Loading...
BCC Minutes 02/20/1996 R REGULAR HEETING OF FEBRUARY 20, 1996, OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COHMISSIONERS LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Board of County Commissioners in and for the County of Collier, and also acting as the Board of Zoning Appeals and as the governing board(s) of such special districts as have been created according to law and having conducted business herein, met on this date at 8:59 a.m. in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRPERSON: John C. Norris VICE CHAIRPERSON: Timothy L. Hancock Timothy J. Constantine Bettye J. Matthews Pamela S. Hac'Kie ALSO PRESENT: W. Neil Dorrill, County Manager David C. Weigel, County Attorney Sue Filson, Administrative Assistant Lieutenant Paul Canady CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: I'll call the county commission meeting to order this February 20, 1996. Mr. Dorrill, could you lead us in an invocation and pledge of the flag? MR. DORRILL: Heavenly Father, we give thanks this morning. We give thanks, and we praise your name for the wonder and the glory that you are. We thank you for your saving grace and your wisdom, your strength. Father, as always, we pray for our elected leaders at the national and state and here at the local level, and it's always our prayer that you guide and direct the county commission today as they make these important business decisions that affect the quality of life for all of its people. And we'd ask also that you bless our time together, and we thank you for the opportunity to recognize both employee and citizen achievement here today as well, and we pray these things in Jesus' name. Amen. (The pledge of allegiance was recited in unison.) Item #3A AGENDA AND CONSENT AGENDA - APPROVED WITH CHANGES CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Mr. Dorrill, do we have a few changes to our agenda this morning? MR. DORRILL: Yes, sir. Good morning, Commissioners. Hope you enjoyed a long weekend. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: We did. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Moving right along. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It was great. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: It was great. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: It was a beautiful weekend. MR. DORRILL: We do; we have several changes to your published agenda today. I have three add-on items. The first one s item 5(C)(1) which is something new for our -- our county and our community and gets back to one of the things Mr. Sumek taught us about, that we have some employees today that we're going to recognmze under 5(C)(1) by the board for having driven in excess of two million miles without a moving violation or an accident, and we're proud to have those folks here for you to recognize publicly today. 5(C)(1). 8(B)(7) is a request from the Tourist Development Council for a consideration of increased funding. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, has this item been to the Tourist Development Council? CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Well, that's -- that's my question to Mr. Dorrill, is there's two things here, Mr. Dorrill. One is this -- this is an item to expend funds that has not been publicly advertised, and there will be no notification to the members of the public. And, number two, it's my understanding that this item has not been to the TDC yet; is that correct? MR. DORRILL: This -- this came to me at the request of Jean Gansel who is your liaison, and as I'm reading the executive summary that was prepared and distributed this morning, it does say the Tourist Development Council has not reviewed this request and is not scheduled to review this request until this Thursday evening. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It seems to me we got in a little trouble for that once before. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: We did, and -- and that's -- that's -- there's two reasons why this is out of process. Number one is the advertising. It hasn't been publicly advertised. And number two is that -- is that the TDC hasn't even heard the request yet. So I -- my recommendation is to not hear this today but to put it on the regular scheduled agenda for next week. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You're going to hear it Thursday night at the TDC? CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: That's correct. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That seems appropriate. MR. DORRILL: I'm at your discretion. I'm merely forwarding this to you from the Naples Area Tourism Bureau. So if you CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Unless there's some objection from the board, that will be the direction. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: We'll hear it next Tuesday then, I presume? CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Yes. MR. DORRILL: And then the final add-on, Mr. Chairman, is a request from the commissioners' office for an add-on item, 10(D), as it pertains to a waiver of permit fees for temporary signs for the Florida Sports Park. And that's all that I have. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Commissioner Matthews, do you have anything else? COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Yeah. I have actually four items that I'd like to take off of the consent agenda and perhaps get some answers to some questions before we actually -- CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: The daily limit is three. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Well, yesterday it was a holiday and I -- CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Oh, okay. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: -- couldn't get any answers. But item 16(A)(8), 16(B)(1), 16(B)(2), yeah, and 16(D)(3) -- CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Excuse me on that last one? COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: 16(D), as in David, (3). They're all real short questions that hopefully before we actually get to them -- I don't know if it's a short agenda today, though, but -- MR. DORRILL: I can run back through those. 16(A)(8) will become 8(A)(3). 16(B) (1) will become 8(B)(1). 16(B) (2) will become 8(B)(2). And 16(D)(3) will become 8(D)(2). CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Okay. Mr. Hancock, do you have anything to remove? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yes. I would like to continue item 8(E)(1). It is the recommendation regarding the Clam Bay system. We've had some -- we've had a withdrawal from the engineer that was recommended by the Pelican Bay services division in addition to some ground-truthing that may reduce the scope of work last week. So I'd like to continue that item for one week. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Okay. Commissioner Mac'Kie? COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No changes. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Commissioner Constantine? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: One question. I know we strive to take things in the order they're on here. 8(E)(5) is an item that is similar to one which has been approved at least once and I think twice before. I think it should take all of about 60 seconds. One of the folks with that needs to be on the east coast around 12:15. I wonder if we might -- There's no clock. I wondered, if we're not on schedule -- I think this is going to go fairly quickly anyway, but if we haven't gotten to that by 10:00 or 10:15, if we might take it then. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Remind us. I think we'll probably be getting close but if -- MR. DORRILL: Which item? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: 8(E)(5). COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: So we're going to take that as close to ten o'clock as we can? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: I'll tell you what. Why -- if we're going to take it out of order, why don't we just take it first. We'll just do it first after the presentations and the awards. We'll just take it first. If that's all, then we need a motion. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Motion to approve the agenda and consent agenda as amended. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Second the motion. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Motion and a second. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. And opposed? None. Item #5B EMPLOYEE SERVICE AWARD - PRESENTED Service awards. Commissioner Hat -- Hac'Kie today. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Thank you. I am pleased to ask John J. Pumper to come forward and receive an award for ten years of continuous service to Collier County in the utilities department. We have his ten-year pin and a service award certificate for him. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Ten years. Item #5C1 EMPLOYEE SAFE DRIVER AWARDS - PRESENTED CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: That was our only service award today, but we do have a new award. I'm going to call these names. I'd like for all the people to come up and stand in front and face the TV camera if we could get them to. This is the safe driver award, something new we're going to do. We have many Collier County employees who drive county motor vehicles as a major part of their daily job activities. Hany of our members have driven many years and many thousands of miles without causing an accident and without a traffic violation. We want to publicly recognize those employees and let them know that we appreciate their safe driving practices. Today we will recognize the first group of our safe drivers, all of whom have driven over 200,000 miles without an accident. That's a good record, and it's good for our county, and it's good for the taxpayers. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: They have me beat. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Let the record show they've got Commissioner Constantine beat. The first one is Henry Bickford, senior equipment operator, road and bridge department. Henry has driven over 250,000 miles beginning February 4, 1975. Henry. We have Henry here today? He's out working in road and bridge today. He won't be able to be here. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: He's driving more miles. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Here he is. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: There he is. Okay. Next is U1piano Bonilla, crew leader, storm water management department. U1piano has driven over 450,000 miles beginning July 3, 1972. Joseph C. Collins, meter reader technician two, department of revenue. Joe has driven over 200,000 miles since Hay 4, 1987. Steven G. Fredley, senior plumber, facilities management department. Steve has driven over 220,000 miles beginning July 22, 1976. Larry Henry, acting superintendent, road and bridge department. Larry has driven over 210,000 miles beginning December 27, 1977. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We -- we'd love for you guys to block our camera shot. Please come up here. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Right up here. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: We won't ask what speed you drove those miles, Larry. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I can tell you the one-tenth of a mile was my favorite that Larry drove, but that's another story. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Jodi Morelock, director, animal control department. Jodi has driven over 400,000 miles beginning January 16, 1978. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Wow. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Glenn T. Price, crew leader, storm water management department. Glenn has driven over 220,000 miles beginning April 22, 1983. Robert J. Tucker, senior heating ventilation and air conditioning technician, facilities management department. Robert has driven over 200,000 miles beginning November 28, 1977. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: That will be 400,000 if they count the golf cart. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Robert Tucker, there you go, sir. Thank you. Glenn Price. Thank you. MR. PRICE: Thank you. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Jodi, this one's yours. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Jodi's also driven more dogs more miles than anyone else. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Larry, this one's yours. Good going. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Great underwater driving too. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Steven Fredley. MR. FREDLEY: Thank you. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Good work. Joe Collins, good going. Ulpiano, good job. And last but not least Henry Bickford. MR. BICKFORD: Thank you. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Nice work. MR. DORRILL: Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to add again that we are particularly proud of these employees on your behalf, and two million miles in this town and especially this time of year without a single moving violation or traffic accident is a great achievement, and we're happy to have been able to have them, and we appreciate your recognizing them this morning on behalf of all of the employees. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Yes, it is. Thank you. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Thank you for bringing them forward, Mr. Dotrill. Item #8E5 TOURIST DEVELOPMENT GRANT, CATEGORY C, FOR THE NORTH NAPLES LITTLE LEAGUE TO STAGE A DUATHLON AND SOFTBALL TOURNAMENT DURING THE OFF SEASON - APPROVED CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: At this time we're going to move ahead and take that item 8(E)(6) or 8(E)(5) -- sorry -- Tourist Development grant, category C. Miss Gansel. MS. GANSEL: Good morning, Commissioners. Jean Gansel from the budget office. We have a request from the North Naples Little League for $8,000 for a duathlon and a softball tournament this summer. This was funded by TDC last year also. It has been reviewed by the TDC with a unanimous recommendation for the board to approve funding. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, motion to approve the item. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: Second. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Public speakers? MR. DORRILL: No, sir. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: We have a motion and a second. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. Any opposed? Being none, that passes. MS. GANSEL: Thank you. Item #SA1 CARNIVAL PERMIT 96-2, FOR OUR LADY OF GUADALUPE CATHOLIC CHURCH TO CONDUCT A CARNIVAL FROM MARCH 6 THROUGH MARCH 10, 1996, ON THEIR CHURCH GROUNDS LOCATED AT 219 SOUTH 9TH STREET IN IHMOKALEE - ADOPTED CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Hr. Dorrill, do we have any public petitions today? MR. DORRILL: No, sir. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Then we'll go to 8(A)(1), petition C-96-2. MR. HULHERE: Good morning. For the record, Bob Hulhere with the planning services staff. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: This is a standard carnival permit, Mr. Hulhere? MR. HULHERE: It is, except they are requesting -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, motion to approve item C-96-2. MR. HULHERE: -- a waiver of the surety bond. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: A waiver of the surety bond? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Including the waiver of the surety bond. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: We have a motion and a second. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. Opposed? Item #8A2 REQUEST THAT THE BOARD OF COUNTY COHMISSIONERS PROVIDE THE NATURAL RESOURCES DEPARTMENT DIRECTION AS TO THE POSTING OF THE CLAM BAY SYSTEM AS AN IDLE SPEED ZONE - STAFF TO POST MINIMUM SIGNAGE FOR IDLE SPEED ZONE There being none, 8(A)(2), request that the Board of County Commissioners provide the natural resources department direction to the posting of Clam Bay system as an idle-speed zone. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Chairman, I'm going to save Bill a few minutes here. Through our Clam Bay discussions and constant meetings with the residents of Pelican Bay, what we're having is a lot of jet skis when the pass is open getting in there, running through the sea grass beds, and there's really no posting. So even if Florida Marine Patrol or Collier County Sheriff get back in there, there's nothing posted. All we're asking is that the area be posted as an idle-speed zone so that enforcement can take place if and when it's necessary. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Let me ask one question. Mr. Lorenz, is this -- would this be consistent with our manatee protection plan? MR. LORENZ: Yes, it is. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I -- I've got no problem with it. I read -- I read it over the weekend, and I'm saying you've got to be kidding. When the manatee protection plan was being done, Tallahassee sent it back because you didn't have any speed zones in Clam Bay, and I was wondering how many paddle strokes per minute we were going to be allowed but -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Right now speeds are kept to a minimum due to no access. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That will do it. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: If it's jet skis and so forth, certainly we need to do something. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Personal watercraft is the main problem, I hear. MR. LORENZ: That's correct. That's correct. I think the board needs to -- we need to be able to put on the record, though, the -- the state has approved this in terms of the manatee protection plan. They will be going through rule making in the summer. We have -- staff had planned on allowing the state to go through the rule making. When the state does the rule making, they will then post the signs, and it will be at their cost. If we go in and post the signs now, it would be at our cost. And so this -- the approval of this at this particular point would -- would be the fiscal impact to the county. I think that's -- that's a point that -- COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Of approximately? MR. LORENZ: Pardon? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: How much? MR. LORENZ: No more than $1,500 for the posting and associated permit. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: When you say "this summer," does that mean June, does that mean September? And what's the -- MR. LORENZ: June -- June through -- Let's say June through August is -- is -- is what we've been told by the department, and then there would be another six to nine months for them to get out and -- and post the signs. So we could conceivably be looking for at least a year -- excuse me -- a year from now before the posting if we rely upon the state. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Mr. Chairman -- CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Yes. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Motion to approve. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: -- that all sounds fine that we're a year away from saving ourselves $1,500, but I would think the jet skis could do at least that much dollar damage between now and when those signs are finally posted, and I -- I think I would like to -- to entertain the idea that we go ahead and at least -- that wherever these jet skis are coming into the area, at least post one sign to say that it is idle speed and -- and that, you know, frankly, you're not allowed in here unless you're going to use a paddle. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'll make -- I'll -- I will go ahead and make a motion to direct staff to post the minimum signage up to the amount requested to achieve the idle-speed zone, and should additional signage be necessary, it could be placed after the state approves it at state cost. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Mr. -- Mr. Lorenz, does this have to come back as a public hearing for an ordinance? MR. LORENZ: Yes, it does. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Okay. MR. LORENZ: We'll have to adopt it, and then there will be a separate order. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Okay. Thank you. We have a motion then and a second. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. Opposed? We have none. Item #8A3 RESOLUTION 96-89, ACCEPTING THE CONVEYANCE OF REAL PROPERTY LOCATED AT LOT 10, BLOCK 6, NAPLES MANOR EXTENSION Item 16(A)(8) or a 8(A)(3). COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Yeah. I took that off of the consent agenda because I -- I've had a little bit of concern about the comment in here that the county forgive the 1995 taxes, the nineteen ninety -- and waive the 1996 taxes and the $2,000 for the sewer district fees. We really can't waive those, can we, Mr. Dotrill? We have to pay them? Mr. Dotrill. MR. DORRILL: I know the sewer assessment fees will need to be paid and -- COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Many of these taxes, though, are to other taxing districts, some of them? MR. DORRILL: That I don't know. That's -- that's more of a legal question. I -- I know enough that the sewer assessment -- once the final roll was adopted and certified, those -- those assessments are due and payable within whatever time frame has been established for it. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I -- I've got a little bit -- you know -- I mean, this is not so neat and pretty as it may appear because if we accept this property, we have then assumed an obligation to -- to pay these -- these fees instead of the -- the landowner because we become the landowner. MR. MIHALIC: Commissioner, the reason for -- Greg Mihalic, housing and urban improvement director. Commissioner, the reason for assuming the property is to turn it around and recycle it for single-family affordable housing. This is one of the strategies within the housing improvement plan. We believe what we're recommending is legal and has been approved, but we certainly will review it. And anything that we're not allowed to do, we're certainly willing to pay that out of the affordable housing trust fund. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I -- I just want to make sure that we're aware, when we take this property, we've got obligations that become financial. And -- and my question is, what plans do we have for this lot, and -- and -- and you just answered that. MR. MIHALIC: Yes, Commissioner. This is the second lot we have acquired, and, again, we want to get a bulk of them and turn them around for single-family affordable housing for the first-time qualifying homeowners. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: In essence, Greg, what we're doing here is if the property owner wants to get out from under a $2,400 debt and allows us to get the property for a little more than half of what the assessed value is, so that -- that's really in a nutshell what -- what's happening here. MR. MIHALIC: That's correct, Commissioner. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I just wanted to make sure I understood it. Okay. COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: Yeah. I -- I just -- you know, it's on the consent agenda, and -- and, you know, the -- the property owner's getting out from under this, true, but I believe and -- and I -- I might be incorrect, but I believe that by gifting this to the county, the property owner receives a contribution write-off on their tax return? MR. DORRILL: I'm sure that they would, yes. COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: I'm sure that they would. So half or a third of the value -- a third of what they're doing they recover, and the county finishes up by paying off the $3,000 or whatever it is. MR. MIHALIC: Yes, Commissioner. COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: I -- I just wanted to make it -- make it clear what's going on. If there's no -- no further questions then, if the chairman doesn't mind, I'll move to approve. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Second. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Motion and a second. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. Opposed? Item #SB1 KOUNTREE KAMPINN UTILITIES FACILITIES REIMBURSEMENT AGREEMENT - APPROVED 8(B)(1) is the former 16(B)(1). Commissioner Matthews, you had a question on this one as well? COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Yeah. This one -- This is where Kountree -- Kountree Kampin and our -- our sewer district are -- are coming together with an agreement to expand the force main? I'm sorry. Is it -- MR. CONRECODE: Not -- Not exactly. For the record -- COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Not -- MR. CONRECODE: For the record, Tom Conrecode from public works. The Kountree Kampin development came under DEP order -- I think it was in October of '95 to improve their wastewater treatment capabilities, and in conjunction with our construction on 951, they put in the force main from their site across there -- across 951 to tie in with the county force main that's going to run along 951. The portion of it from Rattlesnake Hammock Road south, less than 1,000 feet, was not in our immediate plans to do. That's in some future plans to run that. That's the portion of the line that they went ahead and ran so they could tie into our system. This is a reimbursement agreement. It's a cost that we would incur at some point in the future when we run that line. This is -- COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: The cost to be what? MR. CONRECODE: A cost that we would incur in the future at the time we ran the force main. So they're running less than 1,000 feet of line a couple of years ahead of our schedule. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Okay. But we would have planned to -- to do this eventually anyway? MR. CONRECODE: Yes, ma'am. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: So it -- it's not the -- it's not a developer or a business using public funds to expand their own business so to speak? I mean, we would have done this anyway? MR. CONRECODE: That's correct. What they would have done was run a four-inch force main, and we've upsized it to a 12-inch force main. So that extra capacity we'll use in the future. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Okay. Fine. If there's no further questions, I'll move to approve. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Motion and a second. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. Opposed? None. Item #882 ROAD AND BRIDGE SECTION OF THE TRANSPORTATION SERVICES DEPARTMENT ASSISTING THE TRADE CENTER WAY SUBDIVISION BY PERFORMING DITCH MAINTENANCE UNDER A REIMBURSEABLE COST AGREEMENT - APPROVED Next item is 8(B)(2), the former 16(B)(2). COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: This is my day. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Hmm-hmm. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Okay. This is where, Mr. Archibald, we're -- we're making arrangements with Trade Center Way to -- to clean the -- the ditches of -- of trash debris and growth that belongs -- the responsibility of the lot owners? MR. ARCHIBALD: Yes. The agenda item was developed as a contingent measure. That area was a problem to both the residents and the county last year. Nothing has been done. So the staff wanted to be in a position to very quickly respond to a request from the property owners to perform drainage maintenance in that area if, in fact, they've met the conditions that are outlined in the agenda item -- in fact, provide the funding up front for it and that our activities would be restricted to the drainage easements which have already been dedicated to the county. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: They've been dedi -- because this is the responsibility of the lot owners according to the summary. MR. ARCHIBALD: Yes. Keep in mind that the easements have been, in fact, dedicated to the county, but the association remains responsible to operate and maintain that system. So that's a two-sided coin. One side is, in fact -- we have the right to go in there and perform maintenance that we're suggesting if the conditions warrant that action. Two, the responsibility of that still falls on the property owners. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Okay. The -- the other -- the question that ran through my mind when I read this one is, do we have the staff -- I mean, I know the lot owners are going to pay for this, but in lieu of what was happening or in mind of what was happening last summer and fall with all the blocked drainage areas and the -- and the waters failing to drain as quickly as we wanted them to, do you have the staff to do all the work that needs to be done in behalf of the entire county and be -- and still have excess labor hours to essentially sell your services to these -- this group? MR. ARCHIBALD: Beginning in June, the answer would be no. Between now and June, this is work that we may be able to fit in. Keep in mind that we wouldn't be performing work on every single lot, just on those lots that are vacant. So, again, we're bringing this to the board for that simple reason of creating the mechanism where a few of those property owners that may not be performing that work -- in fact, that work can be performed and that those owners end up subsidizing the cost. But you're right. This is work that we can do during the dry period of the year, but during the wet period of the year we're not going to have the forces to do it. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: In addition, if I may, Trade Center Way was inundated for a period of time far in excess of almost any other area that I can remember with the exception of sheet flow areas in the eastern part of the county, and that continual standing water on that road will undermine the -- the -- the base of the roadway, causing us to have to go in and do repairs on a faster or quicker basis than we normally would. Businesses were isolated to the point people couldn't get to them. So this -- this was a -- a -- what I would call a severe problem area that happened to be in an industrial instead of residential. COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: We had a lot of homes isolated too that property owners and families who lived there couldn't get to also. I -- I just want to -- want some assurances that come summer if we get a rainy season similar to last year, which we all pray will never happen, but it might, that we're not going to hear that -- we're not going to hear that your crew couldn't get to some of these areas in -- in -- in -- in other parts of the county because you were doing a project like this where we could just as easily get somebody else to do it and bill them for it. MR. ARCHIBALD: Again, the commitment based upon the board's decision today will be that -- if they come forward with the funding and that that occurs during the dry season, this work would be accomplished. Obviously during the wet season, not only don't we have the forces, but that's not the appropriate time to do this kind of work. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: No. There's -- There's a lot of drainage clearance work throughout the county that needs to be done. Thank you. I'm -- I'm not going to move this item. I just as soon -- COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Move approval. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: -- get a better schedule. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: We have a motion and a second. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. Opposed? COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Aye. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: We have four to one on that one. Item #8C1 BCC TO DETERMINE IF IT WILL PROVIDE LAND AND ON-GOING MAINTENANCE FOR A VETERAN'S MEMORIAL TO BE FUNDED AND CONSTRUCTED BY THE SARAN GROUP, INC., AND LOCATED AT VETERAN'S PARK - DENIED. STAFF DIRECTED TO WORK WITH VETERAN'S COUNCIL FOR FUTURE PROJECTS And our next item is 8(C)(1), the veterans' memorial issue. MR. OLLIFF: Good morning. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Good morning. MR. OLLIFF: Good morning, Commissioners. For the record, Tom Olliff, your public services administrator. This item is a follow-up from a public petition that was heard here on February 6 regarding a veterans' memorial. As outlined in the executive summary, the proposal is to build a memorial to all Collier County veterans and to locate that memorial at the county's Veterans Community Park on Immokalee Road. Set down in front of you is a mockup or a rendition of that memorial. In order to build that memorial at that location, it would require the relocation of the existing sand volleyball courts, and what is actually being requested is the property on which the memorial would be located and perpetual maintenance by the county's parks and recreation department for the entire memorial area. In the executive summary, we have outlined that normally when proposals like this come to the county, they -- they come to us by way of generally a not-for-profit organization in town or else through a single donor who sets up and provides the funding for such a memorial or whatever it might be. In this particular case, it is a for-profit organization and will require communitywide-type fund-raising activities. Because of the distinction, the department is recommending that if the board desires to participate in this particular project, that we develop an agreement with them that would allow the county to understand how the funds are going to be raised, to be able to provide some accounting of those funds because I think if the board actually approves this proposal, the association with Collier County Government is just inevitable, and I think it will be seen by the public as a county/Saran Group, Incorporated, type of a project. I -- I've talked to the finance director who's agreed if the county wishes to go that route, to participate in the development of an agreement and administration of it once it's -- once it's approved. The other issue that was raised at the public petition hearing was the opposition from the local veterans' council, and I believe that we have representation here today from the veterans' council who can articulate to you what -- what the reasons for their opposition to this particular memorial are, and I'm sure we'll get to that as the public speakers portion. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Before -- before we go to the public speakers, Mr. Olliff, can you maybe expand a little bit why it makes any difference whether this is brought forward by a not-for-profit corporation or a profit corporation? Why is that important? MR. OLLIFF: Some of the -- the issues I know that have been discussed before are issues that relate to what is the size of the artist commission in this particular project or what is the profit for this particular project, and I don't know those -- those answers, and I will tell you that I -- I'm not an artist, and I don't know what a reasonable artist commission is for a project like that. But because there are those type issues -- and the second issue is that they are having a loose association of -- of interested citizens participate in the fund-raising, and I will tell you -- and I -- I've mentioned this to them as well. Our worst-case scenario -- and we always try to protect the county from that worst-case scenario type event -- is if a fund raiser were to occur and there were some misappropriation of funds or if the -- the people were simply to leave after having collected the funds and the project were associated with Collier County, we're trying to protect the county from being in that position. So that's the only -- the only difference there because they're -- they're not a corporation solely for this project, and I think the members that are associated with this project are not all part of the company that's there in town. We've got those concerns and wanted to try and protect us through some sort of agreement. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Miss Mac'Kie. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Just a question -- and I don't care who answers it, but I believe that even if they were -- I mean, because they could solve that -- If that's the impediment, I would suggest they conform a 501C3 and still take a commission. I mean, not for profit doesn't mean that the participants don't make money. It just means that they spend it. MR. OLLIFF: No. And I guess the only issue because there is a -- a private corporation that is an artist company, but then there are also probably three, four, or five other just interested individuals who are not part of the corporation who are involved in primarily the fund-raising and as consultants on the project. Generally when we have a not-for-profit group, say the Jaycees or the Kiwanas, if the project falls apart, we know where the Jaycees and the Kiwanas are. They're local people who are going to be here, and we can go back to them, and they sort of have to stand behind their organization for it. And it may be overkill from our -- our -- our part, but I think because of that worst-case scenario that we've outlined for you, we thought an agreement was the safest precaution that we could offer. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Based on what you said, Mr. Olliff -- and I'll just let the petitioner know what my two concerns are and ask you to address them in your remarks. One is when a veterans' organization comes forward to build a memorial, their reasons are -- are obvious. The reasons why they want to put themselves to that effort to build that memorial are obvious. They're veterans. They're veteran organizations. I'm a member of the American Legion. The legion does these kinds of things in different areas. You know, what I'm going to want to know is why you want to build this memorial. Okay. The second thing is I will also want to know that -- if this agreement moves forward, that any telemarketing, any presentations you do, this is not a -- for the Collier County memorial, I want to make sure that the representations are accurate and true. So with those two things in mind as you give your presentation, I'm going to be looking for answers to those, and I'm sure there's probably some people here that are looking for those answers too. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Go ahead. MR. HCELRATH: Good morning, Commissioners. My name is David HcElrath. I'm here on behalf of the petitioner, the Saran Group, and there has been a lot of discussion on this particular issue in the last several weeks. Let me just firstly try to clear the air. We are here as a private group, not affiliated with any veterans' organization in this county. Our goal is to raise funds privately from the private sector and make a gift to the citizens of Collier County of this veterans' memorial. The approximate size of the scale -- that scale represents -- it would be 50 feet long, 22 feet wide, and 12 feet high. There is plenty of adequate parking in the area. It is envisioned that this memorial to the veterans, not a specific war or conflict but -- nor a particular branch of the armed services, but to all veterans in -- in general be accepted by the county. We have a Veterans Park that was established some years ago, the former North Naples Community Park, that has no memorial. It's our understanding that there has always been a goal to have a memorial at that park, but due to problems, including fund-raising efforts in the past, it's never come to pass, and our goal is to place it there. Commissioner Hancock wanted to know why -- why is -- my client, the Saran Group, is involved in this type of project. Mr. Saran is under consideration for a commission to establish a memorial in Oklahoma City. He has done memorials in the past for private individuals and businesses. This -- it is no secret that if this memorial is erected and accepted, that it will hope to lead to some favorable publicity and enable him to possibly generate some additional commissions. It is anticipated that this -- the funds will be raised. Another question that has come -- is, is he -- is somebody going to make any money on this. And the answer hopefully is, yes, there will be a small commission involved in this. Due to the number of hours Mr. Saran has expended on this project and the estimated number of hours, that if it comes to pass, he will expend -- he will -- his compensation will be at the rate of approximately $12 an hour. The project -- we feel there's a need for it. As citizens and not veterans, we feel we're entitled to raise this question and proceed in this -- in this project. Why? Because the -- this -- we feel this project can lead to a springboard. Number one, as we all know, the size of Collier County -- we like to refer to it as approximately like the State of Rhode Island. And while there is an existing memorial at Cambier Park and we do not want to take anything away from that memorial nor to lessen its impact, we feel that the size and growth of our county will enable the commission to accept another memorial. It is not meant to usurp any authority or meant as a sign of disrespect at all to the existing memorial but merely to recognize that the growth of the county, the regionalism of the area and the fact that we have a Veterans Park with no veterans' memorial and coupled with -- or -- with the county getting it for virtually nothing is a good example of the public/private enterprise working hand in hand for the benefit of our community. We envision that this will be an opportunity for the young children in our area to learn about the conflicts and wars that their forefathers participated in, fought in, some lost their lives in, and it will provide some education. The amount of people using that park is phenomenal, and a lot of those people are young people that don't -- that may not normally get down to Cambier Park on a regular basis. This project -- the proposed monument is going to be wheelchair accessible. It will be -- have lighting. It will be xeriscaped landscaping. The numbers Mr. Olliff has proposed are significantly greater than ours. I don't think at the outside it's going to take eight to $10,000 to move the volleyball court; however, we will incur the cost in moving that court, whatever it is. We -- our costs involved by Mr. Louis, our architect, local architect is basically an annual maintenance of a couple thousand dollars. This -- this -- we are not going to maintain and landscape the entire North Naples or the Veterans Park, just this particular area of it as you enter the park. And it is -- it is designed to be a low budget, low maintenance type of maintenance on it. There will be some light bulbs. There will be some water sprinklers. These will need to be replaced periodically. But we had estimated it at 2,000 -- approximately $2,040 annually. We would also estimate about $2,500 to move the volleyball courts. Again, we will absorb the cost of that in our fund-raising effort. Another item that has been brought up is the funds and the accountability. Let me tell you that it is our intention -- we will cooperate with the county in whatever you request. Our thoughts and our plans were to enter into agreements with donors in which their funds would be held in a savings account or an escrow account at a local financial institution. And upon raising the $225,000, then we would commence on the project. If the funds are not raised, we then have basically two options. One is to scale down the project, but this -- the quality of this project will not be compromised. The size may be diminished, but the quality will not be. If we cannot do that properly, we will refund all of the donors' contributions to them. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Not minus expenses? All? MR. MCELRATH: All -- all the expenses. The only thing that we have to ascertain is any interest generated on those funds we assumed would cover the cost of expenses and postage and so on. But in -- in principle there -- and this would be spelled out to them before they donated anything. Again, in all solicitation it will be specifically noted that this project is not a Collier County project. It is not a veterans' council. We are not associated with the veterans. If they wish to assist us, that would be their determination on an individual basis. I think this is a win-win situation for the county to ascertain commission or to set up a commission and spend tax dollars. Estimates would be half a million dollars to handle a project like this. We have some information on a recent project in New Groton, Connecticut, for the submariners, and it was a $300,000 project. So our costs are in line. We feel the project is necessary. We feel it's a plus-plus for everyone involved, and we would like the commission -- The only thing we want the commission to do is to allow us to place this gift on a specific parcel of land on the triangular point as you enter Veterans Park in North Naples. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Just based on the model live and what we've seen in the postcards, what I can't tell is, will there be an inscription or wording? What will it be? MR. MCELRATH: Yes. Mr. Saran is here. Could he address that issue with you? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. I think probably the veterans that are in attendance may be concerned too about any finished product. What's it going to say? What will it say about our veterans? Is it in line with what the veterans themselves think of -- of the efforts of their colleagues and so forth. So no one's really raised that question. I just think that's kind of important. MR. SARAN: The wording on the memorial will be similar to the one in Cambier Park. My intention was to go to the veterans' association after the -- or while the project is being built and ask them how they would like it worded. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Okay. Thank you. Let's go to the public speakers, Mr. Dotrill. MR. DORRILL: Yes, sir. You -- you've got about ten. General Weiss. And then following General Weiss, I've got Denise Ramier. MR. WEISS: Good morning. I'm Bernie Weiss, a resident of Collier County for the last two years. I retired after 32 years in the Air Force and very happy to be a member of Collier County. I'm also a part of the Collier County Veterans Council. I represent the Jewish war veterans of Collier County, an organization that's about two years old. Denise, which is our chairman of our Collier County council had a prepared statement, and I really hoped to follow her, but basically I just want to make two points. The first point is that the consensus of the Collier County Veterans' Council is that we really don't need this. We -- we -- we appreciate the thought. We think it's very nice for people to remember veterans and to do this, but we're really very happy with what we have. We have our ceremonies. We have our affairs on Veterans Day down at Cambier Park, and we're really happy with that. Secondly, as a private citizen, I'm concerned about people raising money. I don't think there's an elasticity of giving. I think that every family -- each of you, I'm sure, segregate an amount of money at the beginning of the year and say, "I'm going to donate this to charities." And as more and more charities come in, you -- the end result is you give less and less to individual charities. And I think that in the priority of charities, there's so many more important things that we have as well as veterans who need help. Unfortunately, veterans are a fairly large group of homeless people. And so in those two points, the lack of the need and the fact that there isn't an elasticity of giving, there is a fixed amount, I would rather not solicit funds for the wall. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: General, could I ask you a question? MR. WEISS: Sure. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: I need you to help me understand why anyone could oppose putting up a veterans' memorial. I understand essentially what you've told me here. By the way, I'm an Air Force veteran myself. The -- my question is that -- what would be wrong with having a veterans' memorial on every street corner like we do -- on the Fourth of July, I know we have a ceremony to honor the flag, but everyone's flying the flag, and no one seems to think that's wrong. What -- what would it hurt -- how does it hurt us to have a second veterans' memorial in our area? I -- I just am having a hard time understanding it. MR. WEISS: Well, I don't think there's any hurt to having a veterans' memorial, you know, at more than one place. The problem that I have with it is the resources that it takes to provide that memorial and to maintain it and then the distraction to the citizens of Collier County as to which is the focal point, where are the events held. We have trouble with the demographics today. Veterans are passing on because most of the veterans are of World War II, and we -- we don't get the large turnouts that we would like to get at Cambier Park. If, in fact, we had two -- well, really there are three -- we would -- and one veterans' group decided to have a celebration or memorial up at Veterans Park and the rest wanted to do it at Cambier Park, the turnout for those would be diminished. We want to keep the emphasis in one place. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Commissioner Constantine. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let me just make sure I understand it. It seems there's two primary points you're making, and the first is that the focus on the existing memorial site could potentially be diminished, and the second is that the funding or the resources that are required for this you think could be better spent for other needs, perhaps for other veterans' needs. MR. WEISS: Absolutely. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Okay. Thank you. MR. WEISS: Thank you. MR. DORRILL: Ms. Ramier. Then following her, Mr. Pointer. Good morning. MS. RAMIER: Good morning. Good morning, Commissioners. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Good morning. MS. RAMIER: My name is Denise Ramier. I'm the chairman of the Collier County Veterans' Council which represents 14 veteran organizations. Prior to the February 6 commissioners' meeting, I wrote a letter to Commissioner Norris stating the veteran council's position. At present there exists two veterans' memorials, one in the northeast corner of Cambier Park and the second on the site of the Collier County Museum. The council feels that a third memorial is unnecessary. The issue of a new memorial was brought to the council's attention in September of 1995. The Saran Design Group's proposal was to replace the existing veterans' memorial in Cambier Park with one of much grander design. Veterans' functions have traditionally become centered at this memorial donated by the women's club in July of 1984 to honor Collier County's veterans who died in defense of their country. The City of Naples, working with the veterans' council, was in the process of expanding and enhancing this memorial and also making it more visible and accessible. The council was strongly opposed to the Saran Group's proposal. I received a copy of a letter written to the county in early January of this year. This letter states that the veterans' council approves the concept and acknowledges the need of a memorial. Veterans' council will not support nor lend its name nor the name of any member organization in any advertisement or solicitation. In a memo to the commissioners, it was stated that proposals for memorials to be located within a county facility originate from local and well-established not-for-profit organizations or a single donor. In this particular case, the organization is primarily a for-profit business. Many of the council's member organizations are strictly prohibited by their bylaws and constitutions from participating in any such endeavor. The council's position stands to protect these organizations and to maintain solidarity among all the member groups. The veterans' council does not intend this position to reflect refusal or ingratitude for efforts undertaken on behalf of veterans. Rather, its message to those citizens who feel the need to contribute to memorializing those who died to defend and protect their country is this. The best way to honor the dead is to assist the living. The expenditure of a quarter of a million dollars could best be utilized to provide assistance to veterans, veteran widows and children, to provide medical transportation, to raise the standard of living to those veterans who receive pensions and live at or below the poverty level. Many of these veterans are being denied medical treatment that they so desperately need. This amount of money could buy back the dignity of veterans. The Collier County Veterans' Council exists to serve the needs of all living veterans as well as remembering and honoring its dead and will host a rededication ceremony of the veterans' memorial in Cambier Park on March 30, 1996. All are welcome to attend. Thank you very much. MR. DORRILL: Mr. Pointer and then Ms. MacDonald. MR. POINTER: Good morning, Commissioners. My name is Jack Pointer. I'm a member of the Collier County Veterans' Council. Our friend and member, Clarence Perry, could not be here, but he has asked me to read his statement into the record. He made the original motion to reject the new veterans' memorial. Mr. Perry's statement to Commissioner Norris: During the December 1995 meeting -- the monthly meeting of the Collier County Veterans' Council, there was a great deal of discussion concerning the construction of a second veterans' memorial at Veterans Park in North Naples. Inasmuch as there seemed to be a general lack of support for the Saran veterans' memorial project, I, Clarence Perry, made a motion that the veterans' council disapprove the project in its entirety for the following reasons. One, there's already in existence a veterans' memorial at Cambier Park. Two, the City of Naples at the veterans' council's request has completely rejuvenated the Cambier Park memorial. That -- three, that it would be an affront to the individual or individuals who had the memorial erected in the first place in Collier Park. That's the women's club. The present location of the Collier -- or the Cambier Park is ideally suited as the site for the future veterans' activities compared to the Veterans Park located in North Naples. Finally, if the Saran project was built at Veterans Park, who would decide whether to hold a future ceremony at the Veterans Park in North Naples or at the hub of activities in the veterans -- where the veterans' memorial is? The motion was carried in attendance by all except one: Clarence Perry. And this is my statement to the -- Jack Pointer's statement to the commission: On Hay the 30th, 1967, a memorial was dedicated to all Collier County veterans. It is now located on the grounds of the Collier County Museum. In 1984 the Naples Women's Club provided veterans of Collier County with a beautiful memorial located in Cambier Park. In 1990 the Naples Women's Club adopted the 407 Florida Support Battalion of the 82nd Airborne Division of the Gulf War fame and invited them to Naples. In 1995 the Naples Women's Club again hosted members of the 82nd Division when they came to Naples to help us celebrate the anniversary of the end of World War II. The memorial so generously given by the Naples Women's Club will be rededicated by veterans to veterans next month, March 1996. Without the knowledge of the membership of the Collier County Veterans' Council, a Marco Island for-profit company proposed to remove and replace the veterans' memorial in Cambier Park. The Collier Con -- the Collier Council of Veterans did not approve. We have that letter with us here. The Marco Island design group then went to Collier County with their lawyer to give the memorial to Collier County. The county was informed that Collier County Veterans' Council would do whatever it was told to do. The county was so arrogant that they prepared a budget item to move a ball field and provide for perpetual care of the memorial before the matter was brought to the attention of the commission, deliberately keeping this information from the membership of the veterans' council. Collier County Government is expected to hold and account for the monies that might be collected for this purpose. Our position against this kind of conduct and project has just been stated to you by the chairman. We learn now that in all matters of concern to the general public and veterans it was going to be communicated to you, our elected officials. It will be done orally and in writing before this commission. We do not do what we are told by any individual to do. We debate and vote in a democratic manner and the process to reach a consensus. We will not hold back in letting you know what is on our mind. Thank you very much. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Jack, on -- on behalf of our parks and rec staff, your comment that the county -- and I assume you mean parks and rec -- was arrogant I have to take exception with. Our staff does not have the ability to make decisions for this board. Their job is to prepare the information for the board to make those decisions, and that's exactly what we're doing today. So I think the intended result is being achieved today in having an open discussion on it, and rather than accusing staff of being arrogant, I think they should be commended for bringing it to a forum so that we may have that discussion. I just -- I just have to take exception to that one comment because I do disagree with it. MR. POINTER: All right, sir, but we had not been informed until the matter had already been carried on through, and we -- after we were informed and rejected Cambier Park and the memorial, then it was brought to the attention of the -- of the parks department, and we, the Collier County Veterans' Council, was not informed. We had no part in it, knew nothing about it until a letter surfaced. Thank you, sir. MR. DORRILL: Ms. MacDonald. MS. LOUERING-MACDONALD: Good morning, Mr. Norris. I'm Suzanne Louering-McDonald, and I am the fund raiser. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Could you pull the microphone down a little bit? There -- there you go. MS. LOUERING-MACDONALD: Okay. Can you hear me? Okay. Our intention is to raise money from the private sector. We are not going to stand on corners. We're not going to go and knock on doors, and we are not going to just beg people for nickel and dime. We envision being able to arrive at the $225,000 by large donations. We already have two or three individuals who are retired colonels, et cetera, who will be giving large donations to make this project come to pass. I don't know if anyone's in -- knows that the Korean memorial that was built in Washington just recently -- it cost $50 million. It was done by a private design firm out of California. They've just broken ground on the World War II memorial to be erected. That is also done by a private design firm. It is not unusual for people to want to do things for veterans or other organizations, the heart fund, cancer. I certainly have raised literally hundreds of thousands of dollars for the liver foundation and been a major spokesperson across the country for them, but I do feel in sympathy for the veterans who are homeless, and we all know that they are out there -- that our Veterans Park in North Naples with the large community growth that's anticipated, the children that will be going there should have a memorial. They're in a spot that children can share in the history and what it means to be an American in this country. It seems strange that you would have a Veterans Park. You have a spot that has been designated primarily for a memorial, and it's been ten years. No one has put one there. I certainly can appreciate Cambier Park, the attachment to that memorial. It's very nice, and I feel the veterans should continue to have their color or any other type of ceremony that-- at that park, but I also feel that Veterans Park in North Naples does warrant this type of a memorial. I would be happy to address any questions that anyone would like to ask me. At that meeting, I was also there when this was first presented to the veterans. There was definitely an attachment to the memorial in Cambier Park which I can understand, too. I went to a park all my life, Patton's Park in Hamilton, Massachusetts, and I'd take my children there, and we climb all over, but there are also many other memorials within that community. Lew Schulz had suggested what about Veterans Park, and that is why the design team went ahead and tried to pursue that, because it seemed like a logical place to have this beautiful memorial. I'm open to any questions. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Thank you. MS. LOUERING-MACDONALD: You're welcome. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Dorrill, how many more speakers do we have on this? MR. DORRILL: We have six. MS. LOUERING-MACDONALD: You know, I have one more thing I'd like to add which I forgot in my intensity, which I do have a tendency to become very intense when I'm focused and when I believe in something. There is a gentleman who is a sub -- retired submarine captain, Herbel -- Herbert Mandel. He built the wall of honor for submarines that went down in World War II. He wrote a letter that he asked me to read. Dear Commissioner Norris, as a 20-year owner, voter, and part-time resident of Marco Island, I wish to express my interest in the project of erecting a suitable memorial at the entry of Veterans Park in North Naples. There is a distant parallel between this project and a submarine veterans' memorial recently completed in Groton, Connecticut. When a group of us appeared before the Groton City Council, there was a degree of skepticism amid the enthusiasm. In the end, the City Council of Groton approved the memorial and contributed $10,000. Additionally, the neighboring city of New London made a generous contribution. All of the other funds received were from private sources. The -- the changing demographics, growth predictions, and the gradual disappearance from the scene of World War II veterans led to the conclusion that this memorial should be erected now. It is the hope of many that a suitable memorial will inspire the study of history so that our grandchildren and their grandchildren will better understand the cataclysmic events of world wars in the Twentieth Century. The article in Shipmate which I wrote -- CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Your -- your time has expired. MS. LOUERING-MACDONALD: Does that mean -- CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Can you wrap it up? If you would like, you could put that letter on the record by handing it to -- MS. LOUERING-MACDONALD: I certainly will. This -- this cost $300,000, this one. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Chairman, I -- I think we may be able to speed things along here. I know we have several more speakers, and I want to encourage everyone to speak, but I originally had some of the same questions. I think we all did. What's wrong with another veterans' memorial? But General Weiss's comments and those that followed made it clear that this may have a negative effect on the ability of local veterans' organizations to raise money for those things that they find important and that we, as veterans, all find important. And without the support of the local veterans' organizations, I believe this effort may be ill-timed and poorly planned. I don't have a problem with a veterans' memorial, but I think maybe a more simple memorial in the way of dedicating the name of Veterans Park, and the purpose for that is something that the local veterans' organizations can accomplish themselves. And if we set our mind to it, probably within the next year or two we could have something there that would accomplish just that. I don't have a good feeling about all of this, and I don't know any other way to say it. So at least for my -- for my perspective, unless something positive on this is to be presented at some time in the next six speakers, I'm definitely not leaning towards getting this memorial built or using county land to do it under these -- these circumstances. So whether, I guess, a straw poll on the board would help move things along -- if that's appropriate, it may be worth doing. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Commissioner Hac'Kie. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: My -- my thoughts are similar. I -- I've been questioning what is the motivation behind doing this and how odd that anybody could oppose -- like -- like you said, Commissioner Norris, it wouldn't be enough to have a memorial on every corner. We couldn't possibly have enough memorials and enough thank-yous. But what has become clear to me is, if I wanted to do something for veterans, I would -- I would ask veterans what can I do for you, and then I would go and raise money to do that thing that they requested. So that must not be the motivation here, because if your motivation were to do something for veterans, you would say, "We care about you. We want to go raise $250,000 to do something for you to show our respect. What would -- what could that be? We have this idea. Is there something else?" And -- and obviously that's not the motivation. And I don't mean any disrespect because your motives are -- are likely to be pure, but what I'm saying here is, if you -- if your motivation is, let's go raise $250,000 to do something wonderful for veterans, let's do that, and let me see how I can help, and I'm sure you'll get five people up here out helping you do that but -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Not to mention thousands in the community. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Right. But the motivation must not be to do something good for veterans; otherwise, when the recipient says, "Thank you for your offer but no thank you," you would say, "Okay. Well, then what else could we do for you?" So I'm -- I'm feeling negative about this as well. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I too. I -- I raise similar questions to what we're -- we're discussing today on February 6 when the public petition came to us and -- and -- so I'm -- I'm also not feeling real good about going -- going forward with this. But let's hear the rest of the speakers, I guess, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: We have some more speakers. I think the speakers have seen that there's three voices at least been expressed in opposition here to the project. If you feel the need to come up and continue to express your opposition, that's fine. If -- If you would like to go ahead and pass, we seem to be close to taking a vote here. MR. KELLER: I'll pass. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Why don't you call them, Mr. Dorrill. MR. DORRILL: Mr. Burd, in or out? COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Speak or no? You've been here all day. You might as well say something. MR. BURD: Good morning, Commissioners. For the record, my name is Bill Burd. I'm an 18-year resident of Collier County. I've been in South Florida for 22 years. I want to focus on choices. I don't think this is a county versus city issue. I don't think this is a Veterans Park memorial versus Cambier Park issue. About the resources, I -- or we can't cure all ills, but I don't think it's fair to say that the resources would be wasted because there are homeless people, people that go to bed hungry in Collier County, and I'm not going to feel guilty because I can eat a good dinner tonight and I have a decent home to go home to and a bed to sleep in. And, you know, again, I'm focusing on choices. There are a lot of good charitable groups in this community. For the sake of argument, they're all good, and they all do a great job. I can choose to support all of them, none of them, maybe two or three this year, make a couple next year. That's my choice. That's what democracy is all about. That's what I fought a war for. I am a combat veteran and -- and I belong to two organizations also on the veterans' council, and I support their decision. The majority spoke, and in that respect, I respect the veterans' council, and I support their decision. I also have a right to speak as an individual and voice my individual feeling, and that's what I'm doing. Is there room for two or three or four or five or ten memorials? I say yes. And the proper place is Veterans Park. I don't see -- well, I'm kind of reminded of a commercial a couple of years ago when that lady said, "Where's the beef?" My question is, what's the beef? And -- And I'm just not saying that to be facetious. I just don't understand -- I understand the difference of opinion. We can have honest disagreement and honest feelings, but the hostility of -- against this I don't understand. I think if that's too much, that could be debated, could be articulated. On the surface it looks good, sounds good. As an advocate for people with physical disabilities, yes, I am concerned about the accessibility. I would like to see a couple of ramps in front of this as well as the -- the rear entrance. Whatever you vote, I know there's going to be some people that are disappointed no matter what their feelings are. I can speak for me. I know there's veterans that agree with me. I know there's veterans that don't agree with me. That's okay. It's all about choice. I choose to think that this is a fine idea. And unless there's a bogeyman out there, unless there's some hidden costs, hidden responsibilities to the county, to the citizens, and to the veterans or any veterans' group, I don't see a problem supporting this. I really don't. Like I say, there may be something that I'm not aware of and -- but as -- as I'm aware and the facts that I know them, I ask you to really think about the facts. I can't pretend to speak for all veterans, and nobody can. I think this is -- your vote will reflect a vision for this community, and if this isn't it, then -- then fine. I'll be disappointed, but I'm not going to be upset. Like I say, I chose to come here today and -- and speak my piece, and that's my right, and I'm glad that you afford me that right to do that. But the issues -- please base them on fact, and the facts to me are that -- is there room for two? I think so. And we are a growing community, and we're going to continue to grow. And I applaud and support Cambier Park and the people that did that, and I will continue to go down there and participate. This no way divides my loyalty to the one in Cambier Park. No way. I have a lot of affection for that, and I will continue to go down there and -- and participate. And should this or any memorial come to fruition, I will support that one, too. It's a choice. I like having more choices, not to be restricted, and -- and that -- that means a lot to me. I just don't know about the monies. There seems to be a little bit of disagreement about how much it's going to cost to move those volleyball courts, accounting figures, their figures. Where -- Where is this money coming from? What's the percentage of the overall budget? Ten thousand dollars to me is a lot of money. I'd like to have it, but, you know, I don't know what the total budget is. Is this money going to be taken away from some other worthwhile project? That's a real concern. If it isn't, if the money's already in there, if it's just a matter of maintenance -- this is not maintenance-free. The materials, as I understand it, are low-cost, so I think the maintenance are really going to be low-cost. So those are legitimate concerns, and -- and you need and all of us need to understand those. And, again, like I say, I -- I want to be able to choose what I support and what I don't support, and this is something that I -- I choose to support. And, Commissioner Hancock, a couple of weeks ago you said something about the Deion Sanders -- you know, both, you know, on another issue. I don't know what that is but -- Is there room for both? I think so. Can -- can, you know, the county have a nice memorial? Yes. Can the city -- the city does have one. Yes, there's room for both, and there's room for both sides of an issue, and I wish people would speak. Some people can. They choose not to. That's okay. That's another choice. If you don't want to come here and speak, that's fine. If you don't want to support this, that's fine. But at least let all the facts come out, and let's deal with facts. Again, like I say, I don't see the bogeyman, and I just hope when you vote on this, that -- that whatever the decision is, that we'll come together because I've voted on the majority side of issues, and I've always asked those who voted on the minority, come on, let's get together now once the vote has been passed. I've voted on the minority side of issues, and I said, okay, once the vote's taken, let's get together again and support the majority decision. That's what democracy is all about. I served two years with the 82nd Airborne. I have a lot of affection for them. And as a combat veteran, I agree. There's not enough memorials, and there's always room for more. So thank you for letting me express myself. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Thank you. MR. DORRILL: Mr. Noble. Following Mr. Noble is Mr. Keller. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Mr. Keller has passed. MR. NOBLE: Good morning. My name is Robert Noble. I live in Old Naples. I'm not going to take very long here. There's no use reiterating a lot of the things that have been said. I'm the vice chairman of the veterans' council. I represent the Reserve Officers Association, local chapter, and I -- I want to point out that this was not just something that I voted on at the council meeting. We had a regular meeting of our chapter. There was a unanimous vote against this project. And I don't think we're worried about having another memorial that -- that -- people can go and do what they want. I'd like to point out to you that on Memorial Day we have services out at Naples Memorial Garden. The veterans' council participates. They go out there early in the morning and put flags on the graves of veterans. So we're not saying that Cambier Park is the only place. We're saying let's focus and get things done together. And if somebody wants to do something, come to us, work with us. We'll work with you, and we'll try and get it done. Thank you very much. MR. DORRILL: Mr. Erlichman. Following Mr. Erlichman, I have Ms. Chenery. MR. ERLICHMAN: Good morning, Commissioners. I'm speaking on behalf -- my name is Gilbert Erlichman. I reside in East Naples, and I represent the American Ex-Prisoners of War. I've listened very closely to the speaker from the 82nd Airborne, and I caught something there which left out the idea of a private for-profit enterprise building a memorial. This is a -- this is the American Ex-Prisoners of War situation and their -- their feeling. We're not opposed to 20 memorials. We are opposed to the idea as presented here by the Saran Group that they will come in, raise funds without any oversee by the county or anyone else. They said they would not build a memorial or go ahead with it if they didn't have sufficient funds, but then they left them out. They said that they would reduce the size of it. Well, who knows what the size is that determines when they will not build, and then what would they do with the money that they've already collected? I mean, I -- if -- if they came to me and said -- or they came to us and said, "We want to build this memorial and we -- you will raise the funds. You will help us raise the funds. It will be entirely an open situation, and we will -- we will be making so much of a profit .... any bus -- any person that's in business is there to make a profit. There is no such thing as a business not making profit and existing for charity, with the exception of -- of agencies that are organized by the government, by the state, and by the county. So there are too many unanswered questions in this situation with the Saran Group. I have all this information from Tom Olliff which he kindly forwarded to me when I asked him back after the previous meeting of the commissioners when the petition was made by this Saran Group, and in here there's a letter from Mr. Brinkman to the -- to the Saran Group, and in his letter -- Mr. Brinkman is the parks and recreation director which was referred to by Mr. Pointer. And in this letter dated January 9 to the Saran Group he says -- I'm reading from the third paragraph. Because this is not a county project and the county has not had any involvement in the development of the cost nor will it participate in the collection or administration of the funds, please do not as part of your fund-raising efforts infer in any way that this is a county project. In order to solicit funds and use the county's name, additional information regarding this project's -- the project's cost, the accountability of funds that are raised, the message for fund-raising and the county's involvement in the control of funds would have to be detailed and approved by the county commission in the way of a written contract. Then he goes on to say, please understand that this in no way is meant to discourage your efforts. The county would certainly like to see a bidding memorial to the community's veterans donated and located in the park; however, the county is also required to follow certain statutory bidding requirements for procuring goods and services and must have written agreements for joint projects such as this one if the level of involvement is going to be any more than accepting a donation of memorial once completed. So evidently -- oh, thank you again for taking your time to come and make your presentation. Should you have any questions about this, please do not hesitate to call. So evidently the -- the parks and recreation board -- is that an advisory board, or is that a -- COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Advisory. MR. ERLICHMAN: They decided that they wanted a memorial in the Veterans Park, Veterans Memorial Park. So on that decision that they made, they went ahead and communicated with the Saran Group unbeknownst to the veterans' council. They had no idea until this -- until this arose. In closing, I would like to say that we appreciate everything that the county is doing to help the veterans. You've -- you've -- you've helped us with the transportation of veterans to Bay Pines and various -- and the Fort Myers clinic, et cetera, and we want to thank you for your efforts in the past and your efforts in the future. Thank you very much. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Thank you. MR. DORRILL: Miss Chenery. She's your final registered speaker on this item. MS. CHENERY: I promise to be brief. I'm Mary Chenery. Number one, I want to say I am 100 percent behind Denise Ramier's report. That is our -- the feeling of my group. I'm a member of the Women Marines FL6, and we spend -- priorities is my point. All the monies that we raise in our organization go to scholarships. We give two scholarships annually to ROTC students that are going on to college, and then we do things for both women and men at the veterans' hospitals. We could use more money for the transportation program that we have. Right now we can take veterans from this complex, the -- Collier County to the various ones. There are some veterans that need to be taken right from their home. They're unable to get to this location. So we really do have a priority in many ways of serving veterans, and that's why we say another memorial runs second. Actually, our number one memorial was the one that now resides at the museum, and little attention is given to it. The priority has gone to number two, and it's concentrated there, and we're satisfied with it, and we thank their efforts, but it isn't needed. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Commissioner Constantine. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, I know most of the veterans here on both sides of the issue -- and I do agree it's important to memorialize the efforts of our veterans and to educate our young people, in particular, as to the efforts of veterans who have put in to get us to the point we're at now. But I also agree -- particularly our last speaker pointing out that it's a matter of priority, and -- and I think our number one priority has to be assisting the living veterans. And while we certainly memorialize and honor those who have passed, we need to take care of those who are still here. I -- I think I was aware anyway but I became acutely aware about a year and a half ago as I helped Ford Motor Company put together a package with our local veterans for transportation as to how strong the need is here locally for health issues and transportation issues and any number of issues. So I think that needs to be the top priority. It's not a matter of this being a bad project. It's certainly not bad. Frankly, making a profit isn't a bad thing in America. But I don't know that this particular project is appropriate. The veterans' council has said thanks, but no thanks, and I'll go ahead and make a motion that the commission say the same. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: A comment. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Yes. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I -- I wonder if it would be appropriate for -- for this board to -- to give direction to our staff to bring the parks and recreation board and the veterans' council together for them to develop either a new modest memorial at -- at Veterans Park or to look at possibly moving the one that was placed next to the museum to Veterans Park and -- and honoring the -- the park that way and taking that memorial and putting it in its namesake, so to speak. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Commissioner Hac'Kie. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: What I'd like to be real careful to do is just to invite them to discuss whatever issues they would like to discuss -- COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: That's my point. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- but not to give any direction and invite them to have that discussion and see if there's something this board should be doing but nothing more specific. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And I just -- I just gave my card to Denise and asked her to call me next week. You know, it's really -- if it doesn't come from the veterans, if it isn't supported by the veterans, you know, let's not try and steer it in a direction -- I understand what you're saying because I had the same thoughts. I would like to see at some point a marker at Veterans Park to -- to signify why the park was called Veterans Park and the importance of veterans in the lives of -- of everyone living today in the United States. I think that's -- that's critical, and we need to do it, but let it come from the veterans. And all I've asked to do is to talk to you next week to find out how we can help do that. So I think yours is the same track and -- COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Same track. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- and -- you know, but I would like it, again, to come from that source so we can make sure that everyone's working together. And if we need to commission the Saran Group to build it, we'd be happy to but -- CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: That seems -- MR. HCELRATH: Might I -- CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Excuse me. Your time has been expired. MR. HCELRATH: I just wanted to make one -- CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: The -- the -- the real mistake here appears to have been simply not to involve the veterans from the outset on this deal because if you had the support of the veterans, then this project would be going forward full speed, I'm sure. There's a number of issues been raised here. Frankly, the -- the funding issue being better spent on -- on other uses, I think that's certainly a specious argument because there's absolutely no reason to assume that even $1 that would have gone to this memorial would otherwise go to supporting veterans here in town. There's no reason to assume that at all. So I -- you know, that does not seem to be, you know, a valid issue to me. But the real issue is the -- the noninvolvement of the veterans' groups to begin with. You know, what I might suggest is if you could go to the veterans' groups and get them convinced to support your issue, we'd love to see you back here and build us a memorial, but the way things are, it doesn't look like it's going to fly today. MR. SARAN: Mr. Chairman, I didn't use up my five minutes. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Well, your time has expired -- MR. HCELRATH: Just to clear the air -- CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: -- and we're going to call the question right now. MR. HCELRATH: Just to clear the air on one issue, Mr. Schulz from -- the veterans' services director, it was his suggestion to pursue this project in Veterans Park. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And that's fine, sir. No one's vilifying you for your efforts. MR. HCELRATH: Well, what you're saying, we were not doing it with the veterans. It was done at the suggestion of -- of your county veterans' advisor so -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, I'm sure Lew would want the veterans involved. MR. HCELRATH: I would hope so. One would assume he -- he would. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: We have a motion and a second on the floor. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. And opposed? There being none, we'll move -- we'll take a short five-minute break and come right back. The rest of our agenda should be shorter. (A short break was held.) Item #SD1 RESOLUTION 96-90 REVISING THE HUMAN RESOURCES POLICIES AND PROCEDURES - ADOPTED WITH CHANGES CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: We'll call the meeting back to order. We're ready for item 8(D)(1). Do we have someone to present this? MS. EDWARDS: Yes, sir. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Ms. Edwards, you're going to do this? MS. EDWARDS: Yes, I am. Good morning. For the record, my name is Jennifer Edwards. I'm the acting human resources director. I'm here this morning to introduce to you a request that you authorize a revision to the human resources policies and procedures paid leave policy. I'd like to also comment that we have members of our Employee Advisory Council present in the board room today who are here in support of this item. There are really three points to be considered here today. Number one, it's -- the action we are taking will be reducing a cost to the county annually. We will also be reducing in the future a balance sheet liability to the county, and we are also changing one of the employee benefits. I'm going to use transparencies to explain the change to you. In beginning the work -- in preparing for the -- this possible or proposed change -- is this working? CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Yes, it is, I guess. MS. EDWARDS: -- the county manager asked that -- the county manager asked that an analysis be prepared of the accrued leave payout. This is sick leave payout. And what was prepared is this analysis of a ten-year projection. This projection shows that with our -- considering our existing employees and that at -- the earned days, taken days, and accrued days remain to be used and taken and accrued as they have been over the past, that at the end of ten years and at a payout of 25 percent, the value of paid sick leave payout will be $1.5 million. The next line, the expansion employees indicates that if we continue to hire employees at the rate we have been hiring in the past, that the value at the end of ten years will be $521,000. And then the final line is the existing accrual. What this is, is the actual accrual amount for accrued sick leave for our existing employees. This is $1.6 million. So this presents to you a total of $3.6 million possible ten-year payout for accrued sick leave. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Ms. Edwards, of that none of it is funded; is that correct? These are all unfunded amounts? MS. EDWARDS: That's correct. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Mr. Dorrill, is there anything MR. DORRILL: I -- I guess we should correctly -- they're -- they're not budgeted. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Budgeted. Thank you. MR. DORRILL: They are certainly funded, and they are absorbed and paid throughout the course of the year through attrition savings, and -- and this being -- this was intended to be a staff-directed productivity project to limit and/or freeze the board's unbudgeted liability both now and over the next ten years, and that would be the more appropriate answer. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Do we show this -- this accrual on our balance sheet? I don't think I -- didn't think we did. MR. DORRILL: We don't budget for it, and I'm going to look to Mr. HcNees perhaps. I don't know that it's shown on the balance sheet as an unfunded liability. MS. EDWARDS: It's part of the CAFR report as a liability on our balance sheet. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: It is on the balance sheet? MS. EDWARDS: Yes. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Because I -- I -- I remember reading in the management letters that it -- that we needed to find a way to begin to fund it. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Please proceed, Ms. Edwards. MS. EDWARDS: Okay. What I have now is a transparency showing you our proposed policy. The effective date of the policy shall be August the 2nd, 1996. The sick leave accrual rate shall remain the same. Sick leave balances for each employee shall be calculated as of the end of the workday August 2, 1996, and valued at each employee's pay rate in effect on that date. Therefore, the calculation becomes total hours sick leave accrued times the percent allowed upon separation under current sick leave policy equals the total hours to be paid subject to the current 1,040 maximum hours. Therefore, the calculation is hours to be paid times the employee's hourly rate of pay will equal the maximum sick leave payment. A continuation of the policy is that a record of this calculation and the maximum sick leave payment to be paid will be noted in each employee's personnel file, and we will also prepare a letter to each employee telling them the value as of August 2, 1996, of their accrued sick leave. Upon separation, each employee's total accrued sick leave will be valued in the same manner again, and the employee will be paid the lesser of the two values. Any questions? COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I have one. So what you're saying then is the value will be set at August 2, start of business August the 2nd. MS. EDWARDS: End of business August 2. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: End of business. I'm sorry. End of business August the 2nd. And the employee continues to work another five years, and a recalculation is made when he separates. Even though his -- his hourly earnings may have gone up during that five-year period '- MS. EDWARDS: Yes. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: -- he will be paid at the 1996 calculation if it is lower. MS. EDWARDS: That's correct. He'll -- they -- they will be compared, and the least amount or the least value is the value the employee will receive. I have some -- some sample calculations if you'd like me to run through them. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I assume the purpose of that is because that's the date at which policy changes? MS. EDWARDS: Yes. Okay. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: But currently the recalculation would be at whatever rate the person is earning on the date they terminate? MR. DORRILL: Correct. MS. EDWARDS: Under current policy, yes. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Yeah. Under the current policy. Okay. MR. DORRILL: Which is why we see this as a freezing or limiting action in terms of what your cost and payout is going to be, and that's why we want to fix the date and say this is the date at which time we will freeze these accounts at your current rate of pay so that if you do work here another five or ten years, you're going to be paid at the -- this rate which is the lesser rate under most circumstances because most people are going to accumulate additional sick leave and have much higher rates of pay over the next ten years. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Right. MS. EDWARDS: The changes to the paid leave policy that I'm presenting to you today affect the accrued sick leave as well as a change to the vacation policy. So now what I'd like to explain to you is the change to the vacation policy. We're calling this a proposed buy-back provision. Twice each year during the months of June and December employees will be allowed to sell to the county up to 80 hours of vacation annually at 85 percent of their current rate of pay. The employees utilizing this provision must sell a minimum of 20 hours and must retain a minimum vacation balance of 80 hours. The result of the -- of the buy-back provision we hope will be that it will reduce the county's liability to pay accumulated vacation hours at the time of separation. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What's the current maximum someone can accumulate of vacation time? MR. DORRILL: Two -- go ahead. MS. EDWARDS: Two forty with an extension to three sixty. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Is the extension approved by the county manager? MS. EDWARDS: That's correct. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: So with this, if a person is -- is at three sixty now with the extension, with this change, they'll be able to sell back 85 percent in minimum 20-hour increments and still continue to accrue additional vacation where today if they're at that three sixty cap, it's a use or lose. MS. EDWARDS: That's correct. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Okay. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So if they're at -- I'm sorry. If they're at 360 hours, they can't sell anything over and above that or they '- MS. EDWARDS: Under the current policy, no. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Under the existing policy? I mean, right now once you get to three sixty, you just carry that on. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: You must use it or lose it. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: This will allow them to still have their three sixty and to get money back? MS. EDWARDS: Well, three sixty will be reduced if they sell back hours to the county. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Is three sixty still a figure that will be a maximum? MR. DORRILL: The answer to your question is yes, but we have very few employees that are allowed to go beyond two forty. And once you go beyond two forty, they actually have to enter into a written contract with me guaranteeing that they will use at least two consecutive -- two weeks of annual leave in the next 12 months to bring them back down. And so a good example, frankly, is Ken Pineau, a long-term county employee, has difficulty scheduling that many weeks, especially from Hay to November, the hurricane season, but as part of the agreement, then when we get out of the hurricane season, he has to agree to use at least two weeks to bring him back below two forty in order to make him eligible then for the following year. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It just seems like a practical matter. I know we have certain people that are workaholics and need a little nudge to actually give themselves a break, and -- and I think it's only healthy that everybody gets a break every now and again. MR. DORRILL: The focus of the current policy is -- and -- and for a future administrative procedure is to do that. I think the original intent of the board's annual leave policy is to get people away from work for an extended period of time, not to take a day here or a day there, like, you know, I want to get out early the day before Thanksgiving in order to go to grandmother's house. We don't feel that was the board's intended use originally of annual leave, and so our focus is to try and get people away from work for the obvious benefits that you accrue when they come back rested and ready to go then for another stint. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: It -- it just seems to me, though, that what this -- I think what I'd like to see imbedded in -- in the vacation policy is a requirement that in order to sell vacation back to the county, that the employee must take at least "X" number of hours a year in a consecutive manner because I'm -- I'm a little bit concerned that they'll do exactly what Mr. Dotrill was just saying, that they'll accumulate their vacation, and then they'll start selling it back, the workaholics that we have, and that there's no requirement in that policy that they actually take time off. MS. EDWARDS: No. There is a requirement, though, they maintain an 80-hour balance. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Well, that's easy to do. That's -- that's a minimum balance. MS. EDWARDS: Right. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: So, I mean, they -- they just -- MR. DORRILL: I'm -- I'm not opposed -- if you want to make a suggestion or amendment to that, that they be eligible as long as they continue to take a period of scheduled annual leave so that people don't hoard this in order to try and get a little extra money in advance of Christmas. The intent is not for this to be a money -- you know, additional money-making process. It's intended for you to be able to purchase annual leave at something less than par value, but my overall concern is that those people still take a scheduled annual leave to -- to rest and recuperate and get recharged. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Yeah. I understand that and -- but I didn't see anything in the proposed policy that required a person to take leave. MR. DORRILL: That's a good point. It wasn't -- It wasn't thought of at that time, but I understand your point. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I think we can probably direct the human resources staff to include that as basically direction to the department heads. Let's face it. It's their supervisor that knows if they're taking vacation or not, not necessary Mr. Dotrill or this board. So I think it could be -- without being so finite, it could be a direction policy that supervisors need to make sure their employees, if they're involved in this buy-back, are taking regular vacations throughout the year. There are some positions such as Ken's that -- that, you know, years there are going to be exceptions to. So rather than making it so hard -- I think you're right -- give the direction that that should be encouraged, but don't write it so hard -- so ironclad that we create another administrative procedure. MS. EDWARDS: Okay. We'll -- we'll make that change. MR. DORRILL: If you have further questions, we'd be happy to answer them. Before we do, the representatives of your newly elected Employee Advisory Council are here, and if y'all wouldn't mind just raising your hands quickly. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: They're the glossed-over people in the second and third row. MR. DORRILL: Brand new, and they have elected a chairman who is Dick Roll. Dick, if you'd just stand up briefly. Dick is the chairman and is doing a fine job. These people are independently elected and meet with management every month, and I think we're unique in the fact that we're the only governmental entity in our community that is without, to my knowledge, labor union activity, and I think that in 1995 and '96 is due in large part to the efforts of these people. They have worked very hard so that this be perceived by both the board and the employees as a productivity enhancement to you as the employer without this being perceived as the elimination of an existing benefit, and it has been very hard for them to do at the rank and file level, and so we need to thank them for the months of effort that it has taken. And if I'm not mistaken, they voted 12 to nothing to recommend this modification to you today, and they have endeavored and committed to management that we're also going to work over the course of the coming year to reduce the amount of sick leave utilization and to seek out ways to single out people who may be abusing the sick leave program to the detriment of the fellow employees, and I just -- I wanted you to be aware of their hard efforts in that regard. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Thank you. Mr. Hancock. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Likewise, I -- I commend you for your work, and you've probably got a lot of comments from your colleagues and some comfortable, some not comfortable, but I thank you for your work on this. This started way back several years ago from, I believe, a productivity committee report that highlighted something, and then it took the next step, and this has been several variations to get here today. I have one question on the new policy. The new policy states that it shall -- that employees hired after August 2 of this year shall accrue sick leave the same as under the current plan but no payment for unused sick leave shall be made upon separation. Is that -- am I correct that that's part of the new policy? MS. EDWARDS: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. I -- I don't really have a problem with that, but talking to former county employees, even a minimal payment of 15 or 20 percent sometimes is incentive not to use or abuse the system. I know you've had discussions on this. I'm -- I would like the benefit of those discussions in a nutshell, if I may, why this is proposed instead of a flat 20 percent payout with a cap. Of those two, why no payment -- why no payout other than just the fiscal -- fiscal concern? MS. EDWARDS: My understanding is just the fiscal. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Is there a concern that there would be some -- I understand they're being hired under this. They're being hired under -- with the understanding that they're not going to be paid out. Do we perceive any -- any benefit problems there or lack of attractiveness in working for the county in that area? MR. DORRILL: I -- I think in some discussions with Mr. Ochs that we need to monitor that very, very closely over the next six to 12 months because if we see either one of two things -- either a problem in retaining or attracting the very best people that we want to work for you -- if that's perceived as a loss of a benefit for that work group or if we see the utilization on sick leave increase as a result of their not being compensated for, i.e., our inability to control it administratively, then I think based on the conversation Mr. Ochs has already had with me, then we ought to come back to you and propose something. We're trying to limit the -- the board and the taxpayers' long-term fiscal impact, and that was the primary reason. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Good enough. Thank you. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I have one more question. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Well, the other -- the other thing too is that -- that probably 99 percent of our employees are very good, dedicated, efficient employees, and if there's someone among them that -- that would stoop to abusing their sick leave policy just to use it because it's there, they may not fit in well with the other employees. That's another item that you can consider. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: They may want to keep their resume warm. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Updated anyway. Mr. Chairman, I've got one other question. I'd like you to -- to help me understand what happens to accrued sick leave that I'm -- that one might have today. If I've got 500 hours accrued on August the 2nd, you're going to value that at 25 percent of its value at whatever your -- your pay rate is. MS. EDWARDS: Whatever the payout is for that employee. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Okay. Now, suppose I've got 500 hours and I continue to accrue. In October I become desperately ill and -- and -- and I need four months off work. Do I -- can I still draw on that 500 hours? MS. EDWARDS: Yes, ma'am. COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: Do I still have the 500 hours? MR. DORRILL: Absolutely. MS. EDWARDS: Yes. The -- the -- MR. DORRILL: It's available to be utilized at any point until separation. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Okay. MR. DORRILL: The reason for freezing it on August the 2nd is only to freeze the maximum value of it for payout or whatever COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: For payout -- MR. DORRILL: -- remaining portion is available for payout at separation with that employee. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I -- I was just -- I'm just asking that question because I've heard some comments that 75 percent of their leave is being taken away from them, and I want to make sure that's not true. MS. EDWARDS: No leave is being taken away and the-- on the employee's check stub where the number of hours is listed, that will remain the same. They will continue to accrue, and those hours will continue to either increase or reduce, depending on their use. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Okay. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: The one thing to also remember there is we have a sick leave bank, so I think it's time to encourage everyone to participate in it. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Before October. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah. Before October if you're worried about it. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Before August the 2nd get that -- get that leave in the bank. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm satisfied by the work of -- of Hiss Edwards and the participation of the folks on the committee that this is -- is well worth proceeding with, and I'm going to make a motion to approve the attached resolution. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll second. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: We have a motion and a second. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. And opposed? Being none, we'll move to item 8(D)(2) which was the former 16 (D) (3) . COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Could I ask a question that's just related to human resources and financial while we've got these people here? Thank you. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Yes, you can. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thank you. There -- there have been some allegations in the press that have to do with this EHS issue and whether or not we're paying overtime, and I've even heard some specific allegations that people have gone to employees' houses and said, "Sign this agreement waiving your right to overtime or your job's in jeopardy," and I just would like this opportunity to clear the air. I don't know, Ms. Edwards, if that's something that's under your purview, but it's a human resources issue. I'd just like to '- MS. EDWARDS: I need to defer this -- COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- hear what the status is there. MS. EDWARDS: I'm going to defer this to Leo Ochs. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And Commissioner Hac'Kie, if I may, I'm having a meeting with Leo tomorrow on this same item. This may be complicated enough that one-on-one meetings are warranted and that an update on a Tuesday would be appropriate. COHHISSIONER HAC'KIE: Well, my question for today is a really simple one, and that is, please deny for me -- please tell me that it's not true. I want to hear that the county is in no way telling people sign this or your job's at risk. MR. OCHS: For the record, Leo Ochs, support services administrator. No, that is not true, for the record. It is true that we are working on a settlement agreement with the employees in the EHS system that will try to eliminate a back-pay liability that we have under the Fair Labor Standards Act which is the federal law governing payment of overtime wages. Hiss Flagg, our emergency services director, is here and I'm sure is able to answer any of the specific questions. I would only add that this has been a result of discussions, not only with our outside labor counsel and our county attorney's office, but also with the Employee Advisory Committee that advises Hiss Flagg and her management staff. There's a separate EHS Advisory Committee, and they have been very supportive and worked right along with her in trying to put this settlement agreement together. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: My -- my other question, I guess, Mr. Dotrill, is, is this -- do you consider this a policy issue or an issue under your purview strictly? My -- my thought is, at what point would the board be asked or will we be asked -- CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Let -- let me interject here a little bit. This is not on the agenda and -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I'm sorry, but let me just finish my question. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: But wait a minute now. I -- this is not on the agenda. You're quite welcome to discuss this with the county manager and Leo Ochs on -- on your own time, but we have an agenda here that we're supposed to be following. This is not on the agenda. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I'll save it for communications. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Well, you -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I'll bring it up then. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Okay. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Communications. Mr. Dorrill, I'm going to have another question on this issue. Item #8D2 LEASE AGREEHENT BETWEEN GULF COAST ROWING ASSOCIATION, INC. AND COLLIER COUNTY FOR SHORELINE WATER ACCESS - APPROVED CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Okay. We are at 8(D)(2) which is the former 16(D)(3). COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Yeah. 16(D)(3). This is the Gulf Coast Rowing Association. I don't really have a problem with this. We -- we listened to this one on a -- on a public petition about two months ago, and I just want to congratulate staff publicly for having worked out what appeared at that time to be a difficult situation. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Motion to approve. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Second. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Motion to approve. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Motion and a second. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. Item #8E2 RECOHMENDATION TO REFUND THE COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA GUARANTEED ENTITLEMENT REVENUE BONDS, SERIES 1977 - APPROVED We'll move on to 8(E)(2), refunding of bonds. MR. HCNEES: Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners. Mike HcNees from the county manager's office. As I explained to you last week, this concept of refunding of some old existing guaranteed entitlement revenue bonds came to us through the financial advisor a few weeks ago. We have Mr. Howard Braun from Raymond James and Associates today representing the county's financial advisor who's going to tell you the mechanics and the specifics of this proposed refunding. Staff is recommending to you today that we proceed with the steps that Mr. Braun is going to outline for you now. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. HcNees, are any of the parameters of this refunding any different than what we've done in the past? Is there something unique or special about this? MR. HCNEES: Well, there are a couple things that make it unique but nothing outside of our prior parameters. It would be what -- what he'll explain to you as the bank qualified financing. The only other thing that's different from what we have done in the past -- we're looking at taking cash up front as opposed to annual debt service savings. As a rule, we -- we don't do that, or we haven't recently in this case because it's a relatively small amount of money. Secondly, that cash would benefit a capital project in the general fund. And the general fund headed where it is this year, we feel like 150 to $175,000 cash would be a good bonus for us. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: And -- and this meets our policy of trying to achieve a 5 percent net present value savings? MR. HCNEES: Yes, ma'am. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: If there aren't any questions -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Just say yes. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Just say yes. I'll make a motion to approve. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Motion and a second. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. Those opposed? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I thank the representative from Raymond James for his presentation. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Excellent presentation. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well worth the wait. Item #8E3 TOURIST DEVELOPMENT GRANT, CATEGORY C, TO THE NAPLES AREA ACCOHMODATIONS ASSOCIATION TO HOST A SUPERFAM FOR TRAVEL PROFESSIONALS - APPROVED CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: We'll move on to 8(E)(3). MR. HCNEES: Thank you. COHMISSlONER HANCOCK: 8(E)(3) and 8(E)(4) are both requests from category C for two different types of events. So rather than doing two presentations, it might help if you combine them a little bit. Just identify -- identify them and so forth. I'm sorry. Go ahead, Miss Gansel. I was just -- MS. GANSEL: If you would just like the applicants to -- to respond to their request, that would be fine. I just, you know, want to identify that there are sufficient funds in category C that are available for the request that we've received and that the Tourist Development Council unanimously recommended funding for both of these events. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: And, if I may, if these are both approved, what funds remain in category C for this fiscal year? MS. GANSEL: Okay. At the current time after this morning's approval, we have 329,000. It's approximately 200,000. So about 129,000 would be available in category C without the -- but we -- we still have 950,000 that's available in that reserve for economic disaster advertising. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. MS. GANSEL: So there's about 130,000 if these are approved in addition to the economic disaster. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Thank you. MR. GUNDERSON: Hello. My name is Jim Gunderson, and I'm the president of the Naples Area Accommodations Association. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Could you pull that microphone up just a little? MR. GUNDERSON: I'm sorry. I also have a little bit of a cold so -- the -- I'm here to answer any questions you may have about -- about the Superfam event. We hope to have this event come off at the end of -- end of April to the first part of May. We, as the hotel association, are the sponsors of this event; however, we -- we have also closely involved the Chamber of Commerce, the Naples Area Attractions Association, as well as the Naples Area Restaurant Association. We believe that it's a -- that it's -- the return on the investment for this event is -- is significant, and -- and we -- we are very hopeful that -- that you'll endorse it today. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Mr. Gunderson, the idea of this is that we're hosting a familiarization trip for 200 of the top-rated travel agencies -- MR. GUNDERSON: Right. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: -- around the country; is that correct? MR. GUNDERSON: What it -- what it -- what the Superfam is, is a -- is a hosted event, and we hope to attract approximately 150 tour operators, wholesale agents, and -- and travel agents that have been identified and -- and prequalified to bring business to our -- to your area. Many of them we have worked with in the past. Many of them we would like to work with in the future. The -- we estimate that the return on this will be approximately 12,500 room nights, and that's a conservative estimate based on -- roughly about a 10 percent increase and what we already do in that -- in those segments as an -- as an industry here in -- in -- in the Naples area. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Commissioner Constantine. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Does this target specific properties or it just promotes the area in general? MR. GUNDERSON: It -- it's -- the -- it -- it targets sort of all of the properties. The idea of the -- of the -- of the Superfam is just that. It will give both -- not only the beachfront properties, but also the corridor properties along Highway 41 or -- or the Bath and Tennis or -- or, you know, every -- every member property of -- of our association will be allowed to participate. That's what we believe is the -- you know, is the terrific thing about it. We along the beachfront have -- do a lot of these types of events throughout the year, and they work tremendously well. As an association, we felt that it was important to expand that, and -- and we -- we firmly believe that the results from -- from the Superfam will be -- will be -- will be significant. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: One of the things we've tried to do is keep the funds to promote the off season, and I assume that's part of the reason for the timing on this, but how specifically does this promote the summer months or the spring, fall, summer months? MR. GUNDERSON: Well, the people that are being targeted -- and, again, pre -- they are all prequalified -- have the -- bring business here at that time of the year, the off-season and shoulder-season months. It will -- It will involve travel agents and tour operators within the State of Florida as well as throughout the southeast, Georgia, the Carolinas, a fair amount of international people bringing business to us from the U.K. and from Germany. We hope to involve some of the South American tour operators. So -- and -- and the majority of that business tends to fall in the off-season and shoulder-season months. Rates are lower, things of that sort, as well as the timing of -- of holidays and breaks and climatic and things of that sort. And -- and so that's -- that's who the event is geared -- geared towards. We're not looking -- we're not looking to -- to bring people from New England, you know, the travel agents out of New England and things. My hotel is full. I don't -- I don't need business right -- you know, right this -- today. I need business in July, and -- and that's what -- that's what we're working towards. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Commissioner Hancock. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I had the pleasure, along with you gentlemen, of going to Florida Encounter which is the second item we'll talk about, and I was very, very impressed with what that can do for an area and how it was handled in Hiami, and I understand that fully. My concern in the Superfam -- and I expressed it to you on that trip -- is that my background in college was working in the hospitality industry, and every time we had a fam, the tour operator didn't come. They sent an underling or a front office person, and it was -- it was, you know, party time for that person, and I wasn't really convinced that it had a big sell because of the people that attended. How are the operators being selected, and how can we ensure that the decision-makers are here, not the front office people that don't make the decisions on how to market? How can we be assured of that? Because, if so, then it falls pretty much in the same areas of the Naples Institute in -- in an off-season promotion way. If it doesn't, then it -- it becomes just an event, and I'm concerned about that. MR. GUNDERSON: Again, the -- the -- the people that are coming are going to be prequalified. There are -- they're -- we hope to be our business partners. I can assure you that -- that -- that we are all in -- in business and the -- we're -- you know, I -- I must say that we just simply won't let that happen. People -- they have -- The folks that will be coming have as much of an interest in experiencing and working with us as we would with them. I -- I -- I -- I don't deny that that's probably happened in the past. Again, individuals will be invited. If they can't be invited or if they can't attend, then it's up to us to -- the individual properties and our association to invite someone in their -- in their place, not that they can say, well, I'm going to send -- I'm going to send my secretary or my son, send someone from my office -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I went to a Superfam as a bellman. That's the reason I'm asking. I had no impact whatsoever on the tourism industry other than checking people's bags in, but I went to Superfams, and that -- that's my concern, is that we -- you know. MR. GUNDERSON: Yeah. I mean, I understand your concern. I believe that -- I believe that would be successful. I know that we finished -- we just hosted our own crest familiarization trip at -- at our resort and -- approximately a month ago involving 12 -- 12 crest riders from around -- around the country, and I can assure you, they all -- you know, they all attended, and they were there for -- for -- you know, for the purpose of business, and I believe that people will be invited and will attend for the purpose of -- of doing exactly what the -- what the event is designed to do. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Commissioner Matthews. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Yeah. I -- I -- I -- I think I'm beginning to get the answer to my question. My question is essentially, the category B funds have historically been used for fam trips, and -- and I'm just wondering how this is so very different from what would ordinarily be funded from category B. MR. GUNDERSON: Well, this is a -- the overall Superfam -- it's -- the -- the size and the scale of it I -- I think are -- are -- are -- are quite paramount to that. The -- to my knowledge, nothing quite like this has been organized. There are things like the Florida Encounter which you'll hear in just a moment but -- but for -- for an event such as this, we feel that it really qualifies as an -- as an event, and it does meet the criteria that -- that have -- that has been established for -- for -- for category C event funding. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I -- I share Commissioner Hancock's concern, though, that -- that fam trips are often used in the travel industry as -- as perks for employees. MR. GUNDERSON: I -- I understand your concern and the -- and, again, I wouldn't suggest that that never happens, but I can -- I can assure you that -- that -- that I as a -- as a hotelier, if I -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm going to assume if fam trips weren't successful, the hospitality industry -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- would have dumped them. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- wouldn't keep using them, and you all know -- MR. GUNDERSON: Right. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- your business and -- MR. GUNDERSON: Right. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- and if they work, then you should do them. And if they don't work, you probably wouldn't want to go and stopped. MR. GUNDERSON: Right. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. MR. GUNDERSON: You're correct. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Is that a motion to approve? COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll make a motion that we approve the item. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Motion and a second. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. Opposed? Item #8E4 TOURIST DEVELOPMENT GRANT, CATEGORY C, TO THE NAPLES AREA ACCOMHODATIONS ASSOCIATION TO HOST EVENTS DURING FLORIDA ENCOUNTER SHOWCASING EVERY GEOGRAPHIC REGION OF COLLIER COUNTY - APPROVED Being none, we'll move to the next item. Another Tourist -- TDC item. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I think I can save you some time here. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I just need, like, a 30-second synopsis because I'm not familiar with that event. I read through our little packet, but it still doesn't have some of the details. I don't oppose it at all. I'm just curious. MR. SULLIVAN: Certainly. I'm Dan Sullivan. I represent the Naples Area Attraction Association. The Florida Encounter is an event directed by the Florida Division of Tourism that brings in prequalified corporate meeting planners for the most part who have in the past had groups come to Florida and already have in hand groups that they're wanting to book in Florida for the upcoming year. And that's -- and answering Commissioner Hancock's question before, you don't get to come to this unless you are a meeting planner or the president of your company. You just -- COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: And that's why I was much more sold on Florida Encounter, is I went to the one in the Miami just to take a look at it and see how it was run, and you're talking the lead meeting planners from everywhere were at this thing, and they're -- it's very tightly regulated by the state, and I'll make a motion to approve. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: Second. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Motion and a second. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. Opposed? Item #8E6 FUNDING OF $1,344,310 FOR BEACH MAINTENANCE AND INLET MANAGEMENT PROJECTS FROM CATEGORY A, TOURIST DEVELOPMENT FUNDS - APPROVED We've already done 8(E)(5), so we'll go to 8(E)(6). HS. GANSEL: Okay. Item 8(E)(6) identified six projects that are requesting TDC funds from category A. These projects have all been reviewed by the beach -- City/County Beach Renourishment Committee and the Tourist Development Council. Both groups are recommending funding. I have identified on the executive summary the vote of the individual projects, and there was one that did not receive unanimous approval. It was a five-one vote, though, so they were all favorable for -- for funding. Would you like to go through each project? COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: These look like kind of ordinary MS. GANSEL: Yes. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: -- category A projects that we've funded before. I've got one question if you don't mind. What was the reason the -- the one person voted against project F? MS. GANSEL: This was to be consistent with -- in -- in the past it was Mr. Kobza who voted against it, and last year if you remember when we came forward with category A funding, the Tourist Development Council had not recommended that the OCPH fees be included. The board had recommended that they -- they approve them. He was voting to be consistent with their other recommendation. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: But we decided last year that if OCPH didn't do it, some outside firm would have to do it -- MS. GANSEL: Exactly. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: -- and we'd pay them -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We were doing the work in-house. MS. GANSEL: Right. Right. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: If there's not any other questions, I'll make a motion to approve the -- the item. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll second -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- the motion. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Third. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I -- I'm sorry. I need to put this on the record. This comes out of category A reserves. Is that because all category A funds collected go into one pot and that is a reserve pot until they're expended? MS. GANSEL: Until they're -- until they're allocated into a project, yes. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. I wanted to make sure we weren't dipping into something. Okay. MS. GANSEL: No. No. No. No. COHHISSIONER HANCOCK: That clarifies it for me. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Reserves. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I see reserves and I get nervous. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: We have a motion and a second to approve. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. And opposed? Item #10A, #10B, & #10C BAY DAYS - ALLOCATE $2,000 TO HELP FUND THE EXPENSE OF PUTTING ON THIS EVENT - COUNTY TO DONATE UP TO $2,000 IN-KIND AS TIPPING FEES. SUPPORT AND PARTICIPATION OF THE APPROPRIATE COUNTY STAFF PERSONNEL FROM STORMWATER MANAGEMENT, SOLID WASTE, AND ENVIRONMENTAL DEPARTMENTS - APPROVED. COUNTY COHMISSION SUPPORT OF THE BAY DAYS EVENT - APPROVED Being none, we'll go to item 10, Board of County Commissioners. We have three Bay Days items. Do we need to take these separately, or do we take them one at a time? MR. WEIGEL: It's your pleasure, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Why don't -- they're -- they're all similar. If somebody objects to it, we can have separate motions, but why don't we take them all three and see if we can get through with one motion. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Again, this is something we've done in years past. This is no different than -- than anything. I don't have any questions or concerns. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I don't have any questions. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I do, and I don't remember us allocating funds to help -- I don't have any difficulty in appropriating staff personnel to help out and so on, but we have not -- Commissioner Hancock, as you indicated, we have done -- done this in the past, and I don't recall us ever allocating funds specifically to go toward it. That's why it's differentiated for me. MR. WESTON: In 1989 or -- Oh, David Weston, for the record, Golden Gate Estates. In 1989 or '90 I was not chairman of this event at that time, but I understand that the Collier County allocated $5,000 in cash. That's when the bay management organization which was a city/county cooperative organization really spawned Bay Days, if you will, as being the primary public relations arm of that movement to maintain it. So it has been cash. It has been in-kind. It has been collecting the garbage tipping fees out there, a variety. It's changed from commission to commission and from year to year. The event itself is -- So there is precedence in cash -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, in the past -- MR. WESTON: -- but it has perished. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- past six years since that time, Bay Days has still gone on, and we haven't contributed any cash. We have contributed a great deal of help I know, but we haven't contributed any cash in those six years. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I thought there was cash last year, $1,500. MR. WESTON: When I went back and tried to verify cash, I think the cash was paid in tipping fees, not directly to us, and that we -- MR. DORRILL: That's correct. MR. WESTON: -- turned around and paid it. So, I mean, I can't say that I received a check and wrote a check myself. So it has been -- last year that is the case. I'm familiar with that. As the years go back, I get foggier and foggier. The -- I should point out that the event also has grown enormously. It is now encompassing five sites that used to be just in the bay, and so our -- our function was pretty limited, and we were able to do it. Now we encompass all coastal regions of Collier County and the cost of putting it on has grown along with that and so -- and this year is my first year doing this. This year I've decided to formalize it a little bit and try to create some -- something that my successors will follow onto and to set up a program where we do have the funding set in terms of cash and staff and support because the city does it, chamber, Marine Industries Association. We are also soliciting funds from the business community, and I did provide a budget, and you can see that it's grown to quite a -- quite a big event, and I don't know that we can -- can pull it off the way it needs to be pulled off, just with waiving of certain fees and maybe some photocopying though. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: If -- if -- if -- COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I -- I -- I -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Go ahead. I was going to say I appreciate that, but it's not an item that was budgeted. And -- and during the past three years, we've gone through a process with social issues as far as expenditures on things such as shelter for abused women and other things where we phased those out, and I -- it just seems to me as we prioritize things, those are a higher priority than this, and yet they didn't make the cut on the budget, so I'm hard pressed to six months later say, gee, I know it wasn't budgeted, but we'll just throw this in. I -- I just -- it's not -- it has nothing to do with, gee, is this a good event or not -- MR. WESTON: I understand that. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- but when we're trying to prioritize budget dollars and think back to things that didn't make the budget and the reasons why, then I'm not sure this is a higher priority. MR. WESTON: Perhaps that was an oversight by staff who, you know, mentions it in the Growth Management Plan permanently as being a 9J-5 satis -- satisfying 9J-5 requirements for the Growth Management Plan on the storm water management public relations. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: My question is, if -- if in the past the requests have been, like, for waiving tipping fees and about $1,500 worth, if we could be assured that this is how much the county is going to be asked to spend and you're not going to also ask for the tipping fees to be waived or some -- if we could cap this as a maximum amount -- Mr. Dorrill, do you have a suggestion? MR. WESTON: Yeah. We'd take it in in-kind or cash. It doesn't have -- whatever. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Understood. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What's the funding source proposed? MR. DORRILL: We -- we typically see these throughout the year. We do not budget for them. They typically manifest themselves in a community cleanup event, and I know we've had them for Golden Gate City, Naples Manor. We're within two weeks of having one for Immokalee. COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: For Immokalee. MR. DORRILL: In the -- the bay management cleanup, you -- you step up to pay the cost of the tipping fees only. I wouldn't recommend giving cash to anybody for anything. There's an agreement with waste management. They donate the dumpsters, and they incur the transport cost as a private in-kind, and the extent to which commissioners participate is to pay $20 a ton for each and every ton of material or whatever the appropriate tipping fee is for the type of material involved. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I -- I'd be satisfied and I hear from Mr. Weston that the group would be satisfied with that as an in-kind contribution as opposed to in cash, a waiver of the tipping fees. MR. WESTON: Yeah. We're -- we're not trying to -- we're not in the cash-collecting mode. We're just trying to not have to fabricate costs. MR. DORRILL: That's fine and that's -- it's just we don't specifically budget for those because we don't know who's going to have one this year, and they're usually brought to us like this, and that would be my recommendation to you. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: So in -- in -- would we be looking at up to $2,000 in tipping fees? CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: In-kind. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: In-kind -- COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: In-kind. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- in tipping fees. My question is, did the City of Naples allocate any funds or in-kind fees for this. MR. WESTON: They have -- they're the same way. We're going to them next. We're going to find out exactly what they do. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Golly, gee whiz. I think they'd be interested in the Naples Bay situation. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, it's not just the bay. MR. WESTON: Oh, yeah. They -- I'm -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I understand. MR. WESTON: I'm sure that there should be a strong argument for them to participate heavily. But we're also, as I told you, not confining ourselves just to Naples Bay as we used to. In fact, that's only 20 percent of our effort now. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I move approval of the first item with the allocation of $2,000 to be a maximum waiver of tipping fees, an in-kind contribution in that manner. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'll second that. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I have a question -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So that's up to $2,000? COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Up to $2,000 in tipping fees waived. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I have a question before we get much -- much further on this. Mr. Weston, in looking at your budget of almost $15,000, I don't see anything in your budget for paying tipping fees. MR. WESTON: Actually, that's true. I had not -- that was -- had never come to my attention. I thought that was always picked up and it was separate from that. I did not incorporate that. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Okay. So -- so the -- the motion that's on the floor does not affect this budget at all? MR. WESTON: It doesn't affect this budget, but it affects reality. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Oh, yes. Absolutely. MR. WESTON: Yeah. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Absolutely. I -- I just want to make sure that we all understand that the motion has been made -- MR. WESTON: Right. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: -- does not -- MR. WESTON: I'm going to have to come up with -- COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: -- address your budget questions. MR. WESTON: -- other sources to cover these. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: This isn't like a public hearing or land use item where we can't combine them. Is there any objection to amending the motion to also include support and participation of the appropriate county staff personnel from the departments listed here? COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I will amend my motion to include items B and C. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second amends. Second amends. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And what exactly does C mean other than we're just saying we support it? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Proclamation. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: We have a motion and a second to approve all three items with the stipulation that we will donate as the county up to $2,000 in-kind as tipping fees. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. Opposed? Being none, we will move on to item 10(D). Item #10D GENE VACARRO REQUESTING WAIVER OF PERMIT FEES FOR TEMPORARY SIGNS - APPROVED COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Yeah. 10(D) -- I was contacted earlier this week by Mr. Vacarro at the Swamp Buggy Races, and he would like us to approve the waiving of $150 bulk sign fee. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Shall we call Mr. Vacarro on the carpet to justify this? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I think we should grill him mercilessly on this. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I'd like to make a motion we approve. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Dorrill, when we waive this, do we have to make this money up from somewhere? From where do we make it up? MR. DORRILL: This thing -- it comes from the general fund contingencies because we don't have the ability to -- to waive this type, and I just need to advise you that -- that you're apt to hear from Special Olympics and the Naples Auto Restoration and Vintage Car Club and the Greek Festival because these types of signs to my understanding -- or when somebody's having anything from a craft show -- and you've all driven up and down Airport Road or other and seen little paper signs directing people to this Saturday's event. That's the nature of this request and -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: In fairness, we already have done this for Special Olympics once. So I -- I think precedence would set, and we can -- MR. DORRILL: My understanding is -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll make a motion we approve the item. MR. DORRILL: -- this is for directional-type signs, and we'll -- COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I already made a motion. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I already seconded it. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Oh, I'm sorry. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: We need a third vote, though. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, I certainly rescind my COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: We need a third vote. Certainly. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Motion and a second. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. Opposed? Being none -- do we have public comment today? MR. DORRILL: No, sir. Item #14 BOARD OF COUNTY COHMISSIONERS' COHMUNICATIONS COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I bet we have board communication. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: I bet we have board communication. How about if we go to Commissioner Matthews. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I have just one item, a quick question to Mr. Dotrill on the Immokalee cleanup proposed in the middle of March. Are we going to be getting an item before the board to handle their tipping fees and so forth, or is that being done administratively? MR. DORRILL: No. It -- it -- any and all of those need to come to the board. I saw some correspondence between Barbara Cacchione, I believe, and someone maybe with the chamber over there, and that event is pending additional volunteers to make sure they can pull it off. And after they have recruited some volunteers, then you're going to see that again in early March. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Okay. Look forward to it. That's all. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: No, sir. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Commissioner Constantine, do you have anything? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah. Just a clarification. I missed the workshop when I was on my honeymoon that you all had, and I understand we're not going to regularly schedule workshops every fifth Tuesday now. I assume that's going to become individual workdays in lieu of putting another meeting back in that we haven't had for the last couple of years. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: My preference would be to continue to have county commission meetings. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I guess if we haven't had the necessity for them on the fifth Tuesday, I'm not sure what the necessity is now. And that would do two things, allow individual workdays, but also in the event that we have issues come up -- and while we may not have that happen five times a year or four times a year, we may have a couple of times a year, and that would be the most appropriate time we could look ahead and see ever more than three months away that we have that fifth Tuesday, and I wonder if -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I like leaving that flexibility in place. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just leave that open? COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Yeah. I like that too because I -- I have found -- found the workshops, while -- while they haven't always been productive over the last two and a half years -- but I have found them good for informally receiving information that aids us in the -- in the upcoming months, and I too would like to keep the flexibility there. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: I have nothing further so -- Commissioner Mac'Kie, do you have anything? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I actually do have one. It's -- It's a simple -- I have two issues that I want to talk about. One is just a discussion of policy. My -- my question is, is it the board's purview or is it the manager's purview to decide whether or not to request that the employees waive that million dollars of overtime? MR. DORRILL: Well, I think obviously based on the fact that we're in it -- we received a proposal from the employees that are not part of the class action. The factual -- also we have approximately 100 paramedics and EHTs. Originally the -- the class action lawsuit was brought by ten. Two of the ten, the original ten have dropped out -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Okay. MR. DORRILL: -- and we're now dealing with eight individuals as part of the class. Prior to that, I received a petition by the employees -- the other employees, these 90-plus employees if we could enter into some discussions of an administrative nature in an effort to solve the -- the overriding issue, not necessarily just the lawsuit. So the initiating request came from the employees and their own elected representatives within the EHS department. I was under strict caution by our labor attorney to only listen and then refer this to other administrative people on my staff as -- or in the event that anything aggrieved, I ultimately have to hear the grievance. So while I did attend an initial meeting and heard the presentation, the balance of the work has been under the direction of the elected EHS employee representatives and members of Mr. Ochs's staff to include Ms. Flagg, Ms. Edwards, for a brief period of time Mr. Hargett prior to his leaving to go to Pompano Beach. And that's essentially where we are to date. I can tell you that it is my knowledge directly that no one was or will be coerced in any way. This -- and we have said repeatedly this was an initiative that was brought by the other employees. I have reason to believe that at least some of the recent phone calls are coming from firefighters and not employees of yours. But if you receive anonymous calls, that you should ask that individual for their name to determine or ascertain whether those are bogus calls or whether those are valid calls with concerns from people who do work for you because we have reason to believe that you may be receiving calls from firemen in independent fire districts who are not party or associated with this in any way at all. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Excuse my ignorance, but why would they have an interest in this? MR. DORRILL: Long-standing disputes between firemen and the type of work week that they work which is identical to the type of work week that traditional EHS organizations have. They work 24 on and 48 off And the rationale being that in this case we're only dealing with paramedics and EHTs in terms of their being eligible for overtime. Thus far firefighters have not been found to be eligible for up to an additional 13 hours of overtime every week that they work. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: It sounds to me like the good news here is that you've had employees come to you and say we'd like to propose waiving this, and -- and that's a whole lot different from what the gossip is. So hopefully this will help put some of that to rest. My only other question is I had asked -- I didn't speak with you, Mr. Weigel, but I spoke with Mr. Hanalich about the possibility of drafting an exemption in agriculturally zoned properties for indigenous peoples, an exemption from building codes, and it has to do with getting the -- the Seminole question resolved without our having to be in their business, and I just wondered what the status of that might be. MR. WEIGEL: Okay. Well, we have several -- several thoughts. We've been researching that and many related issues on that, and I'll let Ramiro respond. I may have a couple kind of rejoinder comments as we finish up exactly to your question. MR. HANALICH: Good morning, Commissioners. In response to your question, right now there seems to be, that I've identified, a legal impediment to that exemption which is the state-mandated minimum building codes that we are required to apply throughout the county. Now, we have not found yet any way around that. We've spoken to the attorney for the Department of Community Affairs which is charged with interpreting and applying that section of the statutes, and they pretty much agreed with the exception. They suggested, well, perhaps there could be an owner/builder or a preexisting nonconforming use type of exception, but I'm not sure that would accomplish what is being requested here by the other side. Right now as things stand we have not identified any presently existing national, state, or local authority to exempt the Seminoles. The local exemption request has been made. The building code seems to be the single biggest impediment. Harjie indicates from a zoning aspect, conceivably it could be done subject to potential equal protection and DCA comp plan challenge. MS. STUDENT: Yeah. If -- if I may just for a second, I had talked to Bob Hulhere about this, and I feel that we could -- we have to do a comp plan amendment because they're located in the ag district, and the present density in the ag district is one unit per five acres, and so it would require a comp plan amendment which we can't do until after our EAR is found sufficient, and, of course, that would have DCA scrutiny, and that would have to pass before we could do any LDC regulation. And the other problem might be -- might be remote but still might be an equal protection challenge which would -- the Court would look at with strict scrutiny. So those would be my concerns from the zoning. MR. HANALICH: The only other thing I would add is on the building code issue -- I mean, the way we read the law, we have to apply these codes, and we don't find an exception. Conceivably you could ask for an Attorney General opinion on that. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: That's something -- I -- I just would like -- and this, again, is just one out of five votes, but I'd like to ask you to pursue that because I only see two opportunities here. One is what lawyers like to refer to as prosecutorial discretion which is -- we don't prosecute every case that comes to our attention, and perhaps this is one where we might exercise some prosecutorial discretion, Mr. Weigel. And, otherwise, if it's possible to -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Also referred to as selective enforcement. COHHISSIONER HAC'KIE: I like prosecutorial discretion. The other one is, if it is possible, to get an AGO to say that we don't have to enforce the building code in this particular case. I just would like to stay out of their business to the extent possible. MR. HANALICH: I can tell you, Commissioner, on the prosecutorial discretion aspect, I know the code enforcement director expressed a great deal of discomfort with that as far as her policy and being able to implement that on a case -- for cases in the future, you know, without -- her preference would be that there would be a legally viable mechanism identified if there is one. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Let me see if I understand, Mr. Hanalich. The request seems to be to exempt a certain group of people from county building codes, county ordinances based solely on issues of race or ethnicity; is that correct? MR. HANALICH: Essentially you're correct. Basically based on -- CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: How can we do that? I thought discrimination was a thing of the past. MR. HANALICH: Well, you would have -- you would be subject to -- if you did attempt to craft such an exception, in my opinion it would be subject to what the courts call a strict scrutiny analysis. That is the highest level of scrutiny, and it would require that the local government show a compelling governmental reason for creating this classification based on race or national origin. Now -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And it would require that argument be made if someone brought a lawsuit challenging the ordinance in the first place. So assuming there aren't people out there who would object to this exception, we might not have to defend that in court. I think we could make that compelling governmental -- CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Well, the problem -- the problem with that is that I can't choose to go out on agricultural land and live in a chickee hut because of my race, and I don't think that's fair. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Well, I think you should be able to do that if you are indigenous -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, what about -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: -- and you were here before the law. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: What about Toch Brown? Should he be allowed to go poach alligators because he was doing it before the laws were enacted? I mean, there -- there's a limit here, and for us to say that heritage alone exempts you from local laws or codes may be a popular thing to do with CNN, but it's not the right thing to do. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I think it is the right thing to do. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, like you said, you're one out of five. MR. HANALICH: I think it would be -- it would be a matter subject to litigation. It is -- I would say it is conceivable that it could be said that you would have a compelling governmental interest insofar as the unique place of native Americans and American history, but that would require the courts to pass on that obviously. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Just requesting status on the research. That sounds like it's not going the way I had hoped so -- Item #15 STAFF'S COHMUNICATIONS CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Hr. Dorrill, do you have anything else? MR. DORRILL: Just -- just briefly. I would like to keep you advised of these sorts of things. John Jones experienced a fairly serious heart attack last Friday; however, he has been stabilized and is in good spirits and will be flown to Southwest Regional tomorrow and undergo a single bypass and then back and recuperating. He does not appear to have any permanent sort of problems, but he is a very hard working, very diligent department director, and if you get a chance, you may want to send him a card. He'll be transferred back to Naples apparently tomorrow evening. He is there today and will be flown up there tomorrow for a bypass. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Hiss Filson -- CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Mr. Weigel. MR. WEIGEL: Yes. Just as a final follow-up in regard to the exemption Seminole issue, and that is, as Mr. Hanalich indicated, we have done extensive research and think we understand how the state law applies to us locally and would limit, in fact, our ability to successfully craft an exemption ordinance locally. At the same time, we could afford ourselves the opportunity for an Attorney General opinion if you so directed which would, one might say, answer the question from the state as to whether the state law absolutely applies to us locally and -- and preempts our right to even attempt to craft an ordinance along that line. But, otherwise, we -- of our own research -- and have invited the research of counsel for Indians and interest groups for Indians to provide us anything that would lead us to a different conclusion, and we have found none yet at the present time. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Weigel, may I see you in my office after this meeting? MR. WEIGEL: Yes, you may. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: What kind of direction -- are you -- I think he's asking for direction of shall he seek an AGO on this issue. MR. WEIGEL: Without direction we won't do that. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: My vote is yes. MR. WEIGEL: We won't do that unless we're directed by the board to do so, quite frankly. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Adjourn? MR. WEIGEL: I -- I had another comment. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Oh, okay. MR. WEIGEL: I was just responding to that -- but just to state that the county has received a petition from Gordon Losher requesting to be heard under public petitions before the Board of County Commissioners, and it's very related to and, in fact, clearly not distinguishable from a complaint that's been filed by the same Gordon Losher against Collier County concerning the Breakwater project, the beach renourishment down south of Caxambas Pass south of Marco Island. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: It sounds like it would be inappropriate to hear. MR. WEIGEL: I would recommend to the board that-- and for the manager not to schedule the public petition by virtue of the fact that the lawsuit was filed first. We were served this morning on that lawsuit, and I wanted to bring that to your attention and any direction that may come from that. Also -- CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Anyone disagree with that? MR. DORRILL: I'll consider that done unless you tell me otherwise. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: That sounds fine. MR. WEIGEL: Next week as advertised at public hearing will be the awaited water and wastewater utility ordinance advertised and part and parcel of the package for the county to take back jurisdiction from the PSC for those utilities that it may lawfully do so. A part of that package would be the resolution which would be appropriate rescinding the resolution of 1985 that conferred jurisdiction to the PSC in the first place. The ordinance itself is 43 pages, and that will -- that will appear in the agenda book. The rules and regulations that go along with the ordinance are 111 pages, and I would suggest that the executive summary or whatever documents we provide with the agenda will state that, because of its bulk, it won't be placed physically within the published agenda but that copies will be available in the Board of County Commissioner's office, the manager's office, the clerk -- the clerk to the board at the minutes office on the fifth floor, and the county attorney office so that there will be adequate ability for any interested public to review these things before they're heard or at least scheduled for next week's agenda item. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Thank you. One -- one final note, Mr. Dotrill, and you might alert facilities management to the fact that our clock is now on Pensacola time, and we would prefer to have local Naples time, and we're adjourned. ***** Commissioner Hancock moved, seconded by Commissioner Constantine, and carried unanimously, that the following items under the consent agenda be approved and/or adopted: Item #16Ala RESOLUTION 96-70 PROVIDING FOR ASSESSMENT OF LIEN RE ABATEMENT OF A PUBLIC NUISANCE FOR CODE ENFORCEMENT CASE NO. 50515-026; OWNER OF RECORD - H N H VENTURES See Pages Item #16Alb RESOLUTION 96-71 PROVIDING FOR ASSESSMENT OF LIEN RE ABATEMENT OF A PUBLIC NUISANCE FOR CODE ENFORCEMENT CASE NO. 50717-018; OWNER OF RECORD - MARLENE EGUIZABAL See Pages Item #16Alc RESOLUTION 96-72 PROVIDING FOR ASSESSMENT OF LIEN RE ABATEMENT OF A PUBLIC NUISANCE FOR CODE ENFORCEMENT CASE NO. 50718-093; OWNER OF RECORD - MAURICE TREMBLAY See Pages Item #16Ald RESOLUTION 96-73 PROVIDING FOR ASSESSMENT OF LIEN RE ABATEMENT OF A PUBLIC NUISANCE FOR CODE ENFORCEMENT CASE NO. 50724-020; OWNER OF RECORD - STEWART HEEHAN, ET UX See Pages Item #16Ale RESOLUTION 96-74 PROVIDING FOR ASSESSMENT OF LIEN RE ABATEMENT OF A PUBLIC NUISANCE FOR CODE ENFORCEMENT CASE NO. 50724-110; OWNER OF RECORD - JOSEPH CLEHENTE AND ROSE CLEHENTE See Pages Item #16Alf RESOLUTION 96-75 PROVIDING FOR ASSESSMENT OF LIEN RE ABATEMENT OF A PUBLIC NUISANCE FOR CODE ENFORCEMENT CASE NO. 50725-035; OWNER OF RECORD - CARL P. HELLSTROH AND SANDRA G. HELLSTROH See Pages Item #16Alg RESOLUTION 96-76 PROVIDING FOR ASSESSMENT OF LIEN RE ABATEMENT OF A PUBLIC NUISANCE FOR CODE ENFORCEMENT CASE NO. 50727-024; OWNER OF RECORD - JAMES J. BRODERICK, ROSE MARIE BRODERICK See Pages Item #16Alh RESOLUTION 96-77 PROVIDING FOR ASSESSMENT OF LIEN RE ABATEMENT OF A PUBLIC NUISANCE FOR CODE ENFORCEMENT CASE NO. 50727-044; OWNER OF RECORD - SUSAN DOWNS, MARION TUZZOLO See Pages Item #16Ali RESOLUTION 96-78 PROVIDING FOR ASSESSMENT OF LIEN RE ABATEMENT OF A PUBLIC NUISANCE FOR CODE ENFORCEMENT CASE NO. 50731-018; OWNER OF RECORD - CATHERINE A. STIHNLAN See Pages Item #16Alj RESOLUTION 96-79 PROVIDING FOR ASSESSMENT OF LIEN RE ABATEMENT OF A PUBLIC NUISANCE FOR CODE ENFORCEMENT CASE NO. 50809-072; OWNER OF RECORD - PERLA DIAZ See Pages Item #16Alk RESOLUTION 96-80 PROVIDING FOR ASSESSMENT OF LIEN RE ABATEHENT OF A PUBLIC NUISANCE FOR CODE ENFORCEMENT CASE NO. 50815-028; OWNER OF RECORD - LLOYD G. SHEENAN, TR. See Pages Item #16All RESOLUTION 96-81 PROVIDING FOR ASSESSMENT OF LIEN RE ABATEMENT OF A PUBLIC NUISANCE FOR CODE ENFORCEMENT CASE NO. 50907-029; OWNER OF RECORD - SUSAN D. PROCTOR See Pages Item #16Alm RESOLUTION 96-82 PROVIDING FOR ASSESSMENT OF LIEN RE ABATEMENT OF A PUBLIC NUISANCE FOR CODE ENFORCEMENT CASE NO. 50908-069; OWNER OF RECORD - DONALD P. DEGROOT AND PATRICIA H. DEGROOT See Pages Item #16Aln RESOLUTION 96-83 PROVIDING FOR ASSESSMENT OF LIEN RE ABATEMENT OF A PUBLIC NUISANCE FOR CODE ENFORCEMENT CASE NO. 50908-071; OWNER OF RECORD - PATRICK S. VIGUIE, HARTINE VIGUIE See Pages Item #16Alo RESOLUTION 96-84 PROVIDING FOR ASSESSMENT OF LIEN RE ABATEMENT OF A PUBLIC NUISANCE FOR CODE ENFORCEMENT CASE NO. 50914-056; OWNER OF RECORD - HARIO G. DIACRI AND DONNA DIACRI See Pages Item #16Alp RESOLUTION 96-85 PROVIDING FOR ASSESSMENT OF LIEN RE ABATEMENT OF A PUBLIC NUISANCE FOR CODE ENFORCEMENT CASE NO. 50921-028; OWNER OF RECORD - ANTONIA CHUNHA AND FERNANDA CUNHA See Pages Item #16Alq RESOLUTION 96-86 PROVIDING FOR ASSESSMENT OF LIEN RE ABATEMENT OF A PUBLIC NUISANCE FOR CODE ENFORCEMENT CASE NO. 50921-051; OWNER OF - ANGEL BLANCO III See Pages Item #16Alr RESOLUTION 96-87 PROVIDING FOR ASSESSMENT OF LIEN RE ABATEMENT OF A PUBLIC NUISANCE FOR CODE ENFORCEHENT CASE NO. 50927-087; OWNER OF RECORD - TOMAS A. RODRIGUEZ AND HAYDEE O. RODRIGUEZ See Pages Item #16Als RESOLUTION 96-88 PROVIDING FOR ASSESSMENT OF LIEN RE ABATEMENT OF A PUBLIC NUISANCE FOR CODE ENFORCEMENT CASE NO. 50927-090; OWNER OF RECORD - LUIS F. RODRIGUEZ AND VIVIAN C. RODRIGUEZ See Pages Item #16A2 SATISFACTION OF LIEN FOR PUBLIC NUISANCE RESOLUTION 93-606 (DALE H. STEINBERT, ET UX) See Pages Item #16A3 SATISFACTION OF LIEN FOR PUBLIC NUISANCE RESOLUTION 94-637 (WILLAIM FOTRE, JR. AND SUZANNE H. FOTRE) See Pages Item #16A4 BUDGET AMENDMENT RECOGNIZING POSITIVE CARRY FORWARD VARIANCE IN THE POLLUTION CONTROL FUND (114) Item #16A5 FINAL PLAT OF "HONTCLAIR PARK VILLAS" - WITH STIPULATIONS AND CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT See Pages Item #16A6 FINAL PLAT OF "CLIPPER COVE" - WITH STIPULATIONS AND MAINTENANCE AND ESCROW AGREEMENT See Pages Item #16A7 FINAL PLAT OF "SAPPHIRE LAKES UNIT 3A" - WITH STIPULATIONS AND CONSTRUCTION, MAINTENANCE AND ESCROW AGREEMENT See Pages Item #16A8 - Moved to Item #8A3 Item #16A9 FINAL PLAT OF "SAPPHIRE LAKES UNIT 3B" - WITH STIPULATIONS AND CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT See Pages Item #16A10 FINAL PLAT OF "SAPPHIRE LAKES UNIT 3C" - WITH STIPULATIONS AND CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT See Pages Item #16All RAYHER CONSTRUCTION APPROVED AS AN ADDITIONAL CONTRACTOR TO THE LIST OF PRE-QUALIFIED CONTRACTORS PERMITTED TO WORK ON PROJECTS FUNDED BY THE COLLIER COUNTY RESIDENTIAL REHABILITATION PROGRAM (RFP 94-2280) Item #16B1 - Moved to Item #SB1 Item #1682 - Moved to Item #882 Item #1683 CONSOLIDATION OF VARIOUS PARK IMPACT FEE FUNDS Item #1684 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH CAMP, DRESSER & HCKEE FOR ENGINEERING SERVICES RELATED TO THE WASTEWATER MASTER PLAN UPDATE (RFP 95-2451) - WITH STIPULATIONS See Pages Item #1685 ARCHITECTURAL SERVICES WORK ORDER BSW-96-5 FOR MASTER PLAN AND IMPROVEMENTS FOR GULFCOAST COHMUNITY PARK IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $20,000 See Pages Item #1686 ADDITIONAL CARRY FORWARD FROM FY94-95 FOR FUND 151, SABAL PALM ROADWAY H.S.T.U. Item #1687 STATUS REPORT ON THE PURCHASE OF AN IMPROVED PARCEL OF LAND FOR USE BY THE WASTEWATER DEPARTMENT AS A MAINTENANCE AND ADMINISTRATION LOCATION AND ACCEPT CONVEYANCE OF THE SUBJECT LAND INTEREST Item #1688 - This item has been deleted Item #1689 STIPULATED FINAL JUDGMENT FOR RIGHT-OF-WAY ACQUISITION CASE NUHBER 94-2934-CA-01-TB (PARCEL NUMBERS 33 AND 33A) FOR BONITA BEACH ROAD FOUR-LANING IMPROVEMENTS Item #16D1 SATISFACTION OF NOTICE OF PROMISE TO PAY AND AGREEMENT TO EXTEND PAYMENT OF SEWER SYSTEM IMPACT FEES See Pages Item #16D2 SATISFACTION OF CLAIM OF LIEN - JOSEPH ANKROH & GINA PATRICIAANKROH See Pages Item #16D3 - Moved to Item #8D2 Item #16D4 PURCHASE OF MODULAR FURNITURE AND RELATED PRODUCTS/SERVICES VIA STATE CONTRACTS Item #16El BUDGET AMENDMENTS 96-238, 96-239 AND 96-240 Item #16E2 TWO CONTRACT AMENDMENTS WITH COLLIER TOURISH COHMITTEE See Pages Item #16G1 CERTIFICATES OF CORRECTION TO THE TAX ROLLS AS PRESENTED BY THE PROPERTY APPRAISER'S OFFICE 1991 REAL PROPERTY No's. Dated 287 2-08-96 1992 REAL PROPERTY 212 2-08-96 1993 REAL PROPERTY 237 2-08-96 1994 REAL PROPERTY 195 2-08-96 1995 REAL PROPERTY 194-197 2-08/2-12-96 Item #16G2 SATISFACTIONS OF LIEN FOR SERVICES OF THE PUBLIC DEFENDER See Pages Item #16G3 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 11:43 a.m. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS CONTROL JOHN C. NORRIS, CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK These minutes approved by the Board on as presented or as corrected TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF DONOVAN COURT REPORTING BY: Christine E. Whitfield, RPR