Loading...
BCC Minutes 09/19/1995 RREGULAR MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 19, 1995, OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 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 9:09 a.m. in REGULAR SESSION in Building"F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the CHAIRPERSON: VICE-CHAIRMAN: following members present: Bettye J. Hatthews John C. Norris Timothy Constantine Pam Hac'Kie Timothy Hancock ALSO PRESENT: Leo Ochs, Acting County Hanager David Weigel, Assistant County Attorney CHAIRPERSON HATTHEWS: Call to order the board of county commissioner meeting for Collier County, September 19, 1995. Mr. Ochs, would you lead us in an invocation and pledge? MR. OCHS: Yes, ma'am. Heavenly Father, we are grateful again this morning to have the opportunity to meet, to conduct the public's business in a free and open forum. We ask you to bless our time here today. And we pray that the actions and decisions of this board will enhance the quality of life for all residents of our community. We pray these things in Your Son's holy name. Amen. (The pledge of allegiance was recited in unison.) Items #3 and #3A AGENDA AND CONSENT AGENDA - APPROVED WITH CHANGES CHAIRPERSON HATTHEWS: We have a few changes? HR. OCHS: Yes. Good morning, HAdam Chairman and members of the board. We have a few changes this morning to the agenda. I'll run through them briefly. The first change is an add -- add-on item. That's item 8-A-3 under community and environmental services. That's a water and sewer facilities acceptance for Sterling Oaks, phase 2. MS. FILSON: 2-B. MR. OCHS: We also have an add-on item, item 8-E-l, the bid award for grounds maintenance for Golden Gate Parkway and the Marco Island medians at staff request. The third add-on is item 10-B. That would be a discussion of the 1996 Greater Naples Intellinet Challenge at the request of Commissioner Hancock. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Hoping to be a participant this year, Mr. Hancock? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Got a few more strokes to work off. CHAIRPERSON HATTHEWS: Better than me. MR. OCHS: And we have one withdrawal, Madam Chairman. That would be item 16-B-10 which was a routine bid award for a three-ton trackhoe that we'll be rescheduling. CHAIRPERSON HATTHEWS: Okay. And that's a withdrawal? MR. OCHS: Yes, ma'am. CHAIRPERSON HATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Ochs. Any other changes, Commissioner Norris? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: CHAIRPERSON HATTHEWS: COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: CHAIRPERSON HATTHEWS: COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: CHAIRPERSON HATTHEWS: Nothing today. Commissioner Hancock? No, ma'am. Commissioner Hac'Kie? No, ma'am. Commissioner Constantine? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I have no changes. CHAIRPERSON HATTHEWS: I have two. One is a request due to continued problems in the eastern part of the county and probably in some areas of the western part of the county as well with continued flooding and drainage problems and would like under the BCC to ask Mr. Archibald who I spoke with this morning and is preparing information to tell us some more about what's being done, especially with private roads and access to those roads, and some determinations that the board may have to make or may decide not to make in dealing with this ongoing problem. So I guess that would be -- MR. OCHS: 10-B. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: 10-C? MR. OCHS: I'm sorry. 10-C, yes. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: And the other one deals with the-- under the county attorney -- county attorney's report -- I'm sorry, 10-A, and that is the investment policy. If it's all right with the board, I'd -- I'd like to continue that for one more week. And my reasoning for that is to my knowledge -- and I haven't read it yet. I've been through my in basket and can't find it. But the report from Raymond James just became available yesterday afternoon. And it just seems to me that rather than us sit here and discuss this today, if there's differences between Raymond James and the investment policy that we're being asked to approve or disapprove of that why don't we ask them since they're here today to work with the clerk or all other interested parties. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No objection. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: And then we'll discuss next week what the differences are so that we don't go through this whole thing. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Mine shows received today, and I haven't gotten it until today. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah, I haven't even gotten it. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: That's fine. We need to keep in mind that next week is our last -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: It's the last -- COHMISSIONER NORRIS: -- opportunity to make a decision. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: It's the last opportunity. I know. So we're -- we're under the gun now. MR. WEIGEL: Madam Chairman, Arthur Ziev, the representative from Raymond James, will be here today at ten o'clock. I mean, he should be en route now -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Well, I'd -- I'd still like him MR. WEIGEL: -- with the idea of this item. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I'd still like him to come and -- and instead of spending an hour or so talking to us spend an hour or so working with the clerk or whoever else the clerk needs to get involved or he needs to get involved and -- and work on what their differences are so that next week we can only talk about differences. If they agree, they agree. That's -- that's great. MR. WEIGEL: Next week is the last meeting -- regular meeting prior to October 1. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I know. MR. WEIGEL: And as -- as the board was advised in previous meeting on this -- on this item, if we do not adopt a policy on October 1 that is in conformance with the 1995 legislative requirement -- our current policy has a few -- they're small but has a few deficiencies. And it would be necessary for the board to, in fact, adopt a policy that's changed, or in effect we fall in the default position under the '95 legislation for what we call paragraph number 15 which limits the investment vehicles that might be utilized by the board. So from my understanding if -- if it is the desire of the board to hear the item next week and the board make a determination next week, I would like to know if the board is, in fact, going to adopt a policy on the spot next week or schedule another meeting prior to October 1 for a policy to be drafted and brought back before the board. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: What I would -- would like to do -- and -- and I guess I need the board to help me if -- if we're going to give somebody direction. But I would like Raymond James today to spend their time today working with the clerk's office to come up with a policy that either they agree with or that -- or to at least next week point out to us the items that they disagree on. And if they could give us in the interim the rationale behind what they agree on or disagree on, then we have a week to study that, and next week I would expect to make a decision. MR. WEIGEL: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hancock. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I have no objection to that, but I think we need to realistically -- realistically look at next Tuesday in a sense that we have one policy in writing, and that is the clerk's proposed policy. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Uh-huh. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Last week Mr. Weigel referred to two or I believe three changes in our current policy that would bring it into compliance. I hate to be in the position next week of either approving the only written policy that's been presented to us or having nothing. We may in the interim wish to have the proposed modifications that would bring our current policy into compliance prepared so that we as a board are given in essence both ends of the spectrum. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: That -- I think that's what I'm asking for. I didn't say it quite so well but asking that the groups involved in creating the policy have a meeting, discuss what they agree on and what they disagree on, and tell us what the differences are between merely bringing our existing policy up to date, up to whatever's required, and the policy that Mr. Brock has proposed and -- and that we -- we try to get that Wednesday or Thursday this week so that we've got the weekend to digest it. And hopefully Tuesday we can make an in -- intelligent decision rather than spending an hour or more here today discussing it. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: To be specific, I will certainly support the motion. But as a part of that motion I would -- to continue, I would like to ask that we direct our staff to make the minimum modifications to bring our policy into compliance with the '95 legislation and have that prepared for us so that we're in a position of wordsmithing and not creating at that point. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I think that sounds fair. Are we okay on that? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay with me. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: So we're going to continue -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Let me see if I understand. You said -- you said you want to continue the item, but you also said you wanted to listen to them present it for a half an hour. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: No, no, not today. I want to continue the item today and ask Raymond James who is on their way here to spend their time today with the clerk's office working on coming -- working on what they do agree on and trying to work out the differences on what they disagree on, what is actually needed and what the clerk proposes so that next week if there's discussion that's needed, we're -- we are merely addressing what those differences are. I don't see that we need to address what they agree on except to know what it is. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: As a matter of policy, the clerk is the custodian of the funds. Are we as a board of commissioners not responsible for making policy -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Oh, yeah, we are. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: -- that he is the custodian of? And how do we reconcile that with allowing or -- or accepting at face value the policy developed by the clerk's office then? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Well, that's -- the financial advisor is -- is the person the board has hired to advise us on this, and that's who I would hope would work with the -- the -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Madam Chairman? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: -- clerk to work this out. Commissioner Mac'Kie. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: What I -- what I would hope -- I think this is a good idea and that what we could do is ask them to give us -- somebody last week I think said a Chinese menu. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Uh-huh. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But on the left column all the paragraphs that they agree with and on the right-hand column our attorney's or our advisor's suggestion and the clerk's suggestion for what you know, where they differ because if we don't have something that specific, we're going to be hard pressed to -- to really adopt a policy. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: To do a policy. And -- and I'd-- I'd like to know what the differences are, and I'd like to know why they differ. Is it merely a philosophical difference? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Uh-huh. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Or are there legal ramifications to it? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And obviously if any or all of us disagree with both suggestions, we have that opportunity next week as well. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: death. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: agree. I think we have. item -- Make up our own. I think we've discussed this to We create our own menu. So I So do we have agreement to continue this COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yes, ma'am. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: That would be fine. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: -- and -- and ask our staff to work with the clerk and our financial advisor to work with our staff to resolve whatever the differences are? We have a -- okay. You've added the Intellinet, okay, and I have one communication item at the end of the day. If there's no further changes, could I have a motion? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Motion -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Motion to approve the agenda and consent agenda as amended. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second to approve the agenda and consent agenda as amended. All those in favor please say aye. Opposed? Motion passes five to zero. Item #5B SERVICE AWARDS - PRESENTED Proclamations and service awards. Commissioner Hac'Kie, service awards. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Yes. It's my pleasure this morning to present a service award for five years of service to Doug Shuart. Are you here, Mr. Shuart? Mr. Shuart has served for five years in aquatic plant control. We'd like to thank him for that today. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Congratulations. Thanks. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Congratulations. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Good. MR. OCHS: Congratulations, Doug. MR. SHUART: Thank you. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: A ten-year service award today goes to Sharon Long from planning services. Sharon, if you'd come forward. Thank you. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thanks. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Congratulations, Sharon. Next item on the agenda is a presentation. Is Carmen Richards here? This is something that the chairman has the pleasure of doing each -- each month, and that is the award and the presentation and the recognition of an employee from Collier County as our employee of the month. And this month -- turn around, Mr. Richards. Let them see how nice you look. This month it's Carmen Richards who works in our community development division. He's been with the county since 1989, and he has by successive promotions achieved the position of engineering inspector. He consistently demonstrates professional competence in his evaluation and review of plans for the past and future construction. Carmen is an acknowledged expert in the field of -- in functional areas of right-of-way and water management. We really need him right now. He coordinates well with division engineers, commands their complete confidence, and has unique fortitude and strength of character. And he performs the most difficult tasks with dispatch. He contributes well to the morale of the department and is loyal to the county. And without any reservation he was nominated and selected as employee of the month for September 1995. Mr. Richards, I have for you a couple of things. First is a letter of recognition. MR. RICHARDS: Thank you very much. Item #5C CARMEN RICHARDS, OF THE COHMUNITY DEVELOPHENT DIVISION, EHPLOYEE OF THE MONTH FOR SEPTEMBER 1995 - RECOGNIZED CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Next is a plaque that says Board of County Commissioners, Collier County, Florida, official recognition and appreciation as employee of the month is tendered to Carmen Richards for exceptional performance for September 1995. MR. RICHARDS: Really appreciate it. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: And the ever-wanted $50 check. Thank you. MR. RICHARDS: Thank you very much. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: That's always a fun one to do each month. Item #7A HRS. ELAINE H. GILHORE RE A BICYCLE PATH - STAFF TO PROVIDE BIKE BATH UPDATE AT THE HPO MEETING ON 9/22/95 Next on the agenda under public petitions, item 7-A, Miss Elaine Gilmore, regarding a bicycle path. Mrs., I'm sorry. MS. GILMORE: Morning. Commissioners, I'd like to make a public petition for a bicycle path on 951. Oh. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Can you just pull that microphone down a little bit? COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Hard to hear you. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thanks. MS. GILMORE: Can -- okay. Can you hear me now? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah. MS. GILMORE: I'd like to make a public petition for 951, C. R. 951, to have a bicycle path built there, either a temporary or a permanent one. A couple years ago when they four laned 9 -- 951 from Golden Gate Parkway to Golden Gate Boulevard, they -- they told us, well, they would finish the road from First Avenue Northwest to Golden Gate Boulevard to Immokalee in two years and then we could have a bicycle path from First on. But so far and as far as I can find out right now, the rest of that road is not going to be on the road list for at least five more years. It isn't even on that one. What I would like to know is if there's possible you could build a -- or even put it on the list for the bicycle path for-- you know, for that area. Between First Avenue Northwest and Seventh Avenue Northwest is only a short distance, but it is a very dangerous distance. We would like to use a bike -- ride a bike. I really appreciate riding. And I'd like for my children -- grandchildren -- they come to visit us quite often. Both parents work, and they stay with us a lot of times. The older two have started working, and their parents will leave them off at our house, and then they will go to work and be picked up later. But they have to take -- excuse me. They have to ride the bike from there to where they work. One of them used to work in Winn Dixie and the other in Publix. But now they both changed, and they work at Publix to make it much easier for transportation. But it really is very scary for them to use that 951 to ride on the bike. I know we're not -- it's not connected to a school or anything, but it is connected from, as I said, First Avenue Northwest to Seventh Avenue North. Even Vanderbilt Beach Extension Road is -- it's really a very dangerous section of the road. People don't realize unless they live there how dangerous it is. There's a lot of traffic, heavy trucks especially. And, of course, there's regular traffic also all during the day. The -- we went -- I've gone riding with the children. A couple of times I went with them just to make sure that they made it all right, and several times we were almost pushed off the road. And the children -- the children got so that they didn't want to -- to do this, you know, so we had to take and drive them. But a lot of times we can't drive them because we have doctors' appointments or different things we have to do. And the parents, of course, can't leave work continually to do this. But it's not only our children, but there are a lot of children on those streets from the Third, Seventh, and Fifth Avenues Northwest. And actually, I mean, we really need it. But for safety's reason alone I think we should have it. And -- and also I think 951 has been kind of -- that end of 951 has been kind of forgotten as far as, you know, anything going on. They just haven't -- they haven't really done anything about it. It's a mess. A lot of different things happen. And I brought them up and called the attention to the county about it. But it's just neglected, absolutely neglected. And I think we really need one to go there. If -- you know, just to -- in case -- before an accident happens or something drastic happens, we should have -- I think we should put one in. And I would appreciate it very much if they'd put it on the list at least. I've talked to Anita Chapman last year. I wrote her a letter last year, and I called her this year. And she told me it still wasn't on. And I couldn't understand it. When they were doing Logan Boulevard, they put in a temporary -- a temporary bike path. And then they took that out and put a permanent one in. And it's -- I just see them going up everywhere, and I never see anybody using them. I know they would be used in our area. And it would be a really -- it's really needed. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Constantine. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I had spoken with Mrs. Gilmore a couple of weeks ago -- MS. GILMORE: Yeah. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- in reference to this and one other item. It is a legitimate concern. I think it's an appropriate request. What I might suggest we do is sometime in the next couple of weeks schedule a review and update with Ms. Chapman on the list as it currently exists, what do we have planned to be funded in the next year and so on and the process to put new items on that list and where they should be ranked. But I think we should probably have some sort of update in the next couple of -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: We could have her do that at the very next MPO meeting, as a matter of fact. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Which is now October 67 COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Something, October the something. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I think it's the following -- following Friday. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Sixth or something like that, yeah. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: October something. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: October the 6th. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Why don't -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Why don't we do that. Why don't we have that at the MPO meeting October the 6th. Sound fair? That would be the quickest way to get it -- MS. GILMORE: October the 6th. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: At the MPO meeting which is at one '- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Two. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: -- two o'clock now. Two o'clock Friday afternoon in this room. MS. GILMORE: Okay. Thank you very much. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. That's a good idea. COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Hopefully the next chairman of the MPO will have the fortitude to put those meetings in the morning where they belong. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We -- we don't know who the next chairman's going to be yet, do we, but it should go to the city next time I believe. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, anyway. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Well, we'll -- we'll do that later. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Oh, be nice. Be nice. Item #7B MARIO J. SINGNORELLO, JR. OF CHAMPION SPORTS PRODUCTIONS, INC. RE NORTH NAPLES LITTLE LEAGUES SOFTBALL TOURNAMENTS - STAFF TO BRING BACK AS A REGULAR AGENDA ITEM CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Next item on the agenda is item 7-B, Mario G. (sic) Singnorello from Champion Sports Productions. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Congratulations. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Did we win? COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Did we win something? MR. SINGNORELLO: Actually I have -- I'll explain it later. Somebody from Collier County did win. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's the good news. MR. SINGNORELLO: The -- the item that I brought up for discussion was -- I'm from Champion Sports Productions, and I think most of you know I put on a couple sporting events based in this county. I think one of you participated in them, a running event and a softball event. And we've worked with the North Naples Little League with some -- with also some TDC grants. And the little league's benefitted several thousand dollars this year from our event. However, that number we felt was going to be a little bit higher. And there was -- there seems to be I guess -- I don't know if it's confusion or just maybe clear up the interpretation of -- of how the fees are administered for the softball -- for the soft -- for running the softball facilities. Working -- when we work as -- when we work with charities and we work -- we generally get a rate that is either the non-profit rate or the rate that is -- or -- or a different negotiated rate. As you know, we done a -- we did a softball tournament last year. I applied for exemptions because the rates that you have here are kind of exorbitant to the rates anywhere else that we do our events. So last year we did an event, and you had approved a $600 price tag which was in line with the other facilities that we -- still a little bit high, but it was in line with the other facilities that we ran. This year we -- we -- we assumed that the same rate was going to be -- was going to be taken, especially since this year we were working with a charity. That was not the case. The for -- the for-profit rate was enforced. I believe there was -- and I'm not familiar with what your -- with what your interpretation was but that there -- but that the for-profit rate was -- was forced upon us because Champion Sports was involved and that there was a -- I guess an entity being paid for the event. What I had -- what normally happens -- and I do these events in five different counties -- is that there is -- we are generally viewed as a professional service the same way umpires, score keepers, maybe concessionaires, parks personnel, and other personnel that attended a tournament. The general -- the general premise is that these -- the charity itself would not be able to put on the organization without these other parties participating as the umpires, the score keepers, and the other items. We generally -- we have been viewed in the same light. If we don't participate, then the revenue that they -- that they receive would not be generated, and that's our role in it. And we -- we did not -- the funding that we didn't -- requested wasn't -- was not a total -- was not down to zero. It was the same that we had last year, the $600 price tag. Instead we got charged a $1,215 price tag. So I guess I'm here to try and kind of clear up the -- what -- the way your -- the way your rule reads and how it's interpreted and enforced. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hancock. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: First of all, Champion Sports is a for-profit corporation. MR. SINGNORELLO: Yes, it is. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. You mentioned the charity. Is the charity the North Naples softball -- MR. SINGNORELLO: North -- the charity was the North Naples Little League. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Obviously you wouldn't be holding these tournaments solely out of the goodness of your heart. There's a-- a profit motive that's combined with -- MR. SINGNORELLO: Right. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- benefitting the local community. Last year how much did the -- the North Naples softball league get? MR. SINGNORELLO: In ninety -- '94? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yes. MR. SINGNORELLO: Nothing. We didn't do it -- we didn't do it with them. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: So in '94 you were charged $600 for the fields -- MR. SINGNORELLO: Correct. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- and they got nothing. MR. SINGNORELLO: Correct, and they -- just to let you know why I chose them, last year they were -- they were forced to do the concession which was -- and they -- they missed the number. They-- they overbought, and they actually lost money on it. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. MR. SINGNORELLO: So when I wanted to do an event this year -- I have plenty of charities that I do elsewhere for. I wanted a local charity to benefit. And since they spent their time and lost the money, that's how I came to chose (sic) them. So -- and plus seeing how hard they've worked at losing money, I figured that it would probably be a good bet if they were able to make money. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: And to work harder. MR. SINGNORELLO: They'd probably work harder. So that's how we came to use them. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: So in essence you're asking for a break on the price of the fields because a local charity is going to benefit from proceeds from the event. MR. SINGNORELLO: Correct, correct. I -- I -- I -- well, not -- not just because of that. I'm being asked because of that. See, we were forced to pay the for-profit rate because of our involvement in there. And none of the other facilities is that -- is it interpreted that way. We are interpreted as a professional service the same way that other professional services, the same way that -- there's certain services that need to be paid for within the event -- within the event structure, and we're just -- we're just kind of one of them. If you -- if the for-profit rate is enforced and there's less money, then we kind of defeat our purpose of utilizing them. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Constantine. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The -- there's a couple things to remember here. A year ago there was some confusion over what the rates would be. I don't know if we had a formal policy at the time or not. And -- and that was -- you were -- you were the group that brought this to our attention, and that's where we came up with the $600 a year ago was specifically -- and I think following that we set into place a policy that was certain for non-profit, more for for-profit and so on. The part -- I think Mr. Singnorello's right in that he went through the process with little league -- softball league -- is it little league? MR. SINGNORELLO: Well, it's little league but women's softball is under little league, so they're the ones that directly get the money. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- the -- for TDC dollars which you have to be not for profit, so clearly in the county's eyes this organization and this event was not for profit. And then we turned around on the back end and charged extra. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: And charged profit prices. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I don't think it's any different than at Swamp Buggy they get Mountain Dew or Pepsi or someone to sponsor and bring in some revenue that way, and they have some professional people who organize the event. I think this is very similar. The good thing is here, it's -- making a profit isn't -- isn't a bad thing, but that's kind of a sideline. Little league made a pretty good chunk of change on this. MR. SINGNORELLO: And they've got several thousand dollars now that they would not have otherwise. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Plus we filled how many? Hundred and fifty hotel beds? MR. SINGNORELLO: I think it was 178. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Hundred and seventy-eight? So it's the TDC dollars doing their trick too. So I think this is one where everybody benefits, and we're only hurting ourselves if we try to gouge that extra $600. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: The difference here is the league name on the application. If the league name is North Naples Little League -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Right. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- then it's a not-for-profit. And if they hire someone to run the event -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: It's their business. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: There -- there are some -- in-- in other cities and counties there are some places where someone will merely pay $300 to an organization or some amount to an organization to use their name, and I would feel differently if it were that way. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Right, right. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: But with the vending and all that goes on there and the amount of money the little league makes, I think this is a great partnership. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Appreciate that perspective. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: So what are you asking for then? MR. SINGNORELLO: I'm requesting the same rate that we had before which was $600 which puts it in line with everywhere else that we go. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: And I would presume then based on what I've heard that we would be -- we would want to give direction to staff to bring a resolution back to the board earliest date to adopt a resolution granting that -- that rate. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And to clarify that, the -- in my opinion, the nexus for that is the involvement of the -- the -- the local softball organization -- MR. SINGNORELLO: Right, right. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- and the benefit resulting from that to them -- MR. SINGNORELLO: Right. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- As opposed to opening the door for anyone who wants to come in, as Commissioner Constantine said, and attach a title name to something with a token dollar amount. MR. SINGNORELLO: I think that's the key. I didn't do that. I think that's the key to it is there's -- a lot of organizations can get -- can get funding 501 -- can get 501-A or 509-A and then use -- use others. I think the -- the point that probably needs to be resolutioned (phonetic) in there is that there's a local -- someone local that benefits from it. There's many organizations that I -- that I work with, but I always try and stay local because if you want manpower, it's easier to get it that way too, and -- and it always helps when there's someone close by that's benefitting. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: board? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: COHMISSIONER NORRIS: COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Do we have a consensus on the I think we do. I think we do. I think we do. Okay. So -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We unanimously think we do. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Sounds -- sounds like five, not just consensus. So then our staff -- I guess Mr. -- Mr. Olliff's group would be responsible for it -- will bring a resolution to us to direct that non-profit rates be extended for this function. MR. SINGNORELLO: Okay. Thank you. Do you want to know what the trophy's for? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah. MR. SINGNORELLO: The other thing besides -- I consider events a tremendous success here. Everyone seems to like them. Because I'm an east coast-based organization, there's a lot of people that come over from the west coast. I hope you can verify that you like the way the events are run. One of our commissioners participated in the 2-mile run, 10-mile bike, 2-mile run at 7 -- 7:30 in the morning back in May. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And it wasn't me. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Wasn't me. MR. SINGNORELLO: And I'm not sure why. We -- and since I've been here, the -- the other -- the other -- the other part that I've enjoyed is -- the series that we run is a traveling series. It runs over Florida. There's now four teams from the Fort Myers, Naples area that follow me every month to wherever we go. And it's nice to know that besides accomplishing the objective of hitting the room nights and bringing the -- that the -- the locals are getting something out of it that they enjoy. And the last tournament the rains -- the rains didn't exactly agree with us, so it took a little bit of figuring. But Joe Gene's Auto Detailing, the team that represents Naples, who's been traveling came in second place. So since I was coming over here, I'm going to go after this and find Mercantile Avenue and present them with their trophy. So I just thought I'd give them a little plug here and say that I'm happy to have them coming and participating. And they're winning, too, so it's not just -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: How -- how big is the first place trophy? MR. SINGNORELLO: It's a good thing they didn't come in first because I would've had to have taken it apart in order to bring it over here in my little vehicle. Thank you. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Thank you, Mr. Singnorello. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you very much, Mr. Singnorello. And we'll be addressing that I would hope within a couple of weeks. MR. SINGNORELLO: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. Item #SA1 CARNIVAL PERMIT 95-2, RE A CIRCUS ON NOVEMBER 3, 4, AND 5, 1995, AT THE FLORIDA SPORTS PARK ON STATE ROAD 951 - ADOPTED Next item on the agenda under the county manager's report, item 8-A-l, petition C95-2. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Madam Chairman, motion to approve -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- petition C95-2. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We got a couple of seconds, a motion and a couple of seconds to approve petition C95-2. If there's not any further discussion, all those in favor please say aye. Opposed? Motion passes five to zero. Item #8A2 DIRECTION FROH THE BOARD OF COUNTY COHMISSIONERS RE AN AMENDHENT TO THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT PERTAINING TO THE AREA OF CRITICAL STATE CONCERN - STAFF TO PROCEED WITH AMENDMENT TO THE COHP. PLAN AND WORK WITH INTERESTED PARTIES Next item, 8-A-2, is direction -- is requesting direction from the board of commissioners to amend the future land use element. Barbara Caccione. MS. CACCIONE: Good morning. For the record, my name is Barbara Caccione with your comprehensive planning section. The request before you today is to seek direction from the Board of County Commissioners on whether to amend the future land use element with regard to the area of critical state concern. In 1974 the area of critical state concern was formed, and that's the area identified in red on the future land use element map behind me. Certain regulations were adopted in conjunction with that at the state level, and those governed site alteration with that being limited to 10 percent of the site area permitted for alteration, drainage, structure installation, and transportation. These regulations at the state level exempted agricultural land use from any of these regulations. In 1985 we adopted the state regulations into our comprehensive plan. We readopted those amendments in 1989. And then in 1991 in conjunction with the environmental staff and the citizens' committee, the agricultural exemption was recommended for deletion. That was followed up by a comprehensive plan amendment in 1993 with adoption of the plan amendment. Those two changes took place last year. Under the current LDC cycle that we're currently in right now that you'll be having public hearings on within the next month, there is a proposed change to reinstate the agricultural exemption and to not have these regulations applicable in that area for agricultural land use. In order for that regu -- for that proposed amendment to be approved, the comprehensive plan amendment would need to be modified. The request today is to seek direction from the board on whether they would like to process a comprehensive plan amendment at this point in time. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Norris. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Miss Caccione, I can't really tell from here on that map, but does -- does this entail only those areas that are outside of the currently defined urban area? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: It's outlined in red. MS. CACCIONE: Basically the area of critical state concern is identified by this red line. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. So none of this would be inside the urban area then. MS. CACCIONE: No, none of it. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: And most of it, in fact, would be already state-owned land. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah. MS. CACCIONE: For the most part everything you see in green is state-owned land. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Right. Okay. MS. CACCIONE: There are some private inholdings within those state-owned lands. Now, these regulations as part of the local regulations, as part of regulations that we adopted into our comprehensive plan, are also applicable to the southern Golden Gate Estates area which is identified in brown on this map. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Question, Commissioner Hancock. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Miss Caccione, kind of help -- help me walk through what the significant difference here is going to be. I understand currently it's a 10 percent maximum alteration of sites within the -- the area of critical state concern. In a nutshell that's what we're currently dealing with; is that correct? MS. CACCIONE: That would have the largest impact in terms of the agricultural properties within the critical area. Under the state regulations those property -- properties are exempt. Under our local regulations, which are more stringent, only 10 percent of the area could be altered for agricultural use. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: We adopted an area of critical state concern based on state regulations; is that correct? MS. CACCIONE: Originally in 1985 and '89 we adopted the state regulations verbatim. In '91 we made our regulations more stringent. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: What is the potential impact of this change? Let's assume someone's been farming 120 acres within the area of critical state concern. It's cleared. There's nothing on it. What does this do to that property and the ability of that property to develop? MS. CACCIONE: The impact would be on the future use for agricultural properties. Basically the existing land uses are already cleared, and they are farming, and they would be able to continue. The effect would be on new uses for agricultural lands within that area of critical state concern. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: So right now you -- you -- you cannot make more than improvements on 10 percent of your property to begin an agricultural farming operation. But with this change you would be allowed to. You would be allowed to exceed that 10 percent if it's for agricultural purposes. MS. CACCIONE: If the exemption is reinstated, there -- they just would not apply. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. MS. CACCIONE: Agricultural would be exempt from these regulations. They would be governed by regulations dealing with wetlands from the U.S. Army Corps, and they'd also have to get a South Florida Water MAnagement District permit. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Thank you. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: If this request is approved, what it would really do would be to mirror the state requirements; is that correct? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah. MS. CACCIONE: That would be correct. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Thank you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Any other questions? MR. OCHS: MAdam Chairman -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Is there direction from the board? MR. OCHS: -- you have several registered speakers on this item. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Why don't we try to get a direction from the board, and that may help the speakers decide whether they want to continue or not. Commissioner Mac'Kie. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, I -- I think that -- that Commissioner Norris just made it as succinct as -- as it could be, and that is our regulations should mirror the state regulations in this regard. We don't intend to do anything to hurt farmers in Collier County. That would be absurd. And I think, you know, we need to make this change. So if a motion is appropriate, I would move that we -- we approve the change, but it's not -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Well -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- because it's a public hearing. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: -- I think -- I think what staff is looking for is direction from the board that we have a board sponsored comp. Plan change rather than having a private citizen pay a fee to initiate the change. Is that -- is that what you're looking for? MS. CACCIONE: Basically we would try to do the comprehensive plan amendment as quick as possible so that we would be able to do that before January 1 of '96 -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. MS. CACCIONE: -- if the board directs us to do that. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm supportive of that direction. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I'm supportive of that direction. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I too. Mr. Ochs, do you want to call the speakers? And I -- I think you've heard what the board's leaning in this is. So if you're in favor of our -- of trying to convince us to do this, I think we're probably convinced. MR. OCHS: Yes, ma'am. Miss -- Miss Cawley? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Pass. MR. OCHS: Mr. Duane. MR. DUANE: Pass. MR. OCHS: Miss Straton. MS. STRATON: Sorry, gang. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: What? No pass? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: That's okay. MR. OCHS: Miss Payton. MS. STRATON: Thank you. I'm here -- for the record, Chris Straton. And when we first looked at this item when it came before the EAB, my reaction was it didn't seem like a particularly onerous thing. However, as I began to get some additional information, I found that my reaction was a little different, so I wanted to share that with the board. Basically this is the same map that's up here. I've highlighted this purple area because that for the large part is the portion that is not owned through the Big Cypress Preserve or the Fakahatchee or something like that. Interestingly, that particular piece of land also corresponds with this map that I'll be passing out which is the Okaloacoochee Slough. And the Okaloacoochee Slough, as shown on this next map, is in a fairly high water recharge area in Collier County. So part of the concern is that the amendment affects not only clearing but also drainage and then structures. And because of drainage concerns especially I'm here fighting windmills. On this particular map, what we're talking about is the Okaloacoochee Slough starts in here, goes through here. And generally the flowway comes down into this particular area through the Fakahatchee Strand or down along here into the Big Cypress Preserve and eventually ends up in the 10,000 Islands. This is an area that already has some fragmentation as a result of ag. That's already going on in it so that any efforts to do additional agriculture with the drainage concerns to protect the ag. Land has the impact of further fragmenting this important area. Now, why am I talking about this? Well, there is an effort in south Florida to look at the relationships between water flows, and we're spending lots of money right now on an Everglades restoration project where the Kissimmee River -- because of what we've done in the Kissimmee we have got problems down in the Florida Keys. It is an interconnected system. And that's one of the concerns that I have is that recognition that the 10,000 Islands, Rookery Bay are all being impacted by what we may be doing farther upstream. As a member of the citizens' advisory committee on natural resources for the EAR, my first question is, well, why don't-- if we're going to do a comp. Plan amendment, let's do it as part of the EAR process, and let's look at all the elements, not just the future land use element. Specifically we have objectives that say the county will protect, conserve, and appropriately use ecological communities shared with or tangential to state and federal lands and other local governments. This property abuts the Big Cypress Preserve, the panther wildlife refuge as well as having an impact on the Fak. Those parties are not aware of this move -- of this effort. We say in our comp. Plan we'll coordinate with adjacent county, state, and federal agencies, other owners of lands held in the public trust, and the Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council to protect unique communities located along the county's border by controlling water levels and enforcing land development regulations with regard thereto. We also say that in our comp. Plan we'll pursue an agreement with the Department of Natural Resources regarding coordinated and cooperative planning, management, and monitoring programs for Rookery Bay, Cape Romano, 10,000 Isles aquatic preserves and their watersheds. We say at a minimum the county shall notify DNR of proposed land development projects that could affect these preserves. They are down -- downstream. The Governor is doing a sustainable Florida effort. One of the things they're proposing is because of, as we all know, the -- the flowways and the impact of what's happening in one watershed, what can happen to others, is recognizing that there needs to be a coordinated effort in south Florida with the 16 counties. Specifically what I'm here to do is -- is to state that this is a valuable resource to the public. It's a high recharge area. It does provide a flowway. We have a process currently with respect to amending the comprehensive plan. There are more elements than just the future land use element. And I have no idea what the impact of this is on the public facilities and the drainage ele -- subelement. We have -- this board has taken steps in the past on issues that affect many parties as to establish specific task forces. The landfill siting is one where lots of different parties are involved. The Vanderbilt Lagoon is where we're trying to get lots of different parties involved. There's an LDC amendment that will be coming forward dealing with lot clearing. This is something where the development services steering committee established a subcommittee to get all the interested parties involved in it. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Miss Straton, can you wrap it up? Your time is expired. MS. STRATON: Yes. I would suggest that you try to do the same thing and get -- and allow the other downstream people the opportunity to participate in this process. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Constantine. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just a couple of comments. No one is suggesting we deny them an opportunity to participate. What we're asking today is not to make the change but to ask our staff to begin the process required to make a change which would allow everything you just read out of our comp. Plan to happen. So a suggestion that that's somehow not happening is inaccurate. Couple of questions. You said at the beginning your primary concern is that -- the land up toward the north that is not currently preserve or park land but it's the private -- MS. STRATON: Right, that's the main area. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- Private land? So you're concerned that we might loosen the restrictions on the private property owners up in that portion. MS. STRATON: Well, our comp. Plan does allow us to be more stringent than the state. And that was a movement that was taken several years ago based on that citizens' advisory committee with the recognition -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So the -- it's a yes-no question. Your concern is that we might loosen the restriction on those private property owners up in that portion of -- MS. STRATON: Right. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Okay. Thank you. MS. STRATON: Uh-huh. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. Miss Payton. MS. PAYTON: Good morning. My name is Nancy Payton, and I am representing the Florida Wildlife Federation, and I'd like to briefly read into the record a very short statement by Dr. Fran Stallings, our director of the southwest Florida office. The Florida Wildlife Federation has carefully reviewed the proposed changes to the comprehensive plan. We also have participated in various public discussions relative to this issue. Our comments are as follows: One, we can understand the displeasure of land owners with the 10 percent clearing limitations. However, once this limitation is removed, very little effective protection remains for the natural resources in the area of critical state concern. The Collier County special treatment designation is a loose standard providing limited protection. We hereby request that if the 10 percent exemption is removed that other forms of protection be considered that will adequately protect the natural resources. Two, the standards for drainage and structure installation are reasonable and do not unduly restrict the use of land and therefore should be retained. A significant portion of the land under private ownership that is subject to the LDC and comprehensive plan restrictions lie within the Okaloacoochee Slough. Many of the uplands here have already been converted to agricultural uses. Considering that most of the remaining undeveloped land is wetlands and considering the role that wetlands play in modulating the extremes of surface run-off, we do not believe it is in the public best -- in the public interest to further impair this function through exempting agriculture from the drainage and structure installation sections of the comprehensive plan. Thank you for considering our proposal or our consideration. I also might say that I'm a member of EPTAB, and I'm not here representing EPTAB, just as a member of EPTAB who had this amendment brought to us at our most recent meeting. And at that time we didn't take a position. We wanted to look at it further. Many of the members on EPTAB did have concerns about this and its implications and, as Mrs. Straton said, that there are a lot of ripple effects to what may happen there. The Federation is not entirely opposed to -- to the concept here, but we think that all parties who may or may not be affected should have the opportunity to provide adequate input before it's actually adopted. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: It seems that's what the process, though, is all about. And failure to initiate the process won't even allow that to happen so '- MS. PAYTON: Well, our concern was possibly the folks could sit down before the process left the -- the train station -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Uh-huh. MS. PAYTON: -- and we could agree, and then it could be presented. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Thank you, Miss Payton. Are there others, Mr. Ochs? MR. OCHS: Yes, ma'am. Miss Durrwachter. MS. DURRWACHTER: Morning. I'm Sonja Durrwachter, Division of Forestry. I'm the manager of the Picayune Strand State Forest which we call the south blocks. I didn't really know about this before this morning. I'd like to offer our services if we could provide any input in this issue. We do have one concern as far as fire lines. I'm sure some other people will bring that up, too. But, you know, it would be, you know, maybe a good thing to have people have additional fire lines which would be outside of their 10 percent, you know, but anyway CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I -- I would suggest that you work with staff as they -- MS. DURRWACHTER: Absolutely. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: -- as they get together. MS. DURRWACHTER: Be glad to. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Thank you. MR. OCHS: Mr. Cornell. MR. CORNELL: Good morning. Thanks for the opportunity to speak on this. My name's Brad Cornell for the record, and I have a couple of comments that I'll briefly run through. First is I -- I have to second Chris Straton's opinion about the amendment process. I think that this really would be very well suited to the EAR process amendment discussion. The -- the process is going on right now. The subcommittees are meeting of the CAC, and recommendations are being made for amendments. It seems that this would be more appropriately looked at in the context of that rather than as a separate processed amendment. I don't really understand what the rush is to beat this January 1 deadline. It seems to me that the best thing would be to have this be incorporated into a very well thought out and discussed EAR -- EAR process and then have that evolve from that. It seems that more of us would be able to understand it and come to a good compromise. I -- I also have attended some of the other hearings or one other hearing on this. And I understand and -- and, in fact, staff has said that the ST overlay which would be the only extra protection in terms of environmental sensitivity is really not adequate to protect the area of critical state concern. So the fact that the county has more stringent regulations or guidelines for development I don't think is a bad thing. It seems to me that -- that absent those we're not in a good position to protect our -- our resources. Because Collier County has such a remarkably high quantity of world class natural resources, I believe it is very appropriate for us to have those stricter guidelines and presumably our being more local and closer to the situation than the state is would allow us the flexibility and the understanding to -- to work with land owners when there are problems as opposed to people in the federal government or in state government who -- who just aren't as close to -- to our -- our citizens. And I think in having stricter rules does not necessarily mean that we can't work out problems. And it seems to me that it would be better if we had the stricter rules and were able to-- to initiate these discussions. And let's see. One final point was that the agriculture industry is not in an expansion period right now. So I'm not really sure what the necessity is to alter what is really a critical area for their own interest. The Okaloacoochee Slough is -- is an important drainage area and recharge area for agriculture interests up there. And this is really the main area that we're talking about that's still privately held. So I'm not quite sure why this would be a good idea. I just wanted to express those concerns. Thank you very much. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Cornell. Commissioner Hancock. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm sorry. Is that the last speaker? MR. OCHS: You have two more, Madam Chairman. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. I'll withhold my comments. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: You'll withhold? MR. OCHS: Miss Lucy followed by Chief Doeft. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Mr. Ochs, how many speakers do we have on this issue? MR. OCHS: These on the final two. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thank you. MS. NICHOLS-LUCY: My name is Susan Nichols-Lucy, and I represent The Conservancy. On behalf of the membership of The Conservancy, I would like to summarize a letter that was written to you by Dr. Fitch that you'll receive a copy. I would like to express our concern regarding the proposed amendment to the Land Development Code. We urge the board to uphold the current county statute which has proven to be insightful and progressive in its ability to pervect -- protect a valuable and sensitive resource. The boundaries of the ACSC were established with the intent of providing additional protection not only for the Fakahatchee Strand State Preserve and the Big Cypress National Preserve but also for the wetland systems which serve as headwaters for these natural resources. It is in these regions that The Conservancy believes that the proposed changes in the LDC could potentially have the most serious consequences. The potential for agricultural development to cause hydrological impacts to the downstream systems is clear. Compaction of soils and agricultural tillage would serve to shunt water out of the area and reduce groundwater recharge as well as the ability of adjacent wetlands to process contaminated waters and provide downstream areas such as the panther preserve and the Fakahatchee Strand with water of sufficient quality to sustain -- to sustain ecological health. The Okaloacoochee Slough area is the only area within the ACSC which contains ongoing agriculture activity. If not restricted by current statutes, critical habitat areas would become fragmented and detach this headwater area. In conservation biology it is generally the rule that headwater areas are the source of energy and stability for the downstream ecosystems. Increased disturbance of the natural systems in the slough area has the potential to degrade -- degrade the ecosystems in the Fakahatchee and lead to a general decline in stability and ecological valuable. We believe that the agricultural interests which own most of the lands in the northern tier may ultimately have the most to lose if the wetlands in this region are developed. Farmers depend on these wetlands as part of their water management systems for irrigation and as storage areas during -- during raining -- rainy periods. We urge the board to direct staff to seek a common ground upon which the current regulations would not be compromised to the point where the existing wetlands in this region would be degraded. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. MR. OCHS: Chief Doeft. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Chief Doeft. MR. DOERR: Chief Doerr for Ochopee Fire Control. I just wanted to mention today that we have Golden Gate Fire Chief Don Peterson here and, of course, forestry already spoke and East Naples is involved in the south blocks area. My concern is at the 10 percent if you add an acre at 43,560 feet, that would give you 4,000 square feet to clear for your home only and your driveway. I would like to see it be 50-foot clearing optional, not mandatory for a CO. I would like to see 50 feet cleared around that acre or around the 20 acres and not counting the driveway -- that gives us another fire break literally -- and just let the 10 percent be the homesite, the little city lot, and then let the 50 foot be whatever it is, 40 acres. And that's my main concern because we need that time limit. We need that break. We don't have enough men, and we don't have enough equipment. And anybody like, Bettye, you know how it was around the big fires because the fire can lean even 40 feet with flames across it. And that's our concern. I think this little committee or this little time limit you're all giving us, I think we can iron that out for the land owners, residential, and small, little farms. The big farms, you know, are representing theirself, and that's good. So that's our concern. And I think it will work out now that you give us a little time limit. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you, Chief Doeft. Let me make a comment on this because I -- I was first approached on this amendment change I guess last spring. And I probably held it up the longest time because what was going through my mind was saying, well, jeez if the county has elected to be more restrictive than the state, there must be a reason. And so I proceeded to ask for records, minutes, anything I could get my hands on that would give me some justification as to why we are more stringent than the state. And I've -- I've spent hours reading minutes. And there's nothing. Even in the public hearings in 1991 when this change was made in the LDC, there's virtually no discussion. There's no side sheets. There's nothing. So the public discussion regarding this, as far as I'm concerned, has not taken place. It just somehow got there. And it's my feeling at this point whether we make ourselves in compliance with the state regulations or we elect to keep the current -- current regulations, the public discussion needs to happen because it has not happened. And -- and I -- I would urge all the parties involved, the agricultural people, the environmental people, our staff, to -- to get together and work out an arrangement where we can protect the environmental but still the agriculture people have the use of their land to a reasonable extent. And there's gotta be a way to do it. Hiss Caccione? MS. CACCIONE: The process for a comprehensive plan amendment will involve four public hearings prior to adoption. And we can certainly have that discussion as part of the record, and we can work with everyone involved in terms of language for the amendment. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Com -- excuse me. Commissioner Hancock. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Something occurred to me as we kept hearing mention of recharge and storage. This is the part of the county that if someone's out there, they're getting to their house with a canoe right now. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: flooded again last night. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: You better believe it. You know, recharge and storage -- It flooded again last night. It No one can argue environmental benefit, but the truth is there's a somewhat arbitrary 10 percent amount on the books. It has no regard to individual property characteristics. We don't look at a piece of property and say, it's of X nature and 10 percent's inappropriate. We don't have the ability to do that. And the indiscriminate nature in my opinion makes it unfair and wrong. I support mirroring the state guidelines provided it doesn't open the door for an extensive degradation of the area. But by the same token, we need to be reasonable in our approach here. And I think the indiscriminate 10 percent is not really a proper approach for us to take. My question is whether or not this is more appropriate as a part of the EAR process or if it actually would get more attention as a stand-alone amendment with four public hearings centered around it. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I think it would get more attention. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I have a feeling we would get better information as a stand-alone amendment because people are going to focus on it a little bit more. The EAR process is so broad and cumbersome at this point with so much to handle that I don't know that that's the best way to go. I do have a question either way. But, you know, I'm supportive of moving ahead. But I am very, very interested in the public aspect of this. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Miss Student. MS. STUDENT: If I might, I just wanted to offer the observation that the EAR process could be quite lengthy and quite with-- drawn out. We are due to submit our final report January 1. It doesn't have the amendments with it yet. DCA will have to find that sufficient. Then we have to do EAR-based amendments and go through that whole process. So it could be very drawn out. And if you -- this board is looking to afford property owners, you know, any type of relief, it could be a few years down the pike if you wait for the EAR process. I just wanted to offer that for your information. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. Is there -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I'll -- I'll second Commissioner Mac'Kie's motion. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I was going to say -- I was going to ask -- I was going to ask Commissioner Mac'Kie to restate the motion and call for a second. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Just that we -- we give the staff direction that we'd like for them to draft a proposed amendment, work with the interested parties, and let's have -- deal with this as a separate comprehensive plan amendment. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Norris, you're seconding that? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Yes. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Is there further discussion? I'll call the question. All in favor please say aye. Opposed? There being none, motion passes five to zero. Thank you. Item #8A3 WATER AND SEWER FACILITIES ACCEPTANCE FOR STERLING OAKS PHASE 2B - APPROVED SUBJECT TO LEGAL SUFFICIENCY OF DOCUMENTS Next item is an add-on item, item 8 -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Madam Chairman -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: -- A-3, Sterling Oaks. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Motion to approve the water and sewer facility acceptance for Sterling Oaks, phase 2-B. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Second. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second to approve -- MR. WEIGEL: Madam Chairman? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: -- facilities acceptance. MR. WEIGEL: Pardon me. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Weigel. MR. WEIGEL: On -- on this -- on this item we have not received legally sufficient attorney's and owner's affidavits. We expect them to be forthcoming. But we would like the record to show that -- that your approval is based upon the legal sufficiency of those documents which are required in the process. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Does the motion maker accept that? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll amend my motion to reflect that. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. MR. WEIGEL: Thank you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We -- we have a motion and a second to accept the water and sewer facilities pending -- MR. WEIGEL: Legal sufficiency -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: -- legal sufficiency. MR. WEIGEL: -- of a couple documents. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. MR. WEIGEL: Thank you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: If there's no further discussion, all in favor please say aye. Opposed? Motion passes five to zero. Item #SB1 STAFF REPORT ON THE PROPOSED COUNTY MAINTENANCE FACILITY - REPORT ACCEPTED; STAFF TO MOVE FORWARD WITH BUDGET AMENDMENTS AND ALTERNATE ACCESS PLAN TO BE INCLUDED Next item is 8-B-1 under public works, a staff report on the proposed county maintenance facility. MR. GONZALEZ: Good morning. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Gonzalez. MR. GONZALEZ: Adolfo Gonzalez with your office of capital projects management. What we'd like to present you today is a follow-up to your request at your last June budget hearings regarding the maintenance facility. A quick review of what has occurred in the past, late 1994 we sought direction to locate a maintenance facility that would benefit several user departments. Also in late 1994 you approved a general site location generally falling within the landfill area that we currently own. In Hay of '95 we issued a contract to -- with Wilson, Miller, Barton, and Peek to do some master planning and conditional use for the facility. During your June budget hearings there was some discussion as to the cost of -- the infrastructure cost of the facility. You asked staff to go back and look at -- do some more planning to try to get the full cost of not just for the fleet and the aquatic plant but for the other user departments that have expressed an interest to have one general location to operate from. We have a site plan that is also located in the executive summary. It is on page 6 of your executive summary packet which has general site location -- general layout of where we think some of the facilities need to be and some of the areas that the different user departments need. This is really just for planning purposes right now. We have not fixed a physical location on the ground where the site needs to be. We just used this as our conceptual planning tool to come up with the acreage and the -- the layout of the campus style facility. You can see we're looking at somewhere around a 56-acre parcel which includes a buffer around the entire parcel, a -- a -- a common road network that will access all the facilities. Since in the last couple of weeks we've gotten a request from the sheriff's office to possibly move into that facility if it's available sometime in one of the first phases, FY '97 if possible -- I understand they just recently signed a three-year lease at their current location. They need to give at least 18 months notice if they want to get out of that lease. And we're going to try to accommodate them if -- if that's your -- your direction to us. I have -- Tom Conrecode is -- is here to answer any questions you may have as far as past history or issues that you brought up. We also have our project manager, Beau Keene, available to answer any technical questions regarding the facility cost. As you can see from the page 2, the total cost is somewhere around 14 million now over a several-year period. That is what we estimate to be the total dollar amount for not just the infrastructure improvements for the entire facility but also for the various departments. We received input from the various departments as to their needs, total building area, total parking space area, layout so that it would be efficient for their operations. I think Mr. Dan Pucher from fleet maintenance and Mr. Gary Franco from parks and rec. Are also here to answer any questions you may have regarding the details of their facilities. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just to clarify, that 14 million's over roughly 10 years? MR. GONZALEZ: Yes. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Gonzalez, I have one quick question, and that is I had a phone call from Mr. Holloway who owns property north of the existing landfill. And he -- he maintains that this drawing includes his property. And -- and I -- I just want to verify that this is indeed a conceptual drawing, you're -- you're not by design including private property in it, and if we tell you to go ahead today with this that we're not issuing condemnation proceedings or even contemplating such. MR. GONZALEZ: Yes, ma'am, you are correct. Mr. Holloway's property from my understanding is located somewhere in this area just on the west side of the proposed lake. But we're just using this as a platting tool. We needed certain footprints for the various departments. For instance, we needed approximately -- I think it's on your exhibit -- somewhere around 20 plus acres for transportation, let's say. And we tried to configure the areas so they could work in conjunction with -- with each other, take advantage of -- of common shared facilities, a wash rag, a gas station. But no, we're not asking you to direct us to proceed with acquiring this parcel. We looked at it from a planning perspective. In the area that is generally owned by the county for the landfill purposes, there are some uplands. There are some wetlands. Obviously we tried to stay away from the environmentally sensitive areas. And as our first broadbrush approach as to where the facility could be sited, this is where we indicated. But that's really determined during the final design. There's a balance between mitigating for environmental impacts. There's a cost to that versus possibly acquiring some infill, some out parcels if you want to call it that. But no, we're not asking you for your direction to proceed with acquisition of this particular property. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. And -- and -- and you're not asking for our direction to surround Mr. Holloway with public facilities, maintenance garages, and so forth. MR. GONZALEZ: No, ma'am. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. I just wanted to make -- COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: As opposed to a landfill. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: As opposed to a landfill. MR. CONRECODE: I think it's important -- for the record, Tom Conrecode from public works division. I think it's important for the board to note that of the 360 acres that the board had previously considered for landfill expansion, we -- we focused on about 110 acres of that which we thought was the most optimal site for a facility such as this. Mr. Holloway's acreage of two and a half acres is the only acreage within that ll0-acre site that the county doesn't own. So we have a lot of flexibility within that ll0-acre study area to site a 50-acre facility. So we haven't -- until the board gives us some further direction in terms of doing land acquisition out there, we haven't talked to Mr. Holloway other than that we're considering this facility in that general area. And I spoke with him yesterday about it. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah. I did too. And he apparently is still greatly concerned about the direction this has taken. Commissioner Hancock. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Gonzalez or Mr. Conrecode -- it doesn't matter -- is the primary access to this site through access road number 1 on the south side of the landfill? MR. GONZALEZ: As originally envisioned, yes, sir, it is. We have since spoken to representatives from Waste MAnagement. There are some concerns as to the security, the integrity of the landfill site if we have an access road, a public access road, that will be -- that will go through the landfill, through their operations, and into the campus. There's a couple of things. We're looking at -- your proposal -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Did you tell them we have these things called fences -- MR. GONZALEZ: Yes. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: -- that we can put up? Okay. MR. GONZALEZ: But it is a valid concern, and we're going to look at the cost of acquiring an accessway immediately adjac-- on the east side of the landfill property versus the cost of making the improvements on the landfill site. My understanding is that Waste MAnagement is obligated to allow -- give us access through their parcel. But if it's going to cost you more money to do than in improvements, we're going to give you the option of should we go with an access road adjacent to it or should we pay for the improvement cost. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I thought we were still the land owners, though. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: The reason I ask is twofold. First of all, the roadway heading to the east adds some in essence lane miles that -- that taking it to the west side of the landfill, and I assume someone looked at that. The second concern is that access road number 1 where it connects to State Road 951, FDOT's been talking for years about the -- a new off-ramp that -- that the throat length is increased and it actually impacts or may cut off that access. And, you know, then came discussions of access through city gate for the landfill, and -- and there's a lot of kind of gray questions out there regarding the 951 access for this road. So I was a little concerned that we don't, first of all, put in more lane miles than necessary going to the east to a road that we have to then go back to the west to access 951 instead of using the other side of the landfill. And the second concern is the access on to 951 just as a heads up, you know, where FDOT is and -- and whether that access is going to be viable with the amount of traffic between this and the landfill that's going to be using that very tight intersection. Those are two concerns, and I -- I don't really ask for answers today on them. But you may want to log those and make sure we get them answered in the -- you know, in the coming months. MR. CONRECODE: Commissioner, just for your information, we are aware of the changes that FDOT is proposing in that area. They are not in their short-term horizon. They're in their long-term horizon. And if at some point in the future as city gate develops, there may be a benefit to everybody to have a shared access road due-- due east from -- from -- through city gate down current Utility Drive. So we are aware of that. This I think is our most cost-effective approach now because we have the road network all the way into the landfill. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. MR. CONRECODE: We'd just be expanding it to the north. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Other questions? Mr. Ochs, are there speakers on this? MR. OCHS: No, ma'am. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Can we have direction from the board? COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I like the direction staff said as long as we take into consideration the private property concerns of Mr. Holloway and anyone else who's similarly affected. But do we want to -- do we need to give them a green light to move forward? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: They are -- MR. CONRECODE: Commissioners, if you'll recall from the budget hearings, you asked us -- you had asked staff to transfer the money that we had requested in next year's budget into reserve status until which time this presentation was made back to the board. We would like to suggest that that item now be removed out of reserves and into the budget as planned. There's no new money. It's just whether it's in a reserve account or in a project account. And in addition, we would request that the carryforward that we haven't totally spent this year carry forward into the next fiscal year. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll make a motion to accept staff report and take the appropriate financial moves -- MR. CONRECODE: Okay. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- as outlined by Mr. Conrecode again taking into consideration the private property rights of surrounding owners. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Commissioner Constantine, would you consider amending your motion to include making an alternate access plan on this based on the potential problems at the 951 intersection, that we have plan B in the works and -- and a methodology set up for securing that? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Absolutely. I'm sure our OCPH would be more than happy -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I would just like to see it on the plan as -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: As an alternate. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll amend the motion to include that. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Thank you. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Second. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second to accept the report and direct staff to make the appropriate budget amendments and to include an alternate access proposal in case we need it and to consider private property rights. All those in favor please say aye. Opposed? Motion passes five to zero. Thank you. Item #882 AUTHORIZATION TO PROCEED WITH INDEPENDENT APPRAISALS AND NEGOTIATIONS AND SEEKING APPROVAL TO PURCHASE A WAREHOUSE FOR WASTEWATER COLLECTIONS FOR INVENTORY STORAGE AND CONTROL, PUMP/EQUIPMENT REPAIR SHOP AND READ ROOM/OFFICE AREA - STAFF RECOHMENDATION APPROVED; STAFF TO BRING BACK COSTS Next item is 8-B-2, authorization to proceed with independent appraisals. Mr. Clemons. MR. CLEHONS: Good morning, Commissioners. Tim Clemons from your waste water department. Item 8-B-2 is a request this morning before the board for authorization to proceed with independent appraisals and negotiation seeking approval to purchase a warehouse for the waste water collections, for inventory storage and control, pump and equipment repair, a shop and a ready room, office area. The waste water collections system currently consists of 37 employees who today maintain 18 master pump stations, 469 neighborhood lift stations throughout the county, almost 600 miles of sewer lines and a little over 39 miles of effluent lines today. In the almost 11 years I've been here, this group's never really had a home. They initially worked in an electrical control room at the north county waste water facility. Their desk was pushed up underneath the electrical panels. As the system grew over the years and the county purchased the East Naples water system, the Glades, this whole group was moved into a garage down on the Glades site. The garage really was inadequate to serve as a pump repair shop because they -- they used it for pump repair and inventory and an office. For that reason we ended up buying at the time a Ted's Shed to store parts in. We didn't have anywhere else, so we went down and bought a Ted's Shed, and we put the parts in it. We -- there was a trailer here at the complex that was scheduled to go to the dump, and we got it for an office. And they used that for the next several years till the trailer got so swayback that furniture in it would actually move on the floor. When the south county waste water facility was completed in 1991, we decided to move this whole group down there because for once it would give them lockers and a -- an opportunity to take a shower during the day when they needed it. And quite often they do. The problem with that was that -- that facility was never built with them in mind. It was never intended for them to be there. They use a portion of it today. They do their paperwork outside on a picnic table most of the time. They do use the training center when it's not being used to go inside. We gamered some complaints from the neighborhood down there because of the noise we make. They start to work early. Sometimes the big diesel equipment makes noise. They're fabricating, the hammering and the banging. The residents around the plant will call, and they don't really care for that. Trying to reduce the strain somewhat, we moved half the group to the north county facility a few years ago, and we put them again in temporary trailers. Those trailers today are starting to need a lot of work. The roofs are leaking water which we discovered a few weeks ago during the rains. And the repairs are starting to add up. As part of this year's budget request, the board had approved funding for capital work that we have not been able to get fully complete this year. As part of next year's budget process, we had requested and at least at this point have received approval of $100,000 to lease a building. If we move ahead with purchasing a building, it would be our intent to return that $100,000 and not to keep it in our budget this year. We've been searching for quite a while for a suitable site. We found a lot of warehouses that are big enough. Square footage-wise they're great. Parking-wise they only have room for, say, a dozen or so cars, and we have a need for upwards of 50 parking spaces, almost 60 between personal vehicles coming in during the day and then -- and county vehicles parked there and need for a bone yard area, need to store materials. So we've -- we've been looking and looking. We've -- we've -- we've found a building at this point up in the north industrial park off Pine Ridge Road. The -- the nice thing about it for us is part of the area today is used as a used car lot. So it actually has adequate parking space for what we need. And it has a building that's approximately 10,000 square feet, about 4,000 feet of office area and ready room area and about 6,000 feet of shop. And the owner of the building we've talked with just briefly, and he is willing to sell the building. The county's real appraise -- real property department has conducted their own appraisal based on the sales of property between unrelated parties in bargaining transactions, and the asking price that the owner has on the table is very reasonable. The purchase of this building would provide an adequate work space finally for these -- this work group. Quite honestly, this group of employees really needs a warehouse. Our ability to keep up under the present circumstances is -- is difficult, and it causes some morale problems. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: How big is the current building, the one you're using right now? MR. CLEHONS: The one we're -- we have two trailers at the north county plant. At the south plant we really don't have a building. We share the operator's building with them. COHHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Square footage you're using currently is roughly -- MR. CLEHONS: Two thousand, three thousand square feet. It's -- there's no shop area with it. It's -- it's mainly for them to-- on the north end it's to go in out of the rain. It's -- it's a couple of old trailers we had gotten. In addition, a lot of the parts and materials that we're buying or have bought sit out in the weather today which depending on the -- the types of equipment and type of materials can lessen the -- the shelf life of the equipment, particularly electrical components. If we don't get them all inside, it's not good for them. So the eye -- the item before you today is -- is just that. It's to request your permission, get authorization for staff to pursue this purchase through the real property department, to go ahead and have independent appraisals conducted, and to make a counteroffer if we can on the negotiations on the building. The fiscal impact presently is estimated to be $510,000 plus I'm told by real property two to three thousand dollars for appraisers' fees and recording costs and title and stuff like that. So I am requesting your permission to move ahead with this item. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Does that dollar amount include furniture and the cost to move and setting up whatever -- MR. CLEHONS: No, sir. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- inside the building? MR. CLEHONS: And we would not anticipate buying new furniture at this time. We have some furniture. We would move it today, and we would move it ourselves along with all the materials. We would move them ourselves. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Questions, Commissioner Hancock. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: What about the cost for improvements such as shelving for supplies? Obviously you're not going to be able to just to step in and -- and -- MR. CLEHONS: Right. We -- we would purchase over time as funds were available. We would not figure to go in and set this thing up on day one. We would just make improvements ourselves over time. We have a very capable group of guys out there. I mean, they can build just about anything. Given enough time, they could do anything. We've got people that have been in every trade there is. So over time on weekends or, you know, during spare time during the day, whenever we can, we will build and improve and do what we need to do there. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Norris. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: So your request today is to go forward with the appraisals, and then you'll bring this item back I assume after the appraisals are in. So this won't be the final authorization today; is that correct? MR. CLEHONS: That's correct. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. Well, in that case I'll make a motion to approve. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion to approve. Is there a second? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Question. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Further discussion, Commissioner Constantine. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Question. How many people -- how many of our men and women there spend the primary part of their day in the administrative area? MR. CLEMONS: There's a supervisor there that's in and out throughout the day. There's one or two guys that are there most of the time doing inventory-type stuff. Now, if we buy this building, we hope to set up a pump repair shop and save some money on the cost of repairing pumps in-house versus taking them all out-house. We'd be looking at probably another four or five people there throughout the day. Host of the crews are on the road during the day. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The -- that would be the primary use of the 6,000 square feet? Half is -- MR. CLEHONS: Would be -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- setting up the pump repair station? MR. CLEHONS: Half would be for pump repair. The other half would be for inside inventory, maintenance, and control. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Half of that 6,000? MR. CLEHONS: Yes, sir, approximately. I mean, the building's laid out in sections. It's actually divided off into three bays right now, and they're not exactly the same size but approximately. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Where I'm trying to go with that is you had said somewhere in the neighborhood of 4,000 would be for an administrative area. I don't know what name you used but an administrative area or office space. MR. CLEHONS: Well, what I meant by that would include-- the office space today would include computer room set-up for the telemetry that they have coming in, and then throughout time we would need to build a locker room. This building doesn't have a locker room or shower facility or things like that. It has a small shower, but we would take part of what is today in that building, office space, and convert it to a locker room, a training center, showers, and that sort of thing for the men. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Other questions? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I will second the motion. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Good. We have a motion and a second. Is there further discussion? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: If -- if this passes, Mr. Clemons, would you just bring back what you anticipate in costs for further improvement down the road? I don't disagree that shower space and some of those things may be needed, but I'm curious as to what the fiscal impact will be. MR. CLEHONS: Yes, sir. We'll put together as close as we can all the numbers. And if this goes forward, we'll bring all that back to you, give you an idea on what we think it would be. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hancock. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'd also like you to -- to stretch out, I mean, how long is this facility going to serve the needs of Collier County so that we aren't approving something that we find back here three or four years from now. MR. CLEHONS: I understand that. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: So that type of -- of -- obviously none of us up here have a very firm grasp on the need for this, and I think that's where there's some hesitation. MR. CLEHONS: Sure, I understand. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: So I think we really need to be shown not just the need but how long that need will be fulfilled by this facility and what is it going to save us in the long run by going down this path. MR. CLEMONS: We can look at that and give you some projections for that also. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: You estimated the cost of the appraisals to be three to four thousand dollars? MR. CLEMONS: That's what I was told, yes, ma'am. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. And I presume, Commissioner Norris -- MR. CLEHONS: That's really all I'm seeking permission to do is to move ahead with the appraisals. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Your motion includes the appropriate budget amendments for the appraisal. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Of course. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second to authorize moving ahead with getting the appraisals and to make the appropriate budget amendments for the appraisals. If there's further discussion -- there being none, all those in favor please say aye. Opposed? There being none, motion passes five to zero. MR. CLEHONS: Thank you. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Five? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah. Let's take a short break, ten minutes, be back at quarter of. (A short break was held.) Item #883 RECOHMENDATION TO AUTHORIZE PLACEHENT OF PRIVATE AIDS TO NAVIGATION IN CAXAMBAS PASS AND TO AWARD A CONTRACT FOR BID NO. 95-2391, MARCO ISLAND SEGMENTED BREAKWATER, TO KELLY BROTHERS, INC., IN THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF $538,720.00 - INSTALL PERMANENT CHANNEL MARKERS; SET UP DEDICATED FUND NUMBER WITH FUNDS TO MAINTAIN KEEPING PASS OPEN; CONTRACT AWARDED; APPLY FOR PASS DREDGING PERMIT AND RESOLUTION 95-536 TO ALL APPROPRIATE AGENCIES INDICATING THAT THE PASS DREDGING PERMIT SHOULD BE IN PLACE FOR CONTINGENCY REASONS; FAST TRACK THE INLET MANAGEMENT PLAN; AND APPROVE APPROPRIATE BUDGET AMENDMENTS CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I want to reconvene the board of county commission meeting for September the 19th. Before we get back to our regular agenda, I was going through my mail during the break, and I found a very nice letter from Mr. And Mrs. Sugden again thanking us for the proclamation and so forth. And I don't know where the thanks belong, but I think we need to thank him. But I'm going to pass this back and forth amongst us so-- for people to enjoy. Next item on the agenda is item 8-B-3, a recommendation to authorize placement of private navigation aids. Mr. Gonzalez. MR. GONZALEZ: Good morning. Adolfo Gonzalez from your office of capital projects management. Today we'd like to request direction from you for a couple of items. One is the segmented breakwater project, and the other one is the installation of -- of aids to navigation. And we extended invitations to 46 bidders for the segmented breakwater project. Out of the 46, 7 were in attendance at the mandatory pre-bid conference. Out of the seven that were in attendance, we received bids from two bidders. We are recommending you direct us to -- we are recommending you award a contract to Kelly Brothers in the amount of $538,720, the lowest responsive bidder for the alternate bid. The difference between the base bid and the alternate bid is the type of materials that will be used in the breakwater project. It's a more readily available product for the alternate bid. While we were finalizing the bidding process for the breakwaters, several members of the public addressed some concerns to us regarding how the project was going to affect an existing navigable channel. We have since looked at some alternatives to providing an alternate route for navigation. We have a team, and I would like to present some information to you today. On that team is Mr. Ken Humiston from Humiston and Moore. He will be speaking regarding the effectiveness of the breakwaters. Then Mr. Mike Stephens (sic) from Coastal Engineering will be giving you some information on some recent bathymetric surveys of the inlet area. Then Mr. Frank Blanchard as an adjunct to your team will be giving you some background on the breakwater project and how we got here. And finally Harry Huber from your office of capital projects management will be closing with some issues regarding to maintenance dredging, commitments you may be making in the future regarding maintenance of the aids to navigation and some carryforward issues that need to be addressed also. We'll be glad to answer any questions you may have for as long as you -- you'd like or give you some brief presentations. So I'd like to turn it over to your team and have them present the actual technical issues now. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Are there questions, or do we want to move ahead with the technical information? Let's move ahead. MR. GONZALEZ: Thank you. Ken? MR. HUMISTON: I'm Ken Humiston with Humiston and Moore Engineers, the design consultant to the county for the breakwater project. If it please the board, I'd like to make a few comments on why breakwaters were included in the design of this project, talk a little bit about some of the other alternatives that we looked at and then make -- offer some comments on the navigation issue which I think is going to be subject of extension -- extensive discussion today. The reason for including breakwaters in this project is because breakwaters are a means of stopping erosion and still providing a beach for recreational purposes and for environmental purposes such as turtle nesting. Other ways of dealing with erosion that involve constructing sea walls or rock revetments may stop the loss of shoreline, but they do not provide a beach. And, in fact, they don't even stop the loss of sand. One of the reasons we had such a severe problem on Marco Island was because a sea wall was constructed down there. And the interaction of waves with that sea wall accelerated the movement of sand down into the pass. So although the sea wall and the land there stayed in place, we had accelerated losses of sand further to the north on Marco Island. In addition to providing a beach, by reducing the sand losses, it will also reduce the ultimate long-term maintenance costs of the beach which otherwise requires more renourishment. Other alternatives that we looked at aside from -- from beach nourishment are constructing longer terminal structures. As you know, there are two short terminal groins at the south end. The lengths of those were designed to promote a natural shoreline curvature in that area to try to restore the natural system that was disrupted by construction of the sea wall. Longer groins would, in fact, by an inlet function more like jetties. They have several disadvantages to that. One is they act as a more complete barrier to sand transport. This, of course, is a concern to the state in terms of stopping sand from getting to the downdrift areas. In particular, this area, there were environmental concerns because of the shoals that are nesting areas for protected species. Additionally, a jetty at an inlet has a tendency to cause the channel to migrate up against the jetty. It's called a jetty because it actually creates a jet-like effect. And it jets sand offshore. What happens then is that the deeper areas offshore become a place where sand is stored, and it takes a tremendous amount of sand to -- to fill out the dimensions of that shoal. And that sand, of course, is a much more valuable resource to the county if it's kept on the beaches or in the littoral system. One other alternative that was -- was discussed was removal of the sea wall to allow the shoreline to go back to its natural transformations. At the point that we were looking at the beach nourishment project, that was an unacceptable alternative because of not only the loss of land that would occur immediately upland of the sea wall where it removed, but that readjustment would have created an effect that would have been kind of a ripple effect. It would have moved on up the island, and it would have adversely impacted a number of properties on the north. And the state, in fact, did not want to further look at the possibility of removing the sea wall. With regard to the navigation issues, in the design of this we were placing the breakwaters in an area that is one of several natural channels that are used by boaters in the pass. And to iljustrate this, I've got a couple of displays here. This is an enlargement of a very small section of a photograph from September of 1995. I have an overlay superimposed on it that shows depth contours in the area. Because of the limitations of being able to enlarge the photograph, if it's too small, let me know, and I can -- I can bring it forward. First of all, looking at just the photograph itself, you're able to see the light areas that represent shoals, the shallowest ones being in this area and out here. The darker areas represent the channel. The channel is the deeper water. The most significant feature that's visible in that regard is the area that was dredged to get the sand for the beach nourishment project. The location of the breakwaters -- let me put the overlay back. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: If it would be helpful, there's a handheld mike on the wall over there. MR. HUMISTON: The location of the -- the location of the breakwaters is out here directly offshore from the -- the northern terminal groin. And if you see the contours here, we have -- the eight-foot contour is highlighted. It's a little bit darker than the other contours, and there is a natural channel that goes out this way. There's also another channel that heads down this way to the southwest that joins up with the channel that was dredged for the nourishment project. If I can go back to the photograph, the photograph offers an opportunity to visualize sort of ground truth the survey data that was collected. And here you can see the alternative channel that we're proposing which has, in fact, been marked with temporary buoys, and the county is proposing to place permanent markers to identify that channel. I think that one of the problems that -- that came about was that boaters were accustomed to using this channel that goes to the northwest. There are no markers in the area. But by using the shoreline as a point of reference, that channel was very easy to find. This channel that goes off to the southwest is now marked. It actually provides slightly greater depths. If you look closely at this photograph, you can see that there is a shoal that runs across right off of the point across the channel that has been used. There has been a number of questions and inquiries by -- by boaters on Marco Island who are hopeful that by marking this alternative channel we've addressed those concerns. Some of the concerns have been over the accuracy of the data. I would just like to mention that initially our proposal to use this alternative data was -- was based on four years of monitoring data that's been collected by Coastal Engineering Consultants since completion of the beach nourishment project in 1991. When the questions from concerned boaters came up, we were authorized by Harry Huber to proceed and do a slightly more comprehensive survey for navigation purposes of this area in which we surveyed the water depths on a very tight grid. And the contour map that I've shown here as an overlay is based on that more recent survey. And subsequent to placement of the markers, Coastal Engineering Consultants has again gone out and verified the accuracy of those depths. That's all I have. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Are there questions? I guess, Mr. Stephens, you're next. MR. STEPHEN: Good morning. For the record, my name's Michael Stephen. I reside at 374 South Golf Drive in Naples, Florida. And I'm the project manager for the Collier County Caxambus Pass inlet management plan. The -- I was asked to be here this morning to help provide some overview of what is involved with the inlet management plan and what the relationship between the plan, its schedule, and the placement of structures, the breakwaters have in common and how they relate to one another. As has been stated, Coastal Engineering's been responsible for the annual monitoring surveys and recently over the last ten days put in the -- was responsible for placing and locating the temporary buoys. And then on Friday we did a survey verification off of the south end of the compound area in the vicinity of the proposed marked channel. And we have verified that the survey information presented on the Humiston and Moore surveys that have been presented as part of the breakwaters and to mark the channel is accurate. The -- the breakwaters are a very good thing. They have always been a part of the Marco Island beach restoration plan. In fact, going back into 1977 when I first had the opportunity to work on Marco Island at the compound, there was a severe problem with beach erosion and wave reflection off of the vertical sea wall. This is when the property was owned by the Deltona Corporation. And they asked us to undertake an analysis of that problem and to come up with some fundamental recommendations on an approach to resolve the erosion and to stabilize Marco Island. And over the next two years, I worked personally and my company worked on doing a lot of detailed hydrographic surveys, measured the currents, measured the tides, measured the waves and sediment transport, had the opportunity to look at the Deltona records which contained photographs, aerial photographs, of the inlet from as far back as 1926 which was literally one of the oldest aerial photographs I've ever seen. I've spent a lot of time in the national archives looking at those kinds of data. There were photographs from 1952 that -- that showed small isolated sand bars or shoals seaward in the vicinity of what is proposed for the breakwaters. And one of the conclusions of our report to Deltona in 1980 was that, number one, we need to restore the sandy beach; and number two, we need to reduce the wave energy in the immediate vicinity of the sea wall by building some offshore wave shelter system. And that really was the first reference to the proposal of offshore breakwaters at Caxambus. The -- the -- the plan as it's presented to you today and as it was presented as part of the approved and permitted Marco Island beach nourishment project mimics the natural system. That's very, very important in terms of reducing the long-term cost of the overall project and of maintaining the stability not only of the beach but of the natural channels to the south. These structures will trap sand to the north of the existing channel immediately south of -- that forms Caxambus Pass as we know it and will help reduce shoaling into that channel. It will actually provide better stability in that channel to the south. These structures have been through an extensive permit review process and were subject to extensive annual monitoring to allow the -- the revalidation, if you will, of the -- of the -- of what was presented as a very likely situation of rampant and rapid erosion if those structures won't -- weren't built, that we would have very rapid losses off of the south beach. And that's exactly what has happened over the last three and a half years. The beach is eroding severely because a major part, one leg of our three-legged stool to stabilize that beach and inlet, was not allowed to be constructed by the state. So we're missing that right now. It follows proven design approaches. We had the opportunity in 1981, '82 to -- and I'll just pass these photographs -- there's -- there's two sets of photographs. And this is a set of prototype structures that really were -- were accomplished, designed, permitted, modeled, and built in 1981 on Captiva Island. And you can see in the before-after picture how an area -- there was no sand added from any other source other than material that came out of the natural wave energy system of sand bypassing and long shore sediment transport. So these structures trapped this -- this little node, this bulge of sand, called a salient. In the second picture you can see what the structures looked like. They were short, about 100 feet long, separated by about 100-foot gap oriented parallel to the shore, and that's what's proposed here. I think that it's important that these structures be constructed as planned according to schedule because if we don't do it, we're going to see further losses this winter. The net sediment transport direction is north to south along this portion, particularly in the wintertime when we have the northwesterlies come out. And that's going to carry sand down into the inlet channel and remove it from the beach. And all of that sand costs money. It costs money to put up on the beach. And so that refers to what Mr. Humiston said about maintaining the project costs and keeping them under control. Thank you very much. I'll be glad to answer any questions if I can help. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hancock. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Stephens, in this particular case you've shown us, was the -- in essence the wave action that was scouring was directly on shore? It wasn't at much of an angle? MR. STEPHEN: This is a shoreline that was at the south end of Captiva Island -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Right. MR. STEPHEN: -- which is oriented north-south, the same orientation as this locale on Marco Island and also had what we call bidirectional sediment transport. When the storm waves come out of the north, the sand was moving to the south. When the storm waves in the summertime come out of the south, sand moved to the north. The location of this node would move four or five hundred feet north and south depending on which direction the waves were coming from. It would adjust. It's called a salient. And once that bulge is created and the shape and the size and magnitude of that is a function of the effectiveness of the structures. Again, these structures were about a similar distance offshore, and they had gaps in between them to allow most of the wave energy to pass through. And so sediment transport or sediment bypassing was -- was continued. But the reflective wave energy off of the sea wall would be more or less permanently avoided because you would retain the sandy beach out in front of the wall. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: One question. What beach do these pictures represent? MR. STEPHEN: That is the south end of Captiva Island in Lee County. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Any other questions? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Just one. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Norris. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Stephen, that is right where we recently installed a -- a public parking lot, and that is the -- the second public beach access out of only two on Marco Island; is that correct? MR. STEPHEN: Yes. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: And you're -- you're telling us that if we don't go ahead and install the breakwaters that we will probably not have a beach there for the public to access. Is that -- MR. STEPHEN: That's correct. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: That's it in a nutshell I think is what you said. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It'll save them three bucks. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: No, they'll still spend their $3, but they'll -- COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Have nowhere to go. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: -- be disappointed when they get there. COHHISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. Well, that's one-half of the issue. Of course, there's another half of this -- this issue yet to be discussed. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah, there -- I'm sure there is. MR. BLANCHARD: Good morning. My name is Frank Blanchard. I'm the chairman of the Marco Island Beach Renourishment Advisory Committee. And what I'd like to do this morning is to again put the break -- need for the breakwaters into context. I've been associated with this beach project for a few years, and I would tell you that in January of 1990 when this project was appearing before the Governor and the cabinet for a dredge and fill permit approval, they approved everything with the exception that one of the cabinet members -- and I don't remember who it was -- asked, are you really sure that you need those breakwaters to stabilize the beach? They requested that we wait and -- and not install those breakwaters initially, wait until you have had mother nature demonstrate to you -- to everyone that you need those breakwaters. After several years -- I remind you that -- that discussion was in January of 1990. A couple of years ago the management of DEP agreed that the photographs show that we were in a state where a large amount of sand had been lost and that we should proceed to respond to the inclusion of these -- these breakwaters. We've had sand lost from the beach that's now obvious that you have lost beach -- width as far north as about the Hilton Hotel so that you're talking about a dozen buildings worth of length of the building or, as Commissioner Norris has pointed out, that that is a beach -- section of the beach accessible from a public-owned parking lot so that we've watched; we've involved this. I'd like to remind you that the county commission hired the Humiston and Moore engineers over a year ago to supervise the engineering and installation of these breakwaters. Humiston and Hoore's engineers have had -- in addition to being professional engineers, registered professional engineers, in the state, have also worked with the Corps of Engineers and I think the Florida DEP. We need to do -- we need to stop the loss of sand on -- on our beach. Our advisory committee has had five public hearings in the last three months on this subject of accessibility, of navigation accessibility to the Gulf as well as the breakwaters. Our committee has passed resolutions promising the boaters that we would monitor the performance of the breakwaters and the boat channel itself and that we further resolve to develop and prosecute the necessary projects to do whatever is necessary to maintain these two engineering estimates. We'd ask you to please approve both the installation of the permanent markers for the channel as well as prompt installation of the breakwaters. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Questions? I don't think there's any questions yet. Thank you. Mr. Ochs, are there speakers? MR. OCHS: Yes, Madam Chairman. You have 13 registered speakers. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Before we go through that, let me-- maybe we can discuss this a little further, and some of the speakers may find their concerns alleviated through our discussion, so why don't we try that. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Sounds like a good effort to me. COMHISSIONER NORRIS: The -- one of the things that I've-- I'm very concerned about is that we -- we make it very clear that-- that Collier County is committed to keeping the channel in Caxambus Pass open for navigation just as we are on any of the other navigable passes in -- in our county. I see here that we have on our executive summary a proposal to take some -- some money out of fund 318 to fund these channel markers. Mr. -- Mr. Gonzalez, is that correct? MR. GONZALEZ: Yes, sir. COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. Is -- this may be a legal question. Is -- fund 318, is this an appropriate expenditure for 318, or does the budget office need to answer that question? I have discussed in the past with the county manager -- he's not here today unfortunately for this discussion, but I have discussed in the past setting up a fund number to transfer funds into so they would be available in case of some sort of necessity that arises to -- to go out and do some work to keep this channel clear. Have we -- has that been discussed with you, Mr. Huber? MR. HUBER: For the record, my name's Harry Huber from the office of capital projects. No, I'm not aware of any discussion to that effect. But as far as the proposal to use money out of fund 318 to install these markers, the idea here was that the -- the initial installation of the markers was directly related to the breakwater construction; and thereby, you know, fund 318 is what's left over from the bond proceeds for the beach renourishment project. And the breakwater construction was directly included in the beach renourishment project. So that's the only reason why it's proposed here. COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. The -- the initial installation of the permanent markers is one expenditure. But for future contingencies is another matter. And my question is, is 318 the proper fund for these expenditures in the future or perhaps 159, or do we need a new fund number, or how are we going to do this? MR. HUBER: I think there should be a completely new designated funding source. Fund 159, as you know, does have a substantial reserve amount there. It was initially intended for additional beach access. But, you know, I don't think there's much potential for that, so it could very well be that that might be a viable source. But yes, you're right. There should be -- there's no intent I think -- although if we do put the permanent markers in, there's absolutely based on the Coast Guard approval -- and they stress that you should have the funding available to maintain those markers as long as you got the authorization. COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Well, what I'm trying to find out is should we set up a fund number for that purpose and transfer some money from either 318 or 159 into that fund so that it's there in that? Maybe Mr. Conrecode has some insight on this. MR. CONRECODE: I think I see this evolving around two different issues. One is maintenance of the pass. The other is maintenance of the signage. The signage cost that you see in the executive summary today is for the installation and the first year's maintenance of that signage. The board under a separate action today on the consent agenda approved the pooling of multiple funds for the maintenance of all aids to navigation county-wide. So the -- the funding and the resources and the manpower to maintain aids to navigation county-wide is now in place based on your consent agenda action today. COMHISSIONER NORRIS: My -- the thrust of my discussion is not to maintaining the aids themselves but the channel. MR. CONRECODE: But the channel. COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Right. MR. CONRECODE: The issue there -- there's really a larger issue around maintenance of the channel. We don't currently have a permit to dredge that channel because it's a naturally maintained channel. We're in the process of doing the inlet management study. In fact, Dr. Stephens is the consultant that's doing that work. My estimate is it's going to be two to three years before we have a finally approved plan for the inlet management plan. But at this point I think the -- the expectations of the engineers, both Humiston and Moore and Coastal Engineering, is that the pass isn't going to fill in as we slow the movement of sand into the pass. But in terms of -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Quiet, please. We're trying to gather the information that we need to make an informed decision. MR. CONRECODE: In terms of maintaining the pass, we are-- we are not currently permitted, and the only source that I would see available would be the beach renourishment -- the tourist development fund which is set up for pass maintenance and beach renourishment. COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Should -- well, I don't think it's going to be in anyone's best interest to wait two to three years before we start permitting the ability to -- to keep that channel clear. I mean, suppose this channel fills in next week with a storm action. Shouldn't we have a permit in place? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah. Hey, you don't want to say those things about a week away. The last time you said it it happened. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: No, the last time I said something we had one. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: I ask to strike the record of all of Commissioner Norris's comments. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Yeah, strike the record of all next week comments. MR. CONRECODE: If the board directed staff to do that, to go ahead and put in place everything that we needed, the engineering we needed to do the permit, we could do that. I don't think we're going to have any success until the state approves the inlet management plan. I could be wrong, and I'll ask Dr. Stephens or Humiston and Moore to come up and tell me I'm wrong. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Can I -- can I interject a question, Commissioner Norris? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Sure. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I -- I have -- you know, you've raised the question of funding this from 318. And -- and I -- I had assumed all that I've heard about the breakwater in the last couple of months that it would be funded from TDC money. And I'm -- I'm a little bit surprised that it's -- MR. CONRECODE: The -- the breakwater was originally contemplated as a part of the Marco beach renourishment project. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah, but that was -- MR. CONRECODE: Funding was specifically collected from the bonds and set aside -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Uh-huh. MR. CONRECODE: -- to build the breakwaters if and when it was required. It has been required because of the rate of erosion. And, therefore, that moneyws available. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Now, on -- on your comment about not being able to get a permit to dredge the pass until the inlet management plan is approved, wewre dredging passes now that the inlet management plans have not been approved. MR. CONRECODE: Wewve had existing permits in those passes. This one has never been maintained that way before. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I see. Commissioner Hancock. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I agree with Commissioner Norris that we have two concerns here. Therews a significant concern for erosion of the south beach in Marco and an equal concern for maintaining a viable open pass for the current users in the area. What I donwt understand -- and I guess itws based on -- on the reaction I heard just a few minutes ago -- is currently all the sand that is eroding at a rate of I believe I heard 17 feet a year, something ridiculous like that. As this sand is eroding at a rapid rate, itws going somewhere. And at this time of the year, I donwt believe itws heading north. By slowing down that erosion wewre eliminating the sand thatws being traversed in this area, the same sand that may be deposited in the pass. Iwve sailed in and out of this pass dozens of times. So Iwm not totally unfamiliar with it. But what the publicws saying is they donwt want to hear, trust us, it wonwt happen. They want this board to make some level of commitment of contingency that we und -- we believe it wonwt happen but should it happen that there is the ability for action there. And I think if we focus simply on how to give that level of assurance to the public that we believe what the engineers have put together is the case but if not, we stand in a position ready to act, we can all move ahead. And I believe thatws what Commissioner Norris is trying to set up is what are those mechanisms that would allow us to do that. Based on that, we -- when Clam Pass closed -- and although this is a much smaller situation in a non-navigable area -- there was an impact that was -- that was identified by this county. We ran to the state and got an emergency permit to act. This pass which has been maintained luckily by nature and the grace of God for decades, if it should be ill-affected, whether it be because of the breakwaters or because of storm, what is our ability to allocate resources to go after some form of permit at that time even if an inlet management plan is not in place? Two to three years from now when that planws in place, I think we all can let out a sigh of relief and we know whatws going to happen in the future. But in the interim, should something happen -- and I donwt believe that -- that itws going to happen as a result of the breakwaters, but who knows? So if that should happen, what are our options at that point? MR. CONRECODE: We continue to have the same options that we exercised when Clam Pass closed: Immediate staff action; we pulled out all the stops and got that done. It cost the board a certain amount of money to do it. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: And where we were successful there in a non-navigable pass that did not even have the magnitude of application that this would, I think we should expect some level of success. But it then would become incumbent upon this board to allocate the proper funds to do just that. MR. CONRECODE: And I think the same emphasis from the board -- because staff alone would not have been successful in Clam Pass without this board saying, we think this is a crisis. It's your involvement in that that really raised the state's attention and got the permit in that particular case. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, I personally can say as someone who spent eight years in the Coast Guard I'm not going to sit here with a closed pass and say, well, let's wait on an inlet management plan. So I don't know what stronger commitment we can give. But I think that the folks that are here need to know that that's -- that's not a light approach. It's something that's a concern, something we -- we can address if the need arises. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Any other questions? Why don't we proceed with our public speakers. I think you've heard the concerns of the board, and we would not want this -- it would not be our intent I believe to see this pass close under any circumstances and that we would seek action as quickly as we could were it to do that. For any of you unaware, public speakers are limited to five -- five minutes. And with 13 of them, that's an hour, hour and a half. So I'm going to hold you to it. Those who can do it in less than five minutes, we would greatly appreciate it. Mr. Ochs, do you want to get started? MR. OCHS: Yes, ma'am. Mr. Carsillo. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Who's following Mr. Carsillo? MR. OCHS: Followed by Miss Prout. MR. CARSILLO: Good morning, Madam Commissioner, Commissioners. Just bear with me. I woke up with a little Marco Island cold here. But I'm here on behalf of the vision committee for Marco Island, and I chaired the waterway study which just was completed on September the 1st. And the committee consisted of all boating concerns on Marco Island, including the sheriff's department. It was the Coast Guard auxiliary, Marco Bay Yacht Club, Marco Cruise Club, and the sailing club. And we advertised in the paper for any public input to the committee and got no response to that. But it was advertised by Red Stier on his TV program and also with his written articles in the newspaper. Our study included not only the passes but the inland waterways. And I would just like to share our conclusion to make this as brief as possible. We felt that the county had a very strong commitment to the boaters not only on -- at Caxambus, for all of Marco Island and also Collier County. And after meeting with the county, Commissioner Norris, and the county manager, it was brought out that we have 15,000 boats in Collier County and 3,200 of them are on Marco Island. And a needed waterway department is probably around the corner for the -- for the county to -- we've grown up in a very sophisticated way, and we don't have a department which can handle the waterway problems in Collier County. Well, anyway, with that knowledge and knowing that the-- at least from the staff that the county has a commitment to make sure these passes are going to be kept open as they are documented in the various budgets, 318, the 195 fund and what have you, it was our conclusion that with the use of a 46-foot Post boat which draws four and a half feet, 36-foot Tiara, and a 33-foot Bertram that the passes not only at Caxambus but at Marco were basically -- Marco Pass were basically the same. They're somewhere between four to five feet depending on the -- on the drift of the wind and -- and -- and the tide. Naturally we did most of this at low tide. It was the conclusion of all the people on the committee that with the assurance from the county -- and I think that's what we're hearing from you right now -- we didn't find any serious problem with the waterways as they currently are, including the Caxambus Pass with the direction that you're currently going. And I gather -- and as I sit here today, I see a very strong opinion coming from the board that you're not going to let the pass close. Now, again, this group is a neutral group. I'm not representing anybody but a bunch of independent volunteers on Marco Island. I think that with the -- our conclusion we felt sure that we were putting a lot of faith in the county to make happen what you just all were talking about, that these passes are not going to close whether we have to do an emergency as you did at Clam Pass or whatever. And I think with that the vision committee basically has said that we're putting a lot of faith in what you're going to do. You haven't done it yet. But the people with all the moans and the groans here -- and they're legitimate. I mean, they got some pretty big boats down there that they want to get in and out on. And as long as we can leave this meeting with a commitment from the board that you can respond faster under the emergency plan, I think that this is all going to conclude on a very nice note. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. Mr. Prout. Who is next, Mr. Ochs? MS. PROUT: I decline. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mrs. Prout. MR. OCHS: That's Miss Prout. She declined. Next speaker would be Mr. Carpenter followed by Mr. Goutell. MR. CARSILLO: I have a handout that I've asked to be distributed, and I'll use that as I make my presentation. My name is Jim Carpenter. Good evening, good morning, Commissioners, Madam Commissioner, Commissioners. My name is Jim Carpenter. I live on Marco Island, and I represent approximately 2,000 property owners who own property located on the waterways leading into Caxambus Pass. We use the natural channel in Caxambus Pass to enter and return from Gulf of Mexico. This property has a market value of approximately 500 million dollars. If you take a look on the photo that I've just passed out, there's a gold line that bisects Marco Island about halfway through the island. Anything to the south of that because of the structure of the waterways have to use -- that line represents San Marco Avenue, Street. Anything south of that has to use Caxambus Pass. There is no other pass they can use. There are no bridges under San Marco Avenue. We recommend that the award of the contract be deleted-- deferred at this time. We take this position because of the following: There are many financial and environmental consequences if this project is implemented as planned. Everyone, the beach renourishment committee, the consultants and representatives of the homeowners' group, are in general agreement that the placement of breakwaters in the natural channel will reduce the water depths in the natural channel, thus limiting the use of this channel as a safe and reliable passage to the Gulf of Mexico. We've had five meetings. We've had discussions on this. Everyone agrees that the design of these pieces of rock that you're placing in the natural channel is to trap sand towards the shore and eventually reduce the depth of that channel. You'll see on the -- on the graph that we have here, I have marked out what is approximately the natural channel in gold, the proposed channel in silver, and several knots there -- dots in gold which represent where the placement of the breakwaters are. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Sir, excuse me. I -- I have to interrupt you. Your proposed channel is wrong. It -- the connection is -- is dramatically different than what the plan shows. So your proposed channel in silver comes across a shoal area that -- that is not true. MR. CARPENTER: Be that as it may -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. MR. CARPENTER: -- as I say, this is an approximate. The shoal area does exist. Whether it comes across exactly at that point, I have to -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: My sailboat's been on it. MR. CARPENTER: I haven't correlate (sic) it. That shore area is there. I walk that beach practically 365 days a year. I go out of that pass approximately three times a week. I have swam, fished, and generally moved across the pass for the last three and a half years. And I feel that I have a pretty good insight into the area and the problems associated with that area. This natural channel has existed for 35 years. This channel has never required dredging during this period. Other channels have existed from time to time, but they have been transitory in nature and very unpredictable. The Marco Island beach renourishment committee has proposed an alternate channel slightly south to the present channel. This proposed channel is composed primarily of a trench or beryl pit created when the sand was taken from the beach renourishment in 1990. However, the water between the present channel and the proposed channel tends to shoal in in very shallow depths from time to time after heavy storms from the northwest. This has happened on two occasions during the past three years. At the past three meetings of the Marco Beach renourishment area we have -- with the Marco Beach renourishment committee, the homeowners group have pointed out the unstable condition of the Caxambus Pass area with the exception of the natural pass. Their chairman response has been that he has an engineering study dated July 21, 1995, conducted by Sea Systems Corporation that indicate there is a channel through the pass other than the natural pass that has a mean low water depth of nine feet. He went on to say that if this channel shoals we could dredge it. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Carpenter, I'm going to have to ask you to wrap it up. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I interrupted him for about 15 seconds. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah, you got -- you got -- you got a few more seconds, but I'm going to ask you to wrap it up, though. MR. CARPENTER: I -- I represent 2,000 homeowners. I represent the rod and gun club. I represent the Men's Club in Marco Island. I asked prior to the meeting if I could have extra time and told I could. If I didn't have the extra time, I would have arranged my speech differently. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: You control the time. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Would you -- would you get on and try to conclude with -- with what your point is? MR. CARPENTER: Yes, I will. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. MR. CARPENTER: I'll try to. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: You're on extra time now. MR. CARPENTER: We -- we -- we -- we have -- we organized a group of four boats that went out after the last meeting. That was last Thursday morning I believe at 10:30. We had representatives of the fire department, representatives of the sheriff's department, representatives of -- from the newspaper, Sea Tow, a representative on -- for -- from the beach renourishment committee, myself and four other homeowners with four boats and trans-- and went through the course as outlined for us. In two areas in the shoal area that I have marked shoal area leading from the existing channel to the proposed channel we encountered water of six feet. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Did you say six feet? MR. CARPENTER: Six feet. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. MR. CARPENTER: In summary, we feel that the county commissioners approved -- if the county's commissioners approve the breakwater project and award the contracts and still believe that the homeowners should be provided with a safe passage to and from Caxambus Pass they will tacitly agree to an action that destroys a known entity and replaces it with an unpredictable one, one that may require extensive and expensive maintenance dredging. We propose, therefore, the following: There is a management engineering study that we've referred to earlier being conducted to determine the coastal dynamics of Caxambus Pass. This study should be expanded to be able to answer the following: What effect will the proposed breakwater have on the natural channel that now exists? If the natural channel is blocked, what would be the best alternative channel in terms of safety and expense? Is there any solution to the beach renourishment problem that is compatible with the safe navigational channel without a breakwater? Ken Humison (sic) who we heard earlier made this statement: He says because of the strong interrelationship between inlets and beaches, it would be desirable to find better ways to manage inlets to reduce adverse impacts on adjacent beaches. The use of breakwaters with a design basis and natural processes may be appropriate solution to some specific situations. However, until design criteria can be defined in a more precise manner, it is appropriate to use caution in implementing this strategy out of respect for the complicated and varial (phonetic) dynamics inlets -- of inlets and the larger littorial (sic) systems of which they are a part. We feel that we have a -- we have -- you've separated the two problems that should be treated as one. The pass and the beach are interrelated and must be considered as a whole. Many counties and countries and states have passed bans on all beach hardening or armoring. No rock, stone, cement, wood, or other hard objects can be used to protect inlets and beaches. The photographs that you've looked at this morning are selected photographs of successes and hardening of beach. However, there are literally thousands of photographs can be obtained up the east and west coast of Florida in which this type of a hardening process has not been successful. If the county commissioners agree with our proposal, the homeowners will organize an ad hoc committee to investigate the experiences of other communities and report back to the county commissioners. We want to participate in determining the most effective solution to the problem. Put us to work, and give us some indication of how we can be of assistance to you. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Carpenter. MR. OCHS: Mr. Goutell followed by Mr. Blanchard. MR. GOUTELL: Good morning, Commissioners. My name's Rob Goutell. I'd like to thank you for your patience, listening to everybody this morning. I'll try to speak not at length so that we don't try your patience too much. I think the most important thing that we have to tell you is that these segmented breakwaters are designed to block the natural channel that exists. The natural channel that exists is a gift from mother nature. It's the only channel anywhere in this area that scours itself. It needs no maintenance whatsoever. It's been doing this for 35 years. Every time you go out, the channel's pretty much right where it was the last time you went out. That's unusual. The problem with the proposed new channel which has been marked is that it's in an area of constantly shifting sands. There are from time to time little channels through there, but they're very migratory in nature. I view it as what I remember from Vermont and New Hampshire snow drifts drifting around in a -- in a big wind. That's what happens on the bottom and -- where these channels are. We've got a good channel there. And I would ask you, as Jim did, to take your time and be careful and try not to make a mistake. The engineers tell you that these segmented breakwaters are just the answer to your prayers and they're going to make a beautiful beach. All the people here are in favor of having a good beach. And nobody would want to cause undue erosion of the beach. But to block off something that exists and has been working fine for all these years, to send the boaters out over shifting sands, and to install these breakwaters -- and the sales pitch is great, but it really hasn't been determined whether they will work. And there is tremendous scientific disagreement over whether structures of this nature do work. We've been touched -- we've been in touch with a man named Dr. Pilkey who's quite well known, and he knows a lot about beaches. And he's appalled by what's happened in places like New Jersey where more and more structures have been built always trying to protect the beach, always hoping that this will do it. And what they're left with now are twisted rusting rebars, broken-up concrete, piles of rubble. And they've got beaches that nobody can even walk along. And the first step is to start armoring it, then to build these segmented breakwaters out in the middle. And you have an inlet management plan that you're paying a lot of money for. It's not done yet. But it seems senseless to go ahead and stick in these breakwaters when you still don't have the plan and you haven't the benefit of Hike Stephen's very learned knowledge on the subject. We would ask you to delay either until the inlet management plan can be completed -- if that's going to take too long, see if we can find -- the people who live down here -- as Jim said, there are 2,000 homeowners down there. They're all concerned. They would be willing to try to help find engineers who would study this and try to give us a second opinion, see if there may be another way to do it. We also would be willing to contribute to a fund to pay the engineers and help you determine what's the best move at this point. We just ask that things be slowed down a little because the consequences if this is a mistake -- and believe me, it very well could be a mistake -- are enormous. Nowhere in all the engineering studies does it talk about the costs of keeping this channel open that has been -- now been marked. We don't know what that is. That could go on for years and years. Dredging is expensive, as you know. Nobody's assessed the cost. Every meeting we've been to there's been a rush to construction. Let's get on with it. We've got to get before the county commissioners. We're going to lose our bids. And by the way, there are only two bids. And the disparity between them is alarming. It seems as if it'd be good to take a little time and get some more bids. I don't want to go on too long. I simply ask you not to rush into construction before you understand all the consequences. And please don't make a mistake that everybody will be sorry about in the future. And if you have time, I'd love you to listen to this tape of Dr. Pilkey's. We've contacted him. He's already expressed his opinion that the closing off of the channel is insanity -- I'll wind right up -- that the breakwaters -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Come back to the microphone please. MR. GOUTELL: I'm sorry -- that the breakwaters may not-- may very well not do their intended purpose of -- of widening the beach. And we are presently getting him to write up a report which we want to give to you people and help you make a decision. Please don't make a decision right now. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. Mr. Blanchard. MR. OCHS: Mr. Blanchard's waived. He spoke previously. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Blanchard waives? MR. OCHS: Yes. He spoke previously. Next speaker would be Mr. Pisano followed by Mr. Lozier. MR. PISANO: My name is Nick Pisano. And if you don't mind, I'll speak from here. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: You have to speak in the microphone. MR. PISANO: Okay. My name is Nick Pisano. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. MR. PISANO: I'd like to speak from here because I'd like to use this map for a few moments. My only person I represent is Nick Pisano. My ideas are a lot different than what you've heard up until now, and I'll express them if you don't mind. Thank you. I have a -- currently a sailboat, and I use this passage to get in here right here. And as far as I'm concerned, they're putting up three obstacles to my navigation. Consider that. Three obstacles, and they're only understanding -- or from what I heard from the engineers they think it's going to work. They think it's going to work. You heard the gentleman before me mention that there are some scholarly professional people that have told you over and over again, have told the public that every time we mess with nature, we screw it up. I have another couple of points only, and then I'm going to leave. You may think that this is our first public forum, and you're right. This is the first time -- I'm on the island three years. I've only heard of this breakwater in the last couple of months. At the last meeting -- it's never been a public meeting that we've gone to. Even though he mentioned he opened it up to the public, he didn't, did not open it up to the public. In fact, in fact, the beach renourishment committee publicized that meeting Wednesday morning, and we had it Wednesday morning. Obviously not too many people attended. That's the type of public discussions we've had up until this point. May I suggest to the commissioners -- I have three suggestions: One is delay the -- delay any of your acceptances of his-- letting his permit out and hold public discussions for us so we can get prepared. As you know, we're probably not too prepared. We're not even organized. I don't even know what the procedure is, and I've been here three years. I'll be willing to learn it, but I'd like to open it up. I'd like the -- the commissioners both legally and maybe-- what do you call it? Profession -- look into professional advice on what these breakwaters might be able to do. It seems that the argument -- the argument is breakwaters brings back the beach. Now, the committee is a renourishment committee. It's not let's get up some idea and -- and -- and -- and -- and build us some breakwaters and maybe the beach will come back. That's not their job. Right at their last meeting -- for your information, their last meeting, there were people there that mentioned that the rest of Marco Island beach is deteriorating. So people from Hideaway who I don't see here have mentioned that Hideaway Beach is almost lost. And why is this committee that's in charge of renourishment harped on building breakwaters? Do they have that much money that they could do everything, or why not take first things first? The beach in Hideaway that's deteriorating, nothing's being done about it. They're worrying about these breakwaters. Again, there is some professional -- I haven't seen any of these committee members bring up some scholarly, academic people mentioning that the fact that these breakwaters will do something for the beach. And may I also suggest if, in fact, you put three breakwaters here and solve this beach problem, what do we do up the beach? Keep building breakwaters? And finally -- I forgot my final point, so I'll leave. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Pisano. Mr. Lozier? Who is next after him? MR. OCHS: Mr. Harris would follow Mr. Lozier. MR. LOZIER: I'm Gordon Lozier. I live on Marco Island on the water at 1280 Ember Court. I'm a very successful businessman. I'd like to talk about fundamentals. I don't like to talk about all this other stuff because that's where you get down and get this problem solved. Now, the problem is Caxambus Pass, exactly Caxambus Pass, nothing else. A little history on Caxambus Pass goes like this: In 1958 the war department put in the radar station. The Navy couldn't get in. Caxambus Pass was closed completely. I got a picture of it right here. 1958 there was no pass. They couldn't get in there to service the radar station, personnel, materials. There was no bridges on the island, no roads. So now we got this problem of Caxambus Pass. And looking at it from a business standpoint, this is the most valuable asset that Marco Island has. Without this here valuable asset, we could not sell any of the lots in the south part of Marco because with the pass closed, it would be dead. The values would drop probably 30 percent on all property. Now, another very interesting point, there is not one person on the committee, on the beach committee, that lives in that area where the property damages will be -- they would suffer. None of them are going to suffer, just us two -- 2,500 property owners. And I think that's wrong. I could talk forever about sand, about engineering, about everything because I am a very good navigational engineer. I take a back seat to nobody. But that -- I don't want to take up a lot of your time. I just want you to know that Caxambus Pass is the most valuable piece -- valuable asset that we have. And to destroy it is to practically destroy the south half of the -- of the island. We would be right back where we were in 1958, nothing. I want to thank you for your time. If you got any questions, I'll -- I'll answer them. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I don't think so. Thank you, Mr. Lozier. Mr. Harris? MR. OCHS: Mr. Harris will be followed by Mr. Smith. MR. HARRIS: Good morning. I am Buddy Harris. I reside on Marco Island, and I have been a member of the Marco Island Beach Renourishment Advisory Committee since its creation. Today I will out of consideration for time and the number of speakers not in any way repeat anything that's been said and avoid overdundancies (phonetic). I must say that I share some of the concerns expressed. I am probably -- well, I am on record the only member of the advisory committee that did not vote in favor of these segmented breakwaters. And my only reason for that -- and I'm a dilatant, not an engineer. The only reason I cast that vote was because I still am not convinced that they will do what they are designed to do. I sincerely trust that this is the first time in my life where I do not get the opportunity to ever say I told you so. I hope I'm wrong. I hope I am seriously, completely, totally wrong and that these segmented breakwaters do exactly what they're designed to do because we are losing approximately 30,000 cubic yards of sand from our beautiful beach each year. And we just can't -- we just got to do something to stop it. I hope these breakwaters do exactly that. I, however, do have a grave concern about what the spin-off effect of the im -- im -- impeding of the southward migration of sand might create for Caxambus Pass with the sand build-up at that intersection. And that's why I really please recommend the commission take action today to do what Commissioner Norris has suggested and what Commissioner Hancock has expounded upon to create the vehicle, the fund necessary for Caxambus Pass inlet maintenance to at least in your consideration consider the transposition of the $350,000 that's sitting in the fund 159 which is an MSTU fund. It will never be used. It's just sitting there gathering interest, true; if we could shift that money into whatever this fund vehicle is that you in your wisdom create; and number three, whatever monies are remaining in the bond fund after the installation of the breakwaters, if those monies could be moved in. But even of greater importance, please if you can instruct staff of capital projects to instruct their engineer, Coastal Engineering, to do everything conceivable in the highest order of priority to get the permitting procedure in place so that we in Collier County have the permit on hand and we in Marco Island can sort of relax a little bit and say in the event of worst case, we're prepared to move forward to take care of it. Thank you very much. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Smith (sic). MR. OCHS: Mr. Smith followed by Mr. Spaziani. MR. SMITH: Hello. My name is Jack Smith. I live -- I live right -- right about in here someplace on Marco. And my thoughts on this are not only for large boat owners, but I'm a small boat owner. And there's something that people seem to have not looked at. When I come out in my 22-, 23-foot boat, I come along here and head north. If any of the engineers have ever been out there when the sea -- when the Gulf is calm, this area in here can be absolutely extremely dangerous. Huge breakers, you have an on-shore wind with an outgoing tide or just the reverse, I can't get to here. I was out there the other night with my wife to -- to have sunset. If we had to head out this way, we would have been running into three and a half- to four-foot seas where you come right around the corner and it's calm. The breakers coming in when you have winds coming out of this direction are gigantic. Now, Mr. Norris talked about the fact that we have a public beach down here, public parking for -- for the public beach. We also have Caxambus boat ramp which is used mainly by small boaters, not by 35-, 32-, 44-foot boats. We're talking small boats. If they're coming in in a storm or coming -- it doesn't even have to be a storm. If they have to head out here to come back in and pick up this so-called channel, you're -- you're forcing them into far dangerous waters than what -- what exists right now because even -- I believe it was Mr. Stephens at one of the meetings said, yes, this more than likely will fill in. And what's that going to do to me? What's that going to do with everybody else? We're going to have to come out here and any of you who have been out there in small boats, I'm talking big, serious waves even when it's calm. But in this area you get great big breakers coming in. I see no sense in this. The other thing -- where is my note? Mr. Stephens, he was talking about some pictures from Sanibel, Captiva or Captiva. And my question to him, were those pictures the same type of a channel and living conditions as the south end of Marco? I don't think so. Thank you very much. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. MR. OCHS: Mr. Spaziani followed by Miss Goutell. MR. SPAZIANI: I'll pass. MS. GOUTELL: I'll pass. MR. OCHS: This would be either Mr. Or Mrs. Fiorillo. I only have a last name. MS. FIORILLO: I also pass. MR. OCHS: Final speaker, Madam Chairman, would be Mr. Huttinger. CHAIRPERSON HATTHEWS: It goes that far, doesn't it? MR. HUTTINGER: My name is Charlie Huttinger. I serve as your pleasure on the beach renourishment committee. I've been to all these meetings obviously, and they are public meetings. They've been public meetings the first Wednesday of every month ever since I've been on the committee. The problem is everybody said give us time. We don't have time. We're losing beach rapidly. We've lost 150,000 cubic yards. This is dramatic. I have a couple pictures that I'd like to show you. This is right after renourishment, the smaller one, and presently. Now, I was going to give you a little history, but Mike Stephens did that. Everybody did that. There's an old, old picture in here of what it used to look like before they built the tracking station, and you might want to look at that. Now, as far as studies, Mike Stephens did his Ph.D. On Caxambus Pass, and I can wave this book around at you, and I'm sure you don't want to read that. But I will tell you that now that the sea wall is uncovered, the conditions are exactly the same as what caused the problem to begin with. And if you want to look at the one page in here that's folded down -- Frank, do you want to -- well, that's folded down. Anyway, the conditions are identical. Now, as far as the greatest resource on Narco Island, it is the beach. We know that. Yeah, that's the one. That beach generates a million and a half in TDC money every year. And it probably generates close to 150 million in tourist spending. So we need to protect that beach. Now, we've got beach-front property owners that paid an additional $817,000 last year for beach maintenance and bond retirement. And I feel this committee has got a fiduciary responsibility to protect those people's investment as well as a responsibility to control our best natural resource, the beach on Narco Island. I think there's a compromise out there. But one thing we don't have is time. We've got to stop it. Now, we've put a channel in. We're going -- hopefully Mr. Norris is -- is -- is going to come up with an idea to keep it dredged. But in the meantime, we've got to do something about beach erosion. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON HATTHEWS: That was our last speaker? MR. OCHS: Yes, ma'am. MR. CONRECODE: Commissioners, just -- is this on? CHAIRPERSON HATTHEWS: Yeah. MR. CONRECODE: If I could just wrap up, you've heard really both sides of the issues. This isn't anything new. It's been in the process of design and monitoring for a number of years. The permitting agencies are involved with it. If you'd like to hear again from the engineers to get any specific questions answered that some of your speakers have raised, we can do that. Otherwise, we'll just turn it over to your questions. CHAIRPERSON HATTHEWS: Are there questions? Commissioner Hancock. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: As far as the boating concerns, there seem to be two facets, and I'll just classify them as big boats and small boats. The smaller vessels -- and some good points were made regarding the course that a -- that a 20 footer or a 21 footer has to take. And I know about the -- the area that in essence is six feet which is in a shoal area in there. You know, the point was well made there. But if you're in a 20- or 25-foot boat, you're not drawing more than two and a half, three feet typically. Most of the depths we see here adjacent to the proposed breakwaters, south of the breakwaters, seaward of the breakwaters, up close to them is six and eight feet. I'm not convinced that small craft can't use the similar path that they've used for years. You can run within, you know, 25 or 50 feet of the south side of that breakwater. Even if the accretion goes as planned, you know, that -- that area's going to remain passable for small boats. The other questions for larger boats -- and I have to disagree with a couple of comments that were made about the shoaled area that was five and six feet. As it was shown to us drawn by this gentleman, that simply is not a part of the marked channel. The -- the proposed marked channel does not go anywhere near that shoal area. I know the shoal area you're talking about. It doesn't cross that. MR. CARPENTER: May I respond to that? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, no, sir, you may not. MR. CARPENTER: I disagree. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, it's your drawing, and it's-- it's clearly in the wrong place. So, you know, I can't really say that there's, again, an access problem because of that shoal because the marked channel does not cross it. So I look at the boating interest. And yes, it is probably going to be an inconvenience for the larger boats. But I think -- and hopefully Commissioner Norris will have some -- some specific proposals. But I think we can at least provide a level of assurance that is not there today to the boating public in Marco to make sure that -- that the pass remains just that, a pass. CHAIRPERSON HATTHEWS: Commissioner Norris. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, you make a very good point right there. As things stand today, we have absolutely no commitment to -- from the county to keep this pass open. If that happened to shoal up where it's presently being used, there's no commitment or process or anything available at the moment to go in and open it up. CHAIRPERSON HATTHEWS: That's true. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: And I think that's one of the important things that we need to do. Unless some of the other board members have some comments, I'll go ahead and see if we can't bring this to closure. CHAIRPERSON HATTHEWS: to make? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: CHAIRPERSON HATTHEWS: COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Anybody have any other comments I shouldn't use closure I guess. Commissioner Norris. Well, I think it's -- it's -- you know, like we say, we're dealing with two separate issues here that -- that -- that are interrelated, and I think both of them are very, very important. So I think what we need to do is reiterate our commitment as a county that we're going to do what it takes to keep this as well as any other navigable pass open for the boating public. I think that's -- that's a primary responsibility of county government. So I'm going to make a motion that we approve the installation of the permanent channel markers as proposed, set up a dedicated fund number -- and this is something I think that the -- the budget is going to bring back to us with -- for final approval but a dedicated fund number with funds to -- to maintain this pass in an open condition as conditions warrant, approve the breakwater installation contract as -- as presented and, next, to apply for immediate pass dredging permit, immediately go ahead and forward and try to do that. And I would suggest that this -- this motion also include a board resolution to the appropriate agencies that we feel that it's very important to have this permit in place for contingency reasons and finally to go ahead and fast track the inlet management plan so that we have that also as part of this whole exercise. CHAIRPERSON HATTHEWS: Commissioner Hancock. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I don't have any particular problem with any element of the motion. It does raise the question that we have an inlet management plan working in more than one area at this point, Wiggin's Pass to be specific. We have five. Wiggin's Pass which also has a public boat ramp and several hundred boaters would kill to have this kind of a pass available to them. They're in an area in which they're shoaling in on a daily basis and bumping bottom at two and three feet. I have no problem with the motion. But fast tracking the inlet management plan for this area, if it robs the situation which is in similar or worse condition of the same attention, I -- I would have some concerns. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I don't think that would be contemplated under any circumstances. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I just need that assurance from Mr. Conrecode because Wiggin's Pass as it sits would love to have three feet consistently. MR. CONRECODE: We -- well, we treat each pass independently and, therefore, wouldn't -- CHAIRPERSON HATTHEWS: So does nature. MR. CONRECODE: -- rob Peter to pay Paul. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Okay. That's all I was asking for. I'll second the motion. CHAIRPERSON HATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second. It seems to be a five-part motion which I'm not going to repeat. Is there further discussion on the motion? There being none, all -- MR. CONRECODE: If I may, Madam Chairman, can we also have board approval for budget amendments and carryforward of -- CHAIRPERSON HATTHEWS: Would the motion maker incorporate appropriate budget -- budget amendments? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Absolutely. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second amends. CHAIRPERSON HATTHEWS: Okay. So it is now a six-step motion incorporating appropriate budget amendments. If there's no further discussion, all in favor please say aye. Opposed? Hotion passes five to zero. Would the audience please be quiet as they exit the room? We still have business to conduct. THIS DOCUMENT RECEIVED IN THE CLERK TO THE BOARD'S OFFICE ON JULY 14, 2000 RESOLUTION NO. 95-536 RESOLUTION OF COMMITMENT TO MAINTAIN A NAVIGABLE CHANNEL IN CAXAMBAS PASS. WHEREAS, approval has been granted for the installation of a segmented breakwater system along the Marco Island shoreline adjacent to Caxambas Pass; and WHEREAS, the entrance to Caxambas Pass is a large naturally occurring inlet with broad shoals; and WHEREAS, there are currently no aids to navigation in Caxambas Pass; and WHEREAS, the installation of the segmented breakwater system may obstruct passage from a commonly used unmarked natural channel, the Board of County Commissioner's granted authorization to mark an alternate channel of comparable depth; and WHEREAS, a hydrographic survey performed on July 21, 1995, indicated that the aforementioned natural channel had a minimum depth of approximately -8' NGVD, which is equivalent to -6.8' MLLW, prior to placement of the breakwater system; and WHEREAS, if natural forces cause the pass to become unnavigable, it will be necessary to implement contingent procedures to restore a navigable channel of comparable depth. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that: The County deems it necessary to maintain a navigable channel in Caxambas Pass at all times, and to that effect, further resolves to establish a dedicated fund for the purpose of keeping the pass open for navigation and to submit an application for a permit to do whatever is necessary to maintain a navigable channel in Caxambas Pass. "' :~" ' ...."r"~'"~-~"?' O~IS 3 ~. -" ' .~ ~'.~-'.; Ap'prov~d as to form and legal suffi/~iency: Collier County AttOrney HEH/lgk/10506 PAGE 11 Item #8C1 RECOMMENDATION THAT THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS REVIEW OPTIONS FOR THE OPERATIONS OF THE TENNIS FACILITY AT PELICAN BAY COMMUNITY PARK AND DIRECT STAFF HOW TO PROCEED - HALF-WAY BETWEEN OPTION 2 AND 3 WITH PUBLIC USE WITHOUT COST AND CONTRACTOR TO RUN PROGRAM Next item on the agenda is item 8-E-1. This is the median maintenance agreement. Oh, I'm sorry. I skipped over -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Crossovers? CHAIRPERSON HATTHEWS: N©, that's been continued t© September 26. 8-C-1. It's a recommendation of Board of County Commissioners to review options for the Pelican Bay Community Park. Would you please carry on your conversations in the hall, please? COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Hello. CHAIRPERSON HATTHEWS: Ladies and gentlemen, hell©. Thank you. COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Thank you. MR. BRINKMAN: Greetings. I'm -- CHAIRPERSON HATTHEWS: Thank y©u, Mr. Brinkman. MR. BRINKMAN: Steve Brinkman, y©ur parks and recreati©n director. And hopefully the decision I'm asking for today will be a little bit simpler than the one that y©u just had t© deal with. Pelican Bay Community Park is a new community park that you're all familiar with. There is eight lighted tennis courts at that location. The courts are clay courts, and they're open and available to the public at no charge. A schedule board now exists for people who are interested in playing tennis to sign up to -- so that the folks know who's next on the court. And this system over at Pelican Bay is basically like all of our other community parks with the exception of the Narco racket center down at Narco Island. Maintenance on the courts we do on a daily basis, and that amounts to ab©ut $20,000 per year. And what we would like the board to consider today are various options, either continuing the operation as it is presently, developing a limited operation by a contractor, going to a full operation by a contractor. Or another option would be to operate that similar to the market -- the Narco racket center and have us operate the facility itself. So we would just like -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I guess my thought is under option 1 where it says operate as other community parks is a key for me. Unless we're going to set up something individual for each area, I hate to -- this is a community park. And while obviously the majority of the people whom it serves are going to come from the Pelican Bay area, it is open to everyone in the county just as all the parks are. MR. BRINKMAN: Yes. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And -- and s© I hate t© start carving up different rules for different areas because if someone from Naples Park wants to go down and play tennis but the reservation system is in place or there's a charge in place, then it limits them more than, say, in Golden Gate where we have no charge and no reservations. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: The ©nly -- and this is a question for Mr. Brinkman. Does Pelican Bay have the only Hat Tru -- does this park, county park, have the only Hat Tru courts in the county inventory? CHAIRPERSON HATTHEWS: No, Narco. MR. BRINKMAN: Yes. We have some -- some clay courts down in Narco at that facility. But this is the only other location other than that that has clay courts. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Do we charge an -- charge for admission to the clay courts in Narco? MR. BRINKMAN: Yes, we do. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Do we charge for admission for the asphalt courts in Narco? MR. BRINKMAN: Yes, we do. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: That's kind of where I had the distinction is that tennis is one of those neat things for kids that you can pick up a secondhand racket and go out on a Sunday afternoon and play. And I don't want to see charging kids and charging people to do that. The difference to me is the clay courts that require 20,000 in maintenance and generally are your more serious or more skilled players will differentiate between the court surface that they like to use. The problem I'm seeing is that we can't necessarily -- I don't want to charge for using the asphalt courts. I have a problem with that because I just think that should be free and open to the public. It's part of the impact fees. We don't spend a lot of money on maintenance. So it's not a loser for us per se. But the Hat Tru takes a little more maintenance, generally has a higher caliber of player, a more competitive player using them or preferring to use them. And is -- is there a way in which we can -- I'm not anxious to charge for it, but I understand to offset the maintenance costs of those, without going to a full pro shop situation -- this just doesn't look like a smooth process to me. It's kind of an all or nothing as -- as -- as I see it. MR. BRINKMAN: Yeah. The -- the only way to do that would be to -- to either make that a requirement of the contractor in this process or at that location to just hire a person very much like we do at Narco that would just schedule the courts and collect the fees for that operation. CHAIRPERSON HATTHEWS: Finished? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Uh-huh. CHAIRPERSON HATTHEWS: Commissioner Nac'Kie. COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I -- I -- I hear the valid, you know, points and what you're saying, Commissioner Hancock. But I also am uncomfortable making a Pelican Bay park policy. If there is this distinction -- and it sounds like there is -- why don't we have -- why don't you propose to us a broader policy for the parks generally that maybe makes this distinction based on courts that good tennis players like versus kids with a secondhand racket because I -- it doesn't make sense to me to make a Pelican Bay park policy. Why -- why aren't we looking at this in a more broad scale? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Can I -- can I ask why we're looking at this? Why -- why was this brought forward? CHAIRPERSON HATTHEWS: I can explain that. The privatization plus committee and -- looked at a proposal from a tennis professional two or three months ago to operate the Pelican Bay park. We asked him if he would be willing to include the Narco Island racket club if the county desired to do that. He said yes, and we then forwarded the proposal on to parks and rec. To have -- have them take a look at it. And that's -- that's kind of where we are on it. We've done nothing more with it other than what Mr. Brinkman's done with the-- the proposal also. The interesting thing, though, about the clay courts versus hard courts -- and, Mr. Brinkman, help me, but I think the clay courts at Pelican Bay are relatively unattended? MR. BRINKMAN: Yes. We -- we do have someone that goes over there and does the maintenance in the mornings, but basically after that they are. CHAIRPERSON HATTHEWS: Essentially they're -- I'm sorry? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Nobody mows those courts all day? CHAIRPERSON HATTHEWS: No. We don't have to mow those courts, but -- but -- that's true. We don't mow the hard courts either. But what does happen in clay courts and we see it happen around the county really, when they're unattended courts, skateboarders, bicyclers -- and if you've ever seen what that will do to a clay court tennis court, it can do some pretty good damage. And, therefore, that's one of the reasons to -- to look at doing this. Number one, it would put full-time supervision on the courts. And plus whoever picked up the contract, if it were to go that way, would bear the responsibility of the maintenance which plus whatever revenue percentage the county would share. So there would be about a $30,000 shift in revenue versus cost for the county for the year. And it would put supervision at these courts where we could hopefully avoid significant damage. Commissioner Constantine. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Is there any way to do part way, to have a pro shop, offer lessons, and have some incentive for someone to put a bid in and yet not charge for those courts? You still have some supervision and you have an opportunity for a profit motive there for a private entity. CHAIRPERSON HATTHEWS: But I think that's what the idea is is -- MR. BRINKMAN: That's the limited operation by contractor that you see on there that would open a pro shop, let that person teach lessons. But there would be no open -- no charge for public play at the courts. CHAIRPERSON HATTHEWS: Essentially I guess what you would be doing is dedicating one -- one or two courts to the professional -- MR. BRINKMAN: Four of the courts would be, right. CHAIRPERSON HATTHEWS: -- for teaching purposes. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And Mr. Brinkman just said four of the courts, and that's my question there is if there's a total of eight courts; is that correct? MR. BRINKMAN: Yes, yes. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I just -- I don't play tennis, so I need help knowing how a professional would be teaching on half the courts at the same time. MR. BRINKMAN: Well, we would have -- we would reserve half the courts for open play, and there is also leagues going on as well. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The other half would be for leagues and that type of thing? MR. BRINKMAN: Right, leagues and lessons and instruction and that sort of thing. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Do we have any league-type activity now? MR. BRINKMAN: Yes, quite a bit. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Quite a bit. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So how much is set aside for them currently? MR. BRINKMAN: Generally in the evenings they probably use at least half the courts. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So it really wouldn't be that much of a -- it wouldn't be a change. MR. BRINKMAN: Right. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Not significant. Commissioner Hancock. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: On Marco Island are there any public courts that are no charge? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Yes. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: There are. MR. BRINKMAN: Yes, there are at Tommy Barfield. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Tommy Barfield, okay. I -- I wanted to make sure. MR. BRINKMAN: There are two courts there. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: The -- the -- the -- the -- the facility at Marco Island's a little special circumstance. It was -- it was originally started as a private operation, funded and everything by a private operation. A former commissioner who shall remain nameless brought the issue forward, and the county bought that as a recreation facility. So it's a little different. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Just so I understand, under option number 1 which is the way we currently operate, there's $16,000 in revenue in essence that would offset the costs of maintaining the courts? MR. BRINKMAN: Just about, yes. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. And under option number 3 where we have someone coming in and operating a pro shop, there's only $10,000 in revenue that would come in to offset. MR. BRINKMAN: Yes, which is about -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Plus the $20,000 from the estimated cost of maintenance that we're doing now. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: So by putting a person in the pro shop, we're going backwards in funds received by the county; is that correct? MR. BRINKMAN: In actual revenue, right. If you -- but there is a maintenance cost there that we wouldn't have to absorb anymore which would be $20,000. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Oh, okay. So -- okay. So we're-- we're net $10,000 in option number 3, and we're 4,000 to the loss in option number one. MR. BRINKMAN: Right. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. What -- what still concerns me as maybe a part of the numbers is charging for the use of the asphalt courts. I -- I don't want to make it so that kids in Naples Park or kids in Pelican Bay -- believe it or not, there's some that live there. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: There's no asphalt courts here. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. This is all just the Hat Tru courts. MR. BRINKMAN: Yeah. Eight clay courts here. CHAIRPERSON HATTHEWS: There's no asphalt courts here. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. CHAIRPERSON HATTHEWS: Is there a suggestion from the board that -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: If this is to move ahead, if we direct staff to move ahead, will you work on a specific contract and bring it back to the board for final approval? Is that the process we're looking at? MR. BRINKMAN: Yes. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: So the folks in and around Pelican Bay would have another opportunity for comment on this? MR. BRINKMAN: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And similarly, could something -- whatever the proposal is that you're thinking of making, could it incorporate a county-wide policy instead of just for this particular park? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: If we can absorb Narco without drastically changing that facility or making this not a possibility, I think that's a good idea. CHAIRPERSON HATTHEWS: Are we talking about then developing a policy then for clay court facilities throughout the county that are county owned? COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Well, for tennis facilities and then here's a specific -- one subset of that would be for clay courts. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Because they're the only ones that really have the maintenance costs associated with them so -- CHAIRPERSON HATTHEWS: Yeah. I mean, we've got tennis courts in all of our community parks, but they're all hard courts and COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I understand. CHAIRPERSON HATTHEWS: And, you know, they get washed when it rains. So -- but I think what we're looking at is -- is possibly a policy as it applies to strictly the clay courts. And at Narco there are hard courts incorporated in that. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Yes, there are. It's a mix. Mr. Brinkman, do any of our other park facilities have clay courts? Narco and this one and -- MR. BRINKMAN: Just Marco and Pelican Bay. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. CHAIRPERSON HATTHEWS: That's all. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: So really if we're developing a county-wide policy to deal with clay courts, we're really only talking about those two facilities. MR. BRINKMAN: Those two locations, right. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: It doesn't apply to the others. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Hancock, can you repeat your motion? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yes. I'd like to direct staff to bring a proposal back to the board that covers both the Narco Island facility and Pelican Bay facility regarding the use and operating policies of the Hat Tru or clay courts. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Are we giving them some direction as to 1, 2, or 3 here? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I believe fiscally I would prefer to see something come back in the form of -- of number 3 that would help reduce the -- the maintenance cost of the courts. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Number 3 would be full service by contractor so that there would not be some courts reserved for public. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, the -- the asphalt courts will be -- will not be a part of this. So those courts are always available. CHAIRPERSON HATTHEWS: And that's only on Marco that there's a mix. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Right. MR. OCHS: There are no asphalt courts at the Pelican Bay facility. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: CHAIRPERSON HATTHEWS: COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: was. CHAIRPERSON HATTHEWS: Oh. There are no asphalt. Hisinformation. I thought there Well, what -- what we could -- what we could ask him to include in the proposal is that some percentage of the courts at Pelican Bay remain available for the public at all times. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: My first blush, 50 percent. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah. My suggestion would be if we could go by number -- something similar anyway to number 2 here. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Like a two and a half? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah, because that would allow an operator to do his thing, but it would leave it open so that those kids or anyone who wants to come and play -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'll amend my motion to include-- include -- include a 2.5 approach. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll second that. CHAIRPERSON HATTHEWS: Okay. We have -- MR. BRINKMAN: Thank you. CHAIRPERSON HATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second and I think what we're hearing is that we have a proposal somewhere between 2 and 3 where there's public use allowed without cost but then still a contractor running a full program at the same time. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Agreed. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: 2.25. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Agreed. CHAIRPERSON HATTHEWS: If -- if there's no further discussion, all those in favor please say aye. Opposed? Motion passes five to zero. Thanks again, Mr. Brinkman. MR. BRINKMAN: Thanks again. Item #BE1 BID #95-2418, "GROUNDS MAINTENANCE, GOLDEN GATE PARKWAY AND MARCO ISLAND - AWARDED TO COMMERCIAL LAND MAINTENANCE, INC. IN THE AMOUNT OF $84,009.12 AND ENVIRONMENTAL CARE, INC. IN THE AMOUNT OF $158,374.40 COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Madam Chairman, next item was just an add-on item for the grounds maintenance contract that we need to get done for Marco Island and Golden Gate. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Motion to approve. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second. COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Question. CHAIRPERSON HATTHEWS: Question. COHHISSIONER HAC'KIE: It's all MSTU money. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Archibald, MSTU money only? MR. ARCHIBALD: Yes, it is. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Even out of the reserves, it's HSTU reserves? MR. ARCHIBALD: Yes. There's only one. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Do you have something you need to get on the record, Mr. Archibald? MR. ARCHIBALD: No, just as long as the motion reflects the budget amendments that are necessary and also the recognition that on Marco the committee is going to be considering recommending to the board the purchase of a watering truck separate and above from the contract recommendations. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: The motion does reflect those provisions. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. If there's no further discussion, all those in favor please say aye. Opposed? Motion passes five to zero. Item #9A CONTRACT WITH COLLIER COUNTY SENIOR GAMES, INC. FOR TOURIST DEVELOPHENT FUNDING FROM CATEGORY "C" - APPROVED Next item -- COHMISSIONER NORRIS: CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: 20 minutes. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: COHMISSIONER NORRIS: COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Next item's lunch, isn't it? We've got maybe -- we got maybe We got maybe 20 minutes? Haybe 20. I hope. Okay. Let's do it. Next item on the agenda under 9-A is approve a contract for Collier County Senior Games Incorporated. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll make a motion we approve staff recommendation. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Motion and a second to approve staff recommendation, and that is to fund this out of category C, tourist development funds. Any discussion? All those in favor please say aye. Opposed? Motion passes five to zero. Item #10A - Continued to 9/26/95 Item #10B DISCUSSION OF THE 1996 GREATER NAPLES INTELLINET CHALLENGE - COMMISSIONER HANCOCK TO BE INVOLVED AND PROVIDE UPDATES Next item is 10-B. Commissioner Hancock, it's a add-on item for Intellinet. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yes. Madam Chairman, thank you and board for hearing this. Shortly after we approved the funds for the Intellinet Challenge, I received some phone calls regarding how's the money to be spent, where's it going, who's dollar first, a lot of questions that are going to be covered in, in essence, the contract that the county attorney's office is working up. But I realized then that we've never done this before. This is a new animal for us and that it may warrant someone, a member of this board or an appointee of this board, working with the county attorney's office and with Intellinet to in essence monitor the progress of how it goes, where things go, in essence just a presence considering the fact that we are in essence a co-sponsor of a significant amount. There are other -- there are also some other items such as there are pro ams that sponsors get that are not appropriate for this body to -- to have or -- or to use, and they need to be handled in a certain way. And those things have to be brought back to this board for decisions. What I'm proposing or asking -- and whether it be me or another member of this board -- that we appoint an individual to work closely with Bill Rasmussen of Intellinet and the county attorney's office to in essence learn and monitor the process of -- of sponsoring this event should we have some questions that are outstanding in -- in the future. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Constantine. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I don't know that it's necessary. I mean, before any contractual things can move forward, it needs to come back to the board anyway. And -- and you make some good points about some of the specifics. Those things need to come back to the board. But that's what the county attorney's office is for is to make sure we stay within the scopes of the law and the directions of the board. And so I don't know -- I know we've -- you said you'd volunteer -- we've tagged you with several items lately -- to do it. But it just seems like an extra step for individual members of the board to have to do that. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, I guess -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I appreciate the sentiment. I just don't know if it's necessary. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Can I make a suggestion? Perhaps we just -- let's -- let's have a report on these items. I don't know that there would be any further need for a liaison type from the board as long as we had a report and perhaps updates as progress goes on. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: My -- my preference would be -- you know, our -- our agendas get bogged down enough already. I don't want to hear a lot of stuff on reports about this golf tournament, and I frankly would appreciate it. I got -- I got similar calls to the ones that it sounds like you got, Commissioner Hancock. I don't know if there needs to be anything official. But I think it would be wonderful -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, in essence I'm -- I'm going to do this anyway because I'm answering to the -- the concern that came into my office, so I'm going to do it anyway. The reason I brought it to this board is I didn't -- I didn't want the appearance of me being out there doing something that my colleagues were not aware of or didn't approve of. I'm going to be involved because I want to learn the process because I'm interested, as we all are, where the money goes, how it's spent, and so forth. And we may get some questions after this event. And I want to be able to respond to those, and I think you would too so -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I don't have any objection to you doing that. I don't know that we need to appoint that. I think Commissioner Norris's point is well taken, though. Once a month or something in the meantime we ought to have an update as to the status of the contract. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Even -- even if it's just a written report that's in our mailbox. I mean, we don't need a formal Tuesday report, just an update. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Fine with me. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: That's fine by my. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: In answer to your question about out there doing things that we don't approve, I think I asked that question the first meeting we attended, November the 19th, 1992, and I believe the answer was whatever you feel like. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Good enough. Item #10C FLOODING PROBLEMS AND ROADS AND ACCESS IN THE EASTERN PART OF COLLIER COUNTY - AUTHORIZE STAFF TO LOOK AT ROAD PROJECTS THAT ARE DAMAGED TO THE EXTENT THAT EMERGENCY SERVICES ARE OUT OF SERVICE AND BRING BACK ON CONSENT AGENDA CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: So next item on the agenda is an-- a continuing update on drainage and problems in the eastern part and southeastern part of the county regarding roads, water, private and public roads. Thank you. My heavens. MR. ARCHIBALD: Board members, this is not only in response to the discussion last week but also in response to conditions that we're still encountering primarily in the rural area of the county and also in and around Immokalee. For instance, last night Immokalee is still getting inundated with not only heavy rainfall but the corresponding outcome. And what I wanted to bring to the board very quickly this morning is the road conditions that we're now beginning to see on private roads where the water is beginning to recede, we have washouts, and we have a number of roadways where people can't get in or out. And not only does that create a access problem for residents, but also it -- it begins to be a concern relative to emergency management, how do people come and go, and how do they end up receiving services as a whole. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: George, can I interrupt you for just a second on that point? After last week's meeting where we heard, you know, the alarm went off and the sheriff's office said, sorry, we can't get there, I did some asking about that and basically got told if there were a life-and-death emergency in there, sure, we'd get swamp buggies. We'd get a helicopter. We'd do something to get in there. But, you know, they invited me to go ride around with them to confirm that it just wasn't physically possible to get in there. You know, I gave a lot of scenarios, what if there's a child hurt, what if there's -- you know, and -- and they'll do whatever they can. But this is -- this isn't just sort of they don't feel like getting their -- their vehicles that messy. It's a physical impossibility that -- that we're talking helicopters or swamp buggies to be able to get in there in the event of a serious life-and-death emergency. So that got my attention. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah, that's something that will get -- get your attention. MR. ARCHIBALD: What I've attempted to do on the back side of the handout is a listing of all the private roads with the exception of a couple that have come to the attention of this office. And I'm giving the board some idea of what it may involve in terms of equipment to -- to go in there on a one-time basis to do either some blading or some grading or provide some kind of fill or lime rock to be able to make the areas serviceable, not to upgrade the road, not necessarily to even repair the road but, in fact, to make the roadways serviceable. So the four items that really the board needs to consider is one, whether or not they want to authorize its public works activities to go on private roadways where, in fact, the public is using those roadways and one, going on those roadways and performing work and whether or not you want county equipment involved in that work and whether you want us to participate in providing materials, whether they be fill, lime rock, or culvert material, and whether this should be on some kind of reimbursable basis. In regards to reasons why we should or shouldn't do it, I've outlined it on the front. There's very good reasons why we should stay off of private property. There's very good reasons why, in fact, we should go in there on a very constrained, controlled basis and do a small amount of work to assure that there is some serviceability when it comes to transportation, being able to get in and get -- get out of an area or to provide services to that area. I've also gone ahead and provided a little bit of a recommendation, and it's based upon the idea that there's probably two tiers of need out there. As this water begins to drain off and conditions become a lot more visible, there's a need to probably go in there and support activities where, in fact, for one reason or another people have to rely upon the county to grade the road just to bring it back to some serviceable cond -- condition. And throughout the county and on this list, almost every single one is different. The very first one, Trafford Farms Road, is a very good example. The people there have the equipment to do the work. What they want to try and do is arrange to either buy or obtain material to fill the holes and to stabilize the roadway from the county. So in that particular instance we may not have to provide much in the way of equipment. But they're asking for the materials to make it serviceable. In the case of Rock Road, they're collecting the money, and they would like to be able to pay for the materials if the county does the work. In the case of Krape Road, they've done a lot of road work, and they're looking primarily for drainage work to be done. So in almost every case it's somewhat unique not only in the type of work that's necessary but also in what participation occurs from the private sector, the people that are benefiting from it. And although historically our baseline has always been one in which the people that benefit should be the people that pay, the dilemma we have here is whether or not there's some low level one-tier maintenance work that could be done to make a road passable without expending a lot of public dollars and if the people want us to do more, creating a mechanism so, in fact, the county can do more as it has manpower and equipment available to do it and subject to those costs being absorbed by the benefiting parties. So again, I outlined in this little exhibit a two-tier approach. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Questions? Commissioner Hancock. MR. OCHS: Madam Chairman, excuse me. You do have two registered speakers on this item. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'll wait until we hear from the speakers. MR. OCHS: Miss Hartinez. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Followed by -- MR. OCHS: And followed by Miss Garcia. MS. MARTINEZ: Good afternoon. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Miss Hartinez. MS. MARTINEZ: My name is Rosa Hartinez, and I live on Little League Road in Immokalee and -- which is part of Lake Trafford Road. Half of it is called Little League Road, and then the other half is Lake Trafford Farms. And I had -- in one day I collected over 36 signatures. There's 51 residents in that area in a stretch of a mile and -- less than a mile and a half. And there's so many -- 51 houses there, and I collected 36 signatures. They are willing to -- we're asking to make this a public road because I don't know if you're aware that on the corner of East -- Southeast, there's the cemetery, and then there's the little league baseball park which is owned by the county. And when that park went there -- I've been there for over 14 years on that road. When that park went there, I mean, that was no longer a private road. Maybe 10, 15 years ago it was a private road but no longer. Our road gets real bad. We might -- we might have somebody to, you know, to fix the road, scrape the road every -- let's say every month, month and a half. But the traffic is so bad because even if we were -- I know it's -- I don't know if it's within the law to post no, you know, no trespassing, private road, which our road, you know, would be impossible to do because it's like a -- a horseshoe. You know, it connects with Lake Trafford Road. That's the main -- one of the main roads in Immokalee. It connects like that and goes to all the way around, and there's residents all over that road. And we feel that it's no longer a private road, that it's very much a-- a public road because especially of the little league park. When that little -- for five months or six months, you know, people go in and out of there. And, you know, there's no way for us to stop them. And then we cannot be after them, don't speed, because it's their kids, and they go speeding and go riding with their four wheelers there because they're going to the park. By the time we call the sheriff's department, the deputies come, they're gone, you know, and so -- because they're going there. And we cannot catch them because, you know, we don't have the manpower or the time, you know, because we're not wealthy people to be standing there in the road to -- to patrol our road. But it's no longer a private road. It's a very public road because the county owns -- owns about a -- approximately a thousand feet frontage road, you know, on the front. And it's -- I don't consider that a private road when the county has part of it. So, you know, that's my petition, and I have the signatures here of over 36 residents that -- that own property there. They are willing to, you know, to -- we want this to be a public road, not a private road so the county can maintain it and we can have it paved because we have suffered a lot. This is not the first time that we have, you know, gather money, everybody donates and everything and, you know, work on that road to maintain it. It's not the first time. We're willing to do it. But we feel that the -- that it's a public road, not a -- not a private road. And I have other signatures from other citizens that are-- you know, that go to -- that have their kids in the little league. And when -- since it's dirt and, you know, the dry season in the end of the winter season or the spring season, it's dry, so the dirt just blows over them, you know, all -- and makes a mess. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. Mr. Archibald, Little League Road is -- is paved most of the way. MR. ARCHIBALD: Little League Road going directly north from Lake Trafford Road for about a quarter of a mile is a paved county road. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. MR. ARCHIBALD: As it turns and goes toward the west, it becomes a private road. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: And that becomes Trafford Farm Road. MR. ARCHIBALD: Yes, it does. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: And as it loops around, it remains a -- a dirt road. MR. ARCHIBALD: Yeah. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. MS. GARCIA: Hi there. My concern is the Trafford Farms Road. I do have children, and the cops were called on Sunday to come for an accident. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Can you identify yourself for the HS. GARCIA: Hy name is Debra Garcia. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. MS. GARCIA: I live on Lake Trafford Farm. Sorry. I do have little kids, and there was an accident on Sunday, and we did call the deputies to come to the house which it was just a truck backed into another car, and they refused to come over there. And we had to meet them on Taylor Terrace to report the accident. Okay. Yesterday the county dropped two loads of gravel, and a man was nice enough to put it in the hole. Well, that stuff became mush. I mean, we had cars buried. We had tractors trying to pull us out and everything. And if we had to have an ambulance yesterday at all, we wouldn't have been able to have one because they wouldn't have made it through there. They would've gotten stuck too. So my concern is getting the road maintained and fixed, you know, for our children's sake, you know. We really need that fixed bad. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. Commissioner Constantine. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Archibald, I think we need to look at not only these specific roads but some sort of policy with private roads. You and I spoke briefly this morning. There's one road, Hunter, that's in Livingston Woods, similar situation. I think there's 16 homes. And if you look at the homes, they're actually fairly upscale homes. But it's a private road, and they have a very similar problem as far as flooding, and it turns into a health and safety issue. I don't know how we approach that county-wide. I think we can pick out 16 or 18 places now that have health and safety issues, but it seems like we ought to create some sort of policy to address -- if a private road wants to vacate and become public, how do we deal with that? Maybe we have a policy in place now for some of that. But how do we deal with that? What's appropriate in these emergency situations? MR. ARCHIBALD: That's a concern. The county has a very good policy relative to having the benefiting residents submit a petition to the board. That policy is fairly well estab -- established and has been used in many, many cases to improve roadways. In the policy of the county not accepting a roadway, whether it's private or public, not accepting it until such time as it does meet county standards is also necessary because there's hundreds of roads out there that we could end up being responsible for. So I think our existing policies are very appropriate. In regards to Trafford Farms Road, we're going to receive that petition that was just referenced and probably bring that back to the road. But the concern that we have today is really the issue of that first tier of response. If, in fact, your public works division sees an area that, in fact, needs some sort of minimal type work, may it be a few loads of fill or may it be some grading or reshaping or a little bit of drainage, and, in fact, we don't foresee any risk or any great liability on the part of the county and we can assure that the work we do is constrained within a confined area, that, in fact, it doesn't make us responsible for that area, then that kind of authority to go in on a one-time basis to do emergency-type work that may be less than a given dollar amount -- you may want to establish a cap of maybe $1,000 in material cost as a maximum that you might want to consider authorizing your division to implement -- and also subject to a list such as we've got here where we know that we're going to have those kinds of concerns. At the same time, if those people want to come back and petition for the county to do more and are willing to subsidize that cost to not only improve the road but improve it to a better standard, then those petitions can be brought back to the board on probably a -- a given policy. And where the owners are willing to subsidize that cost, we've done that before. A very good example is the bus turnaround at the very south end of 23rd in Golden Gate Estates. While we were in there, the people on Della Drive had come up with enough money for us to go ahead and do some work on their roadway. So while we were there, we did exactly that. And the board had previously authorized that. So there's an example where if we're in the -- in a certain location and we can respond and there's some subsidy to that response or that our exposure is reduced or kept under a certain cap whether or not that's something that the board would feel comfortable in authorizing at least for the disaster cases that we may foresee in the very immediate future. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I like that idea on disaster cases, but I agree with Commissioner Constantine that it should be a county-wide policy again, not -- I mean, these may be the disasters that you've identified, but I'd like for it to be county-wide and not just limited to this particular area. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let me just clarify what it is you're asking for. You're looking for authorization to assist these areas and/or any other appropriate areas that have health and safety-type issues, disaster-type issues. MR. ARCHIBALD: Dealing with primarily emergency access. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Right. MR. ARCHIBALD: That being the key issue. If for a certain amount of effort by the county we can go in and resolve a problem in short order without affecting our capacity to do work elsewhere, whether or not you want to consider delegating a certain authority to public works, for the county manager to do that kind of work, it involves two concerns: It involves the concern of spending money, recognizing that there's a public benefit there; and also it involves going on roadways that may or may not be dedicated to the public. But again, these are things that we've done in the past and don't have a record of creating any problems or creating any exposure. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hancock. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: When we heard this item I guess it was last week, most of the people were saying something very similar, and that is there's -- we know what work has to be done, and we're willing to pay for it, will the county help us do that. And I-- I think we need to continue pursuing that, you know, as best we can to help set them up -- set up the funding mechanisms for them to allow them to have a roadway that's built to county standards that -- that has greater access and so forth. I have some serious concerns about the precedent we set. And when we put the big tag of health, safety, and welfare on something, we found that to be extremely broad depending on the situations. I agree that an area in which, you know, access to it is-- is not available is a concern. By the same token if, you know, I'm in a situation where my family cannot be accessed by an emergency, you know, medical unit or police officer, I may have second thoughts about staying there until -- until that recedes. So I'm a little concerned about -- we can look at these isolated situations and say, yes, I think it's appropriate we go in and we put fill on this road at this time to alleviate this problem. The problem with the general application of that policy is that somebody who goes out and builds to complete substandard their own roadway to a few lots and then expects the county to bail them out, the county taxpayers may I say to bail them out, is my concern. So I'm -- I'm -- I would like to proceed and -- and offer some level of assistance here, but I'm -- I'm just hesitant to do so on a broad policy basis based on what we've -- we've seen here today. I think that there are a few roads that we need look at on -- on what to do. And let's look at those specifically today. But I do fear people building well below standard and then expecting the county taxpayers to bail them out at some point. That's -- that's a serious concern. I think we all share that. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Mac'Kie. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No, actually I'm going to pass for now. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Commissioner Constantine. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Archibald, you -- you said the issue you've outlined are in response to obviously a specific crisis right now after the storms we've had. You're looking at a one-time only? Did I hear you say that? This isn't something we're going to be roving looking to do year-round from now on? MR. ARCHIBALD: One-time only. And one reason I outlined the hours here is that, again, the county road department doesn't have the capacity to do much of this. We're -- we'll be stretched to do it on a full-time basis. So there are -- there are constraints. The other issue that was brought up is that many of these are serving a very large number of homes. It's not a matter of a few people. There may be more than 100 people on Trafford Farms. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The other thing I heard you say I think was you do this assuming it does not impact our ability to do -- COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Right. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- our regular work. And so I think with those two things -- with a couple things in mind -- three things in mind. If it does not impact our ability to do our regular job as far as our transportation department, if it is truly a one-time only end response to a hundred-year storm and -- because you're absolutely right, Commissioner Hancock. We can't be out roving looking to save people who have built substandard. And -- and, third, if we're looking only at those disaster areas, I think it is important if we're talking about health, safety issues and not in a broad scale but in a very specific scale, if emergency transportation cannot get to those areas, that's clearly a health, safety issue. And, George, you may have other things in mind that fit with that same type category. But to me this isn't just saying, well, if it is any health, safety thing. I think we're talking fairly clearly that it is transportation-related access for emergency procedures. With those three things in mind, I'd like to give our transportation department the leeway to do what they see necessary, again, as long as it doesn't damage our ability to do our regular job. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I agree. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Archibald, do you have the money currently in your budget? You've -- you've itemized here about-- almost $60,000 worth of work that may have to be done. Do you currently have that money in your budget available? MR. ARCHIBALD: No. The biggest item there would be the material cost. Those are things that you have to actually go out and buy. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Uh-huh. MR. ARCHIBALD: And we may need -- as we go into our new year -- this is the end of our working year. As we begin the new year in October, we may have some funds. But we may need to come back to the board and consider a figure like I've got shown here, somewhere in the neighborhood of $20,000. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Where is Washburn/Smith Road? MR. ARCHIBALD: That's a series of roadways that are located to the east of the landfill. They interconnect up to Brantley-Keane and ultimately -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Okay. MR. ARCHIBALD: -- up to 23rd. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Now I know where they are. Do we have a -- have you made a motion then to authorize-- I'm sorry. I didn't -- Commissioner Norris. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I'm not completely comfortable with the -- the direction we seem to be heading here. I know there's health, safety, and welfare issues involved here. But there's also appropriateness of county taxpayers' funds involved here as well. I heard Mr. Archibald say that some of these streets may have 100 people on them. Well, you know, maybe they should get together and -- and either fund it, have the county do it and they -- they fund it, or perhaps they could even hire a private contractor. To just go out and spend $60,000 of taxpayers' money on private roads, I'm just not yet comfortable with that process. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I -- I think what -- what I'm hearing is members of the board are recognizing that we -- we have a disaster situation on our hands and that we have some health, safety, and welfare issues before us regarding these roads. And I -- I certainly would only want to go this distance for only tier 1 and would certainly want to make available to -- to the property owners on these roads that they consider forming individual MSTUs or passing the hat around the property owners or how ever they're going to do it and-- and come back with a proposal to up -- to upgrade their road and have it more serviceable, maybe not -- maybe not upgrading it to county standards because that could be very expensive but at least upgrading it to a point they can pave it to some degree and -- and -- which would keep it from eroding away in the future. Commissioner Mac'Kie, did you have another comment? COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Just -- just briefly that surely in an emergency situation like we have, this is a valid expenditure. I agree with the tier 1 being what we ought to -- we ought to authorize at this point and do what we can to cooperate and assist on the tier 2 kinds of expenses. But you can't lose sight of the fact that we issue building permits for homes in these areas, and we are obligated to provide emergency services for safety in these areas. And I think that that is the -- is the rational basis for spending a minimal amount of money to be sure that emergency services can access. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I realize I'm probably arguing both sides of it now. However, Mr. Archibald, are all 20 of these -- would you consider -- I think there's -- how many ever there are on this list, are all of these situations as we described where an emergency vehicle could not comfortably pass? MR. ARCHIBALD: Probably about half of them. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Okay. So we may not be looking at $60,000 because half of them may not fit the criteria we described. MR. ARCHIBALD: (Mr. Archibald nodded head.) COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: My other concern is how many, if any, of these had road conditions that did not allow safe passage of emergency vehicles prior to the storm because I look at Brantley, for example. I'm reasonably sure you couldn't get a fire truck or -- or an ambulance down that road comfortably anyway long before any of this rain fell. I mean, you could hide my Buick in the holes in some of those -- some of the holes in that road. MR. ARCHIBALD: Well, some of those have been filled, but I won't tell you what they've been filled with. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Buicks. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Buicks. MR. ARCHIBALD: Yes. Many of these roads are -- are -- are, in fact, in very rough shape. Again, even if they're in rough shape, as long as emergency vehicles can come and go, we're not looking to do any kind of work on those. The -- the alternative we have is to go -- and the staff can present these on a one-on-one basis as quickly as we can get them to the board. And it may end up being a consent agenda item so at least we get some authorization on an individual basis and we know better what that condition is and what that expenditure is. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I think that'd probably make me more comfortable is to at least have them come back through in some form because if there was a private road that was damaged to a great extent by this storm and as a result is in danger of being able to accept emergency services, I have a concern. If a road for the last five years has been unpassable and the neighbors have chosen to ignore that, as Commissioner Norris suggested, perhaps they should get together and correct that themselves. And I think you and your staff probably have a pretty good idea which streets meet that criteria. But if it is a result of the storm and, you know, has -- has emergency implications, those are the criteria I'm most interested in. And I'm going to assume that will probably whittle this down to 25,000 instead of 58,000. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: It may. MR. ARCHIBALD: And I can give the board a very good example on Trafford Farms Road. That roadway exists for more than a mile, but there's only three critical spots. So if we would be doing any work -- and we, in fact, did some work on that roadway last night. If we're doing any work, it would only be in those three spots. So we wouldn't be maintaining or improving the roadway itself. We would only be identifying those areas where, in fact, the road was impassable. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Commissioner Constantine, do you think you could wrap this up into a motion or something so I can go ahead and vote against it? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Sure. I'll make a motion that we authorize our staff to look at these various road projects as outlined here and if there are any others in the county that meet this criteria but that were damaged as a result of our unusual mother nature circumstances this summer to the extent where emergency service is unavailable that you are then authorized to bring that back to the board on the consent agenda for final approval. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: It has to come back though; right? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Wait a minute. Are you -- are you saying he's not to do the work or he's just to get the work done to make it passable and put it on the consent agenda? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm saying it should come back on the consent agenda. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Before -- before the emergency access can be addressed? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I suspect with the amount of knowledge Mr. Archibald and his staff have on these streets and the homework he's already done, we'll see some of those next Tuesday, so it's not as though this is going to float. MR. CUYLER: Madam Chairman, I'm going to also suggest that Mr. Weigel provide you a memo because some of this stuff's a little trickier. Maybe you recognize it's a little bit tricky. But some of it dealing with private property's a little bit tricky, even emergency situations. I think I'm going to suggest he provide you a general memo telling you basically what you can and can't do. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. That's a good idea. Commissioner Hancock. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: No one likes to be labeled as someone who doesn't want to help, and I certainly hope my comments aren't taken that way. But I'm going to vote against the motion because I don't think it's -- as much as your summation has correct elements to it, I don't think it's -- it's in a format that I can fully say, yes, I agree that this is the absolute minimum necessary for emergency transportation. But the follow-up isn't there. If we're going to go spend three or four and in one case eleven thousand dollars on a roadway so that emergency transportation can get there but have no plan to recoup those funds from the residents who basically bought property along that roadway, paid less for that property because it was on an unimproved, private road, than, say, someone who bought the same property on a public roadway, unless we have any process by which we are going to notice the property owners in an attempt to recoup funds or to notify them that they -- I guess they're put on notice that, you know, this is not an open well that they can return to, I'm just uncomfortable moving ahead with this type -- until I know the parameters of the expenditure. I know it's going to be itemized one at a time. But where do we cut it off? At the 12th one that comes in or the 13th, and how much is too much? I -- I just would like to see a more succinct element of exactly the minimum necessary to get a police car in to most of these homes or an EMS vehicle into most of these homes. And until I -- I have a grasp of that, I don't feel like I can support -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I think Mr. Archibald has used the word passable. That doesn't mean superhighway. MR. ARCHIBALD: And maybe I can explain a little better is that in -- in most of the cases the amount of work to make it passable is very, very small. And that would be the only thing that the county would be looking to do, and we would make every attempt based upon what I'm hearing to recoup that. I would think that any expense -- and the 11,000, for example. Those people have already -- they're already looking at collecting money, so I would think that the dollars that were represented here represent work to be done, not necessarily what would be funded by the county. So the majority -- the majority of the work if they want it done above and beyond just making a road passable in one location or another, they in turn would have to petition and would have to pay for those improvements. So we're looking at tier 2 here to some degree. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Are we noticing the property owners on these streets that that is the case? I know that that's mailing costs. But if we don't do that, you know, the -- the attitude may be, well, the county came out and fixed it last time. Where are you this time -- MR. ARCHIBALD: Well, let me -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- without an understanding of the process? MR. ARCHIBALD: Let me outline if I can very quickly what I would foresee as, again, a two-tier relationship where we would identify a road that may have a need for $500 in -- COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: George, I -- I -- I understand that. Nevermind. I withdraw the question. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I'm going to call the question if there's no further discussion. All those in favor please say aye. Opposed? Motion passes three to two with Commissioners Hancock and Norris being in the opposition. Thank you, Mr. Archibald. (A discussion was held off the record.) Item #13A1 PETITION SV-95-4, INTERNATIONAL SIGN AND DESIGN REPRESENTING DISCOUNT AUTO PARTS, INC., REQUESTING A 30 FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE REQUIRED 150 FOOT ROAD FRONTAGE FOR A POLE SIGN TO 120 FEET, FORAN AUTO PARTS STORE LOCATED AT 3600 TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST - DENIED CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. We are at the public comment portion of our agenda. Mr. Ochs, is there anyone wishing to give public comment today? MR. OCHS: No, ma'am. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. We'll move to the public hearings. And the first one is item 13-A-l, petition SV95-4. Chahran. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Good afternoon, Commissioners. Chahran Badamtchian from current planning staff. This variance is for a -- is a sign variance for the Discount Auto Part on the East Trail not far from the courthouse. This property has 120 feet of road frontage. And the Collier County Land Development Code requires 150 foot of frontage for a pole sign. Petitioners, they are requesting to share one pole sign with the next-door neighbor, a car wash, which has also 120 foot road frontage. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So in essence what they're asking is one large signage over 240 -- MR. BADAMTCHIAN: One sign with two sides. And they also volunteer to landscape the car wash side, so the car wash side doesn't have any landscaping, and parking is not up to county code today. And they are volunteering to landscape that and upgrade the parking and maybe have interconnection between those two parking lots. Unfortunately, our code does not have any requirement for shared parking. Therefore, the staff is obligated to recommend denial. However, the idea is worth some consideration. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Per -- perhaps -- MR. BADAMTCHIAN: This idea of shared sign if they accept this landscaping and upgrading the parking lot is worth some consideration because we have lots of older sites which do not have adequate landscaping who may use this vehicle to upgrade those sites in the future. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Questions. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Questions? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Uh-huh. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I would think the next time that we review the sign ordinance we may want to include such a thing. It sounds like an interesting idea. MR. HULHERE: I would just add for the board -- board's information, I believe I had some conversation a while back with the applicant or some representative of the applicant. And I indicated that we would be looking at -- in this coming cycle we will be looking at the sign code in a comprehensive fashion just as we did for the parking in the current cycle. And we will look at maybe what parameters we could attach to such a -- a variance. I should -- just for the board's information -- and I think the executive summary includes that information -- originally when we set 150 foot of road frontage as the limitation for a pole sign, it was to reduce the number of pole signs that would be around in Collier County. So if we change the code -- and it may be a good thing to do in terms of getting additional landscaping or parking or interconnects to reduce the impacts on the adjacent roadway. We haven't really fully studied the idea. And, however, the applicant is pursuing a variance, you know, in advance of us looking at those issues. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Petitioners, do you have anything more you need to add? MS. HCDEVITT: Yes. My name is Carolyn HcDevitt, and this is Will Griffin of International Sign and Design. We're both here on behalf of Discount Auto Parts which does have the store just very close in proximity to where you are right now at 3600 Tamiami Trail East. And the one comment I need to clarify quickly is we had discussed the landscaping proposal which, you know, we are very open to -- to discussing some reasonable landscaping. However, on the adjoining parking lots or maintaining another parking lot, we can't possibly do that or agree to that because of the obvious potential for liability to our business when something may occur on another business's property. So just to clarify that one issue, we had discussed the landscaping issue, though, and that seems to be something that might be workable. The reason for -- the reason that we had brought the petition forward was that we felt this was a compromise and in keeping with Collier County's intent. The reason for the sign code was to promote the health, safety, aesthetics, and the general welfare of the community. By aggregating the 2 frontages which are each 120 feet, you have 240 feet for 1 sign which we would share. The sign itself would be in compliance with the specifications. We're not asking for a bigger sign than what 150-foot frontage would be. It would be a shared sign between the two businesses. Now, this is well within keeping of the intent of safety and to eliminate clutter. If we had owned perhaps the two parcels ourselves and did not develop the second parcel, we would be entitled to come to you and ask for a permit for that one piece of property. This way there are two businesses benefiting the community. And hopefully it's a two-way street also, you know. We -- we want to be good members of the community and also develop business in this -- this area. And obviously being on Tamiami Trail is a great advantage to Discount and its exposure. Now, one thing that I did want to bring up, though, was on the safety issue. Obviously I think everyone knows that advertising is very critical to a business's economic well being in a community because it communicates with potential customers. But also a roadside sign, Discount feels that it really enhances the safety of motorists who can pick out its store at a distance. And once you're traveling down Tamiami as I was this morning coming from both directions trying to get a feel for how I could perceive this store from a distance, I could see that I'm traveling along at -- and I hate to quote the speed limit, but I hope it was 45 miles an hour going down this road -- you're almost upon a store -- it's pretty fast. I think it's -- it's faster than 30. I know that. You're almost approaching the store before you see it. And that means motorists have -- are almost upon the store or bypassing the store before they say, that's where I wanted to stop; whereas some of the other stores in this general vicinity like your -- your Wal-Marts and some of even the smaller stores that have a pole sign there, you can point down the road and say, that's where I want to go, that's where I want to turn, I can slow down. I can turn on my turn signal and make the correct exit. So Discount's position is that this type of a pole sign being shared by the two businesses even enhances your own motorists' safety. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Could I ask you, are you -- are you a representative of Discount? MS. MCDEVITT: Yes. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: You're their lawyer? MS. HCDEVITT: Yes. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Okay. MS. HCDEVITT: That's correct. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I just wanted to get the players straight. MS. HCDEVITT: Right. No. My law firm is Brown, Clark, and Walters, and we represent Discount on this matter. So, therefore, the variance is not only sought in keeping with the county's public interest and the intent of the sign code, but it would alleviate the hardship of competing with other businesses who are allowed to have a pole sign at the entrance of their business. And the only reason that we are not is because we don't have the same frontage. So it's a change between frontages, and that's the only reason for not having this added attraction. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: That's what the sign ordinance calls for, though. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: That's why we put it in there. MS. HCDEVITT: Can I -- I'd like to -- I think I've gotten to the point where I need Mr. Griffin to step in because he -- he actually filed the petition, and he is more knowledgeable about the specifics of the particular sign that we are seeking. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Did you have a question, Commissioner Constantine? COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah, just at the beginning of your presentation -- I'm sorry. I thought the staff had said one thing, and I thought you heard -- I thought I heard you say something different. Did you say you cannot do the landscaping? MS. MCDEVITT: Oh, no. The landscaping issue is something that we would be willing to discuss and work on. I think the landscaping issue is one thing separate from the parking issue and adjoining issues if the two properties -- if -- if the amendment which I'm understanding may be under consideration seeking to adjoin two parking lots of two businesses. We feel that the potential for liability for, if it should happen, some accident occurring on that particular pathway is just too great; whereas, we would greatly -- COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Hang on. You've lost -- MS. MCDEVITT: -- want to discuss the amount of -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You lost me again. Let me ask you a very specific question because you've completely lost me in your answer. I was under the impression our staff had said that there would be an interest in landscaping both your property and the -- what's there now? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Car wash. MS. MCDEVITT: It's the car wash next door. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let me finish the question -- the car wash's property. I thought I heard you then say, well, we'll do ours. We can't do the car wash because of liability. Did I hear you say that? MS. MCDEVITT: Landscaping, we would be interested in discussing the landscaping issue, yes. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: On both properties. MS. MCDEVITT: On both properties, yes. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you. MR. GRIFFIN: If we did a real good job with it, you couldn't see the sign. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Excuse me just a moment. We've got some more questions. Commissioner Hancock. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I have a question for Miss Brown (sic). Your logic of -- of motorist safety if you carry it out would imply that every single parcel that has frontage on a roadway should be allowed a pole sign based on your comments of -- of motorist safety which is the exact opposite of what our sign ordinance is -- is intended to do which is to keep us from looking likely Lee County which is a sign every 50 feet on every roadway. MS. MCDEVITT: Well, this -- COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Please. If no one had pole signs, everyone's building would be visible. So I -- I can't see your argument as motorist safety as having in essence a hardship situation or public safety problem because there are plenty of buildings in similar situations that don't have pole signs, and we don't have higher accident data there than we do elsewhere. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Let's hear from the rest of the petitioner. The gentleman? MS. MCDEVITT: Shall I answer first or -- MR. GRIFFIN: I can -- the -- the real -- the real issue is basically -- Will Griffin from International Signs. The -- that's really only true southbound. If you've approached it from the -- from the north -- I call it the north; I realize the road runs a little bit diagonal there -- you really don't see the building because of the car wash being beside it until you've really come right up on it even though they used the -- the yellow -- their standard yellow fascia with the red letters. You approach it pretty quick as you head in that direction. Northbound you do have good visibility. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Could you help us out with your part of the presentation here? We're interested in what you have to say, but we need to get on with it. MR. GRIFFIN: Basically just the fact that Discount serves -- you know, the neighborhood they serve and the community they serve is basically located more to the north of them. And that was their interest in trying to get visibility for southbound traffic. They don't -- they're not seen well as they approach -- as you come from the north because of the car wash. The recommendation that we said that we would do the landscaping on the car wash property which is not landscaped right now is a way of trying to enhance that property. It was a concession we made in order to have this dual sign that would serve both parcels in one sign. And I realize that the staff had said they might look at doing this in the next -- in the next agenda meeting which I'm not sure really, you know, what the process there is. In the interim, you know, we were trying to proceed -- MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Cycle. MR. GRIFFIN: Yes. We were trying to proceed it because of the -- you know, business has suffered from this lack of exposure. Granted, they went into it knowing they couldn't have the sign but didn't realize the impact would be as great as it's been on them, and so they've asked us to go ahead and pursue it rather than waiting. Originally this was going to be addressed this summer, and it's been postponed until next year. So we're just trying to speed up the process here. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Ochs, are there any speakers? MR. OCHS: No, ma'am. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I'm going to close the public hearing. This is an ongoing business right now. They're open and operating? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Yes. They are operating, yes. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: And -- and when -- when do we estimate that we would bring a relook at our sign ordinance back? MR. HULHERE: It would be April. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: April? MR. HULHERE: (Mr. Hulhere nodded head.) CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hancock. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: We had a petition from Barnes and Noble that issued basically the same thing, better visibility. We turned that down for the simple reason that increased visibility is not by means of hardship or the purpose of the variance process. I think you've got a good idea in locating both signs on a single pole. Unfortunately, I think the variance process -- I have to agree with staff -- is not the proper vehicle for acquiring that. I think if we're going to -- to adopt that, we need to do it through an amendment to the Land Development Code which is going to put you in a position for -- for some more months. But for the -- the purpose of variances I can't agree that visibility is sufficient to grant the variance. So I'm going to move that we deny petition SV95-4 with the caveat that I hope to see something back in the LDC because what you have's a good idea. I just think this is the wrong vehicle to make it happen. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I'm going to second that motion, but I need to make a comment. There's also another smaller parcel that's been developed for many years on the other side of the car wash con -- contiguous with the car wash that can't have a pole sign also, an oil change place. And now what are we going to do? Are they going to be allowed to go with the -- the car wash as well and have another pole sign? I mean, the sign ordinance was put in place for a -- for a reason, and that is to stop the proliferation of pole signs. And that's what we need to stick to. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let me before we take a vote just ask the petitioner, is there any other reason you failed to mention why because I've got to agree with what has been stated so far, you don't meet the requirements of what our code reads for a variance. I can think somewhere in the back recesses of my mind that perhaps there is some way to do that. I'm not sure what it is, but that needs to come from you all. If there's something other than the argument you've made that you've forgotten to say, now's the time to say it. MS. MCDEVITT: First of all, the intent of your -- your code is obviously to cut down on your clutter and also the safety factors of having a pole sign at every 50 feet. This was an idea that Discount had brought forward not to change the amount of footage but-- actually this would be 240 feet for 1 pole sign, not a larger one, not configured differently but to have that footage so that a business owner solely on the basis of his footage was not penalized for not being able to advertise in the same fashion that someone with 30 more feet would have. This was a compromise whereby your safety was met, the intent of your code was met, the aesthetic value of your code was met, and whereby business owners were also benefiting from the ability to advertise their business to the public where they need to be doing business. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Once again, two points. First of all, all three of those businesses located there knew what the sign ordinance was going -- well, probably not the car wash because that's been there 20 years at least but -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: That's before there was an ordinance. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: But they were never allowed to have a pole sign. That's why there's no pole signs there. So you could say right now we have 360 feet with no pole signs. So why would we want to go 240 feet with 17 And once again -- COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Call the question. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: -- we put those regulations in place for a purpose, and I'm in favor of keeping it that way. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I'd like to call the question. COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Call it. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: No further discussion, all those in favor please say aye. Opposed? There being none, motion to deny passes five to zero. Thank you. Item #13A2 RESOLUTION 95-537, RE PETITION CU-95-4, DR. NENO J. SPAGNA OF FLORIDA URBAN INSTITUTE, INC., REPRESENTING RICHARD D. CRAIG, REQUESTING CONDITIONAL USE "7" AND "10" OF THE "A" RURAL AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT FOR A CHURCH AND SCHOOL FOR PROPERTY LOCATED ON C.R. 951 APPROXIMATELY 330 FEET NORTH OF VANDERBILT BEACH ROAD - ADOPTED Next item is 13-A-2, petition CU95-4. Hr. Nino. MR. NINO: Ron Nino, your planning services division presenting CU95-4. This is a conditional use request for the purposes of constructing a church and school and related facilities. The project is located on 951 north of Vanderbilt Beach Road. It's in a rather remote area. There's little development around it. The closest concentration of development is the Crystal Lakes RV Center. Staff in reviewing the conditions for a conditional use find that the conditional -- the conditions are favorable for a recommendation for rezoning -- I mean rec -- recommendation for granting the conditional use. A. Review by related staff developed some conditions that are reflected in the resolution of adoption. Planning commission heard this petition and unanimously seven to zero recommended its approval. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Questions? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Madam Chairman, if you close the public hearing, I'll -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Are there speakers, Mr. Ochs? MR. OCHS: Just Dr. Spagna's registered. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Dr. Spagna, do you feel like you need to get anything else on the record? MR. SPAGNA: No. The only thing would be that we agree with the requirements of the staff. Nino Spagna for the record. The petitioner accepts the conditions of -- of the staff recommendation. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I'll close the public hearing. Is there a motion? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Madam Chairman, motion -- motion to approve the item -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- including staff recommendations. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second to approve the item including recommendations from staff. All those -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm sorry. Conditions if that makes -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Conditions, I'm sorry. All those in favor please say aye. Opposed? Motion passes five to zero. Item #13B1 RESOLUTION 95-538, RE PETITION CU-92-4, WILLIAM SENKEVICH OF TEHPUSTECH, INC., REQUESTING EXTENSION OF A CONDITIONAL USE GRANTED SEPTEMBER 8, 1992, FOR CONDITIONAL USE 5 (CjustER DEVELOPMENT) OF SUBSECTION 2.2.4.3 OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE - ADOPTED COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Hr. Nino, this next one is merely an extension of an existing conditional use? MR. SPAGNA: Thank you. MR. NINO: Yes, the third -- it's the third and final year extension. This is a nine -- nine-lot single-family development. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm sorry to interrupt again, but has anything changed -- MR. NINO: Nothing has changed. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- Since the initial conditional use was granted? MR. NINO: Nothing has changed. If we were to deal with it today, we would recommend approval. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Are there speakers, Mr. Ochs? MR. OCHS: No, ma'am. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Close the public hearing. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Motion to approve. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Second. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Third. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second to approve petition CU92-4 extension. All those in favor please say aye. Opposed? Motion passes five to zero. Item #14 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' COMMUNICATIONS That concludes our printed agenda for today. communications. Commissioner Norris? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: further. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: information. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: MAryland Terrapins. Commissioner MAc'Kie. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We are at Nothing further. Commissioner Hancock? Dolphins 3 and 0. Nothing Terrapins are 3 and 0 too. There's a little known piece of Terrapins are also 3 and 0, Nothing to report. Commissioner Constantine? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: lost, bad weekend. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: know. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: have just -- just one item. Buccaneers lost, Crimson Tide Oh, well. Sorry. I have one item. How about them Gators? I don't Terrapins 3 and 0. I have -- I It's a quick -- quick item. We had asked Representative Saunders to meet with us on October 31 at our workshop, and he has forwarded me a letter saying that he's going to be unable to do that. And I guess my question of this board is do we want to meet with him on one Tuesday afternoon after a regularly scheduled meeting? COMHISSIONER NORRIS: That would be fine. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Shoot for the first Tuesday in November? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We'll shoot for the first Tuesday that we can work the schedule -- fine. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: COMMISSIONER NORRIS: be fine. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: First Tuesday in August would be Next year. August, I'm for that. Okay. I'll -- Whenever he would like, that would I'll talk with him, and -- and we'll come up with a date on a relatively light Tuesday. Mr. Ochs, is there anything? MR. OCHS: No, ma'am, other than we'll see you all here tomorrow evening for the final budget hearing. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Can't wait. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yup. Mr. Cuyler? MR. CUYLER: Nothing else. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Hiss Filson? MS. FILSON: I have nothing. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We're adjourned. ***** Commissioner Constantine moved, seconded by Commissioner Hancock, and carried unanimously, that the following items under the consent agenda be approved and/or adopted: Item #16A1 SATISFACTION OF LIEN FOR RESOLUTION 94-641 - LESTER AND CONSTANCE GHENT - FLAMINGO ESTATES BLOCK A, LOT 3 See Pages Item #16A2 AWARD BID #95-2372 TO AMERICAN MICRO-IMAGE, INC. FOR MICROFILMING SERVICES AND TO FLORIDA DATA BANK FOR RECORDS STORAGE Item #16B1 AWARD BID #95-2429 TO KYLE CONSTRUCTION, INC., TO KYLE CONSTRUCTION, INC. TO CONSTRUCT NORTH COUNTY REGIONAL WATER TREATMENT PLANT FORCE MAIN EXTENSION - IN THE AMOUNT OF $130,565.10 Item #16B2 STIPULATED FINAL JUDGMENT RELATIVE TO EASEMENT ACQUISITION ON PARCEL NO. 16/210 IN THE NAPLES PRODUCTION PARK M.S.T.U. Item #16B3 WORK ORDER BSW #96-1 TO BARANY, SCHMITT & WEAVER, INC. FOR THE DESIGN OF THE GOLDEN GATE ESTATES/CORKSCREW EMS STATION - IN THE AMOUNT $40,000.00 Item #16B4 STIPULATED FINAL JUDGMENT FOR DEFENDANT'S ATTORNEY FEES AND COSTS FOR PARCEL NO. 101, COLLIER COUNTY VS. LAMAR GABLE, TRUSTEE, ET AL., CASE NO. 94-2130-CA-01-TB, EMINENT DOMAIN CASE FOR C.R. 951 ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY Item #16B5 AWARD AGREEMENTS FOR RFP #95-2388 TO ARDAMAN ASSOC., INC., LAW ENGINEERING AND UNIVERSAL ENGINEERING SERVICES, INC. FOR MATERIAL TESTING SERVICES Item #16B6 - This item has been deleted Item #16B7 AMENDMENT #1 TO ANNUAL SURVEYING SERVICES AGREEMENT #93-2040 TO REFLECT THE CHANGE IN THE COUNTY PURCHASING POLICY See Pages Item #1688 RECYCLING AND EDUCATION AND WASTE TIRE GRANT AGREEMENTS Item #1689 SOFTWARE UPGRADES TO THE NAPLES AND IHMOKALEE LANDFILL SCALEHOUSES COMPUTER SYSTEM AND SOLE SOURCE HETRO SCALES, INC. Item #16B10 - Withdrawn Item #16Bll TERMINATION OF LEASE #752 FOR PROPERTY AT 3050 HORSESHOE DRIVE AND USE UP TO $20,000 IN LEASE SAVINGS TO CONSOLIDATE UTILITY AND PUBLIC WORKS OPERATIONS Item #16B12 CONSOLIDATION OF WORK EFFORT AND BUDGET RESOURCES TO THE NATURAL RESOURCES DEPARTMENT FOR THE INSTALLATION, COORDINATION AND MAINTENANCE OF AIDS TO NAVIGATION COUNTY-WIDE Item #16C1 TRANSFER OF BUDGETED FUNDS TO CONTINUE SERVICES FOR SENIORS IN-HOME SUPPORT SERVICES TO FRAIL ELDERLY CLIENTS - IN THE AMOUNT OF $45,385 Item #16D1 TERMINATE NEGOTIATIONS WITH GATEWAY COMPUTER ASSOCIATES PURSUANT TO RFP #94-2271; WAIVER OF COMPETITIVE BIDDING AUTHORIZED AND STAFF TO NEGOTIATE A SINGLE AGREEMENT WITH PERCONTI DATA SYSTEMS, INC. Item #16D2 RESOLUTION 95-535, COUNTY GRANT APPLICATION AND THE GRANT DISTRIBUTION FORM FOR EHS TRUST FUND MONIES See Pages Item #16D3 BUDGET AMENDMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF $12,600.00 TO APPROPRIATE THE MAINTENANCE SERVICES REVENUES THAT ARE IN EXCESS OF THEIR BUDGET Item #16D4 EMPLOYEE ASSISTANCE PROGRAM CONTRACT BETWEEN RICCARDO B. RIVAS, PH.D, P.A. FOR THE EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT AND THE OCHOPEE FIRE CONTROL DISTRICT See Pages #16D5 - Deleted Item #16D6 CONTRACT BETWEEN THE COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS AND P.C.A. SOLUTIONS, INC. FOR THIRD PARTY HEALTH INSURANCE CLAIMS ADMINISTRATION SERVICES See Pages Item #16El TRANSFER OF $24,600 FROM INTEREST REVENUE TO INTEREST EXPENSE TO COVER COMMERCIAL PAPER LOAN INTEREST Item #16E2 SHERIFF'S DWELLINGS (BID #95-2384) FOR THE EVERGLADES AND IMMOKALEE AIRPORTS - REJECTED Item #16E3 FIRST AMENDMENT TO PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH DUFRESNE-HENRY, INC., THE AIRPORT AUTHORITY CONSULTANT See Pages Item #16E4 WORK ORDER H-AIP-95-2, WITH DUFRESNE-HENRY, INC. IN THE A_MOUNT OF $33,751.00 FOR THE DESIGN, PERMITTING, BIDDING, GRANT AND CONSTRUCTION ADMINISTRATION, AND RESIDENT INSPECTION DURING CONSTRUCTION FOR THE AIRCRAFT APRON AT THE MARCO ISLAND EXECUTIVE AIRPORT See Pages Item #16E5 WORK ORDER H-AIP-95-3 WITH DUFRESNE-HENRY, INC. IN THE A_MOUNT OF $52,813.00 FOR THE DESIGN, PERMITTING, BIDDING, GRANT AND CONSTRUCTION ADMINISTRATION DURING CONSTRUCTION FOR THE T-HANGER FACILITY AT THE MARCO ISLAND EXECUTIVE AIRPORT AS IDENTIFIED IN PROJECT DESCRIPTION See Pages Item #16E6 WORK ORDER H-AIP-95-4 WITH DUFRESNE-HENRY, INC. IN THE A_MOUNT OF $100,000.00 FOR AIRPORT CONSULTING SERVICES FOR THE PREPARATION OF AN AIRPORT MASTER PLAN/ENVIRONMENTAL MASTER PLAN FOR THE MARCO ISLAND EXECUTIVE AIRPORT AS IDENTIFIED IN SCOPE OF SERVICES See Pages Item #16E7 BUDGET A_MENDHENT'S 95-505, 95-518, 95-519, 95-522, 95-530, 95-534, 95-535, 95-536 Item #16G1 CERTIFICATES OF CORRECTION TO THE TAX ROLLS AS PRESENTED BY THE PROPERTY APPRAISER'S OFFICE 1993 No. Dated 222/224 8/22/95 Item #1662 1994 177/179 8/29/95 lS0 9/06/95 SATISFACTION OF LIENS FOR SERVICES OF THE PUBLIC DEFENDER See Pages Item #1663 MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE - FILED AND/OR REFERRED The following miscellaneous correspondence as presented by the Board of County Commissioners has been directed to the various departments as indicated: There being no further business for the Good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by Order of the Chair at 1:26 p.m. BOARD OF COUNTY COHMISSIONERS BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS CONTROL BETTYE J. MATTHEWS, CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK These minutes approved by the Board on as presented or as corrected TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF DONOVAN COURT REPORTING BY: Shelly Semmler