Loading...
BCC Minutes 01/16/1996 R REGULAR MEETING OF JANUARY 16, 1996, OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COHMISSIONERS LET IT BE REHEHBERED, that The Board of County Commissioners in and for the County of Collier, and also acting as the Board of Zoning Appeals and as the governing board(s) of such special districts as have been created according to law and having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:05 a.m. in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRPERSON: John C. Norris Bettye J. Matthews Timothy J. Constantine Timothy L. Hancock Pamela S. Hac'Kie ALSO PRESENT: W. Neil Dorrill, County Manager David Weigel, County Attorney Item #3 & #3A AGENDA AND CONSENT AGENDA - APPROVED WITH CHANGES CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Call to order the county commission meeting of January 16, 1996. MR. DORRILL: Heavenly Father, let us give thanks this morning as we always do for the wonderful privilege that we have to live in Collier County. We give thanks for your grace, and we ask and pray this morning that your hand direct and provide over these deliberations as we make important business decisions for Collier County and its people. Father, this week we ask especially that you bless Mr. Constantine and his new wife in their wedding ceremony and that you would watch over them as they enjoy their honeymoon. Father, as always we'd ask that you bless our time here together this morning and that your reflection of the will for this community be done. We pray these things in Jesus' name. Amen. (The pledge of allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Good morning, Mr. Dorrill. Do we have changes to the agenda today? MR. DORRILL: Good morning. We have several changes on what is otherwise a short agenda this morning. And we have a number of add-on items. And the first one would have been item 5(A)(1). Are we or are we not going to discuss this? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: We are not going to have the proclamation on Green Bay Packer flag week due to some events on Sunday. But just to highlight, that was a deal with Ed Hesser just trying to have some fun with a silly situation that if they won, we would have a little proclamation recognizing the importance of cheese and dairy products and other fun things. So since that didn't happen, I will remove 5(A)(1). MR. DORRILL: The next item will be 8(B)(1) on your regular agenda under public works which is a recommendation to approve an urban and community forestry grant memorandum of agreement. The next item is 8(E)(1) under the executive office which is to approve a budget amendment for $500,000 for the Seniors PGA event in Naples as part of your previous action in directing and utilizing tourist development revenue category C. Item 10(A) under the Board of County Commissioners is an approval of a lease agreement for the College Inn in Tallahassee during the legislative session. And I have a request to continue for one week two items. The first is item 16(B)(8) as it pertains to the vacation of a drainage easement, petition 95-012. And the other item was item 9(B) under the county attorney's office, which was further discussion concerning this county's participation with Lee County in the Florida Gulf Coast University project at the request of staff. And those are all of the changes that I have this morning. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Mr. Weigel, do you have any further changes? MR. WEIGEL: Just two, thank you. We have a petition -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Excuse me just a moment. The item here says continue to January 12. We're putting this off for a year? COHHISSIONER HAC'KIE: No. MR. DORRILL: That was a typo, and that's why I indicated the request to my understanding is to the 23rd, but you may want to have some discussion on it. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Mr. Constantine is not going to be here the 23rd. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That was an oversight on my part. I had asked for the continuance, and I certainly do not want to discuss it without your being here, Commissioner Constantine, so until COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Nice try, Pam. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- your return. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: So that will be the first meeting, then, in February? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I should have just quieted down and let you all handle it. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah, no problem. So the next available meeting after Commissioner Constantine's return. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Okay, that would be February, the first meeting. MR. DORRILL: Yes, Ha'am. MR. WEIGEL: Thank you. Just two small items, 16(A)(6). I have had communicated to me a petitioner's request for withdrawal from the agenda -- CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: 16(A) (6)? MR. WEIGEL: -- 16(A)(6), the recording of the final plat of the "Sungate Center PUD," petitioner request. And secondly, a county attorney consent agenda item 16(1)(1). I would appreciate it if that could be moved to the regular agenda for clarification. It's actually discussing two agreements and involves Livingston Road, and I want to make sure that's clear for the board. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Are you saying to move that, Mr. Weigel? MR. WEIGEL: Yes, to the regular agenda, 16(1)(1). MR. DORRILL: That will become 9(C). MR. WEIGEL: 9(C). Thank you. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Mr. Weigel, the grant for the Marco Island beautification district; is that not going to be heard today? MR. WEIGEL: I thought that was the add-on 8(B)(1), community forestry grant. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: That's it? MR. WEIGEL: I believe that's it, yes. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: All right. Thank you. Commissioner Matthews. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: No changes, thank you. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Mr. Hancock. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: No changes, just one item under Board of County Commissioners. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Commissioner Hac'Kie. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No changes, just a note for what it's worth. There's an item on the consent agenda that has to do with breakwater. I had previously abstained from voting on that matter because I represented the developer, but I don't any more. So in case anybody's confused about why I'm not abstaining this time, I don't represent them. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Commissioner Constantine. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No, I have no changes. I assume we are going to have a discussion on legislative items to discuss with our state delegation under Board of County Commissioners. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Yes. That didn't seem to make the agenda, but that's one I would like to discuss. Make that 10(B), our legislative items. Okay. If there are no other changes, we need a motion. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, I will make a motion we approve the agenda and accept it as amended. COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: Second. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: We have a motion and a second. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. Those opposed? Item #4 MINUTES OF DECEMBER 19, 1995 REGULAR HEETING - APPROVED AS PRESENTED COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, I will make a motion to approve the minutes of the December 19, 1995 regular meeting. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: I have a motion and a second on the minutes. Those in favor, signify by saying aye. Those opposed? Motion passes. Item #5B EMPLOYEE SERVICE AWARDS - PRESENTED And let's see, down to service awards, Commissioner Matthews. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Yeah, we have three people on the list today who are being recognized, one of which, unfortunately, could not make it. But we are forwarding to -- I lost my notes. We are forwarding to the water department the five-year recognition for Jeff Hammel. Is Mr. Husser here? He's been with our waste water department for five years. (Applause). COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Are you ready for five more? MR. HUSSER: Yes, I am. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Good. Glad to hear that. There is your pin. Thank you very much. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Congratulations. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Next on our list is a Mr. Ty Stuller. He has been with the water department, also, for five years. (Applause). COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I presume you're ready for five more. MR. STULLER: Yes, ma'am. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Good. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Congratulations. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Item #SA1 RESOLUTION 96-20 RE PETITION HD-95-1, KEY MARCO DEVELOPMENT REQUESTING THE BCC TO OFFICIALLY DESIGNATE CAPTAIN JOHN HORR'S HOME AS HISTROICALLY SIGNIFICANT ON PROPERTY LOCATED ON TRACT "Q", HORR'S ISLAND (A.K.A. KEY MARCO) - ADOPTED CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: That's all the awards we have for today it looks like, so we'll move on to 8(A)(1) Petition HD-95-1, the Key Marco Development. MR. ARNOLD: Good morning, commissioners. For the record, Wayne Arnold of your community development staff. This is an item requesting historic designation for the Captain John Horr homes located in Key Marco development, and it's a fairly routine procedure. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, I make a motion to approve the item. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Second. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Do we have any public speakers? MR. DORRILL: No, sir. We do on the next one. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Well, we had a lady -- CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Ms. Young, do you need to get something on the record before we vote in the affirmative on this? MR. DORRILL: Go right ahead. She wrote the wrong item, but she is registered. MS. YOUNG: On behalf of your Collier County Board of Historic Preservation, it is an honor and a pleasure to present to you this application to signify that the ruins of Captain John Horr's home on Horr's Island shall be known officially as a historic site. In this time of growth and enormous change, it is especially important that we preserve the remnants of our past and treasure them. We are very pleased that you, the members of our Collier board, are keenly aware of the importance of preserving history for ourselves and our children. I want to thank especially Ann Dillbaun (phonetic), great-granddaughter of Captain John Foley Horr and Col. Frank Tenney of the Naples Historic Society who were both of great help in preparing this document. And I want to thank the Ronto (phonetic) Corporation who have been just great about preserving the ruins of his pineapple plantation. And I thank you Art Lee of our board for his continuing help. Thank you all. Let's continue to support our history. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Thank you. That's the only speaker, Mr. Dotrill? MR. DORRILL: Yes, sir. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: We have a motion and a second. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. Those opposed? It passes unanimously. Thank you very much for bringing that forward to us. Item #8A2 BCC TO RESCIND ITS CHOICE FOR THE LOCATION OF A FUTURE SECOND GORDON RIVER BRIDGE - APPROVED Our next item is 8(A)(2), have the Board of County Commissioners consider rescinding its choice for the location of the future Gordon River bridge. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, this item is ratifying the decision made by the voters and the discussion we have previously had both with this board and the FPL. With that in mind, unless Mr. Perry needs to get something on the record, I'll make a motion we approve. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Second. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Do you have speakers? MR. DORRILL: We have three speakers. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Okay. Let's go to the public speakers. MR. ERLICHHAN: I'm one of the speakers, and I'll tell you I'll waive as long as you're going to do away with the bridge completely. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Maybe a note of explanation is in order. The reason this item is on the agenda is because our previous direction to the staff had been to go build a bridge out there. And we were moving forward with that proposal, but when the voters declined to approve the funding source, there's no longer any reason for us to go forward with building a bridge. So the action today is simply to formally notify the staff that we are not going to build a bridge. That's all we're doing today. (Applause). MR. KELLER: I am one of the listed speakers, and I'm not going to speak. Thank you very much. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Okay. MR. DORRILL: Mr. Lee was the only other speaker. MR. LEE: I also thank you and will not speak. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Okay. Well, all three public speakers got up to tell us they were not going to speak, so we'll move on, then. We have a motion and a second. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. Those opposed? What a congenial group today. We have no dissention at all. Item #SB1 URBAN AND COHMUNITY FORESTRY GRANT MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT - APPROVED 8(A)(3), recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners accept the annual report from the council of economic advisors and take appropriate action. GENTLEMAN FROM THE AUDIENCE: Good morning, commissioners. Hay we delay this item a little while for Mr. Loskel (phonetic) to arrive? He's expected to be here shortly. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'd like to. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Yes, I think that would be appropriate very much. We'll pass this item for the moment, then, and go on to item 8(B)(1), which is the forestry grant that we discussed earlier. GENTLEMAN FROM THE AUDIENCE: Board members' agenda item 8(B) 1) involves processing -- the final processing of a grant that's been approved to the county from the urban and community forestry grant application process. Through that process the county has been granted the amount of $8,930, and the reason that this particular agenda item was requested for add-on was to meet the end-of-month submittal requirements to the state. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Archibald, this is just a motion to -- or this is just an item in favor of accepting money from the forestry grant? I'll make a motion we approve that. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I'll second. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Can I ask, are the matching funds from the HSTU on Marco regarding beautification; is that correct? GENTLEMAN FROM THE AUDIENCE: Yes. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Public speakers, Mr. Dorrill? MR. DORRILL: No, sir. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: We have a motion and a second to approve the substance of this grant. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. Those opposed? Once again it's five, nothing. Item #8A3 ANNUAL REPORT FROH THE COUNCIL OF ECONOHIC ADVISORS - ACCEPTED I see Hr. Loskel is here now. We'll go back to our item 8(A)(3) concerning the Council of Economic Advisors. MR. LOSKEL: Good morning. Jim Loskel, Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors. I apologize. I had been advised we were at 9:30, so maybe I'm running a little off. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: No, we're running real fast. MR. LOSKEL: I congratulate you. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, commissioners. I'm just going to try to provide you with an executive summary. You received, I think, a reasonably detailed report from us about a month and a half ago. So to that vain, and then we'll entertain any questions you might have. Since we were organized in August of '94, we've had approximately 26 meetings and site visits with over 200 participants from which we received input. We formed a team and a partnership, I believe, with community service -- Community Development Services, Vince, Greg, Barbara; with the EDC, Susan Perrigus (phonetic), their new executive director; and with the chamber and the coalition. Through a data subcommittee, chaired by Parker Collier, we have been reviewing all of the available information, which is considerable, and trying to put it into a position so we would have that available when we were able to retain a consultant. The planning department prepared an economic baseline, I believe, copies of which were also distributed to you, which we hope will be of great use to the consultant and the people who will need in a professional sense to pull together a very specific economic development plan. We have formed, I think, a relationship with Florida Gulf University. We've had a couple of different meetings, most recently with Dean Pegnetter from the business school, to look at the ability to help support a consulting service that they put together with the Florida program that's administered by the university. It's presently being run through Edison, and when Gulf Coast gets set up, that will be taken over by that university. In fact, I believe we have another meeting this Thursday. That resource center would be largely targeted for small business. At the present time we've just completed working with the staff on an RFP to determine a qualified professional to assist with the formation of the economic plan. Right now it looks like the county's RFP process would make that fall into a March to August-September time frame if we can get that put together. There is a seven-member panel which has been, I think, proposed to review responses to the RFP and then make a recommendation to the board for their final approval. The time line suggests that the CEA will -- may have to request some funding to be appropriated in a May-June period of time subject to receipt of the plan which would substantiate those expenditures, which would be probably an August-September period of time. Since job growth comes from -- mainly from existing employers, there may be some housekeeping items that we would try to bring forward to the board between now and the delivery of the plan. We want to make sure that we can enhance the perception -- to some people maybe the reality, but we think the perception -- that the government process can and will be responsive to those things that are needed to enhance job diversity and the growth of high-quality jobs in our area. I think that's conversant with one of your goals for the year in terms of economic diversification. I believe in the report there were a couple of items that we asked for some assistance on. Since that point in time, we have had another resignation, which I believe you have all been copied on, from Allen Fish. There is the matter of expanding the council from 12 -- now 11 -- but 12 to 18 to increase the diversity and the participation. And there was, also, a request for some ruling, if not possible waiver, on the residency requirement for Dr. John Fitch, who has relocated to just across the line, but continues to be an extremely active participate. Lastly, in my presentation I would just like to thank John Vonkowsky for all of his support during this period of time. John has turned over the liaison duties, as I understand, to Greg Mahalic, and we look forward to working with him. At this point I would be happy to answer any questions or discuss any of the requests that we're making. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Okay. Mr. Constantine. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: A couple of quick questions. You're comfortable with the expansion to 18, obviously, or you wouldn't request it. But will that work well? Sometimes if you get too many people going, it's difficult. You know your job better than we do. MR. LOSKEL: Well, it's a risk, but I think it's worth it, because I think the more diversity we have in terms of disciplines in the group, the better will be the final product. The chairman and I have discussed the obvious tests that will be involved in that, but we're hopeful that they will prove to be a good investment. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We're confident in your chair skills. MR. LOSKEL: Thank you. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Do you have any idea -- you said you may be looking to request some funds early summer, late spring. Do you have any idea of how much we're talking about there? MR. LOSKEL: I think that's premature, but we'll be trying to push those figures together as fast as we can, because we realize the sensitivity of your cycle. And, obviously, that would have to be substantiated in a plan, but I think we can all envision that if we're going to improve the job diversity and the quality of jobs, that there will need to be some support direct -- and administration of whatever efforts we have there. It's a little hard to quantify at this point. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Weigel, maybe you can help me. I hate to lose the services of Dr. Fitch but at the same time, I don't like just bending the rules whenever it suits our convenience. MR. WEIGEL: Right. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And is there a way we can keep him involved and not have to go about changing our whole policy? MR. WEIGEL: Well, we've looked and thought about that very carefully. And there are really two ordinances involved here. One is our general boards' and committees' ordinance, and then there's the particular ordinance 8641 as amended, and there's the particular ordinance for this economic advisory committee, both of which specify they do need to be a resident and elector within the county. One variation that might be a somewhat minimal variation, in any event requiring ordinance amendment, would be that a person to be appointed to a committee needs to be a resident and elector of the committee and that if, during the course of their pending term, they move out of the county, they might conceivably, with the permission of the board, be allowed to continue with the county. And the reason I put in the caveat, "with the permission or approval of the board" is that being in Bonita, outside the county line, is one thing, but maybe being in Georgia is another thing, or being in Hillsborough County or some significantly more distant situation, which would probably make the logistics of participating in the committee more difficult in any event. So we're amenable to that kind of direction. What we would do, if the board so directed in regard to this particular committee, is just amend this particular committee ordinance and it's, therefore, the general applicability -- the general rule would still apply for all other committees. This one could have the exception. Or we could implement it as a general rule for all committees in the general ordinance if you so directed. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The other option -- Mr. Weisgood, you can tell me; a, if this is realistic for your board; and b, if you think Dr. Fitch would be interested, but in having some sort of shadow position so that we don't end up -- CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Ex officio. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- yeah -- changing county ordinance for the benefit of one person. Yet we can still -- I beg your pardon again -- we can still gain the benefit of their knowledge and their participation. I wonder if Dr. Fitch would be interested in that, Jim? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: One other idea that I wondered about is sometimes -- I'm sure Mr. Loskel attends every single meeting of every committee he's ever been appointed to, but I have heard of bank presidents and others who are appointed to committees and sometimes can't go and send a designee. If perhaps there was some other Conservancy person appointed to the committee and Dr. Fitch could be the participant, you know, if it were just a Conservancy position and he could go as that person's designee. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: We're not talking about rocket science here. Dr. Fitch's participation is obviously important to the committee, and any committee has the flexibility to, by special invitation, invite anyone to sit in on the committee. So I don't think, necessarily, his living in Lee County and being exempt by rules from being a voting member of the committee eliminates his ability to participate. And I would like to see him invited by special invitation as an ad hoc member which is not outside of the ordinance, and that way he continues to participate. But I think what you're saying is a resistance to change the ordinance and change requirements of, in essence, all of our committees to fit one member. And I have to agree with that as much as I don't want to lose Dr. Fitch. But where I would come from is to include him by special invitation as an ad hoc member of the committee. I think you have the ability to do that without board direction. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: In your conversations with Dr. Fitch, would this be acceptable to him, or have you discussed it? MR. LOSKEL: I really did not take the liberty to propose other alternatives. I thought the resolution of this matter, fortunately or unfortunately, rests with the board, and I thought that we would wait for your counsel and wisdom on that. I would hope that Dr. Fitch would see the value in that. We know with the beginning of this board or council, there was a little shuffling over the nine permanent members and the three alternate members. And we resolved that by all going to become full members, as it were, and you supported that initiative. I think that the doctor should be very proud of the recognition that the board is bestowing upon him in terms of his value. And I believe, for having worked with many organizations like myself, he realizes the precedent issue that you're confronted with should you, you know, have to make that, and it's very unwieldy. So I would be very happy to go back to him and plead our case that he remain with us in an ex officio capacity, because I really think the main issue that the board -- our board -- will be dealing with will be its recommendations on a plan. And his input to that and sponsorship of that, I think, can be documented. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I think the message from the board is fairly clear that we most definitely want his assistance, and it is just a matter of do we want to alter county ordinances to fit one situation. And I'm not sure we're comfortable doing that. But we most definitely want him to help. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: I would like to -- I had the pleasure of attending one of your meetings, and I think in that room rests a lot of -- a lot of hope. And, I guess, a lot of goals we have are being realized by the work of your committee. And I for one greatly appreciate your participation as well as the others. I would like to make a motion to accept the report of the Council of Economic Advisors in addition to directing county staff to increase the membership from 12 to 18. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll second the motion. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Are there any other speakers, Mr. Dotrill? MR. DORRILL: No, sir. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Okay. Any further discussion? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Loskel, does that cover the bases that you feel are appropriate at this time? MR. LOSKEL: Oh, yes, I do. I think the resignation of Allen Fish will be covered in the normal publishing process. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Yes, it will. MR. LOSKEL: And that probably can move faster than the other issue, I suspect. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Maybe Judy Keller will step right in. MR. LOSKEL: That's possible. We'll see. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: All those in favor, signify by saying aye. Those opposed? MR. LOSKEL: Thank you very much. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: We appreciate you coming over for this. MR. LOSKEL: Thank you. Item #8C1 STAFF TO PROCEED IN DEVELOPING A REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL FOR CONCESSION OPERATIONS RELATIVE TO THE COUNTY-OWNED BAYVIEW PARK SITE FACILITY - STAFF TO PRESENT RFP TO PRIVATIZATION TASK FORCE CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: 8(C)(1), developing a request for proposal for concession operations at Bayview Park. MR. OLLIFF: Good morning. For the record, Tom Olliff, your public services administrator. This item is a recommendation that the board authorize your staff to prepare requests for proposals for a concession operation at Bayview Park. As you may be aware, the fueling site at Keewaydin docks is going to be closed as part of the upcoming development at that site we are told tentatively in the March time frame of 1996. As a result of that, there would not be a fueling site anywhere in the south end of Naples Bay, causing all the traffic from that end of the bay to have to traverse back to the north through the bay to find the fueling sites at North end. And as well, I believe, that fueling site is shown on a lot of boating navigational maps and is a stop along the way as boaters head south down the gulf towards the Everglades City area or even further sites south. And they stop in through Gordon Pass and fuel up there. And those boats as well would have to travel all the way to the north end of the bay. As well, we feel it's a good opportunity for the county to have a public service type facility there at that location. The City of Naples has expressed some interest in providing that concession to the county at that location. But we felt for just competitiveness sake and to make sure we insure that we have the best possible concession agreement that we can, the best thing to do is to go out to bid. The city has indicated they may have some difficulty in a sealed bid process simply because of their open public records law. But the county, as well, has those same requirements on it, and we try to prepare our own proposals for bids as well. So our recommendation is that we go ahead and go to bid for a concession that would include fuel, bait, sundry items and would require the concessionaire to be responsible for all the permits that are required to open a fueling station there. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Weigel, I would assume the public information does not interfere with the sealed-bid process? MR. WEIGEL: I don't think there's really a problem. If they get into the statutes, they will find that it will work okay for them. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: There's part of this that gives me some concern. Commissioner Matthews, go ahead. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Thank you. I was just asking, Mr. Olliff, all you're looking for here today is permission to develop a proposal? MR. OLLIFF: We would prepare the proposal, advertise it, receive those proposals. Generally, we would like to get direction from you that once we get the proposals back, we're able to negotiate an agreement with whoever was the best proposal and bring that agreement back to you for final approval. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Before we go any further with this, let me ask a few questions here. Mr. Olliff, there was not a map supplied in our packet. Where would this physically be anticipated to be located, the fueling in particular? MR. OLLIFF: The fueling in particular is going to depend on a couple of issues. We are told that the necessary draw for some of the boats in that area is as much as eight and nine feet. If that's the case, either the existing channel is going to have to experience a maintenance dredging in order to be able to accommodate that or the ideal location is directly at the end of the road, if you're familiar with the part of the road that runs straight into the park at that end. However, it's awfully shallow out towards that bay section of the park. But for boat traffic in and out of a fueling station, that is the most ideal location because it is nearest the channel. It doesn't have to come all the way into the -- CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Well, let me tell you what my concern is. My concern is one of containment. The fuel facility at Keewaydin was back up in a little cove there, and if there had been a spill at that fueling location, it would have been very easy to contain. But out there in that open water of Bayview Park, if you have a spill -- and that area is subject to all the tidal flushing, and the current moves pretty fast in and around there, you're going to have a problem. I really am very hesitant to even consider putting fuel on that Keewaydin -- I mean on that Bayview point out there, because that could get lose and go all over Naples Bay and everywhere else if there's some sort of a spill. I just don't see any physical way you're going to be able to contain it. MR. OLLIFF: What we're proposing is above-ground tanks with the -- I guess it's at least 1.2 times retention wall on the exterior of the tanks themselves. And I believe if you're going to get permits for a fueling site, you also have to be able to have response units there within a number of minutes of any type of a spill. So any concessionaire has got to be able to prove to the permitting agencies that should a spill occur that they can respond effectively with the sponges and the containment methods within a certain number of minutes, and I believe it's less than five minutes. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Uh-huh. MR. OLLIFF: So we would include all of that in our RFP. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: My first impression on this is that it's a bad idea. I am really going to be real hesitant about putting any fuel there. We're going to have to look into this in a lot more depth to get my support on it, because this -- this could mean some pretty good -- well, some major problems environmentally out there in Naples Bay if something went wrong with it. Commissioner Mac'Kie. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I just have similar concerns, but, Commissioner Norris, this is one of those areas that I have the slightest bit of experience in and can tell you that the state regulates it to death. And if someone can comply with the regulatory process and get a permit under today's conditions, I'm going to have -- I think we'll find that a great deal of those concerns can be allayed. But they're obviously very valid and something we'll all share. But I certainly support going forward with the investigation to see if this is something that could be permitted. And if it could be, I think it could be a service to the community that would be very good for Collier County to provide through a concessionaire. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: I appreciate your comments, but certainly the permitting agencies are going to do some investigation. But if we get it permitted and we do have a bad spill that causes environmental problems, the permits don't do us much good. Commissioner Constantine. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, that's true, but I mean that can be true with almost anything we do. And I am going to imagine this is not that unique in character. Surely there are other fueling stations in the State of Florida that are in similar situations, which is why the government has all those regulations to begin with. I think your concerns are valid, and we want to do everything we can to assure there isn't difficulty there. But I think there are mechanisms in place to follow up on that assurance. And I think to go ahead with an RFP at this point is certainly not going to do any damage. And if in the process we find that that's more likely, then we still have an opportunity to stop it. But I don't think now is the time not to move forward with any action. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Commissioner Hancock. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Since we are, in essence, the impetus for this as the removal of the Keewaydin fueling facility, can we, as we're preparing the RFP, get a little report on Keewaydin on what their spill record was? Was haz-mesh (phonetic) hauled out how many times, because we're probably looking at the same clientele, same type of use at Bayview that Keewaydin experienced. So it might give us some background that would either give comfort or raise a red flag. The second thing is that the last time we looked at an RFP similar to this was the Cocohatchee River Park, and it began to kind of snowball. And things began getting added and added, and the next thing you know, we're looking at an animal slightly different than what we anticipated initially. What I would like to do at this point is -- I don't feel boat rentals are appropriate in the Bayview Park area. So on the front end, if the board would agree, I would like to eliminate the possibility of boat rentals being a part of this RFP. You have got a very busy ramp there already. And in the coast guard we had a saying that if -- if boat rental meant I am aground -- because your more inexperienced boaters tend to be the tenters, and so we had a lot of problems there. So I would like to eliminate boat rentals all together from any possible add-on in this RFP. MR. DORRILL: The only other thing that I might interject is that this would be a dual proposal to also privatize potentially the operations of the facility there. And with the growth in your community park system in East Naples and the new community park system at south Naples, if we are able to do that with the concessionaire and incorporate the operational maintenance, the mowing, the cleaning of the bathhouse and restroom facilities, and the policing of the grounds, that will enable you to then send your crews to other community park sites. So there's a dual purpose here, and if we think that this can potentially be a very lucrative agreement -- I don't know if Mr. Olliff indicated it or not -- I am told that the price at the Keewaydin fueling facility is about 50 cents per gallon higher than other reasonable locations. So we're -- we expect more in return from the concessionaire here. So this would be something that I would also take through the privatization task force and let them review the RFP before we put it on the street. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Any public speakers? MR. DORRILL: No, sir. There are none. COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: With all that, then, I would like to make a motion to give staff direction to move forward with the RFP, and as Mr. Dotrill suggested, to take it to the privatization plus task force for their review. And hopefully as we go through this process, we'll be able to properly permit and institute the proper safeguards for potential fuel spills. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: If you will include Commissioner Hancock's suggestion on the boats, I will second. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Yeah, that is a really shallow bay. I agree with that, please. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll second the motion. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Okay. We have a motion and a second. No further discussion? All those in favor, signify by saying aye. Those opposed? CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Aye. That passes four to one. Item #BE1 BUDGET AMENDMENT OF $500,000 FOR SENIORS PROFESSIONAL GOLF ASSOCIATION, TOURIST DEVELOPMENT REVENUE CATEGORY C - APPROVED Now, on to 8(E)(1), the -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, this is just ratifying our previous discussion on granting the Intellinet money, I believe. COURT REPORTER: I'm sorry? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: This is just ratifying our previous discussion, and with that in mind, I'll make a motion. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Second. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I would like to -- I have received a couple of questions on this -- if I could ask Ms. Ashton. I have had the opportunity to review the contracts, have gone through their different forms and to work with Intellinet and so forth. And the question I have received that I would kind of like you to encapsulate, if you would, more for the public information purpose, is -- in its basic form the question was whose dollar first. In other words, does the county put in $500,000 and whatever the additional costs Intellinet ends up picking up? I know the answer to that, but to make sure that the county is not subsidizing Intellinet's portion to a full extent and then Intellinet picks up the balance. Do you understand what I'm saying? How the dollars are spent, you know, to make sure it's an equal partnership at a minimum. Can you explain how the contract is formed to address that particular situation? MS. ASHTON: Well, there are two contracts. One is between the PGA Tour, Inc., and that is for the actual grant funds of $500,000. And any expenses that they expect the county to reimburse them for has to be submitted in the form of an invoice. And the county would review the invoices and then disburse the money. They are also required to have books available for the county to review, so, I believe -- I'm not sure if it's Jean Gansel in the finance department that does the actual audit, but they would be able to verify that Intellinet did expend money. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: So we get to see the contribution on both sides? MS. ASHTON: Uh-huh. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: It's not a simple blind granting of $500,000 and then we just trust that everyone else is doing their job. We have the ability to go into the books and determine who paid what, how much, and when to make sure it's a true partnership; is that a fair assessment? MS. ASHTON: Yes. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. I think that's an important point based on a couple of phone calls I had gotten, and I thank Ms. Ashton for addressing it. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Do we have public speakers? MR. DORRILL: No, sir. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: No further comment? We have a motion and a second. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. Those opposed? Back to unanimity or whatever you say. Easy for me to say. And that finishes the county manager's section here this morning. We will move on to the county attorney's portion, 9(A), Mr. Weigel. Item #9C AGREEMENT BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY AND THE LIVINGSTON ROAD LANDOWNER GROUP CONCERNING THE CASH CONTRIBUTION BY THE LANDOWNERS GROUP TOWARDS THE LIVINGSTON ROAD MITIGATION PURCHASE IN EXCHANGE OR A ROAD IMPACT FEE CREDIT - APPROVED \ MR. WEIGEL: Mr. Chairman, may we take the new 9(C), the Livingston Road landowner's group agreement first? Ms. Ashton can present it, but she has a court date at ten. Otherwise I'll lose Ms. Ashton, and I'll have to present it. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: That will be fine. We'll go ahead and go to 9(C), the Livingston Road issue. MS. ASHTON: Thank you. Good morning, commissioners. For the record, I am Heidi Ashton, Assistant County Attorney. This item is in connection with the Livingston Road mitigation project, purchase of the 422 acres. The closing is scheduled for today. The reason this item is being brought back is because it was unclear on the record that the landowner group is making a purchase or cash donation of about $95,000 towards the purchase of this property. It was their understanding they would be getting an impact fee credit. It wasn't clear to me that the record indicated that they would get an impact fee credit, so I have drafted an agreement that just basically says that they'll be paying approximately $95,000, and we'll be giving them an impact fee credit for their donation. I have a copy of the agreement if we could just distribute it for the record. The Livingston landowner group is also making a design work donation in the amount of $135,000. And in Hay of '95 the board did hear that item and directed staff to come back with the developer contribution agreement for that donation. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I don't recall, and maybe you can refer -- maybe you can tell me if we have minutes, but I don't recall the discussion referring to impact fee credits. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I don't either. MS. ASHTON: I couldn't find anything on the record, but I think what happened is from the landowner group's perspective -- and I don't know if we have a representative here who could talk on that item -- but I think based upon the fact that the $135,000 was for an impact fee credit arrangement, I think that's where their understanding may have come from that the additional cash would also have that credit available. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: But if that discussion never came before this board, I don't know that's it appropriate to immediately just assume that and give us an agreement that says that. Because we discussed their contribution in some detail before this board, but at no point did we talk about impact fee credits. So maybe we need to have that discussion, but I think it's premature to vote on this in front of us without that discussion. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And I have a question. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Ms. Hac'Kie. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I don't know if it's you, Ms. Ashton, or who would know, but what's normal in cases like this? What's usual? What -- I mean, it was my -- it would be my expectation that when these kinds of contributions are made in conjunction with the road project that they carry with them some sort of impact fee credit. Is that normal? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: If I may, I think it depends on whether the road is in it's normal course of projection or work program. If it is, in fact, being accelerated to the benefit of landowners, we then -- you know it's not -- it's not the same case all the time. If we, in fact, needed to develop Livingston Road and needed the land, then impact fee credits are appropriate. If, in fact, that road is being accelerated beyond the pace that our traffic demands require, then I think we have a negotiating point on impact fee credits. Is that a fair assessment, Mr. Archibald? MR. ARCHIBALD: Yes. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And in this case which circumstance are we in? CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Let's ask Mr. Archibald to answer that. He's been involved in the discussions. MR. ARCHIBALD: Under the impact fee ordinance, there are certain activities that qualify for impact fee credits. Those activities include design activities, right-of-way, permitting, and construction. And typically what your staff does is at some point in time in the project we sit down with the developer upon his request and analyze those. And, yes, we do analyze those in reference with time, time being the issue of whether or not the community is going to benefit now or later. And there's a ratio of allocation as a result of that. So if it's a project in our five-year plan, then I think as the board has done in prior cases then, in fact, we give credits for all of those. If it's something out in 10 or 15 years, then typically we only give a small percentage of credit. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Okay. Mr. Archibald, that's the general rules, but we're talking today about this specific case. And our problem is that we have not discussed as a board granting impact fee credits, so tell us what you have discussed during your conversations with the property owners. MR. ARCHIBALD: The letter that's part of the agenda item is what I provided to the property owners, and that indicates in reference to Ordinance 92-22 that certain activities do qualify. But it's up to an agreement being prepared, and it's up to final board action. So the staff is in the process of preparing those agreements, and at some point in time, when all of the different credits are added up, then we'll be bringing that agreement back to the board for the board to consider. And the items that we consider, again, are those items that are set forth in the ordinance. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: So it sounds to me like we really are a little premature with this agreement today, because youwre still in the process of determining exactly what qualifies impact fees based on whatws included in the five-year work program and so forth? MR. ARCHIBALD: I believe that the direction -- and Iwm not privy to the agreement before you, but I believe the direction was for staff to go ahead and be -- the direction in the agenda item, I believe, is for the staff to enter into those negotiations with the various landowners that are contributing, either right-of-way or dollars or both. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Can I ask, Mr. Archibald, was this entire road program within the five-year CIE? MR. ARCHIBALD: Itws not currently within our five-year CIE. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. So we have got some negotiations to undertake? MR. ARCHIBALD: Yes, we do. If you go back through all the various PUDws that have been approved up there, they all have constraints as to what part of the road system has to be in place for them to go ahead. COMMISSIONER MACIKIE: But the closing has to happen today, Mr. Goodlette? CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Mr. Goodlette, would you like to speak? MR. GOODLETTE: Thank you. Iill be brief. Mr. Chairman and members of the commission, yes, welre ready to write a $93,400 check today, and the purpose -- the reason why this is being advanced on your agenda is to receive the authorization of this board that to the extent that we are entitled to impact fee credits for the design work of $135,000 thatls forthcoming, that this contribution will be treated the same under your existing ordinances. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Treated the same as in 100 percent full impact fee credits? MR. GOODLETTE: Indeed. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yet what Iim hearing from Mr. Archibald is our typical policy with projects in the five-year CIE s just that. However, this project was not in the five-year outlook. So, in essence, we would be making an exception here based on our typical policy. And thatls where the question, I believe, Mr. Goodlette, is. Again, if itls 100 percent impact fee credits, in essence, itls not -- itls an advanced contribution, but youlre getting it all back. And so itls not a contribution in a sense -- in the end at all. MR. GOODLETTE: The communications that have taken place between Mr. Archibaldls office, Mr. Weigells office and Kevin Coleman, one of my partners at Cummings and Lockwood, is that pursuant to your existing ordinances to the extent than an impact fee credit is forthcoming for this project for the $135,000 in the design work and the $93,000 that welre about to write a check for, whether it is 100 percent or not remains to be seen as I understand what Mr. Archibald is saying. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: And that decision will be made by this board at some point. MR. GOODLETTE: Thatls correct. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So it seems odd to me that we're even having this discussion. If all we're discussing is are we going to evenly and fairly apply the impact fee ordinance to this contribution as we do to every contribution, I think the answer is, yes, absolutely. Whatever it says will be enforced if we're not doing anything different. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I just need to be assured that we're not locking into a 100 percent impact fee credit at this point. I need to know that. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Mr. Constantine. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I heard Mr. Goodlette say two different things. Commissioner Hancock asked him 100 percent like the 135, and you said"indeed". Then you pursued it further, and there was a different answer forthcoming. And the point is I don't know right now what the appropriate answer is. I have heard two different things. I have heard something else over here. This agreement was handed out to us moments ago. I would be much more comfortable putting this on as a regular agenda item. If you all want to do it next week, I have the utmost faith in you. But I would be much more comfortable, because while I appreciate the fact you're prepared to write a $93,000 check now, how, what, and if impact fee credits are given to that impacts the value of that check. And so rather than have it now and not be sure, I'd be more comfortable in having all of us clearly informed on this before we accept that money and decide how it's going to be -- MR. GOODLETTE: Mr. Constantine, the closing on the mitigation parcel is scheduled for today, the 422 acres, which is an integral part of the permitting of this entire project. And I wasn't being inconsistent, and let me clarify what I said, that the $93,400 check that we're writing today will be treated the same as the $135,000 check. And whether that's 100 percent impact fee credit or not remains to be seen. And that's what -- that's what I think Mr. Archibald said. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm willing to agree that the 93,000 will be treated under existing county ordinance and policy, and if that's what you're looking for, then that's fine. But I don't know what -- the specifics of the one thirty five. Then if that's different than regular county policy, then I'm not prepared to agree to that. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I think it's clear, and maybe this needs to be in the form of a motion. If we approve this agreement today, I think it needs to be clear that the overall contribution of the developer will be subject to impact fee ordinance and will be calculated as we have done with projects in the past. With Mr. Archibald's statement on the record, the fact that anything outside of the five-year CIE typically is not a 100 percent contribution, I think you can anticipate board action in that regard. With that being on the record, I think we have clearly established that we're probably not going to do 100 percent impact fee credit on this project. And if all parties here understand it, and it's on the record, then I think we have sufficient basis at least to approve an agreement. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Mr. Weigel, does this agreement -- if we pass this agreement today, does that lock us into anything other than what Commissioner Hancock just stated? MR. WEIGEL: To its credit, unintended, the agreement doesn't lock the county into a particular percentage or dollar-for-dollar. How the question came up for me to move it -- move this to the regular agenda was were we talking dollar-for-dollar. I wanted to make sure that that contribution consideration was very clear. But the agreement itself merely states that the ordinance shall apply. It says, they shall -- these parties -- the landowner's group are the parties -- shall be entitled to a road impact fee credit for the contribution pursuant to this agreement. And pursuant to the words of this agreement has no specificity in itself. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: So you don't see any conflict here in having left the door open for the staff to negotiate the percentage split on the impact fee credit? MR. WEIGEL: I think you're making the record, and if you include your discussion as part of your action motion, you will have done what's necessary for the record here. And I think that the record on behalf of the landowner's group has become more clear, too. What I have heard in the late telephone conversations with Mr. Coleman, Mr. Goodlette's colleague, was that, you know, they're zeroing in on a closing date. We know that an owner is trying to ratchet up closing costs a couple hundred dollars every day beyond a particular date. And at the same time the board had expressed not merely an interest, but a requirement that the board itself would not spend any more monies toward this. So the idea of the closing date today was to finalize a closing cost at the same time locking in that this impact fee ordinance will apply. Mr. Goodlette may need to state for the record whether, in fact, his clients will have a problem going forth with the closing based upon what appears to be the board direction today. And I think then we will know if the closing will occur or not. MR. GOODLETTE: I think that the direction that we're receiving from the board is that which we have asked for and that is that it has never been specifically addressed -- the $93,400 or almost $95,000 that we're going to write today has never been specifically addressed. And it is now, and it's going to be treated the same as the other 135 that we have previously addressed, and that is that it's going to be covered by your ordinances. And if it's a 100 percent credit, so be it. If it's something less than -- if it's less than 100 percent, then so be that. We just have never focussed in on the fact that this additional $93,000 contribution is covered at all. And I think that the action you're about to take is acceptable. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Mr. Hancock. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Initially, I think we all sat up here seeing this as what are you trying to get away with here. And I think what it's come around to is this is a safeguard on behalf of your clients to insure that the $93,000 is part of impact fee credit discussions, period. MR. GOODLETTE: That's exactly right. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. And it's this board's -- I assume, by way of a motion -- this board's opinion that that discussion and percentage will be assigned at a later date. It may very well not be 100 percent, but that discussion will occur at a later time. The $93,000 and 135 will be treated the same in that discussion. MR. GOODLETTE: Indeed. And that's what I meant before, Commissioner. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. CHIARPERSON NORRIS: Let's go to the public speakers. MR. DORRILL: Mr. Erlichman. MR. ERLICHHAN: My name is Gilbert Erlichman. I reside in East Naples, and I am a taxpayer and resident of Collier County. Previous to this morning, I called Commissioner Norris Saturday, interrupted his weekend because I saw this item under the consent agenda. It was 16(1). And I asked him about it, and he said he hadn't seen anything on it. And I asked him if he could pull it and put it on the regular agenda this morning. He said, well, if you can -- why don't you speak with Mr. Weigel, and if so -- if he tells you something and you want it pulled then, fine. Well, I spoke to Mr. Weigel this morning and by his own voluntary act, he proceeded to put it on the regular agenda. Well, right now I cannot believe what I am hearing. You commissioners did not even see anything about this item until you got this handout. I don't know the first thing about what you have there in front of you. And for someone to come here and ask for an approval of this item without the commissioners knowing what was -- what was written before and just examining these papers for the last couple of minutes, you're asked to approve this, I don't -- I really don't -- I really don't understand it. Even with a supposed safeguard that in the future they may not get 100 percent on the impact fee credit, I just cannot -- I think that the commissioners should not be rushed into making any judgment at this point and postpone it for further study until next week. Thank you very much. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Erlichman, I share your concern, however, Mr. Goodlette has made clear the only thing they are attempting to do is get on the public record that we will indeed follow the existing county ordinance and policies recording impact fees and impact fee credits. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's all. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: All he's asking us to do is say on the record, yes, we will follow the existing policy. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: If he's entitled to an impact fee credit under the existing ordinance for this $95,000 and to the extent his, if at all -- his client will get it. That's all we said. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And if they're not, they WOn't. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Right. MR. ERLICHMAN: Thank you very much. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: You're welcome. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Chairman, I'm going to make a motion that the board approve the agreement presented to us today and include the discussion regarding this motion with that so that all parties have the same understanding that we have agreed to here today. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll second that. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: We have a motion and a second by Commissioner Constantine. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. Those opposed? COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Aye. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Well, that passed four to one. Item #9A RESOLUTION 96-21 APPROVING, CONFIRMING AND RATIFYING CERTAIN ACTIONS TAKEN BY THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR AS AUTHORIZED TO BE TAKEN PURSUANT TO RESOLUTION NO. 95-706 IN CONNECTION WITH THE ISSUANCE AND SALE BY THE COUNTY OF ITS NOT EXCEEDING $5,250,000 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA PUBLIC PARK AND RECREATION MUNICIPAL SERVICE TAXING UNIT GENERAL OBLIGATION REFUNDING BONDS, SERIES 1996 - ADOPTED That brings us to -- we can go back now to 9(A), Mr. Weigel. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Mr. Chairman, who was the one on that vote? CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: That was Commissioner Matthews. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I always have difficulty with impact fee credits on developer property. MR. WEIGEL: Thank you, Mr. Chairman of the Board. 9(A) is a resolution brought back before you for the board to confirm and ratify the actions as previously authorized to the county administrator pursuant to a prior resolution concerning the issuance and sale by the county of its not exceeding $5,250,000 in the Florida Public Park and Recreation Municipal Services Task Force. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Weigel, this is ratifying prior discussion and requested action by the board? MR. WEIGEL: That's correct. I was merely trying to get the title on the record. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Mr. McNees, would you share with us the net present value savings that we -- MR. McNEES: I would be happy to, Mr. Chairman. Mike McNees from the county manager's office. We managed, with the help of our advisors who, I will say again, advised us very well through this process in terms of timing and strategy. Net present value savings were 6.58 percent, almost 6.7 percent, or 7.7 percent savings to the general fund in the next eight years of $375,888. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: We can take that. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I like the idea of savings. Motion to approve the resolution. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Second. That's a good job. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Motion and second. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. Those opposed? Motion passed. Okay. Let's see. MR. DORRILL: You also get some very good publicity relative to your increase on the bond rate from Standard & Poors, and we intend to offer you some official recognition probably at your first meeting in February. But we got some real good publicity on the national wire service reports. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: When I was visiting the Merrill Lynch office in Tampa while I was up there, Collier is probably one of the hottest bond markets in the State of Florida, so I'm glad to see our rate finally reflect that. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: We pay our bills on time. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah, we do. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Well, a good bond rating means to the public that we can get lower interest rates on our bond issues and, therefore, we save taxpayer dollars -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: What an idea. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Yup. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: -- and that's what we like. Item #10A LEASE AGREEMENT WITH THE COLLEGE INN, TALLAHASSEE - APPROVED Our next item is item 10(A), the lease for the apartment in Tallahassee. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: We have discussed this previously, and I'm just going to ask for the record, Commissioner Matthews, we're within budget on this; is that correct? COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Yeah. The budget we approved last year and this year was for a four-month period, and this -- this year we're going to be leasing the apartment for a three-month period of which we will be having one-third of the expense allocated to us. Ms. Filson was telling me earlier that she's been having some difficulty getting credit applied to her budget for payments from other counties. MS. FILSON: When the other two -- when the other two counties paid their share, it's as a revenue, and it doesn't actually get back into my account so that I can expend it for travel. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: So it's distorting the budget somewhat for your uses? MS. FILSON: Yes. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: So Mr. -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Excuse me, Mr. Olds, Mr. Olds. Excuse me, Mr. Olds -- just on this item we need the benefit of the county manager, if I may interrupt briefly. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Ms. Filson says that when she receives payments from Lee and Charlotte County on sharing the expenses of this effort, that there's difficulty getting that money back -- put back into her budget for further expenditures. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: It sounds like an accounting crux. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Yeah. Can we find a way to fix that? MR. DORRILL: Very easy thing to do through the journal entry process with the finance department. Should not be a problem -- if you will talk to me about it after the meeting. MS. FILSON: Yes. And I have called Jim Mitchell, and he's working with me on that. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: So Ms. Filson -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: You can continue now, Mr. Olds. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Ms. Filson does advise me, though, that the budget that we have been approving when I first put it together was based on staying-over-Saturday-night fares, and we have not been doing that. So we may lean a little bit towards stretching the budget if we have too many -- too many trips that do not take advantage of that Saturday-night fare. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What were you thinking of, a weekend in Tallahassee? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: No, no, no. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Not in the winter time anyway; right? But anyway, I just wanted to make you all aware that if we were to drive to Tallahassee, it would be about the same cost as a Saturday-night airfare. Of course, time is considerably different. But anyway, that's where the budget is. It was based on -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Of course, with no excise taxes right now on the airfares -- COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: You're saying we should buy them all right now, then? Anyway, with that I will make a motion that we approve the lease on the apartment to be used in Tallahassee. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Second. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: We have a motion and a second by Commissioner Constantine. Any public speakers, Mr. Dotrill? MR. DORRILL: No, sir. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: All those in favor, signify by saying aye. Those opposed? There are none. Item #10B DISCUSSION OF LEGISLATIVE ITEHS - PRESENTED And we're down to item 10(B) which is the opportunity for each of us board members to present our legislative items that we want discussed this Friday at the legislative session -- excuse me, the legislative meeting that we're having. I'll start by -- Commissioner Constantine, you're going to bring these forward -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Right. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: -- is that correct? Okay. I would like to have you discuss the -- I believe the number is Senate Bill 536, if I am correct. You may need to check that number, but the bill involves several state agencies which are not presently subject to the Florida Administrative Code. And this bill would make them become subject to the code and, therefore, make them more accountable. And you could take them to administrative hearings and so forth if you have disputes and disagreements. Check that number, but I believe that's correct. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: For my edification and example of how that would affect -- CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Well, right now there are some agencies -- Florida Game and Fish would be one of them -- if you have a dispute with them, you really don't have much avenue of appeal to get your position known outside of the agency. There are several other organizations, too. It's just -- they end up operating like autonomous little agencies with no accountability, and I don't think that's good for proper government. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Can I be next? CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: You can be next if you like. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I received a memorandum from Representative Ralph Livingston last week that highlighted a concern that I've had. We had several discussions where we refer to the DCA, Department of Community Affairs -- when we send something to them as giving them the stick to beat us with later. When the growth management plan was initiated in 1985, it was a much needed and good idea. The problem is now the control over our own growth management plan does not lie with Collier County nor with the regional planning council. It lies with Tallahassee. We have somebody sitting in a cubbyhole in Tallahassee working for DCA telling us what is best for Collier County. I have got a real problem with that. The Growth Management Plan Act really did not intend for Tallahassee to control the development of our growth management plan, yet that's the real result. ELMS III which was done under Lawton Chiles, I think, two years ago -- one of the recommendations of ELMS III was to eliminate DCA in Tallahassee and revert control to the regional planning councils, in other words, put control back in the hands of those people who are most familiar with the area being discussed. Amazingly enough a committee in Tallahassee comprised of DCA officials has determined that that's not a good idea. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Surprise. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah, surprise. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: I'm shocked. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: So what I would like to ask and what I would be trying to lobby for this year, if we can get the legislative delegation to agree with this, is that we have dual layers in DCA. You have the regional planning council staff who covers several counties, and you have Tallahassee. And every time we have a problem with DCA in Tallahassee it takes forever to get someone to finally come down here. And when they do they open their eyes and say, gee, I see what you mean and the solution begins. For my two cents, I think we need to either empower the regional planning councils in the regionalization of DCA and get it out of Tallahassee or get rid of DCA all together, because it really is an adverse impact on this community and our ability to determine what's best for our citizens. And we talk about getting government out of the daily lives, and I just don't think Tallahassee has their fingers on the pulse of what is right for Collier County. So I would like to push that particular ELMS III recommendation from a legislative standpoint. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Are we to conclude from your discussion that the effort to disband the regional planning councils has ended? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, it's much like every other ELMS III recommendation that talked about reducing the size of either DCA or reducing the regional planning council. It doesn't go anywhere. And unless our state legislators push it, it's not going to happen, because it keeps getting thrown back into committees of people who work for DCA. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I think what I like about the RPC's is it's at least -- the RPC's are at least made up of members of the local government. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And we have a staff. The regional planning council has a staff that does every same function that's performed in Tallahassee. The difference is it's done by people who live in this region of Florida. And what's important to Southwest Florida is grossly different than what's important to the panhandle. So I would like to see the decentralization of the Department of Community Affairs back to the regional areas and allow us to have some input on our own plan that we created in 1985, and we need to change as the community changes. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: You have heard what the thrust of that is, Mr. Constantine? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: My soap box is worn so -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Can you repeat that? CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Ms. Matthews, do you have something? COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I have two things that have -- that are really still on the agenda from years past, and I'd like to encourage our legislative delegation to pursue them and follow up on them. And those are partial-year ad valorem. I think we're all in support of that. And another one that just kind of sits on a back burner year after year after year is the more than six million dollars each year that this county spends on Article V costs. I would like the state -- I would really like to begin pushing the state to pay what it says it's supposed to pay. They themselves say they're supposed to pay it, but they don't. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Okay. I think we both -- I think we all agree on both of those. Commissioner Mac'Kie. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Actually the partial-year ad valorem -- especially considering that the personal property has been taken out -- seems to have its biggest chance of success this year. That was my -- CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: That's yours as well? Okay. Commissioner Constantine. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No, you have covered mine. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: We got them all covered, huh? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I assume we're all in agreement with all of those? CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Yes. Does anybody have any objection to any of the items that we discussed -- going forward with any of them? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: We're not going to suggest the dissolution of DCA? CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Commissioner Hancock. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah. I'm talking about taking the powers out of Tallahassee and putting it back into the regional area from which they -- they should come, because it's much easier to drive to Fort Myers and make a case than it is to deal via fax with Tallahassee. So I think it localizes planning efforts, which was the whole idea of growth management. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I have no objection to dissolving DCA. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: I would have no objection to dissolving DCA. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: If that happens, I won't lose any sleep over it, but I think that would be a tougher bill to try and get taken care of than localizing planning efforts. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Mr. Olliff as well has given us a memo with a couple of his legislative issues dealing with some health care issues that are very important, and you may want to take those as well. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Everyone is comfortable with each of those? COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Also, I would like to say that I will be attending the legislative delegation meeting occurring in Immokalee at 9:00 a.m. Friday morning. And if -- if anybody has anything that affects the eastern part of the county that they would like me to discuss, I would be more than happy to. And, of course, if Commissioner Constantine doesn't mind, I'll put in a plug for these issues that he's going to talk about that afternoon -- just a heads-up that we're going to be talking about these, too. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: On the bill we have Commissioner Matthews warming the crowd up and Mr. Constantine delivering the main address. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Like the old Filmore East and Filmore West. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Whatever works is what we'll do. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Are there public comments? MR. DORRILL: There's one. And I want to draw the board's attention to item four on that agenda, if you have that? There were copies of Mr. Olliff's agenda. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Ala (phonetic) Marco Skinner. MR. DORRILL: Item four pertains to a request by Maria Chiaro on behalf of the City of Naples as it pertains to condemnation of beach or beachfront property. And one of the things that we need to ascertain -- Mr. Saunders put out very specific requirements and deadlines for special bills this year. If I recall, they had to be filed before Thanksgiving in order to provide notice of intent as to what local bills contained. Friday the commissioners received a copy of that proposed bill that specifically prohibits you or future boards forevermore to be specifically prohibited from acquiring beachfront property, beach access property, or any related beach parking property inside any corporate limit of the City of Naples. On the surface that astounds me. I understand what it is they're trying to do. They're trying to throw a bone to the Foundation at Pelican Bay. But a; I don't know whether legally the city can change general law as it conveys condemnation powers of county commissioners for expressly public purposes in a special bill. It disturbs me that we're not provided a copy of something that affects us until last Friday afternoon when otherwise the deadline for bills happened months ago. I want to draw your attention to that and if you want to give either Mr. Constantine or Mr. Weigel or myself some direction to speak as it pertains to that. The section in particular that is disturbing is section two. It says the right of county government in Collier County to exercise the right of eminent domain to acquire fee title or any other particular right or stake in any land for the purpose of establishing, operating, or maintaining any beach park, beach access land or other related recreational facilities is expressly prohibited. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I for one personally resent the city attorney including Collier County in an attempt to -- in essence, to court Pelican Bay for an annexation issue. I am sure the intent here is good, but if she wants to limit it to the City of Naples, so be it. But the simple inclusion of Collier County without this board's input, I take a personal affront to. So I for one am 100 percent against any level of support from Collier County for this particular request. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Well, I understand the reason for their request, and I know what they're trying to do is to satisfy the concerns in Pelican Bay about somebody taking their beach accesses away from them in the future. But at the same time, this is an example of -- of potential -- unintended consequences from a seemingly innocent initial action. The simple point is that you don't know what is going to happen in the future, and to limit yourself like this, even if it did turn out to be legal, I don't think it's probably a good idea. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll gladly make comment to her when I speak with her. I would also suggest that Mr. Weigel be there. After -- I am the first item on the agenda, and after that I'm going to go and prepare my rehearsal dinner. So I'm not going to stay here throughout the entire public hearing, so it's probably best for Mr. Weigel to be present. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I will be here for the hearing, so if there is discussion on the county's side -- Commissioner Hac'Kie has a little bit of a queried look down there so -- I would be happy just to represent myself and probably Emily Haggio in that point. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: My look is just -- if it's the -- if it's the goal of this county commission not to incur -- well, okay, let me just be real blunt. I think that the annexation of Pelican Bay into the City of Naples is a wonderful idea. If this county commission is going to go and oppose this bill, we will be clearly sending a message to the residents of Pelican Bay that you get what you want out of the City of Naples and the county will oppose it. Since that's what I like, that's okay with me. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Commissioner Mac'Kie, this doesn't limit itself to Pelican Bay or the City of Naples. This is talking about all of Collier County. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Within the city limits. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: No. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Within an incorporated area. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Is it strictly within an incorporated area? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Within an incorporated area. Great for me, but -- CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: But it's still the City of Naples trying to limit the power of the county commission, and that's probably not a good precedent to set. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Particularly without at least discussion. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And that's my reading. As I read it I see it as the City of Naples -- their request having an impact on Collier County, Florida, not just city limits; is that correct? MR. DORRILL: My concern goes beyond that to have created an opportunity for discussion, frankly, where there hadn't been any. To have done that without the courtesy of advising us that they were going to do this, they can now run around and create a boogie man where none existed by saying, see, you can't really trust the county commission, because they're opposed to do this apple pie and motherhood provision that's otherwise in our bill when they have given themselves the ability to go out and condemn property if by vote of both the city council and the residents of that district. And the same goes true, frankly, for Park Shore Unit-V. If you wanted to go and acquire beach access points in Park Shore Unit-V on unbuilt lots, gulf front property, or Marco Island -- if it were to become a future city and you wanted to acquire beach access on unbuilt gulf front lots on Marco Island. And so that's the concern that I have. PUBLIC COHMENTS - STATE LEGISLATIVE DELEGATION ISSUES; PELICAN BAY ANNEXATION; AND EMINENT DOMAIN CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Are there any public comments today? MR. DORRILL: There are two as it pertains to this. The first is Mr. Perkins and then Mr. Sommer. MR. PERKINS: Good morning, commissioners. Good morning everybody. A1 Perkins, Belle Heade groups, Citizens for Constitutional Property Rights. The topic is the delegation showing up. I highly recommend that each and everyone of you, especially you, Mrs. Matthews, that you be here at this meeting because the topic of conversation to our delegates will be flooding, big time; the southern Golden Gate Estates and the canal structures, which were backed up to create part of the flooding by the South Florida Water Management; the possible dissolving of the South Florida Water Management which is taxation without representation; the flooding of the Belle Heade; and I don't know whether I said the evacuation routes or not, but they are very important to Marco Island, Goodlette, Isle of Capri. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We all want out, A1, in the event of a hurricane. It's important to us. MR. PERKINS: Everybody wants out, although I would like and we would like to get the state and the Department of Environmental Protection out of the southern Golden Gate Estates and out of the Belle Meade area. And we need to do it now, because the amount of money, if you have read their plan for the restoration of southern Golden Gate Estates, is totally ridiculous. But, then, that reflects the type of people they are. Coming down the line here, if you have read their executive order from the governor, 95-74, the reduction of agencies, the reductions of rules and regulations -- if you haven't done it, you need to get up to speed on this thing. We're not going to go away. We live here, and if it needs to take and start a fight, we're prepared to fight. The DEP put us on notice about eminent domain, which we actually welcome, because we'll take it to court and take it to the people. And we will spend whatever it takes to put this county and the State of Florida in debt. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Is that the objective? MR. PERKINS: Beg pardon? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Is that the objective? MR. PERKINS: No, that's not the objective. The objective is to save lives and protect people's property, protect the animals, and take care of this place. But Mr. Hancock was correct. It's time we took this and ruled ourself. I don't want some guru that Tallahassee, who doesn't ever know anything about this place -- and in past conversations, well, they have flown over it -- they don't know anything about it. They have never been out there. But they're willing to use the forestry department, South Florida Water Management, Big Cypress Basin Board, all the agencies for funding to put a hurting on the people of this community. Even in the southern Golden Gate Estates when they said we're going to make it the Picayune State Park, they had no right to do this. They don't own it. But they have legally, because of that statement, assumed the liability of any accidents or anything out there that takes place. Now, with that in mind, the South Florida Water Management says, well, we're going to go ahead and flood that whole area. You people at home better pay attention. It's an unreal amount of money, billions of dollars. And not only that, you're going to affect every industry in the community; the building industry, the real estate industry -- and you people better wake up -- the job market, the carpenters, the plumbers, the electricians, the guy that runs the backhoe, all of us working slobs. You're going to affect us. Now, don't forget, election is coming up. The cooperation -- now yesterday with Martin Luther King Day, the big issue was cooperation, getting along and participation. So far, with a little effort, we have been able to pay -- we -- when I say we, I have a lot of help, a lot of help. By the way, thank you, people. We have a lot of help. I have a lot of help, and I also have a lot of people on my back, too. The cooperation that we're getting from Immokalee, Everglades, Copeland, Belle Meade, Southern Golden Gates, unreal, northern Golden Gate Estates, all the civic associations, and all of the -- I know John -- all of the different groups in town who are totally supporting the evacuation routes. We're not trying to do anything but create a better place to live and a safer place to live. With that, I'll quit. Bettye, I hope you can make it here. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: When are you on the agenda with this idea? MR. PERKINS: All day long. COHHISSIONER MATTHEWS: Well, it doesn't start until 2:00. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: They're spread out throughout the agenda. MR. PERKINS: One other thing if I could to answer, in the past I have been the only one standing here yapping at those people and putting in. Because of it, we have got some of the Belle Heade off of the coral list. Point being -- and I'm going to make this part of the record, and I'm going to make it a shout -- half of the delegation gets up and leaves and goes home before the rest of the people are heard, especially the Spanish, the blacks and the Indians are always in the back. And half of those people get up and leave and get out of here. Well, it's not going to happen this time, even if I have to go to jail. And I have no problem with that at all. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: There's some things better left unsaid, A1. MR. PERKINS: I've paid my dues, which you know exactly. You especially know what I'm talking about. So do some of the other people out here. This right here, and all I have to do -- have you ever been shot at? That's it. Thank you very much. MR. DORRILL: Mr. Sommer and then Ms. Fitch. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Tough act to follow, Bob. MR. SOHMER: A1 is a tough act to follow. I'll try to be very brief. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Name? MR. SOHMER: My name is Bob Sommer. I reside in Pelican Bay. I am a Collier County taxpayer, and I just want to bring to your attention the problems that we have been having in Pelican Bay with annexation and incorporation. The one person who has sort of led the charge as far as the legislative side is concerned for incorporation of Pelican Bay has been Fred Dudley, Senator Fred Dudley. And he now has Butt Saunders working with him. This has been going on -- not Butt, but Senator Dudley has been at it for about four years, maybe five years. It came to a head this past year when we had the big legislative brouhaha in Tallahassee when the incorporation effort was stifled. And that does not stop the people who want to incorporate Pelican Bay. The move to accept information on annexation, I think, is a ploy and this eminent domain thing is part of, I think, a planned effort to incorporate Pelican Bay. I think that if that passes -- it doesn't just say Naples, it says any incorporated area; am I correct? COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Right. MR. SOHMER: So it does not limit itself to Naples. So if annexation is turned down and that is in place, then the people who want to incorporate Pelican Bay can simply say it's on the books. The only way that you're going to be able to save your beaches is to incorporate. I strongly suggest that you reject this and see what it is. It is a ploy as part of the incorporation of Pelican Bay. Thank you. MR. DORRILL: And Ms. Fitch. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I hadn't thought about it from that position. MS. FITCH: Dorothy Fitch representing the League of Woman Voters of Collier County. We just wanted to let you know that we will be speaking to the delegation on Friday on the issue of the eminent domain. We feel very strongly that this needs more public exposure, discussion, investigation, before any action is taken. Thank you. MR. DORRILL: That's all. Item #14 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' COMMUNICATIONS CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Do you have anything further, then, Mr. Dorrill? CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Mr. Weigel? MR. WEIGEL: No, thank you. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Commissioner Constantine does. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I have one item. February 7th at 3:00 p.m is the proposed time for the commission to get together for maybe a 90-minute workshop with the Citizens' Advisory Committee on the landfill. You may recall at the last update they were in the midst of assembling the criteria by which sites -- potential sites were selected. The criteria has been -- the process has been completed. There are, I think, six black and white criteria. Either it's in or it's out. There are 23 evaluative criteria, meaning each of those will have some weight, but they're not necessarily completely exclusionary. And with that I think it's 41 or 46 -- 40-something different sites have come up, and now the consultants are going and plugging in that evaluative criteria into each one of those and will come up with a ranging of those which are highest priority. But they want -- at this point I think it's very important that the board sits down and is a part of that process as we start to narrow that field of actual sites. It's a very impressive the way it's done. We don't need to get into the explanation of it today, but I want to make sure that timing is going to work for everybody. That's a Wednesday, and it's 3:00 p.m., and I think they're looking to do it outside of this room, and I'm not sure where. And that's for some of the audio-visual CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: The Community Center. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: The Community Center? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I know they had looked at two or three. Golden Gate Community Center may be the one. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I may have a Pelican Bay meeting that day. I have to check. It's normally 3:00 or around that time. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The one thing they want to try and get a feel, and if you're comfortable, they need to advertise that as a public meeting, or we need to advertise that as a public meeting. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Commissioner Mac'Kie. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Just a question. I know that we have seen the criteria that have been adopted by the committee, and they have weighted them. What will be the board's participation in the process of blessing the criteria and the weights given to them? I think that there should be a public meeting where the whole community participates in the weighting of the criteria. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: There was, and the board won't be doing the weighting of the criteria. And we can go back, and I know we have got a couple of the folks here, but that will be part of the purpose -- part of the purpose of this meeting is to explain the process and where we're at and how the board participates from here. But the entire process has been open to the public, and the public has participated in that along the way. What the board will do is now that the criteria has that established and the consultants have put in all the legal ramifications, then as that process narrows, the board becomes, obviously, an integral part of that. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I guess my desire would be -- and I'm just one vote -- but my wish would be that so that we have -- I would like to give as much meaning as possible to what the committee is doing. And in order to do that, I would like to -- I would like to have a public hearing on the criteria and whether or not we all agree with the weighting of the criteria. My thought is this. I don't know how many of you have had -- I know everybody is getting set up for these meetings -- the criteria are all, in my judgment, completely appropriate. I might -- if it were my right to do so, and it will be eventually when we select a piece of property -- I might give a different weight, for example, to the fiscal considerations, to the cost of hauling, and to the capital costs. Now, those are, in my judgment, too low on the list of priorities. And certainly the first one should be what it is and that's proximity to neighbors and protection of property. I guess my concern is that if we don't have the opportunity as a board to agree on the weighting, we'll do that later. I mean surely we'll do that later when we decide on purchasing a piece of property. And it seems to me that to have the board in early, you know, officially adopting the criteria and then officially adopting the weights, and then as the properties are evaluated it becomes a question of numbers. It's just what piece of property mathematically. Because otherwise, Tim, your committee is going to come in with a recommendation that they have spent months on and that is perfectly appropriate, but then if a majority of the board wanted to put capital costs or costs of hauling as the 5th most important characteristic instead of the 12th most important, everything -- we start over. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It will be explained to you more clear. The purpose of the February 7th meeting is to answer some of those questions, a; and b, to explain the process; and c, to show how the board is going to be, because you're clearly right, the board has to be a part of the process. But for a number of reasons, the board can't simply go back and reshuffle. Most importantly, and that is regardless of where the final selection is, someone will likely be unhappy. And the process has to be legally defensible. And for the board to come in and simply say we're going to shuffle these around -- and I'm not giving the explanation justice, but then doesn't become legally defensible. There is a process which has been carefully followed all the way along for a purpose. And that is not to indicate that the board isn't going to have an active part in it. I can't do the explanation justice. And those folks who have laid this whole process out will do that. And I think this discussion needs to be had and will be had on February 7th. I don't disagree that the board needs to be buying in on everything that's going on here, but the way in which we do that is very important if we are actually going to be able to permit this thing long term. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I think the way we do it is critical, and my concern is, as I have stated from the outset, I think that this is a heavily weighted Golden Gate committee and that that is okay. But I don't want them to do a whole lot of work and then get in here and we get more information that causes us to reevaluate. And I'm certainly not saying that the board's just going to say, okay, we like parcel B better than parcel A. I'm suggesting that we go through the exact same process and adopt criteria and give them weight and then apply them to property, but that the board be really active and that the general public -- and having been invited to those meetings, and they have been wonderfully advertised -- I really do commend you for that -- but people do tend to wait until the hearing when the decision is going to be made and -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I think your comfort level will be higher when the process is explained in some detail, but also COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I spent a half-hour with them this morning, for what it's worth. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Also, the perception is incorrect when you say you think it's heavily weighted to Golden Gate, because the four major environmental groups in town are all represented on the board. Each of the five commissioners have appointed one person, and then there are two people specifically from groups who were involved in the process from day one over a three-year time frame. And both of those are Golden Gate groups, so there are those two, but the other nine members are certainly not slanted toward the Golden Gate community. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I think what Commissioner Hac'Kie is saying in a nutshell is that the ratepayer will be represented on the final decision. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thank you. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: And this board has a responsibility and always will to represent the taxpayers of this community, the ratepayers of this community. And I would hate to see this board's decision, based on what it costs, be adversely or significantly different than what the committee recommends. I think that's your concern. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Exactly. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: And so we're not going to answer that concern today, but we will have the opportunity down the road. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I think the purpose of this workshop is to get a comfort level with many of those things. COHHISSIONER MATTHEWS: I think you're right. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Commissioner Matthews. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Yeah, I just wanted to let the board know that I have completed the calendar for the three months in Tallahasee. I will be circulating it and looking for volunteers for the weeks assigned to Collier County. And if this board doesn't object, I would just as soon take the first week as I did last year and get things set up. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: That's fine. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Fine. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Commissioner Hancock. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Quick update, very quick, on fire consolidation. We have been having -- I think we have had three meetings now, and we finally got the minutes thing worked out. we're getting minutes of the meetings. It's taken care of effectively. It's ad hoc, but it's really for informational purposes. The attack that has been agreed upon by the committee is to pursue what's called functional consolidation. It's a team approach from the independent districts to consolidate administrative and inspection functions. It can save each district some money. If we're successful in doing that, a referendum may or may not be necessary. If the functional consolidation doesn't work for whatever reason, we may then revisit the question of a referendum. But at this point we have the participation and cooperation of the independent districts. And a functional consolidation seems to make the most sense as a first step. Let's see where that goes. If it doesn't go far enough, then we'll look at other options. But that was the general consensus of the last meeting of the citizens, fire commissioners, and folks that were there. So I just wanted to give you that update as far as the direction it's heading in. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Ms. Filson, do you have anything further, or may we be excused? MS. FILSON: You may be excused. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Okay. We are. ***** Commissioner Constantine moved, seconded by Commissioner Hancock, and carried unanimously, that the following items under the consent agenda be approved and/or adopted: Item #16A1 WATER AND SEWER FACILITIES FOR MAPLEWOOD, UNIT TWO - WITH STIPULATIONS O.R. Book Pages Item #16A2 LETTER OF CREDIT FOR EXCAVATION PERMIT NOS. 59.555 AND 59.556 "PELICAN MARSH LAKES 25, 26, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 39, 40, 42, 43, 45; ADDITIONS TO LAKES 2, 16, 17, 22, 27; EFFLUENT POND #2, AND LITTORAL SHELVES M-17, 23, 28, 29, 32, 33 AND 45", LOCATED IN SECTIONS 27 AND 35, T48S, R25E See Pages Item #16A3 - Deleted Item #16A4 EXCAVATION PERMIT NO. 59.558, GREY OAKS - PHASE 1B, LAKE #22" LOCATED IN SECTIONS 24 AND 25, T49S, R25E, GENERALLY BOUNDED ON THE NORTH BY GREY OAKS - PHASE 1A, ON THE EAST AND SOUTH BY UNDEVELOPED GREY OAKS PUD, AND ON THE WEST BY AIRPORT-PULLING ROAD - WITH STIPULATIONS Item #16A5 LETTER OF CREDIT FOR WATER FACILITIES FOR THE SEVILLE AT PELICAN MARSH, PHASE I - WITH STIPULATIONS See Pages Item #16A6 - Withdrawn Item #16B1 BUDGET AMENDMENTS RECOGNIZING CARRY FORWARD IN THE ROAD AND BRIDGE FUND (101) Item #1682 CHANGE ORDER NO. 4 IN THE AMOUNT OF $8,280 FOR COUNTY-WIDE DITCH BANK CLEARING PROJECT - ADDITION TO PHASE IV CONTRACT WITH MONROE TREE SERVICE See Pages Item #1683 CORRECTION TO EXHIBIT "F" ASSET LISTING FOR THE FOR THE LANDFILL OPERATIONS AGREEMENT WITH WASTE MANAGEMENT INC. OF FLORIDA Item #1684 AWARD BID NO. 95-2460 FOR A LONG REACH EXCAVATOR FOR $138,133.00 TO THE LOW BIDDER, M.D. MOODY & SONS, INC. OF FORT MYERS Item #1685 LEASE MODIFICATION AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF NAPLES AIRPORT AUTHORITY AND COLLIER COUNTY FOR THE CONTINUED USE OF VACANT PROPERTY NEEDED FOR A SOLID WASTE TRANSFER STATION See Pages Item #1686 AWARD CONTRACT TO AMERICAN UNDERGROUND UTILITIES, INC. IN THE AMOUNT OF $34,713.80 TO CONSTRUCT ROYAL COVE UNIT 2 SANITARY SEWER CONSTRUCTION AND RENOVATION ALTERNATIVE, BID NO. 95-2463 Item #1687 PETITION AV-94-004, MICHAEL D. LANGSTON AS AGENT FOR OWNERS, LANDMARK COHMUNITIES OF NAPLES, INC., REQUESTING VACATION OF A PORTION OF A DRAINAGE EASEMENT AS RECORDED IN OFFICIAL RECORD BOOK 1065, PAGE 582, OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA See Pages Item #1688 - Continued to 1/23/96 Item #1689 REIMBURSE MEMBERS OF THE MARCO ISLAND BEACH RENOURISHHENT ADVISORY COHMITTEE FOR EXPENSES TO BE INCURRED IN PERFORMANCE OF THEIR DUTIES Item #16B10 DEED OF CONSERVATION EASEMENT TO THE SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT TO FULFILL A PERMIT CONDITION FOR CR-951 (CIE NOS. 10 AND 11) See Pages Item #16C1 BUDGET AMENDMENT TRANSFERRING FUNDS FROM RESERVES TO THE GOLDEN GATE COHMUNITY CENTER Item #16D1 AWARD BID NO. 95-2464 FOR PLUMBING SERVICES TO CONTRACTORS LISTED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Item #16El CONTRACT WITH MARCO ISLAND CHAMBER OF COHMERCE FOR $600,000 PREVIOUSLY COLLECTED TOURIST DEVELOPMENT REVENUE, CATEGORY B See Pages Item #16E2 BUDGET AMENDMENT 96-205 Item #16G1 CERTIFICATES OF CORRECTION TO THE TAX ROLLS AS PRESENTED BY THE PROPERTY APPRAISER'S OFFICE 1995 Tangible Personal Property Nos. Date 47-49 12/19/95-12/28/95 51 01/01/96 1995 Real Property 151-152 01/02/96 Item #16G 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: Item #1611 - This Item moved to Item #9C There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 10:45 a.m. BOARD OF COUNTY COMHISSIONERS 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: Debra J. Peterson