today. Your agenda materials are clear on that. And it seems to me that based upon the discussions that have evolved through a long period of time, the need for this additional east-west corridor of which the bridge is an important component has already been documented. That's clear, and we need to move forward, and -- and I encourage you to do so. On the second question as the -- Madam Chairman, as you posed, I would -- personally would recommend that you retain the flexibility and not identify the route, the specific route, in the referendum. The reason for that, I have had personal conversations with Dr. Pat Vidal Podva (phonetic). You may have read about some discussions that as a -- that I've had with her that have been reported in some of the media regarding the potential for mediating some of the neighborhood and community issues. The bridge coalition continues to feel strongly that to the extent that there are concerns in those neighborhoods, we need to address those concerns, and we need to resolve those concerns. And to the extent that you retain some element of flexibility in preparing a ballot that would permit that mediation process to achieve that desired result, we would encourage you to retain that flexibility. I'd be more than happy to answer any questions. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I have one. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Mac'Kie. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Mr. Goodlette, one of the things that this board has talked about is what kind of responsibility we have to disseminate information to the public on the question. And the last time that this came up, the discussion was basically deferred. We have on our agenda to talk about this pamphlet that the board is preparing. But -- but I had urged that the board should do a more intensive public information campaign, for lack of a better term, and the discussion was deferred based on first let's wait and see what the bridge club is going to do. So I'm hoping that you can give us some idea of what that might be. MR. GOODLETTE: I'll be happy to try to answer that, Commissioner Mac'Kie. The bridge coalition together with others who have joined us have established a -- what's called a pro road network political action committee. We have set up an account. We have a post office box. We are distributing information regarding that, seeking contributions. I cannot report to you this morning exactly what balance is in that fund, but I can tell you it's a rather modest sum. And I point out that it's a rather modest sum because some of those of us who have bid -- who have been proponents of this corridor and the need for it and have been accused of having -- of representing special interests, the big developers and all, I'm here standing before you today to tell that you those -- if there are special interests, they have not contributed to this effort. And it is -- there are no constituencies out there who are going to benefit to the -- in any way other than the community as a whole for this important corridor. So we are going to do everything we can, including contribute to a mediator together with hopefully the city. Perhaps the county would participate. I would have -- I would hope that in your design contract there are some funds set aside for mediating and mitigating the neighborhood impacts. You've got funds in your design contract to mitigate environmental impacts. I think you should also have some funds to mitigate in neighborhood impacts. But I'm simply here to say that we don't have a huge resource. We do -- we are confident, however, that -- having established the political action committee and we're waiting on you to take this final action today to actually submit -- choose the language and submit it to a referendum. We believe and are confident that there's enough support in this community for the need for this east-west corridor and to permit the non-permanent residents to pay 55 percent to avoid the more difficult decision that we would -- you would be called upon to make if this revenue source is defeated in the referendum. And that's another reason why we would encourage a support for the actions you're taking today. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Any further questions? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Just I guess after the public hearing we'll have our discussions on issues. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Uh-huh, we will. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. MR. GOODLETTE: Thank you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. MR. DORRILL: Mr. Cameron and Mr. Erlichman. MR. CAMERON: Good afternoon. For the record, my name is Scott Cameron at 690 Banyan Circle. I'm not really sure who I'm representing today. I'll speak as an individual. We're here to discuss whether or not we have an ordinance to have a referendum, and I just can't imagine that anybody would oppose letting the people decide whether or not they want to pass a sales tax for any issue regardless of what the issue might be. I mean, I think it's that pure and simple. There was -- you know, there will be smoke thrown at this issue all the time in an attempt to delay or to sidetrack the issue. There's an issue now supposedly of a -- of a legal concern, and I would point out that the department of revenue -- or excuse me, Florida Department of Transportation has not delayed the work that they are doing in the widening of the existing bridge. They've simply let it be known that should the city of Naples, because that stretch lies within their boundaries, should the city of Naples so request that they would consider delaying that project if, in fact, the city requests it. So I would suggest that perhaps Mr. Tarrant and his fellow councilmen may want to carry on that discussion at the city council as to whether or not there's a legal issue there. I frankly don't think there is, but I'm not an attorney. But regardless of that, I think that should not enter into the discussion today. Let's move forward. Let's have an ordinance allowing a referendum. And my personal recommendation is that the referendum would not name any specific location. I think we all know the location that we're addressing. Thank you very much. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. MR. DORRILL: Mr. Erlichman and then Ms. Taylor. MR. ERLICHMAN: Mr. Dorrill, would you please distribute those? For the record, my name is Gilbert Erlichman. I reside in East Naples, and I'm a member of TAG, and I'm speaking for TAG. I just gave Commissioner (sic) Dorrill copies to distribute of a resolution that was taken by the TAG board of directors on Saturday morning, this past Saturday morning. I want this to be made part of the proceedings today, and I will read it. Resolution, Taxpayers Action Group of Collier County Incorporated; whereas, an integral part of TAG's mission reads, quote, to improve the operation of government at all levels by making it more cost effective, containment of taxing and spending and elimination of waste, end quote; whereas, many facts and opinions have been accumulated and carefully reviewed regarding the actual need for a bridge at this time; whereas, the state of Florida has stated its apparent intention to subsidize a new bridge in the not too distant future; whereas, the six-laning of Golden Gate Parkway relieves the congestion of traffic and the traffic problem in several areas; whereas, the published assurance that when the present Gordon River bridge is widened, the state will keep the necessary lanes operable for traffic flow; whereas, the rejection by the Collier County officials to the highly compensated experts' recommendation as to placement of a new bridge; and whereas, if the referendum is defeated by the citizens of Collier County, resolved, that the board of the Taxpayers Action Group hereby state that they are strongly opposed to the building of a second bridge at this time; resolved, that the board of TAG opposes the pursuit of any other source of public funding for the proposed bridge over the Gordon River; resolved, that this resolution be read at a public and regular session of the Collier County commission and presented to appropriate parties, June 17, 1995. I have some further remarks. Iwve been listening to the various presentations and, of course, the remarks by the commission. And what comes forth in my opinion is that regardless of whether this referendum passes or not, the commission has in its heart and mind to proceed with building a second Gordon River bridge. Now, to me if this is -- in my opinion if this is the case, why waste the taxpayersw dollars for have -- by having a referendum? I mean, itws -- itws an exercise in futility. COMMISSIONER MACwKIE: Gil, can I answer that? MR. ERLICHMAN: And itws not necessary. COMMISSIONER MACwKIE: Can I answer that for you? MR. ERLICHMAN: Pardon me? COMMISSIONER MACIKIE: Could I answer that question? MR. ERLICHMAN: Yes. COMMISSIONER MACIKIE: The reason is is that the best way to fund the bridge is through a sales tax, and we donlt have the authority to impose that without a referendum. State law requires a referendum if thatls the method we choose to pay for the bridge. MR. ERLICHMAN: I realize that you have to have a referendum for a sales tax. But what Iim saying is that why have a referendum for a sales tax when you have other -- when you say you have other means or methods of funding? COMMISSIONER MACIKIE: Because -- MR. ERLICHMAN: Forget the sales and tax and go ahead and save the taxpayers money. COMMISSIONER MACIKIE: No, we -- because if we do the sales tax, if the sales tax is the way that we pay for the bridge, then out-of-county visitors pay a great portion of the cost of the bridge. Whereas if we use the funding alternatives that we have without a referendum, only county residents pay for the bridge. MR. ERLICHMAN: Out-of-county residents. Now I hear -- I hear percentages, 50 percent, 40 percent, 60 percent. You know, everybody has their own figures. And regardless of what out of town -- whether out-of-town visitors pay for the bridge or not, they are still taxpayers. Itls all taxpayersi money -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Of Iowa. MR. ERLICHMAN: -- regardless. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Norris, do you have a comment? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Yes, I do. Mr. Erlichman, your -- your -- your second resolved here says that the board of TAG opposes the pursuit of any other source of public funding for the proposed bridge, but it doesnlt really say in this whole resolution whether TAG opposes or -- or approves of the sales tax issue which is what welre here for today. What is the position? MR. ERLICHMAN: It opposes -- it opposes the building of the Gordon River bridge, period. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: That's not the question. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. MR. ERLICHHAN: TAG is opposed to the building of a second Gordon River bridge. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. Well -- MR. ERLICHHAN: Now, to use -- in other words, in other words, you -- you wanted it to be pa -- specific insofar as a sales tax is concerned. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: That's what we're here for today. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, that's what we're -- MR. ERLICHHAN: I know. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: That's what we're here talking about today. MR. ERLICHHAN: Well, I've -- well, I've -- I've addressed that issue too. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. Now, the -- I know that TAG is a very valuable and honorable organization. They always have been. And I'm sure you'll agree with me that you would not want TAG to be in the position of disseminating totally inaccurate information. MR. ERLICHHAN: What is inaccurate -- inaccurate about the information that's here, sir? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Your third whereas says the state of Florida has stated its apparent intention to subsidize a new bridge in the not too distant future. That is totally wrong. MR. ERLICHHAN: Tell me how it's wrong, sir. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I will if you'll allow me to without interruption. MR. ERLICHHAN: Go ahead. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: The deputy director sat right here in this chair at a recent HPO meeting and said that they have no intention of putting this on their work program. They don't want it on their road program -- work program. They wouldn't put it on there unless we forced them to do so with HPO powers. And even then they would -- they would delay it as long as they could in effect is what he said. They have no intention of putting it on their work program. And even if they did, it would take -- it would cannibalize money that -- that is already programmed for -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: For other projects. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: -- for projects that are on the boards now. MR. ERLICHHAN: Do you mind if I make another statement, sir? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Whatever you have, but that's the truth. MR. ERLICHHAN: I was -- I was present at this -- at this -- at this commission -- in this boardroom when there was a joint meeting between the city council and the commissioners and you were the chairperson. And it was stated at that meeting that a vote on this -- if the referendum was not passed -- I'm not quoting exactly -- it would mean that there would be no bridge. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And who said that? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: But I don't understand how that relates to the -- MR. ERLICHHAN: That was the sense -- that was the sense of the statement during -- somebody made that statement. I would have to go and get the record just like there was no contract on what I said this morning. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Erlichman, our discussion today is -- is -- is whether we should have an ordinance -- MR. ERLICHMAN: Thank you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: -- for the one cent sales tax. Thank you. MR. DORRILL: Miss Taylor. And she is your final registered speaker. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: She's our last speaker? MR. DORRILL: Yes, ma'am. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. Miss Taylor. MS. TAYLOR: Good afternoon. My name is Penny Taylor, and I live in Lake Park. I first would like to comment on one thing that I saw happening today. I believe a discussion of the bridge -- parts of it were scheduled for this morning. With due respect, you are all getting paid for being here. Attorneys are getting paid for being here. But citizens whose impact will be feeling it the most have taken time from their work, and they've been sitting here all day. I would like to make a very respectful suggestion that in the future when you have something that is of this importance on the residents of any county or any -- any part of the county or the city that you put it on and keep it at the schedule that you say so that we can take the time from work and appear here. Half the room is empty now. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Excuse me. Mr. Dotrill, in the published agenda in Sunday's paper, did it not say that item 8-A-3 and 4 would be heard after 12-C-17 MR. DORRILL: And -- and that they were companion to that. And then while we show a lunch recess, we do indicate that public hearings will be heard immediately following the regular staff items. And so our public hearings always come at the conclusion of the regular agenda. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: But perhaps it could be clearer because obviously a lot of people misunderstood -- MR. DORRILL: I don't -- COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- even though we technically comply. MS. TAYLOR: I understand your -- your problems. And this is not said in an aggressive way, but this is more to try to -- to -- to further -- COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: You're right. MS. TAYLOR: -- public participation in this process. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I think it's a very good point. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. MS. TAYLOR: I'd like also to ask a question, and I think I'd like to start with Mr. Hancock. You clearly affirmed that the northern alignment has been selected. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yes, ma'am. MS. TAYLOR: Why is it not going to be in the wording of our ballot? COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: On the advice of our county attorney. MS. TAYLOR: And the reason is? COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm not the county attorney. We talked about this, and you've heard the reason about a half a dozen times today. I don't think anyone's crystal ball is so perfect that we can see that as we go in and begin a road project that something does not eventually stand in the way. It takes in the segment that we're crossing of the Gordon River one type of species to begin habitating in the path of that bridge to stop it. The question to me individually is -- and maybe you can answer this for me, Hiss Taylor, because I think it dovetails with your question quite adequately. When Golden Gate Parkway is six-laned and full of traffic and when 41 is -- is widened and full of traffic, what next? MS. TAYLOR: I think what next is to get your Livingston Road constructed so that it will dovetail into the bridge if it is needed at that time because, Mr. Hancock, the population is northward. That's where everything is going. That's where the center of town is moving. And if you -- if -- if you proceed in widening 41 which the concurrency laws demand, at least demand of the city, then in the few years from that point when it's finally finished, the traffic patterns will be different. Development will be different and there may not need to be a second Gordon River bridge. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: So you're willing to assure me today that traffic will not grow ever beyond the capacity of those two roadways. MS. TAYLOR: I am not willing to assure you -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Thank you. MS. TAYLOR: -- that they're not going to grow over that. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Because every bit of information we have -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Excuse me, both of you. The item on the agenda -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Excuse me -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The item on the agenda is are we going to put this on -- the sales tax on the ballot or not, not a location, not traffic counts, anything else. If you have items that address this issue, great, offer them to us, but let's not have a debate going back and forth. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Excuse me. But the -- the -- the ballot question is also part of this composite part. MS. TAYLOR: About the wording on the ballot? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yes. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's fine. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: The ballot question, and Mrs. Taylor has raised the question that the location of the bridge needs to be on the ballot question, so we'll entertain that. MS. TAYLOR: And then the final point I'd like to make is -- and -- and, Mrs. Matthews, this is in regard to an early comment by our mayor of the city of Naples. And what he said, those roundabouts that were recently put on Seventh Avenue North were the result of two years of meetings with the city. And they were rushed in at the last minute when all of a sudden they figured that Lake Park was unhappy with this bridge. They have nothing to do with the bridge. They're only to slow the problems and to correct the problems or hopefully to ameliorate some of the problems that are on the -- the street right now. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I understand that. MS. TAYLOR: Thank you. COHHISSIONER HAC'KIE: Can I ask a question, Miss Taylor? MS. TAYLOR: Yes. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Are -- I don't know if you're the elected representative from Lake Park or '- MS. TAYLOR: No, no. Mrs. Jones is our president. I'm the vice president on the board. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I'm just curious if there is '- I'm encouraged about this idea of -- of mediating community -- what the community impacts are and coming up with some sort of a mitigation plan for those and using a professional mediator. Is that something that's being met with? MS. TAYLOR: I -- I think we have to discuss this at our board meeting. However, I think when you think about talking about mediation or the concerns of -- of Lake Park, you have to take the whole city because you can squeeze the traffic in Lake Park, but it's going to pop out somewhere else. And I know very well that Coquina is very concerned, and Old Naples is here today. So I don't think it's the right tact to isolate Lake Park because it's -- it's a lot broader than that. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: But -- but if the mediation could be to -- to come up with a plan to mitigate neighborhood impacts, not just Lake Park impacts, then maybe that would be something your board would entertain because I -- I think that -- I just feel strongly that that's a step in the right direction that shouldn't be ignored. MS. TAYLOR: I think right now is -- I think the boards are going to be talking about this, all of the boards. And I'm sure that there will be an answer forthcoming. MR. DORRILL: We do have one additional -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you, Miss Taylor. MR. DORRILL: -- one additional speaker. Mr. Griffin. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Griffin. MR. GRIFFIN: Good afternoon. My name's Jerry Griffin. I live at 6561 Ridgewood Drive. The effects of this bridge probably have very little to do with where I reside. I think the issue at hand only is whether you should go after the referendum for a sales tax. I think it's great that you would consider hearing from the people. Let them tell you about the sales tax. And I would not recommend that you put in where the bridge to be located because I don't think that's the issue. I think the only issue here is whether they want the sales tax or not. I think you should just stick to that issue, and I'd recommend that's what you do. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. There are no further speakers? MR. DORRILL: There -- there are none. I don't know whether you'd like to go ahead and -- and entertain this issue also and have Mr. Saadeh present to you the final proposed pamphlet as part of this. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Do we have any speakers on the -- on the pamphlet? I'd like to close the public hearing then, and we'll move forward with discussion on all four items at one time. Mr. Cuyler. MR. CUYLER: Madam Chairman, again, I think -- I think this is clear to you, and I probably don't need to say this, but I will anyway. We had a discussion really along the advice of the location in the various materials, both the ballot question and your pamphlet. The advice was along -- wasn't really you should or should not put in the location. It was more along the lines of if you do put the location into the materials, then you are going to have to live with that in terms of it. Now, the way we have it now, it's not in the ballot question. It is in the materials. I think that -- I think Commissioner Hac'Kie last time basically said, I want it in there. I want the information out, and that's where it is. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Cuyler, I've got one other question. Mr. Tarrant raised -- raised the question of -- of legally delaying the widening of the existing Gordon River bridge -- bridges, that it's not in compliance with our comp. plan and -- and so forth like that. Is that true? I mean, if -- if we do delay the widening, are we in violation of our comp. plan? Do we need to define them as constrained roads? What -- what do we need to do? MR. CUYLER: In part I think Mr. Perry's going to address that. I haven't seen -- I had a chance to just read Hiss Chiaro's opinion. I don't read it as anything the county was doing as illegal. It may -- level of service may need to be addressed at some point in the city in their -- in their growth management plan. But let me let Mr. Perry address that, and I'll add anything you need me to add to. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. MR. PERRY: Again, for the record, Jeff Perry from planning services department. Let me tell you basically what's going to happen if this decision is made today to move forward with this. Sometime within the next several months the city of Naples will have to ask the HPO to delay the start of U.S. 41 reconstruction if the referendum is successful. Because of the timing of the state's work program, the HPO will need to make a decision on September 29 whether or not to ask the DOT. So they will need to hear from the city council because I can't honestly expect two city council members who sit on the HPO to speak for the city without some resolution or some formal consideration by city council. So we will be getting directly from city council a request to delay U.S. 41 because that section of U.S. 41 is totally within the city of Naples. It is totally their responsibility as far as concurrency is concerned. And I would expect, as the letter indicates and I believe I have told others this -- in fact, I think I happened to mention it on the radio the other day with Carl Loveday -- that there may be a comprehensive plan amendment necessary depending on exactly when the rescheduling of U.S. 41 takes place. As you know, there's a concurrency window. The local governments can take credit for certain improvements within three years of the work program. It may not have to be delayed outside that window. And, therefore, there may not be any amendment necessary. But if there is an amendment necessary, it's totally within the city's power to apply -- to -- to adopt those amendments. They can set whatever standard of service on U.S. 41 at that location they wish to and submit that to FDOT and to DCA. And we would expect them to have to do that. But they will have to ask the HPO to delay U.S. 41 projects. The state would then consider the merits of that request. Mr. Tarrant had indicated that there was some schedule that had been signed by the MPO chairman requesting such a delay. There has never been anything like that submitted, signed, requested, or anything. There has been merely discussion in MPO meetings about the possibility of delaying the start of that construction if the city and the county are prepared to move forward. Quite frankly, I -- I would not expect the city to want to amend their plan unless there is a successful referendum, unless there is money available to -- so that they have something to amend and show that improvement in their work program. So that's the -- that's the flow of events that will take place if we decide to move forward today. And that's really all I have to add about -- about those particular items. If you have other questions about that, council -- Commissioner Norris addressed the issue about the DOT's statement that they would be willing to do it within a very short period of time. And Mr. Norris has accurately reflected I think the -- I think 20 years was referred to as possibly the earliest possible time that the DOT would consider funding it. And that would be at the expense of a number of other state projects that are already funded that would have to be set aside for funding to be diverted to a project like this. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Did you say 20 years, Mr. Perry? MR. PERRY: I think 20 -- I think it was either 15 or 20 years. I'd have to go back to the record. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: They refuse to put it in the ten-year work plan. MR. PERRY: For the state -- for the state to start today -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Unless we force them. MR. PERRY: -- and to move through the process, it would be 15 to 20 years before they would -- I think is what the statement was that the district secretary made. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: The secretary stated flat out that they just don't want it, period. They don't want it on their work program, and they would -- they would only accept it if the MPO forced them to do so and if -- if they did that that the state has the latitude of deciding when they're going to do it. And they said, we wouldn't even touch it for 20 years. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It's such a mis -- misunderstanding, such a -- I mean, the public needs to know that so much more clearly. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I'd like to move to a discussion of the ordinance itself for the one cent tax, sales tax. Is there further discussion on that? If there isn't, I'd like a motion. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just one comment, and that is, as you all know, I'm not a big proponent of the sales tax itself. However, I think the last gentleman summed it up the best, and that is we can't prohibit the public from having an opportunity to speak on it, and I think that's the purpose behind the thing. So I would -- if there's a motion, I will support the motion to put it on the ballot. COMHISSIONER NORRIS: I will make that motion to go forward with the ordinance to provide for a mail-out ballot. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: No, no, no. Consideration of an ordinance relating to an additional 1 percent local government infrastructure discretionary sales tax. The ballot question is next. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: So the motion is for approval of agenda item 12-C-1. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: motion. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: second. Right. And I'd like to second that Okay. Okay. We have a motion and a HR. WEIGEL: For the order of things, Hadam Chairman, would you close the public hearing? And then you could enter into your discussion. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I thought I did close the public hearing before. MR. WEIGEL: I didn't get that response. Okay. Thank you. MR. CUYLER: There's nothing else we need to know about the ordinance; right? They can just move forward with that? MR. WEIGEL: No. The only thing of a very minor note is the fact that new legislation is passed which indicates that the ordinance can become effective upon the filing with the department of state as opposed to waiting for the notice of receipt from the secretary of state. So we will make that change to conform to the new laws in the effective date element of the ordinance. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Our -- our goal is to have the 1 cent tax, if approved at the ballot, take effect January 1 and sunset on September 30 of 1996. MR. WEIGEL: That is correct. Those are the express provisions of the ordinance as drafted and before you today. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. We have a motion and a second. Is there further discussion? All in favor please say aye. Motion -- are there any opposed? I'm sorry. Motion passes five to zero. Item #8A3 RESOLUTION 95-379 ORDERING AND CALLING A REFERENDUH ELECTION BY MAIL BALLOT TO BE HELD ON SEPTEMBER 26, 1995, RELATING TO THE APPORVAL OF AN ADDITONAL le LOCAL GOVERNMENT INFRASTRUCTURE DISCRETIONARY SALES SURAi{ FOR A PERIOD NOT TO EXCEED 9 MONTHS TO FUND A SECOND GORDON RIVER BRIDGE Next item to consider is a return to item 8-A-3. This is a consideration of a resolution ordering and calling for a referendum election of a mail ballot on September 26. Mr. Perry. MR. PERRY: Yes. Madam Chairman, this is the resolution that is -- is required as a result of your action just a moment ago. This particular resolution contains the ballot question as was recommended by the board when you reviewed the draft several weeks ago. It does -- specifically does not include the location of the -- of the bridge. It -- we did clean up the language that you asked for and have structured it in a way that was requested. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'd like to move approval of agenda item 8-A-3 as written in the staff report. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second. Is there further discussion? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Let me just make one comment. We're almost finished with this issue for the day, and I want to make one comment relating to hurricane evacuation. This is one of the smoke screens that's cropping up periodically in opposition to the bridge and hurricane -- and the thought is that tearing up the existing 41 bridges is going to cause hurricane evacuation problems. There's a couple of things here. First of all, hurricane season is June through November when traffic is at its lowest, and the peak of hurricane season coincides with when traffic is the lowest. So that does relieve the hurricane evacuation concerns to some degree. But to me, the heighth of absurdity is to oppose this bridge on the grounds of -- of hurricane evacuation. I mean, if you're concerned about hurricane evacuation, why would you not want more lanes of traffic going out of the city? MS. TAYLOR: I could answer that for you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Our public comment is closed. MS. TAYLOR: I'd be glad to answer that for you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Our public comment is closed. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Tonight. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Norris is stating his opinion, and -- and it does sound a little bit sensible really. We have a motion. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Shocking as that may be. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Quite sensible. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Quite sensible. We have a motion and a second to approve agenda item 8-A-3 as presented. Is there further discussion? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Just that I think they did a great job cleaning up the ballot language. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: There's not further discussion about the location? It's fine with me. All those in favor please say aye. Opposed? There being none, motion passes five to zero. Item #8A4 INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT AMONG COLLIER COUNTY, THE CITY OF NAPLES, AND THE CITY OF EVERGLADES RELATING TO THE DISTRIBUTION OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT INFRASTRUCTURE SALES SURTAX - APPROVED Next item on the agenda is 8-A-4, a consideration of an interlocal agreement among Collier County, city of Naples, and the city of Everglades. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Motion to approve. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second to approve an interlocal agreement with the city of Naples and the city of Everglades related to our infrastructure sales surtax. All those in favor please say aye. Opposed? There being none, motion passes five to zero. Item #8H7 RESOLUTION 95-385 APPROVING THE FINAL GORDON RIVER BRIDGE TAX REFERENDUM PAMPHLET - ADOPTED And we'll move now to -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: About the brochure. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah, I'm looking for it. MR. DORRILL: 8-H-7. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: 8-H-7. This is the presentation of the final Gordon River bridge tax referendum pamphlet. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Which has the location on it. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I have two comments. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: It's got a map. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Two comments. One -- one is I think we could do a better job with this map. Don't -- don't we think we could get a smaller, more legible -- I mean, it's not necessary to show that much of the area and have this tiny little arrow pointing to the bridge. I had in mind something like this. I don't know -- if the rest of you think that that map is clear, then so be it, but I don't think it is very clear. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: If I may, Commissioner Hac'Kie, that may be cleaned up in a couple of rather easy steps. I don't think the reference section is too big, but this -- the point that that -- or the letter for proposed Gordon River bridge needs to be boxed -- COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It's so tiny. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- so it comes out. And the -- the actual location itself, a -- a dark dotted line would draw it out more. There may just be some graphic presentations that -- MR. SAADEH: I can address that question. The print shop would -- would do a much better job. This is a Xerox copy. The -- the writing on the map would be legible. You can read it. The actual bridge itself would be highlighted in green to where it sticks out. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. MR. SAADEH: Also the other two existing roadways that connects Airport and Goodlette Road would be highlighted, just the actual name. Like Airport-Pulling Road would be highlighted in green and U.S. 41 would be highlighted in green to identify the existing connections. But the actual bridge would stick out at you in green all -- all together. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And I'm having trouble -- well, my copy just doesn't show it. Does it show the Livingston Road extension and the connection to it? I don't guess it goes that far. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Doesn't go that far. MR. SAADEH: Doesn't go that far. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Then -- then my other comment was wouldn't it be a good idea to have as a question and answer in here when will the Livingston Road extension be completed since it dove -- dovetails so nicely with the completion of the bridge and it relates to that whole east-west roadway system question? I don't -- I think people think that the Livingston Road extension is just, oh, yeah, one more time government says they're going to build a road. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Just a figment of our imagination, huh? COHHISSIONER HAC'KIE: Let's -- let's put that in there. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Perry, where is the Livingston Road extension from Radio Road going northward on our work plan? MR. PERRY: Where is it on the work plan, or where is it on the map? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I'm not -- MR. PERRY: On the work plan it's '97, '98. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: '97, '98? MR. PERRY: The program is '97, '98 which coincidently is the same year we hope to build the second Gordon River bridge with the sales tax. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Exactly. MR. PERRY: So that also has been stated on the record dozens of times. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: That -- that -- that segment of Livingston Road will go from Radio Road northward to Golden Gate Parkway? MR. PERRY: And from -- and from the extension of that from Wyndemere which is already there all the way up to Pine Ridge Road. It's all programmed. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: It's all programmed for '97, '98. MR. PERRY: Yes, ma'am. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: And -- and if this referendum is passed, the bridge will be built at the same time. MR. PERRY: We hope. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I will stay on four things. Thank you. MR. PERRY: We're working on the -- on the -- going through the design scheduling issues today -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: That's a lot of construction. MR. PERRY: -- as far as when the -- when the design could be completed and get into the production, permitting. Right-of-way acquisition, there's a lot of things that have to be dealt with on this. But we would like to be able to build this at the same time or as close to the Livingston Road project. Now, the Livingston Road project also is going through the same kinds of -- kinds of production issues so that I can't guarantee you that both of them are going to come on line at the same time. And I can't guarantee you which one would come on line first. They are two independent projects. Livingston Road will be built with or without this bridge. The connection to Enterprise Avenue to Livingston Road will be there with or without this bridge. But, you know, we're -- we're working in two different directions at the same time. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But since we're -- we have such an emphasis on the -- the road network, east-west interconnection, I think that that's a fact that would be good to be included. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Uh-huh. Mr. Saadeh, is there space to get that question and answer? Can we squeeze this down a little bit and get one more question and answer on it? MR. SAADEH: I'm not sure we can do that. But if you -- if you -- if that's your direction, we'd make every effort to do that. As it is, it's pretty compacted as it is -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I realize that. MR. SAADEH: -- unless we make the lettering a little smaller. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Commissioner Mac'Kie -- MR. SAADEH: But with your direction we -- COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: -- if to the right of the proposed bridge location, if it said to future Livingston Road -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Parentheses, completed on such and such a date? It's that -- it's that issue that I don't -- that people -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: The reason I'm hesitant to draw a -- an absolute 100 percent solid connection is although Enterprise will have the ability to connect, reasonably we're going to have to make some improvements to Enterprise to handle an increased capacity there. And those funds have not been budgeted, and we don't have them in a forecast plan. So I'm a little hesitant to create a solid expectation, although I know that -- that that's a direction we're going to take. We haven't taken it as of yet. MR. PERRY: Can I -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Perry. MR. PERRY: Can I go back just one step? COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: That's the fifty-fourth different face you've made today. MR. PERRY: My -- my understanding just a few moments ago was the board did not want to put the location of the bridge in the ballot question. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Correct. MR. PERRY: My understanding is that if this document goes out the way it is presented with the map location and the narrative the way it is, questions and answers, locating the bridge and providing the description, if that goes out -- especially if it goes out in -- in connection with the supervisor of elections mail-out, you have done the same as putting it in the ballot question. I mean, the ballot question is on -- on this pamphlet which you've also said exactly where the bridge is going to be going. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Huh-uh. MR. PERRY: So you've -- you've done -- done the job if you -- if you include this kind of information in the pamphlet. I'm not objecting to it, but I just want to make sure that you understand that I think that does the same thing as wording the ballot. Taking that narrative and putting it in the ballot would be exactly the same thing. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: But I think the concern that we're expressing and the concern that Mr. Cuyler has cautioned us on is to specifically say that we're going to use the Ninth Avenue corridor because it may be 50 feet off from Ninth Avenue because of some species problem. And we -- we -- we don't want to lock ourselves into that. MR. CUYLER: I think that Mr. Perry makes -- makes a good point. And if all you're talking about is 50 feet, that's fine. There's probably not going to be any issue about that. But you know even to this day we constantly talk about what did the voters vote for on the tourist tax a number of years ago. What exactly was their intent? What exactly did they think they were voting for? This is not exactly the same as putting it in the ballot question. It is a degree less. But nevertheless, you know, I don't want you to put me -- put me in the position, for example, turn to me after a successful referendum and say, we've run into a problem. We don't want that location. We want another location and expect me to say, fine, go to the other location because I think all I can tell you is that your risks if there is a challenge to that, the more information you put out telling the average voter that it's going to be at such and such a location, I mean, obviously the better their case that that's what this vote is for. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I understand. Commissioner Hancock. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I understand that. It's just sending out the brochure with a big smile that says trust us probably isn't going to get a big response. MR. CUYLER: That's -- that's -- that's true. And that's why -- that's why I'm trying to distinguish between legal advice of putting it in or not putting it in. That's not the point. I'm just trying to tell you -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah, I'm comfortable with it the way it is, and I've said it does the same thing either way. But, you know, the idea that the option has to be there that it can be moved is something that I really don't -- MR. PERRY: Getting back -- that said, getting back to the question of the map and Livingston Road and the other additional language, I would -- if you would like to have another question in there about Living -- the construction and connection to Livingston Road, I'm sure we can word something and put it in there. We could certainly get something -- I hope the map will be better than this in the final outcome. It's an electronic map that they have -- someone has squashed and pushed in here for display purposes, and I suspect that it can be improved. If you would like the map to include Livingston Road, we can put that on there. So I don't think that's a '- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's what I would like. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I was going to suggest that is there -- is there a way that we can show the proposed alignment for Livingston Road maybe in a different color than -- than the bridge because they're not voting on Livingston Road and -- and even with a question regarding -- question and answer regarding Livingston Road to incorporate in that question the proposed construction dates for that so that we -- we are talking about a road network, not a bridge to nowhere. I mean, even today we had somebody refer to this as a bridge to nowhere, and it's not to nowhere. MR. SAADEH: To answer the color question, if we add an additional color other than the green, that's another expense. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah. MR. SAADEH: We try to limit it to two colors for expense purposes. Enterprise Avenue which would be connecting to the bridge itself would be labeled on the map. It's going to show. And that in -- in itself is not a connection to nowhere. The bridge is not leading to nowhere. Obviously it's between Airport Road and Goodlette Road, and then Enterprise is going to show. If you would like additional language in the pamphlet itself, I'd be more than happy to try to squeeze it in. If you give me an exact language that you would like, we'll -- we'll work with that. We're pretty limited on the space, but we'll work with it. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Would it satisfy that to just simply extend the map out to the proposed Livingston Road corridor, put it as proposed or -- or Livingston Road in parentheses proposed completion date or planned completion date X and leave Livingston Road in black but make it a dotted line as most proposed roadways are shown on -- on other maps so it's not confused with Enterprise which is existing, to just push the map out a little bit to cover Livingston, show it as a dotted line, the section that is not completed, and put a planned completion date on -- on the map even if you have to box out another small section? If we do that, does that accomplish what we're -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I think it does. I think it's important that we show that this is a network. MR. PERRY: I'm sorry. Would you like the question about Livingston Road added as well, or is that in lieu of the question? MR. DORRILL: I'm going to tell you all that you need to stop at some point. This is -- it went from an eight and a half by eleven to eight and a half by fourteen. And then by the time you do the translation into Spanish and you redo the layout, even with the computer-aided design techniques they have, it's going to start to unravel on you here. I think we've got 10 or 11 questions as it is and -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I don't think we need to add a question if we show the -- the proposed Livingston Road and the completion date. I think that's good enough. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That works. MR. SAADEH: If we can just limit it to the map, that will be helpful because of -- of constraints. MR. DORRILL: If you'll give us just a little flexibility there, the other rationale was that it made sense from the staff's perspective to show the other east-west connectors, i.e., Golden Gate Parkway and Davis or down to Airport. And I happen to agree with that, and I think we understand what you'd like to see. And it may not be absolutely to scale east of Airport Road, but we can at least show the network correlation. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: That's exactly what you may have to do. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Do the best you can. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Weigel, you had a comment? MR. WEIGEL: Yes, hopefully maybe on the tail end of the design by committee, but the county attorney office would suggest since there is a Gordon River bridge in existence that the title minimally be revised to say the second Gordon River bridge and the additional one cent sales tax surcharge to pay for it. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: To clarify that heading. Hear what he's saying? MR. SAADEH: I missed it. I'm sorry. The -- the added language with the second Gordon River bridge, just add the word second? MR. WEIGEL: And then in the next line -- of course, it can be reformatted -- and the additional one cent sales tax surcharge to pay for it. I think that sets the stage then for the questions that follow and the answers. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Does that take care of what we want on here? We want the map to show the Livingston Road -- proposed Livingston Road, and our county -- our assistant county attorney has recommended some titling changes. Are we all in agreement? Do we think we're getting where we want to go? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Motion to approve. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Motion? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second. MR. SAADEH: I'm going to add a little language under the map "not to scale" because it's not going to be to scale so nobody is misled. Also I'm going -- the published jointly by Collier County government and Naples -- city of Naples, we're going to limit that to Collier County government. They've -- they've helped in the initial stage, but we're paying -- we're paying for the postage. So I'm gonna -- if you allow me the flexibility a little bit to clean it up, I'll do that. MR. CUYLER: Yeah, let's -- let's make sure this -- if this isn't word for word, you're not approving it word for word. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Concepts. MR. CUYLER: You see substantially what it is. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Good enough. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Fine. We have a motion and a second. All those in favor aye -- please say aye. Opposed? There being none, motion passes five to zero. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: On a related question, is there -- MR. SAADEH: Thank you. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Is there any support on the board to do anything other than this now that we've heard from the bridge club that they don't have much money to be spending on this issue? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Maybe -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: That would be a big no down here. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Maybe their money will improve in the next month or so now that we're this far along. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Just checking. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Next -- why don't we -- why don't we take a quick break. Ten minutes? (A short break was held.) Item #13A1 RESOLUTION 95-380 RE PETITION V-95-5, FRANK DOWNEY OF CHALLENGER POOLS, INC., REPRESENTING DEAN AND KIH KLEIST REQUESTING A .8 FOOT AND A 1.8 FOOT AFTER-THE-FACT VARIANCE FROM THE REQUIRED 10 FOOT REAR YARD FOR A SWIHMING POOL AND ENCLOSURE - ADOPTED CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Let's reconvene the board of county commission meeting for June the 20th, 1995. We are in the afternoon agenda under the board of zoning appeals, item 13-A-l, petition V95-5. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Good afternoon. Chahran Badamtchian from planning services staff. Challenger Pools representing Mr. and Mrs. Kleist request 1.8 -- a 1.8 foot after-the-fact variance from the required 10-foot rear setback for a swimming pool and enclosure. They built their pool, pulled a building permit showing ten-foot setback. However, the spot survey as required by code revealed that encroachment. Planning services reviewed this petition and by a vote of five-zero recommended approval. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What is that? Like twenty and a half inches? COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Total. It's six inches -- MR. BADAMTCHIAN: On one side -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Motion to approve. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Twenty inch -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a public hearing. Hold it. We have a public hearing. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It's -- it's two different, and the -- and the total is roughly 20 inches, 21 inches. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: (Mr. Badamtchian nodded head.) CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Is there any more you need to get on the -- on the record? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: No. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Are there any speakers, Mr. Cuyler? MR. CUYLER: It does not -- it does not appear that anyone's registered. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Does the petitioner need to add anything? COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Is the petitioner here? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Is the petitioner here? Do you need to add anything? A VOICE: No. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. I'll close the public hearing. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Move approval. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Go ahead. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Badamtchian, was -- were there any letters in opposition? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: No, no letters. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second to approve variance 95-5. All those in favor please say aye. Opposed? There being none, motion passes five to zero. Item #13A2 RESOLUTION 95-381 RE PETITION V-95-6, FREDERICK V. HOLZ OF AGNOLI, BARBER AND BRUNDAGE, INC., REPRESENTING COLLIER COUNTY PARKS AND RECREATIONAL DEPARTMENT REQUESTING A HEIGHT VARIANCE FOR LIGHT POLES; A FRONT YARD SETBACK; A SIDE YARD SETBACK; AND A SETBACK FOR SIGNS FOR A PLANNED COHMUNITY PARK IN GOLDEN GATE ESTATES ADJACENT TO THE BIG CYPRESS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL - ADOPTED SUBJECT TO DELETING THE STIPULATION TO TURN OFF THE LIGHTS AT 10 P.M. Next item is 13-A-2, petition V95-6. HR. BADAMTCHIAN: This is a county project. Hr. Frederick Holz of Agnoli, Barber, and Brundage representing Collier County parks and recreation department requesting a 40-foot height variance from the required 30 feet to 70 feet for light poles, a 60-foot variance from the required 75-foot front yard setback to 15 feet, a 16-foot variance from the required side yard setback of 30 feet to 14 feet, and a 9-foot variance -- foot variance from the required 15-foot setback established for signs to 6 feet for -- for the future park located in Golden Gate Estates adjacent to the Big Cypress Elementary School. Planning commission reviewed this petition and recommended approval. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Unanimous approval? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Staff has received one letter in opposition which is attached to your packet. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: One letter? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Just one, yes. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hancock, you had a question. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: As a matter of course when we have property that we're going to be designating as a community park, do we leave it in its original zoning such as estates, or do we normally change it to some sort of public service designation? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: We have parks that they have kept the original zoning designations, and we have park that are zoned P for public use. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And under that zoning would these things be allowed? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Not really. In a public zoned district, public used district, there's no setbacks. It says a setback similar to adjacent properties which is estates. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So we don't -- we don't have a zoning designation for parks that has -- MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Not with set setbacks, no. What -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Are there -- are there other questions for staff? Mr. Cuyler, are there public speakers? MR. CUYLER: No, ma'am. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I'll close the public hearing. Is there a motion? MR. HOLZ: Excuse me. Good afternoon. My name is Fred Holz. I'm the acting agent for parks and rec. We would request one further action on the -- on the variance. The planning commission put a lighting stipulation on the park that the lighting would have to be curfewed at 10 p.m. That is not really a practical matter with the softball games and things and is not something that's normally done with community parks. And we would ask that the commission essentially override that stipulation to allow no curfew for the lighting. Additionally, what -- what enters into that is parking lot lighting which is going to have to be provided for security reasons, and the 10 p.m. is not really a functional time frame for the park itself. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Could it be ten after ten? I mean, is -- softball games last until eleven o'clock or -- MR. HOLZ: I've had them lit as late as 11:30. Now, the other thing that we're doing is we're also using state-of-the-art glare control so that we're eliminating the overspillage of the light to the adjacent property owners just as much as we possibly can. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: What was the argument? MR. HOLZ: These lights are like 70 foot high, and they will basically illuminate the entire neighborhood. There are 16 of them. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, I -- I just -- I live -- I live on the edge of the city of Naples, and there is a city of Naples Park in my backyard that has a softball field, that it is amazing the way that the light stops at the edge of the field. And the field and my backyard are basically connected. So I know that there are ways to shield that light so that it doesn't illuminate the whole neighborhood because at that park -- I'm trying to think of the name of it. It's the park that's right by Seagate Elementary School. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: at Seagate. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: That would be Seagate. Those -- those lights stop. Seagate. Seagate Park? Seagate. Yeah, it's called the ball field Well -- MR. HOLZ: What -- what -- what -- what you'd end up with is if you were sitting in your house, you would see the lights. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Right. MR. HOLZ: There would be a bright spot up there. But if you would look on the ground, there would be very little ill -- very little illumination beyond the property boundary of the park. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: It's like a wall at the fence for that park so -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Cuyler. MR. CUYLER: Not on any other aspect of the variance, but with regard to the timing of the turning off of the lights, unlike the normal petition, this is one that you ultimately can control one way or another. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: True. MR. CUYLER: If you get complaints at a later time, you just send the word down, and it takes care of that. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Why -- why was the stipulation put on this by the planning commission? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: It's not a stipulation. It was just a recommendation. We don't have an agreement sheet signed by the planning commission chairman. It was just a recommendation that they turn off at 10 p.m. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, since we control it -- it is a county -- it's a county facility -- we could control its impacts on the neighborhood. I don't think that's a necessary -- COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Motion to approve with the deletion of the stipulation to turn off the lights at ten. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Second. MR. HOLZ: Thank you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second to approve variance 95-6 and to remove the stipulation or the recommendation by the planning commission to turn the lights off at ten o'clock. Is there further discussion? All in favor please say aye. Opposed? Motion passes five to zero. Item #13A3 RESOLUTION 95-382 RE PETITION V-95-3, KAREN BISHOP OF PROJECT MANAGEMENT SERVICES REPRESENTING CS-2 VENTURE FOR A VARIANCE TO THE PELICAN BAY PUD REGULATIONS GOVERNING THE PROVISION OF A 100 FOOT WIDE LANDSCAPE BUFFER AREA AS IT APPLIES TO VANDERBILT BEACH ROAD BY REDUCING SAID 100 FOOT WIDE LANDSCAPE AREA TO 20 FEET - ADOPTED WITH STIPULATIONS AS AMENDED Next item is 12 -- I'm sorry, 13-A-3, petition V95-3. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Madam Chairman, I have to abstain from voting on this matter. I have a conflict. I represent the petitioner. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: This is a variance and does require a minimum of three votes. Mr. Nino. MR. NINO: Ron Nino, your development services staff -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Variances are three votes. MR. NINO: -- presenting petition V95-3. This petition seeks to obtain a variance from the provision of the Pelican Bay PUD that require a hundred-foot landscape area be maintained along Vanderbilt Beach Road when residential developments come forth. That provision in the PUD document is contained in the transportation section of the document. And, you know, unless you're very familiar with that PUD, you could very easily overlook it. The PUD also provides in that same section that where land is dedicated for a public purpose for road widening that the amount of land dedicated for the road widening would also -- could also be considered part of the hundred-foot landscape strip that is required adjacent to residential areas. With respect to this property and Vanderbilt Beach Road, the seventeen and a half feet has been deeded to the county. The county is the owner of seventeen and a half feet of additional land for road widening purposes. So in effect, the effect of that is that the landscape buffer which becomes -- really becomes the building line would under normal circumstances be eighty-two and a half feet or a hundred feet from the original Vanderbilt Beach Road. But since the seventeen and a half feet has been dedicated, it's now eighty-two and a half feet. And what we're really talking about is the building line because that's what -- that's what the landscape buffer or strip in the final analysis really means because there is no definition of what goes into the so-called landscape buffer strip. This petitioner, while originally they applied for an eighty-foot variance, subsequently at the planning commission reduced the extent of the variance request to one which would have the building line setback established at sixty-two and a half feet, a reduction in effect of twenty feet from what would be the required eighty-two and a half feet. So we now have a -- we now have a variance that's in a much smaller dimension of -- of -- of -- of separation or distance from the actual requirement. The -- staff did review the findings for variance, and in our opinion we think the greater weight to an assessment of the findings is one that suggests that the variance -- the granting of the variance in the magnitude that's now before you is justified. We do think that there are unique circumstances present here. They're spelled out in the staff report, one of which was the fact that this was a school site originally. And had it been developed as a school site we would not enjoy -- would not have the advantage of a hundred-foot building setback line. And, of course, the county's -- the county's -- the county park did not observe the hundred-foot setback, although, you know, in the real world you have a park there. And the tennis courts, while they could be construed as a -- as a structure, nevertheless one normally looks at those things and counts them as open space. The EHS building, the library, the Pelican Inn and, of course, the shopping center on the corner, all of those had to observe the normal 20-foot landscape requirement that is in the land development code for activity centers. The planning commission when they heard this petition unanimously agreed to -- unanimously recommended approval of a variance that would reduce the hundred-foot setback to sixty-two and a half feet and that further that within that sixty-two and a half feet the developer be allowed to construct an access drive. The developer is going to present their landscape plans to you which I think are very important as part of the testimony that's -- and the finding that you have to satisfy yourself. You'll see by virtue of those plans that they're going to achieve within a 20-foot area a landscaped improvement that literally is better than the minimal requirements would have required for improvement within 100 foot of horizontal area. You appreciate that while there's 100-foot landscape requirement, there are no regulations in the document as to what you do with it. It could be just plain grass as opposed to achieving any visual blockage. So the -- the -- the staff report goes to some length to point out that we can achieve the same objective that was intended by the hundred-foot building line within something less than that. And the planning commission when they looked at that issue asked that you include in your -- in your approval a provision that a minimum horizontal distance of 20 feet contiguous to new Vanderbilt Beach Road right-of-way line be devoted exclusively to landscape improvements to include a 6-foot combined solid and wrought iron wall and be planted with vegetation that will achieve an opacity rating of 80 percent within one year pursuant to type D buffer standards from the land development code and further in accordance with landscape plans, exhibits entered into the record of the board of zoning appeals at this public hearing. You'll see those plans will be entered into the record, and they will become the requirements for actually implementing the screen. As your agenda package shows, there were a substantial number of objections to this petition, most of which were placed by the Beach Walk development across the street from this project in part. Beach Walk extends over a much greater distance than the area that is simply directly across from -- from Breakwater. And while the -- your package shows that the Pelican Bay services district express the problem with the approval of this petition, we have recently received a letter that was addressed -- a copy of a letter addressed to the petitioner, Mr. Griffin, advising them that the Pelican Bay services division advisory committee no longer objected to the approval of this petition as long as they have an opportunity to -- to approve the detailed plans that -- that -- by which the project will be approved. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Are there any questions? MR. NINO: I'd be happy to answer any questions. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Does the petitioner need to get anything in addition on the record? MS. BISHOP: Yes. My name's Karen Bishop for the record representing Signature Communities and CS-2 Venture. I have some aerial photographs because pictures are better than words I think mainly. Of what's existing -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: You need to stay on the microphone. MR. NINO: Hay I enter into the record just one last comment because it was -- I promised the Beach Water (sic) people that I would express a concern to you that they have, and that would be that the construction traffic not use an -- an entry or exit off of Bonita Beach Road during the construction of this project. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Vanderbilt Beach Road? MR. NINO: Vanderbilt Beach Road. MS. BISHOP: The photographs that I've just shown you are the existing vegetation with our existing property showing its relationship to the park site as well as Beach Walk sites. I think Ron has pretty much established exactly what we're looking for. We've brought our landscaping plan showing elevations as well as the plan view adding the additional landscaping along Vanderbilt Beach Road. Also we have enhanced the landscaping between us and the park to give a better finish between the park's landscaping and our site as well as notice that we have put a bicycle path along Vanderbilt Beach Road. That bicycle path location is in the future location based on Agnoli, Barber's plans for the future expansion of Vanderbilt Beach Road. So in other words, we're not going to have to tear this out if and when this ever happens. We also want to bring your attention to one of the other things that we are utilizing as a part of this project. When we redesigned our project, we had to work with an existing lake that was in kind of a strange place. And we came into the county park system, and we proposed to them that we would revise this lake, fill in their ditch which runs the whole length of the park property which is a 54-inch pipe which is about a $60,000 investment. We will bring all of the existing vegetation that we possibly can from our site to the park site, in other words, well vegetated also and enhance and maintain the landscaping along the northern edge. Any questions? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I have one. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Norris. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Which of these lakes will we be holding the waterski shows on? MS. BISHOP: None. No waterskiing shows on this at all. I do want to address, though, the construction traffic concern. There is an existing construction traffic entrance on this site. We will be utilizing the same construction entrance that's been utilized for the point for about ten years for this whole area which is -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Where is that? Is that on Vanderbilt Beach Road? MS. BISHOP: Yes, it is. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: So you're -- COHHISSIONER HANCOCK: So you're not willing to make a concession not to use the access on Vanderbilt Beach Road? MS. BISHOP: I'm not saying I'm willing to make a concession. What I'm saying is there is a median strip along North Point Drive that will be coming -- we'll still be coming by Vanderbilt Beach Road to get to North Point Drive. Go ahead. MR. GRIFFIN: Jerry Griffin for the record. If the Beach Walk neighbors are concerned about the construction access on that road and they could express to us what their concerns are, I'd be more than happy to decide whether we would be willing to eliminate that or not. The other issues and I think the more important issues are we are zoned for 300 units. We're only building 216 units. We played the building down to two stories over parking where we could have been three stories. By doing that we found that we stretched into this buffer. We were not aware of it. We take responsibility for it. When we became aware of it, that's what brought us to this process. We felt it was very important because our understanding of a buffer was -- has to do with the neighbors that live inside a community looking out of the community more so than people looking into the community. We went to the Pelican Bay Property Owners' Foundation, got 100 percent approval by the board. We went to PBID and got 100 percent -- no, we had one objector on their board. We also made a concession with the park district that we would bury a pipe, open up another acre of land for the park in consideration for this petition. And to this date I am happy to listen to the people from Beach Walk because I'm really not sure exactly what their concern is, so it's very difficult for me to address it. But after listening to them, I'd like to respond to it. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hancock. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Actually what you mentioned about the buffers, the buffers work both ways, and that's the beauty of them. So those folks that bought in Beach Walk that may have taken the time to investigate minimum buffers and so forth had an expectation, and I think it's reasonable to consider that expectation. You mentioned that you're permitted at three stories over parking yet you went to two, and understandably that increases either your buildings or spreads amount. If you did not get this variance, would you in all likelihood to meet the minimum have to go back to up to three stories in some locations? MR. GRIFFIN: Host likely. It's kind of an interesting position we found ourselves in. We originally went to the county, got a preliminary SDP approval -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Uh-huh. MR. GRIFFIN: -- went out and marketed the property, made other commitments to the park district and other people, at a later date were -- and filed all our condominium declarations with the county, started our sales, and at a later date were advised that we needed a variance. I don't know what I would do if I didn't get the variance. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: So you've already gone through the county's SDP process and all the reviews, and you're actually short of a building permit -- MR. GRIFFIN: The preliminary SDPs. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: The preliminary SDPs. MR. GRIFFIN: And after it was granted and we marketed, we found out at a later date that there was a mistake done, and they did notify us correctly, and then we were told to go through this process. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Are there other questions? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I do know that -- that this was presented to the planning commission with a lot of changes and that the Beach Walk representatives were there. And I guess for myself I'd like to know -- I'd like to hear from them as to what their feelings on these -- these areas are if that's appropriate. MR. DORRILL: We have two people registered: Mr. Hickey and then Mr. Thompson. MR. THOMPSON: I'm Thompson, Jeff Thompson. Excuse me. First of all, I think the positioning of Breakwater should be addressed, and I think they're applying through hardship -- and I think it's a financial hardship -- to get this setback. I don't know in this state if that is a -- meets your requirements. The real questioning is -- basically Mr. Nino's pointed out various numbers of where these setbacks are going to be. But we've never talked about where they're going to start from. There's the old road bed, and then there's the new road bed to consider. There's the seventeen and a half foot dedicated from Westinghouse to the county. And I'm totally confused, and I'd like to have it stated on the record subject to your approval where the point of beginning for the either eighty some feet or the sixty some feet -- there's so many numbers here, I -- I -- I have trouble following it, and I've been involved from this pretty much from the beginning. MR. NINO: Madam Chair, if I might respond to that, I think it's pretty clear the condition -- the condition in the resolution of adoption establishes sixty-two and a half feet from the Vanderbilt Beach Road as widened, exclusive of the seventeen and a half feet. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. MR. NINO: They don't -- first of all, as I -- as I told the gentleman on the phone, Breakwater doesn't own -- they don't have the fee to that seventeen and a half feet. And the sixty-two and a half-foot setback is from property that Breakwater has the fee to. it automatically follows from that that it's exclusive of the seventeen and a half feet because they don't own it. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. So the seventeen and a half's not included in that sixty-two. MR. THOMPSON: Right. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. MR. THOMPSON: So from the point of the old road, it would be approximately 80 feet. Is that what we're saying then? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yes. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Uh-huh. MR. THOMPSON: Okay. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: The old road right-of-way, not even the road itself, the old road right-of-way. MR. THOMPSON: In the planning commission recommendation -- I don't know if Mr. Nino can address that -- in number 2 it refers to buffer strip be construed including access driveways. I don't understand what that means. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I think that means that the road you see called Breakwater Circle would be allowed inside the buffer area. Is that correct, Mr. Nino? MR. NINO: Correct. MR. THOMPSON: That would be within the sixty-two and a half feet then. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yes, that would occur within it. So for whatever's paved they can't plant landscaping on. MR. NINO: Right, correct. MR. THOMPSON: And then also as long as we're into breaking down where what appears within the sixty-two and a half feet, where does their wall appear as opposed to -- in footage? I see the artistic side. But from the actual wall of your community, how far back will the -- well, not from the wall but from the -- your -- your property, how far in will your wall be or from either the present road bed or the new road bed? MR. FOGG: The wall -- MR. CUYLER: You need to -- excuse me, sir, you need to be on a microphone somewhere. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Looks like we could use some audio-visual equipment. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah. MR. FOGG: The wall is -- my name is George Fogg, landscape architect on this project. The wall is located in the center of the 20-foot buffer strip as directed by -- basically as directed by the planning commission. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. So let's start at the back of this seventeen and a half feet. MR. THOMPSON: Yeah, that's what I would like to do. That's what I'm trying to get to do. MR. FOGG: It's approximately seven feet from the edge of the new road right-of-way or from the back of that seventeen and a half feet. The wall itself is approximately -- since it's a staggered wall approximately 4 foot deep, and then the remainder of the distance would come to the edge of the 20-foot buffer. And then the interior road starts at that point or 20 foot back from the -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: So from that 80 feet we were talking about, we're in about 20. Okay. From the old eighty feet we were talking about, we're in seventeen and a half and then we're in another seven, so that's about twenty-five. MR. FOGG: That -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm putting it in perspective to -- to this gentleman's question. MR. FOGG: To where the wall is, yes. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. MR. FOGG: More or less that's correct. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: So that wall's about 25 from the old road right-of-way. MR. THOMPSON: Okay. So when the new road evidently will eat up the seventeen and a half feet, we're going to have seven feet from the new road bed to their wall. MR. FOGG: No, new road right-of-way. I'll show you on the plan if I could. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: It looks like there's a good 25 feet. MR. FOGG: This is the new road -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Somehow we have to keep this on the -- on the record. I don't know where our handheld mikes are, but both of them are gone. MR. FOGG: The new road is shown here in light green, then from there -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Sir, you might as well stop. We have to put it on the record. MR. FOGG: The new road is shown in light green on the drawing. It is -- that is the road right-of-way that is shown on the drawing. It then proceeds back from there where you see the -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: There you go. MR. FOGG: Thank you. Now we're in business. Here's the new -- here's the new road right-of-way here. That's shown with this line which is the light green. Between there and this line in here where the driveway -- or pardon me, where the walkway, the five-foot walkway, is shown is within the county right-of-way and would not be affected by the expansion of the road. And then a wall starts back of that approximately, as I said before, six to seven feet back with a four-foot staggered wall as can be seen more clearly on this plan in here. The wall has a staggered -- the wrought iron fencing here, and this is the main type of wall that we would have here. The wall is six foot. This is about a little under six. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. MR. THOMPSON: I have no other questions. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. The other speaker, Mr. Dorrill. MR. DORRILL: The other gentleman's name was Hickey. MR. HICKEY: Yes, John Hickey, a Beach Walk resident. I think that our objections and the objections of our residents that have written in to the hearing review committee that this design satisfies the Beach Walk concerns that we had. Now, it is my understanding from -- I think from Mr. Nino that these drawings are entered into the county records so that the developer is required to adhere to them in -- when the actual construction takes place. And we will agree to them at that point. Is -- is my understanding correct there, sir? MR. CUYLER: It can be correct. Mr. Nino, you need to -- MR. NINO: MR. CUYLER: supposed to go. MR. NINO: Yes. -- make sure that gets to where it's Yeah, these will be exhibits that will be entered into the official record, and we'll take them back to our office. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. So these exhibits will be part of the official record. And if this variance is approved, these exhibits will be a part of that approval. MR. NINO: Yes. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And anything not -- if they don't meet what is shown in these exhibits, it would in effect be a zoning violation. MR. NINO: We won't approve an SDP that doesn't iljustrate that program. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. MR. HICKEY: Then Beach Walk agrees to this design. We would -- we would withdraw our objections as long as this design is adhered to. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Mr. Griffin, you had -- MR. GRIFFIN: I just want to know why you didnlt want the construction road there. Iim just curious because if we donlt, just so we understand whatls going to happen -- and welre not necessarily opposed to it -- welre going to have to go onto the Pelican Bay street which is just 300 feet down, turn right, and turn right. So, I mean, the trafficls not going to go away. I mean, if itls a problem, I just to need to know why. MR. THOMPSON: If I may, I could come back on and address that? I know itls not your rule. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah. MR. THOMPSON: It will take two seconds. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Two seconds? MR. THOMPSON: Boom, itls over. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: One, two. MR. THOMPSON: Itls over. Right now for over a year welve been enjoying Bay Colonyls construction coming out at the light towards the Gulf. Every fifth vehicle is a ten-wheel dump truck. We have difficulty getting out our front entrance. Our average age is about 65 years of age in our community. It poses a great problem for us -- for us to then start to enjoy the overlapping of Breakwater. Welve lived through the Laplaya. Thatls just about over. Welve had nothing but major construction vehicles. And I happen to live -- probably the closest full-time resident to Breakwater, and welve -- we now have in addition to this other noise factors on the other side of the wall, if you will, such as the ambulances and the fire and everything else that has been placed here in the last 18 months. So if we could do without the Breakwater problem -- for us itls a problem -- and let Bay Colony enjoy it. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: What I -- what I do see is the construction entrance would be a very short distance from the main entrance to Beach Walk, and there may be some turning conflict and movements there that would be a safety concern. Regardless, I know the noise and so forth is another issue. But there may, in fact, be a safety issue of people making a left, of people turning into traffic so close together. I mean, thatls a situation we avoid in road design anyway. MR. GRIFFIN: Is it all right if we move it down farther to the west? I understand what these gentlemen say. I appreciate what they say. But the construction traffic is going to exist no matter where you put the entrance, period. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Itls going to go in front of Beach Walk -- MR. GRIFFIN: Well -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: -- whether you make them go around Pelican Bay or not youlre saying because itls going to go down Vanderbilt Beach Drive; right? MR. GRIFFIN: The problem is itls either going to go here and go out and down, or itls going to go here and down and down. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Or it might come through Pelican Bay another way. Iid like to see -- Iid like to see -- MR. GRIFFIN: Iive been in the business for eight years, and Iill put it wherever you want me to put that. But Iim telling you, they take the easiest route, and theylre going to come down this road, and theylre going to turn on here. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I say we test your theory and put it off North Point. MR. GRIFFIN: You will test me then. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Are there other speakers, Mr. Dorrill? MR. DORRILL: No, ma'am. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We'll close the public hearing. Is there discussion or other questions for staff or the petitioner? Is there a motion? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Madam Chairman, with the concessions presented to us on the exhibits today regarding landscaping, walls, basically what's been shown here, the addition of the construction access occurring off North Point Drive and not off Vanderbilt Beach Road, with those two things including staff recommendations, I will move approval. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion. Is there a second? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Are you sure about the construction entrance on your motion? I see that as just creating a little bigger problem than has to exist. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, North Point -- COHMISSIONER NORRIS: It's not going -- the way I see it, it doesn't help Beach Walk to move it around there. And it's just going to make some -- there's bound to be some residents from Pelican Bay come up and not be happy with it going in there so -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Nino, is North Point signalized? MR. NINO: No, it isn't. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Not yet. If you put traffic in there, though, it might be. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I see accidents. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Do you think North Point is -- and I'm just asking my colleagues. Do you think North Point is a worse situation that the possible conflict between the entrance to Beach Walk and a construction entrance on Vanderbilt Beach Road? MR. NINO: Let me tell you because I use that North Point and Pelican Bay as a cut-through very often. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Nino. MR. NINO: Getting -- getting on to North Point I find is very easy, but getting from North Point on to VBR is very difficult. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Making a left or -- MR. NINO: Yes, making a left, very difficult. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Most of this traffic would probably be making a right if -- MR. NINO: And that's at any time of the day. MS. BISHOP: If you look at the aerials, there's a median there, so it makes it difficult. That width of that roadway there is only one lane, so it's -- these are big trucks. They're going to need -- COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I think we closed the public hearing. MS. BISHOP: -- some unhampered ways to get out realistically or they'll be running over your county medians. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I believe we closed the public hearing unfortunately. MS. BISHOP: Oh, sorry. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: It's the petitioner. So we're talking -- yeah, there is a median there, yeah. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, my only thing is -- is that you're not going to help Beach Walk by putting it down there because the traffic's going to go right in front of them anyway. And my only concern is that you're -- you're causing an extra turning motion or two that probably is not good but -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, I'm looking here at Beach Walk, and we have Beach Walk units down here by the -- what is currently being used as an entrance onto the site, and we also have a Beach Walk resident down by North Point. So it's almost a question of which Beach Walk residents do we give the noise to. And believe me, I wish I could make an exception and you could speak again, but Commissioner Norris has a point. It's a coin toss. In essence the current construction entrance is across from tennis courts. If we put it on North Point they're going to be coming out right across from residential dwellings. And we all know when a -- a dump truck powers up to move out, it makes a good bit of noise. And whether that noise is across from a tennis court or a residence, I would choose a tennis court in looking at this aerial. I have a feeling no matter what I do I'm going to get phone calls. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Uh-huh. Do you want to adjust your motion? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm going to remove the construction access because I think we would be transferring the noise to an intersection immediately adjacent to residences as opposed to across from tennis courts but as -- but include in the motion that the -- the construction entrance not be any nearer the Beach Walk entrance than it is now. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I'll second. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second to approve petition V95-3 with a stipulation that the construction entrance be no closer to the Beach Walk entrance than it currently exists. Is there further discussion? All those in favor please say aye. Opposed? There being none, motion passes four to zero, Commissioner Mac'Kie abstaining. Item #13A4 RESOLUTION 95-383 RE PETITION CU-95-2, ROBERT DUANE OF HOLE, HONTES & ASSOCIATES, INC., REPRESENTING THE COLLIER COUNTY UTILITIES DIVISION REQUESTING CONDITIONAL USE 2.6.9.2 OF THE "A" ZONING DISTRICT FOR IMPROVEMENTS TO AN EXISTING WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITY FOR PROPERTY LOCATED OFF WARREN STREET AND 100 FEET SOUTH OF ST. ANDREWS BOULEVARD - ADOPTED SUBJECT TO STIPULATIONS Next item on the -- next item on the petition -- on the agenda is petition CU95-2. Mr. Duane is here and Mr. Bellows. MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows of current planning staff presenting petition CU-95-2. Collier County utilities division is requesting a conditional use for essential services to offer improvements to the south county regional waste water treatment plant. Proposed improvements are requested to mitigate concerns for odor, noise, and safety and aesthetics of the plant. Plant was first constructed in the 1970s and expanded in the '80s. This request does not seek to increase the capacity of the plant but to improve the operational parameters of the plant and basically to become a better neighbor with the surrounding areas. The improvements include the following: Relocation of the aeration tank to the southern portion of the site, improved landscaping to the northern edge, new odor control scrubbers, and covered aeration tank. The lighting will be shielded. Noise reduction will be made by enclosing the pump station and the use of liquid bleach for improved safety. The Collier County Planning Commission recommended approval. No letters have been received for or against this request. Any questions? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Are there questions for staff? Are there speakers, Mr. Dotrill? MR. DORRILL: Amazingly, no. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just a comment. None too soon. Last couple of weeks have been a little strong over there, so glad we're progressing. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Have they really? The -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Just a moment. Let me close the public hearing, and then we'll entertain discussion. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Can staff still speak on -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I think Mr. Boyer was going to fill us in on a detail about potential bit of delay. Now would be a good time to get it over with. MR. BOYER: Karl Boyer with your capital projects department. A few months ago at the request of Commissioner Norris, we generated a memorandum itemizing all the estimated completion dates for the many or several items that we want to try to accomplish at the south county plant to in essence achieve a good neighbor policy. We're very happy to report that three of those items had been completed with two to go. The three that have been completed are the drainage correction at the Tanglewood pool. Visual barrier or buffer with improved landscaping along the buffer has been completed and a noise abatement program whereby we were to minimize the noise of an existing pumping station located next to some residences in the area. Those three have been corrected. The remaining items are to convert the existing gas, gaseous, chlorine system to a safer liquid bleach system. That one is on schedule to be completed by February of '96 which is consistent with what we had estimated five months ago. The other remaining item is to relocate the aeration tank. This is the tank that the water is splashed around, creates a mist and a slight odor problem. It's located close to some residences. The plan that you all endorsed was to relocate that tank further away from those residences on the other side of the plant site which is what Ray is pointing to now. We have -- we have estimated that we would be able to complete that construction by the end of calendar year '96. We are now estimating that that schedule be pushed out much further. The good news is we're going to be able to complete the chlorine disinfection on schedule as we had originally estimated. The bad news is that we're going to have to push the schedule for completing the aeration tank into -- close to the end of fiscal year '96 -- no, I'm sorry. I'm getting mixed up here. September '97 is our estimated completion date now for the aeration tank. That is the current -- our current estimates for those completion dates of those individual items. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's about eight or nine months behind where it was. Any particular reason we slid? MR. BOYER: Correct. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just permitting or -- MR. BOYER: We -- we had -- we had intentionally held off the -- initiating the design work and the major expenditure associated with the design work pending your approval of the conditional use which is what we're talking about today. So with your approval today, we will immediately proceed with a notice to our consultants to initiate that work. So we've held off pending your approval conditional use of zoning. It's taken longer than we anticipated. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Madam Chairman, I'll make a motion to approve the item. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second to approve the item. Mr. Cuyler, did I hear that you needed to get something here? MR. CUYLER: Not on this item. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Not on this item? I want to be sure. There was some concern, if I'm correct, when this board prior to Commissioner Hancock and Mac'Kie coming on that the original property didn't have a conditional use; is that correct? Are we remedying that? MR. BELLOWS: Yes. This is a conditional use for essential services that covers the entire waste water treatment plant, an entire operation. MR. CUYLER: And your motion includes the findings made by staff that this is -- the appropriate findings are there, and the recommendation is for approval on this, Mr. Bellows. MR. BELLOWS: Yes, that's correct. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Absolutely. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. We have a motion and a second. If there's no further discussion, I'll call the question. All those in favor please say aye. Opposed? There being none, motion passes five to zero. Item #13B1 RESOLUTION 95-384 REQUESTING AN EXTENSION TO THE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED CU-89-18 (TEHPUSTECH MARINA ON BONITA BEACH ROAD) WHICH HAS BEEN ISSUED A THIRD AND FINAL ONE YEAR EXTENSION - ADOPTED Next item is 13-B-l, request that the Board of County Commissioners consider an extension to CU89-18. MR. ARNOLD: Good afternoon. For the record, Wayne Arnold of your planning services department. This is a request to extend a previously approved conditional use for a project called Tempustech which was a marina and private club located on Bonita Beach Road. This project has previously received three one-year extensions of its conditional use. It's also previously received site development plan approval and did receive a building permit for its dock structures which consequently expired. However, one of the considerations on this project is that the county has been in active negotiation with the developer of the project in trying to acquire additional right-of-way for the Bonita Beach Road project. And in that -- and in that the project has not been able to move forward and actively construct according to their conditional use approval. Basically the situation we've had is almost a stay with the developer rather than possibly an expiration. By date it has expired. The developer's asking for some consideration as to the negotiation with the county staff. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: What you're telling us, that it's -- it's been delayed because of something that the county's been involved in -- MR. ARNOLD: That's correct. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: -- rather than being totally the fault of the property owner. MR. ARNOLD: That's correct. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Is that what you're saying? MR. ARNOLD: Yes. I might also add that Mr. Agnelli (phonetic) of Lely has -- in a letter that was in your packet has also admitted that the project is ready to move forward in the event that they can make a finding that this project is still alive. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Is it just me or does -- I mean, is there a representative of the petitioner here? It seems odd that there wouldn't be. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I don't see one. MR. ARNOLD: I don't see Mr. Agnelli present. If you might -- MR. DORRILL: They may have considered this routine. I will tell you that I spoke to him briefly by the phone. They were cooperative during the discussions of the right-of-way and the bridge approach for Fish Trap Bay. And it's my understanding and I had asked him to include in the letter they're indicating to us they do have a contract pending. And it's supposed to close I believe first week of July which is necessitating the request prior to you going on recess. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Are there speakers? MR. DORRILL: No, ma'am. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I don't think so. I don't -- we have an empty room. COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Not unless Jack is expanding his scope. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I'll close the public hearing. Is there further discussion from -- with staff? COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Considering that the -- that it's partially due to the county's actions that caused these delays, I'll make a motion that we approve this request. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Second. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second to approve a third and final extension to CU89-18. If there's no further discussion, all those in favor please say aye. Opposed? There being none, motion passes five to zero. Thank you, Mr. Arnold. Item #15 STAFF'S COHHUNICATIONS - FAC LEGAL DEFENSE FUND DISCUSSED We've completed the day's agenda. We are to communications, the Board of County Commissioners communications. Commissioner Norris. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: tomorrow? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Have a good vacation. Commissioner Hancock. See you on the links. You're not coming in tomorrow? Are you going to be here Well, yes, but this is my last time to get that on the record in an advertised public meeting. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Hancock? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Fine. Commissioner Nothing. Pass? Commissioner Mac'Kie? No, ma'am. Commissioner Constantine? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I have just four items. No, I have nothing. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Motion to table. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Very good. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Dotrill, I believe you do have a couple items. MR. DORRILL: Only one at this -- at this point. We'll defer with the others. My office had received a fax from the Florida Association of Counties indicating that the board of directors at their most recent meeting has proposed and will be soliciting input from member counties at the annual conference which is next week on Marco Island concerning creation of a FAC legal defense fund for certain issues that board of directors through a process feel are worthy of their -- of their participation from a statewide perspective. And I just wondered if we could have a quick discussion concerning the merits of that and whether you prefer either my office or Mr. Cuyler's office to express an opinion. My understanding of their procedure is that at one penny per capita that we would be assessed $1,870 or something on an annual basis. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah. This -- this comes as a result of -- of the meeting that I attended I guess back in April with the FAC, and I brought that information back to the county commission regarding -- was it Fair Labor Standard Act challenges that are -- that are before -- is it Citrus County, Mr. Dotrill? MR. DORRILL: I believe that's correct. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: And the FAC has gotten involved in it because these are issues that really pertain directly to local government and our ability to -- to continue to function as a local government should they go through all the various challenges to the Supreme Court and Citrus County lose its argument. It could be a disaster for local government. But that's -- that's some of the history behind it. I think we had talked about it with paramedics wanting training -- wanting additional pay for weight training and policemen with K-9 dogs wanting additional pay for the time they spend bonding with their K-9s and -- and so forth like that. Itws issues such as -- such as those types. And I guess wewre looking for direction on whether to -- MR. DORRILL: If I understand, they will be soliciting some member comments before the board of directors makes a final decision, and I didnwt know whether this board wanted to give either Mr. Cuyler or myself some -- some instruction. Not a big deal, but itws -- it does involve a decision that ultimately youwd have to make. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Well, I won't -- I won't be able to attend the meeting, but for myself for $1,800 and the preservation of -- of local general purpose government, I think it's probably a good investment. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: I'll be there for most of the conference, and I'll be happy to -- to bring back to us the results, but I don't think we're ready here to make a decision whether to support it wholly or not. I appreciate the heads up, and I'll be happy to bring back what I can. But if I see something that is either alarming or advantageous, I'll speak for myself as an individual, but I won't pretend to speak for the county commission. MR. DORRILL: That's all that I had. COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Miss Filson? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Fine work. ***** Commissioner Norris moved, seconded by Commissioner Constantine, and carried unanimously, that the following items under the Consent Agenda be approved and/or adopted Item #16A1 ACCEPTANCE OF SEWER FACILITIES FOR TRACT "C" AT WINDSTAR REPLAT Book Pages Item #16A2 ACCEPTANCE OF WATER FACILITIES FOR OSPREY'S LANDING Book Pages Item #16A3 RESOLUTION 95-362 RE RECORDING OF THE FINAL PLAT OF "TRACT C AT WINDSTAR REPLAT" See Pages Item #16A4 APPROVAL OF EXCAVATION PERMIT NOS. 59.531 AND 59.540 "HUNTINGTON LAKES - LAKES #1 AND #2, BOUNDED ON THE SOUTH BY OAKS BOULEVARD EXTENSION AND IMHOKALEE ROAD CANAL RIGHT-OF-WAY; ON THE NORTH BY HUNTINGTON PUD, ON THE EAST BY QUAIL CREEK VILLAGE, AND ON THE WEST BY NORTHBROOKE DRIVE RIGHT-OF-WAY Item #16A5 APPROVAL OF AN ADDITIONAL CONTRACTOR (CENTRO COMPENSINO FARMWORKER CENTER, INC.) TO THE LIST OF PRE-QUALIFIED CONTRACTORS PERMITTED TO WORK ON PROJECTS FUNDED BY THE COLLIER COUNTY RESIDENTIAL REHABILITATION PROGRAM (RFP #94-2280) Item #16A6 ACCEPTANCE OF WATER FACILITIES FOR NORTH NAPLES GOVERNMENT SERVICES SITE (FIRE STATION #44) Book Pages Item #16A7 ACCEPTANCE OF WATER AND SEWER FACILITIES FOR LEAWOOD LAKES Book Pages Item #16A8 ACCEPTANCE OF WATER AND SEWER FACILITIES FOR PELICAN HARSH, UNIT SEVEN Book Pages Item #16A9 AMEND THE APPROVAL OF THE FINAL PLAT OF "COLONNADE" See Pages Item #16A10 RECORDING THE FINAL PLAT OF "STERLING OAKS, PHASE 2B" See Pages Item #16All RESOLUTION 95-363 RE FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE ROADWAY, DRAINAGE, WATER AND SEWER IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE FINAL PLAT OF "MAPLEWOOD UNIT ONE" See Pages Item #16A12 - This item has been deleted Item #16A13 RESOLUTION 95-364 RE RECORDING OF THE FINAL PLAT OF "PELICAN ISLE YACHT CLUB" See Pages Item #16A14 BUDGET AMENDHENT REQUEST TO ESTABLISH THE HETROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION (HPO) BUDGET FOR GRANT YEAR 1995-1996 Item #16A15a SATISFACTION OF NUISANCE ABATEMENT LIEN RE RESOLUTION 91-105; O SNYDERAND LUCILE SNYDER, JOYCE PARK SUBDIVISION See Pages Item #16A15b SATISFACTION OF NUISANCE ABATEMENT LIEN RE RESOLUTION 91-416; O SNYDERAND LUCILE SNYDER, JOYCE PARK SUBDIVISION See Pages Item #16A15c SATISFACTION OF NUISANCE ABATEMENT LIEN RE RESOLUTION 91-417; O SNYDERAND LUCILE SNYDER, JOYCE PARK SUBDIVISION See Pages Item #16A15d SATISFACTION OF NUISANCE ABATEMENT LIEN RE RESOLUTION 92-206; O SNYDERAND LUCILE SNYDER, JOYCE PARK SUBDIVISION See Pages Item #16A15e SATISFACTION OF NUISANCE ABATEMENT LIEN RE RESOLUTION 92-456; O SNYDERAND LUCILE SNYDER, JOYCE PARK SUBDIVISION See Pages Item #16A15f SATISFACTION OF NUISANCE ABATEMENT LIEN RE RESOLUTION 94-218; O SNYDERAND LUCILE SNYDER, JOYCE PARK SUBDIVISION See Pages Item #16A15g SATISFACTION OF NUISANCE ABATEMENT LIEN RE RESOLUTION 94-264; O SNYDERAND LUCILE SNYDER, JOYCE PARK SUBDIVISION See Pages Item #16A15h SATISFACTION OF NUISANCE ABATEMENT LIEN RE RESOLUTION 94-625; O SNYDERAND LUCILE SNYDER, JOYCE PARK SUBDIVISION See Pages Item #16C1 AUTHORIZATION OF THE COLLIER COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD TO PROVIDE PREPARED FOOD FOR THE SUHMER FOOD SERVICE GRANT PROGRAM See Pages Item #16C2 APPROVAL OF A LEASE AGREEMENT WITH EVERGLADES CITY FOR THE LONG TERM USE OF SPACE WITHIN THE CITY HALL BUILDING FOR PUBLIC LIBRARY SERVICE AND THE CLERK OF COURT ACTIVITIES See Pages Item #16D1 SATISFACTION OF CLAIM OF LIEN FOR GLENN DUENE HOUDASHELDT AND ARGULOUS AND DOROTHY WOODS See Pages Item #16D2 SUBORDINATION AGREEMENT FOR CHERYL L. HARTMAN, PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF HARK DOUGLAS See Pages Item #16D3 SATISFACTIONS OF NOTICE OF PROMISE TO PAY AND AGREEMENT TO EXTEND PAYMENT OF SEWER IMPACT FEES FOR EDWARD DELANEY AND JEREMIAH DACEY, GRACE O'KINSEY GRAY, DARNELL AND LINDA GRONOLDS, WILLIE RAN PUGH, AND CARLO AND BETHANIE ANTENOR See Pages Item #16El WAIVE FEE FOR THE TEMPORARY USE PERMIT FOR THE ANNUAL FIELD DAY SPONSERED BY THE AivLATEUR RADIO ASSOCIATION OF SOUTHWEST FLORIDA Item #16E2 SUFFICIENCY OF BONDS OF COUNTY OFFICERS Item #16G1 APPROVAL OF BUDGET AMENDMENT RECOGNIZING AND APPROPRIATING INTEREST EARNINGS TO BE REFUNDED TO THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION (FDEP), PER PETROLEUM CONTAMINATION CONTRACT GC 205 Item #1662 SELL SURPLUS LANDFILL OPERATING EQUIPMENT TO THE HIGHEST BIDDERS - AWARDED TO WASTE MANAGEMENT INC. OF FLORIDA Item #16H1 COUNTY MANAGER TO APPROVE CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS, BUDGET AMENDMENTS AND EMERGENCY ITEMS DURING THE BOARD'S SUHMER RECESS Item #16H2 - This item has been deleted Item #16H3 - This item has been deleted Item #16H4 APPROVAL OF ADDITIONAL SERVICES PROPOSAL BY AGNOLI, BARBER, AND BRUNDAGE, INC. FOR PORTIONS OF THE WORK NECESSARY TO IMPLEMENT THE CONSTRUCTION OF DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS IN NAPLES PARK Item #16H5 APPROVAL OF BUDGET AMENDMENT FOR AIRPORT AUTHORITY COHMERCIAL PAPER LOAN EXPENSES 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 CERTIFICATES OF CORRECTION TO THE TAX ROLLS AS PRESENTED BY THE PROPERTY APPRAISER'S OFFICE 1994 REAL PROPERTY No. Dated 170 06/09/95 163 06/06/95 167 06/07/95 1993 REAL PROPERTY 218 06/07/95 1992 REAL PROPERTY 199 06/07/95 1991 REAL PROPERTY 281 06/07/95 Item #16K1 PRESENT THE STATE REVENUE SHARING APPLICATION FOR FISCAL YEAR 1995-1996 AND OBTAIN APPROVAL FOR THE CHAIRMAN TO SIGN THE APPLICATION See Pages Item #16L1 RESOLUTION 95-365 RE APPROVAL OF THE SATISFACTION OF LIENS FOR CERTAIN RESIDENTIAL ACCOUNTS WHEREIN THE COUNTY HAS RECEIVED PAYMENT SAID LIENS ARE SATISFIED IN FULL FOR THE 1991 SOLID WASTE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL SERVICES SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS See Pages Item #16L2 RESOLUTION 95-366 RE APPROVAL OF THE SATISFACTION OF LIENS FOR CERTAIN RESIDENTIAL ACCOUNTS WHEREIN THE COUNTY HAS RECEIVED PAYMENT SAID LIENS ARE SATISFIED IN FULL FOR THE 1992 SOLID WASTE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL SERVICES SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS See Pages Item #16L3 RESOLUTION 95-367 RE APPROVAL OF THE SATISFACTION OF LIENS FOR CERTAIN RESIDENTIAL ACCOUNTS WHEREIN THE COUNTY HAS RECEIVED PAYHENT SAID LIENS ARE SATISFIED IN FULL FOR THE 1993 SOLID WASTE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL SERVICES SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS See Pages Item #16L4 RESOLUTION 95-368 ACKNOWLEDGING THAT THE COUNTY TAX COLLECTOR ENTERS INTO LEASES FOR BRANCH OFFICES IN WHICH LIMITED COUNTY BUSINESS IS CONDUCTED See Pages Item #16L5 AMENDMENT TO BEACH RENOURISHHENT AND PASS MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY OF NAPLES See Pages There being no further business for the Good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by Order of the Chair at 4:40 p.m. BOARD OF COUNTY COHMISSIONERS BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS CONTROL ATTEST: DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK BETTYE J. MATTHEWS, CHAIRPERSON These minutes approved by the Board on as presented or as corrected TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF DONOVAN COURT REPORTING BY: Catherine Hoffman and Shelly Semmler