Loading...
BCC Minutes 02/03/1997 J (w/Naples City Council) WORKSHOP MEETING OF FEBRUARY 3, 1997 OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COHMISSIONERS AND NAPLES CITY COUNCIL LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Board of County Commissioners and the Naples City Council met on this date at 9:05 a.m. in WORKSHOP SESSION at City Hall, 735 Eighth Street South Florida, with the following members present: COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COHMISSIONERS CHAIRMAN: Timothy L. Hancock VICE-CHAIRPERSON: Barbara B. Berry John C. Norris Timothy J. Constantine Pamela S. Hac'Kie ALSO PRESENT: Neil Dotrill, County Hanager Hichael HcNees, Assistant County Hanager David C. Weigel, County Attorney NAPLES CITY COUNCIL HAYOR: VICE HAYOR: Bill Barnett Harjorie Prolman Fred Tarrant Peter H. VanArsdale Fred L. Sullivan John R. Nocera Bonnie R. MacKenzie ALSO PRESENT: Kenneth B. Cuyler, City Attorney Dr. Richard Woodruff, City Hanager Bill Harrison, Assistant Manager and Finance Director Hissy HcKim, Planning Director HAYOR BARNETT: I'd like to take this opportunity to welcome the esteemed Collier County Commissioners. Thanks for joining us this morning in a joint workshop. I guess we need to call a couple of rolls; right? THE CLERK: Yes, we do. Mayor Barnett. HAYOR BARNETT: Here. THE CLERK: Mrs. HcKenzie. COUNCILWOMAN MAC KENZIE: Present. THE CLERK: Mr. Nocera. COUNCILMAN NOCERA: Here. THE CLERK: Mrs. Prolman. COUNCILWOMAN PROLHAN: Here. THE CLERK: Mr. Sullivan. COUNCILMAN SULLIVAN: Here. THE CLERK: Mr. Tarrant. COUNCILMAN TARRANT: Here. THE CLERK: Mr. VanArsdale. COUNCILMAN VAN ARSDALE: Here. THE CLERK: Chairman Hancock. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Here. THE CLERK: Mrs. Berry. COHMISSIONER BERRY: Present. THE CLERK: Mr. Constantine. (No response). COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Missing in action. HAYOR BARNETT: HIA. THE CLERK: Mrs. Hac'Kie. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Here. THE CLERK: And Mr. Norris. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Here. HAYOR BARNETT: Okay. Thank you. Before we get started, I would like to make a presentation to Neil if -- hi, Neil. I would like to just -- then I'll present this to you, but it's a plaque from us to you. It says presented to Neil Dotrill, county manager, for dedicated public service to the citizens in the City of Naples, the mayor and council members, February 3, 1997. (Applause) COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: It's not too late. You can still change your mind. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: For three bucks, we could have just added our name to that. MR. DORRILL: Thank you. I had not intended to say goodbyes this week; however, I will say thank you, and I will tell you that over 18 years you get a lot of chances to work with a lot of other managers. And in Richard Woodruff you have a very fine manager who has a statewide reputation, and you ought to pay him what he's worth because we earn our bucks every day. (Laughter) HAYOR BARNETT: That's pretty tough to follow, Neil. So we better start with Agenda Item 4 and 4(A). It's a discussion regarding the Bayview Park fueling point. I think we're -- we seem to be some for and some against, so Dr. Woodruff. DR. WOODRUFF: Yes. Good morning. As Neil said, it's now time to earn our bucks; so we appreciate that. We're going to give you a visual. I believe the county commission had the briefing document also. If it did not get it to you, we apologize. THE CLERK: Dr. Woodruff. DR. WOODRUFF: Yes, ma'am. THE CLERK: Apparently the county commission did not get this briefing document. Do we have extra copies? DR. WOODRUFF: We will have copies -- if city council members will share with county commissioners -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: See, that's communication right there. We're sharing. DR. WOODRUFF: Correct. Bayview fueling point, you obviously know where Bayview Park is. What we want to do is discuss with you the issue that has come up, and that is the possibility of building a fueling point there. Let's begin by discussing what the project consists of. The proposed project is to dredge approximately 4400 cubic yards of material. What we are going to do is construct a fueling platform and an access catwalk. We would also be constructing an area for restrooms and concessions that would actually be out on the water. Now, existing conditions at Bayview -- I know county commissioners know this, but some council members may not. It is a county park. It has a boat ramp and parking. There are no fuel facilities there. Generally the water depth around the park are 3 feet or less. The canal ramp itself does have a depth of 3 to 4 feet. That's based upon the bathometrics that we've done. The project is to provide a fueling port in south Naples Bay with sufficient water depth to fuel vessels with 5-foot-plus draft. The justification -- first of all, and I recognize that this is the city's position and the county would not agree with this line, but we look at this as no intensification of the Bayview Park usage. The reason for that is the surveys that we have done with Keewaydin indicate that 90 percent of the vessels that we are trying to serve do not come by trailer. They are vessels that are already water-bound vessels. When Keewaydin fueling dock closed in June of '96, one of the concerns that we heard at that time was that you are eliminating the southern fueling point in the whole bay. And those of you -- many of you are boaters. You know that the most southern fueling point presently available is actually the city dock. And when you take the linear dimension of the bay, I don't think any of us would think that the Naples City Dock is in the southern part. It is in the northern part. So what you're looking at is an attempt here to eliminate unnecessary vessel traffic in the bay. The closest fueling point is the city dock. When Keewaydin was open, they pumped over 20 -- over 220,000 gallons a year. Ninety percent of the sales were vessels with 5 foot or more draft. We believe that by the elimination of Keewaydin, we have added 500 vessel trips a year. Now, that's not a tremendous number because there are 365 days in a year. When a vessel comes up and goes back, that's two vessel trips. On the other side of it, when anything you can do to eliminate congestion, because Naples Bay is congested, we believe that we should look at that. here we have an opportunity to take back off of the accounting sheets, take back 500 vessel trips or more. The south side would eliminate those trips. Certainly something important to the city and the county is to produce revenue for both agencies. In the proposal what we are saying is, as you will see in a minute, is we simply split the profits 50-50. When you look at the dredging information, there will be a cut with 4470, plus or minus, cubic yards of fill material. It will cost roughly $50,000. The city is not asking the county commission to pay any portion of this. The spoil site will be southeast of Bay Street on some Collier property. An alternate site would be Fern Street. The basin information, as we said, is 3 feet or less. The important thing is to get the vessels in there. You are going to have to look at a cut somewhere in the vicinity of 7 feet. (Commissioner Constantine entered the boardroom.) Now, we cannot apply for permits through DEP because we are not the owners of the property. For us to proceed to determine whether we can get a permit for this, the county commission must authorize the application because you are the owner. Let's talk about the fueling dock itself, and let me change graphics with you real quickly. Bayview Park -- what we are proposing to do is to dredge an area that is out approximately 300 feet from the shore (indicating). It will have a 4-foot-wide catwalk. Out in this area (indicating) there will be a concession area so that you can buy ice and cold drinks. Most importantly, you will be able to buy fuel. This area (indicating) sits back 100 feet east of the channel. This (indicating) is the present launch area for Bayview Park and the channel that comes out there (indicating). So you can see this would not be in any type of competition as far as congestion. But that is what this proposal actually is, is to build a fueling point out at that area. More specifics on that, as you can see, the site's 300 feet west of the park, 100 east of the channel, 4-foot-wide catwalk that is wooden, 310 feet long, 5-foot elevation. The dock itself is 20 by 12. It also has for mooring purposes out there a hundred feet north/south total dimension made of wood. We would most likely be using a recycled wood product so that we -- that's plasticized so that we can hold down long-term maintenance. It will have restrooms so that you would have a pump system that would take it to the central sewage in Bayview Park. You can see two gas pumps, one diesel pump, a head pump out also, and the head pump out would be free. That's the same policy we have at the city dock. It doesn't matter whether you live in Naples or you've just come from the Bahamas. We don't want your waste going into the waters; so we make the head pumpouts free. The concessions would be bait, ice, soft drinks, chips, and candy. Not to get into too much detail, but just so you will see what the fueling pier itself looks like, you can see on the left part of the graphic the restroom facility and the pier house, then the fueling dock. And you can see a profile of the elevation. Now let's get into dollars and cents. Let me first show you the spoil sites that we've looked at. Here are the two spoil sites. The -- this is the primary spoil site (indicating). This would be the alternate spoil site (indicating). We also have details of what those spoil embankments would look like if you want to discuss those in a moment. When you get to the dollars and cents part, this is not an inexpensive project. The dock construction we estimate at a hundred thousand dollars, the dockmaster's office at 22,500, the restrooms, and the dredging. So the actual cost we're looking at is right at $180,000. Equipment that we'll also need beyond the initial capital is shown there; so when you get down to engineering, contingencies, bond insurance, and everything, you're looking at a project that's a quarter of a million dollars. How would we pay for that? The mayor asked me to say at this point that we would pay for it by a grant from the county commission. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: We can go on to Item No. 2 on the agenda now. DR. WOODRUFF: No. What the city staff is recommending to the council is that the city front all of the money, that we do that in the form of short-term debt. And you can see here in the principal and interest that the total payback project beginning in '98 and being concluded in '07. Now, how are you going to cover your expenses? On the fueling point, we do have a markup of fuel. We can tell you that when the Keewaydin dock was in existence, that they were one of the cheapest places to buy gas anywhere in town. They were 65 cents over our pump price per gallon. So they were not -- I was being facetious when I said the cheapest -- cheapest place. But you have to remember when you have a large vessel and you're going to be buying, you know, a couple thousand gallons, it can run up very quickly. So what we're looking at, we project fuel sales based upon the actual sold at Keewaydin, fuel sales, at 335,000 per year; miscellaneous sales of 50,000. We believe that we can make -- and city council knows we're very conservative on those numbers -- $385,000 is our revenue projection. On expenses, because it doesn't operate itself, you're going to have two full-time people. This will not be staffed 24 hours a day. It will be staffed seven days a week. There will be a couple of holidays a year that it will be closed, but it will have the exact same personnel assignments and the exact same operating schedule as the city dock. Now, Bob Eagan, you're out there somewhere. Where are you? What are the two days a year that you're closed? MR. EAGAN: Thanksgiving and Christmas. DR. WOODRUFF: Thanksgiving and Christmas. You are open New Year's Day, Fourth of July, and those other holidays? MR. EAGAN: Yes, sir. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm sorry, Dr. Woodruff, for the record that was Mr. Bob Eagan? DR. WOODRUFF: That is Bob Eagan. He is the dockmaster. Thank you. You can see the rest of the things from fuel sales to resale items all the way down including debt service. So you show a balance of revenue versus expense. We believe that those are realistic numbers. The most important thing from the -- from the legal standpoint is, what's the proposed contract read? Well, when you get down to this, Item No. 3, "The city shall remit 50 percent of the profits to the county after capital and operating expenses are deducted on an annual basis," that's really our proposal. What we're asking you to do is to authorize us to utilize that facility to build this capital improvement. Our recommendation to the council is that we share with you on a 50-50 basis after we have met our expenses. And we'll be happy to have the two finance departments audit the expenses at the end of every year, however you would like to do it. But that is our proposal. Questions on the presentation before we get into general discussion? Hiss Hac'Kie. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I have two questions. One is, why -- why does the fueling station have to be a football field away from the park, because that's what I'm using to eyeball 300 feet? And then the other question I have is, what is the proposed net to be split? I guess after -- after the debt is retired, then there will start to be a net profit? DR. WOODRUFF: The first reason -- let me answer your first question, why is the facility located where it is, because the closer to the bank it is, the more dredging you're going to have to do. All of this area, from the bathometrics studies -- and these are the contours (indicating), and this is the 3-foot contour line (indicating). So you will notice that the closest point is here (indicating), but in order to create a basin, because we are dealing with vessels that are 40, 50, 60 feet in length, you have to create a turning basin. So we were trying to hold down the amount of dredged material because that's directly related to impact on the system and money. If you were to move this in to the 150-foot mark, you will have doubled the amount of dredged material. You will have taken roughly fifty thousand dollars of expense to a hundred thousand dollars. Now, the other side, which is the projection of revenue sales -- Bill Harrison, where are you? Why don't you come up and discuss the profit sharing, please. This is Bill Harrison, the assistant manager and finance director for the city. MR. HARRISON: Good morning. We have based our budget very conservatively that shows there will be no profit in the early years. As business increases, which we fully expect it to, and then certainly when the facility has been paid, then we expect it to start throwing off revenues that are not needed in the operations which will then be split between the city and the county on an annual basis. Another point, if I can, on -- on this one, this is not -- it's -- it's 300 feet out to -- out to the dock. The only people walking those 300 feet will be city employees, that this is not designed to be a public -- it is not like the Naples Pier, and that is also why we don't see a detrimental impact on Bayview Park. All we're going to be adding to Bayview Park is one vehicle for the city employee who is running this thing. There's going to be a gate there that says, "No admittance, city employee only." And so that's why it's only a catwalk. It's -- it's not going to look like the Naples Pier. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: If I could just follow up on that, after the retirement of the debt, after the first few years when we do expect it to begin producing income to be split between the two governments, do you have a projection? MR. HARRISON: My -- my crystal ball gets a little foggy about a week out; so, no, we don't. We -- we feel that -- the biggest concern to the city is that there will be no losses that the general taxpayers have to make up in the early years, and -- and we feel using conservative revenue and expense projections, that we can break even in the early years and then, again, as -- as sales increase, then there will be money to come back to the two governments. MAYOR BARNETT: Would you like -- what number would you like us to plug in there for the profit? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah, whatever number I want. What I was looking at was the debt service is about 30,000 a year; so after ten years we know there's that and I guess -- MR. HARRISON: Yes. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: -- just -- I would think that there's a reasonable way to project, based on, you know, what your growth pattern had been at the city dock and stuff like that. MR. HARRISON: Yeah. If -- if I -- if I had to make a guess -- and hopefully nobody will hold me accountable to this ten years from now -- I would not be a bit surprised to see a hundred thousand to be split between the two governments ten years from now. And I think that's conservative, just based on what Mr. Eagan has been able to do at the city dock. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Thank you. COUNCILMAN NOCERA: I think his assessment is right. I mean, I don't really think we should really put a dollar value on this. I think the -- because of the safety in the bay and because how it's going to eliminate the traffic in the bay, I mean, that's really the important issue here. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: This county commission is always looking for nickels; so I want to give -- if there were any in this deal, for them to know about them. COUNCILWOMAN MAC KENZIE: Are we proposing a fixed dock or a floating dock? MR. HARRISON: Fixed. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Two questions, if I may. This part of my coast guard background tends to come out when I look at a 300-foot extension perpendicular to the shoreline. Two questions on that: First is, what plans do you have for lighting of that structure? And second is, should someone impale their -- their vessel onto this structure, who does the liability rest with? DR. WOODRUFF: The first question, it will have to be lighted in order to get DEP permits. It will be per their standard specification. Secondly, that's -- we have two gentlemen sitting over there relative to liability questions. It's a city facility. What we are proposing is that you lease this portion. This will be a city liability. Ken, if you want to address the liability part. MR. CUYLER: From a practical aspect, both -- both governments would probably be sued, but I think that it would ultimately be determined to be a city facility. COUNCILMAN NOCERA: Tim -- Tim, also if there's only 2 feet of water -- so anybody trying to navigate those waters is going to hit bottom before -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Actually not. You get most 20-foot boats on a plane, they can run in less than 2 feet of water. COUNCILMAN NOCERA: It's pretty shallow there. COUNCILMAN VAN ARSDALE: Well, I think if you watch that spot, there will be boats that deviate eastward of the channel, particularly in that area because of the shoal water. And I used to live across the bay there. So it's not -- I mean, you're always going to run aground in most any boat; so I don't -- I think if it's properly marked -- I mean, shoot, it's less liability than our channel markers that we've got sticking up out of the -- right in the main channel. COUNCILMAN NOCERA: Well, John mentioned about the water -- the jet skiers, which basically draw hardly any water. Obviously if it's lighted in the evening, it's not a problem. But in the afternoon if they plow into it, I mean, that's any other obstacle they would plow into. COUNCILMAN VAN ARSDALE: I know the dock down at -- Windstar has a fairly long dock sticking out there, and that doesn't seem to have been much of a problem. DR. WOODRUFF: I don't remember the linear footage of Windstar. They do have a dock that sticks out. COUNCILMAN VAN ARSDALE: I think it's over a hundred feet. COUNCILMAN NOCERA: Yeah. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Let me ask a question. Where are the fuel storage tanks proposed to be located? DR. WOODRUFF: The fuel storage tanks are actually proposed to be on the land. And what we would do is work with you to determine where you would want them. Obviously as -- from an aesthetics standpoint, you would not want them right at the edge of the water; so we would work with you to determine where the county would want them to be located. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Uh-huh. DR. WOODRUFF: When you're going to be putting these under pressure to send the fuel that far out, another hundred feet is not really an issue. So we will locate them wherever you and your staff would like them. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, do you -- can you tell me approximately how much land area that would entail, because one of the major problems, of course, of Bayview Park is it's a very small place, very limited to begin with. DR. WOODRUFF: The fueling site at the city dock is an above-ground fueling site, and that's what we're proposing here, it be above-ground tanks. Bob Eagan, would you come forward a moment, please. This is Bob Eagan, the city dockmaster. Bob, what I would like you to do is address the commissioner's question about how large your fueling site is presently at the city dock. MR. EAGAN: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. Presently at the city dock we have, I would say, a facility that's approximately 20 feet by 40 feet. We have two underground tanks and one above-ground tank. The Bayview proposal would be three 2,000-gallon above-ground tanks, two for gasoline and one for diesel. You have to build a containment, what they call a moat, which would be about 3 foot high on the sides, and it would be all concrete. I would say that could be done in an area that would be 25 feet by roughly 20 feet. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: And that will -- that -- all three tanks, you're saying, would be in an area that size? MR. EAGAN: All three tanks would be inside this containment area which would be roughly, let's say, 30 feet by 20 feet. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: What, then, are you proposing as a landscaping buffer around that? You're not proposing just to leave -- MR. EAGAN: At the city dock around our above-ground tank we have planted ficus trees which have grown up higher than the tank itself; so you can -- cannot see the tank. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Uh-huh. Okay. Thank you. COUNCILMAN VAN ARSDALE: Do you have a -- COHMISSIONER NORRIS: One of my main concerns on this project has always been environmental in nature. The -- having the fuel dispensed out 300 feet from the shore, that's a very, very sensitive mangrove area all around that place. You've got tidal currents going up and down that -- that area all the time, plus who knows where the moon might be going at any given time. I think it would be very, very difficult to contain any kind of spillage and keep it out of the mangrove areas, either -- either along that shore where the park is itself or -- or even to get a crossover into the Port Royal area. I'm surprised that the environmental community hasn't been more adamant about voicing their opinions on this thing, because it seems like it's in an area where it's going to be extremely difficult to contain any spillage. COUNCILMAN NOCERA: Are you saying spillage from the tanks itself or spillage from the line going from the tank to the pump? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Either way. It doesn't matter. COUNCILMAN NOCERA: Well, it makes a big difference, because the line going from the tank to the end of the dock only has the fuel that's in that line. There's an electric pump that actually pumps that fuel from the tank to that -- the end of it, and that's shut off at all times until it needs that fuel. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Until the line breaks or -- or somebody's tank breaks -- COUNCILMAN VAN ARSDALE: Have we had any -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: -- or some other accident happens that spills gasoline into Naples Bay. And whether it's 2,000 gallons or 2 gallons, it's a concern. COUNCILMAN VAN ARSDALE: How long is our -- how long is the city dock? MR. EAGAN: For the record my name is Bob Eagan. I'm the dockmaster at the city dock. COUNCILMAN VAN ARSDALE: Is it roughly 300 feet long? MR. EAGAN: Yes. It's roughly the same size as what the proposal is at -- COUNCILMAN VAN ARSDALE: We run a pipe -- we probably have a pipe running along it -- MR. EAGAN: We have three pipes running underneath the dock. From the land side -- COUNCILMAN VAN ARSDALE: Have we ever had a spill? MR. EAGAN: No. COUNCILMAN VAN ARSDALE: And do you have any sort of provisions in case we have a spill or some sort of problem? MR. EAGAN: Yes. We have -- all the people at the city dock are trained first responders as far as handling hazardous waste material, and we also have a 600-foot containment boom at the city dock that we can deploy immediately if there is a spill. We have a boat and we have the boom on a barge, and we could contain it right there. These above-ground tanks that we're talking about in the proposal are double-walled. If something happened with the inner wall and it was to spring a leak, then the outer wall would contain it. And also that's why it's put in a moat, is to contain any spill. The capacity of those three tanks wouldn't fill the moat; so it would not spill out if the tanks were to burst. The pipes are also made of a construction that -- that are double-walled that run underneath the dock. There's -- we just inspected our pipes at the city dock two months ago. They've been in place for ten years, and they looked like they were brand new. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Mayor, can I get -- DR. WOODRUFF: Miss Prolman, I believe, has a question. COUNCILWOMAN PROLMAN: Can we assume the tides keep these channels open, or is this something that periodically will have to be dredged because of migrating sand or whatever? DR. WOODRUFF: Miss Pralman, I have never heard an opinion on that. Today Bob Crawford is the engineer of that project. He has never expressed an opinion to me. Jan Staiger, has he expressed an opinion to you on that as far as what the -- the period of maintenance would be for dredging? MR. STAIGER: No. But, you'd probably have to maintenance dredge it -- for the record, Jan Staiger, natural resources manager. The -- that's an active current area; so it would probably have to be maintenance dredged every ten years, perhaps. It -- it's not going to stay in that same configuration forever, but the maintenance dredging would be a relatively modest volume of sand. COUNCILMAN NOCERA: You also have the boats going in there, too, Jan, that basically do their own maintenance today -- MR. STAIGER: Yeah. The -- the prop wash and the actual vessels themselves tend to keep it a little blasted out. COUNCILWOMAN PROLMAN: Thank you. DR. WOODRUFF: Let me give you a couple -- I'm sorry. COUNCILMAN VAN ARSDALE: Let me just ask a question of Bob. Bob, are these boats -- how many boats do you get or how frequently do you get boats that -- that essentially come in for fuel and then go back out? Does that -- does that occur at all? MR. EAGAN: Yes, that's a daily occurrence. COUNCILMAN VAN ARSDALE: I mean, I'm talking about boats MR. EAGAN: Passing by out in the Gulf. COUNCILMAN VAN ARSDALE: -- passing by that just need fuel. MR. EAGAN: Yes, that's a daily occurrence. And when the Keewaydin dock was open, it happened frequently. It's not so frequent now since they don't want to travel all that way up the bay. If there was a fueling station down at that end, they would come in and use it. They still do, but not to the -- not at the rate that they did when Keewaydin was there. COUNCILMAN VAN ARSDALE: Thank you. HAYOR BARNETT: Go ahead. MR. EAGAN: By the way, most of those vessels that do come in off the Gulf take anywhere between a thousand and two thousand gallons of fuel when they do come in; so we like to see them when they come in. MR. AYRES: Bob, where would the nearest vessel get fuel if they're coming from either Fort Myers or Marco Island? MR. EAGAN: I'm sorry. Would you repeat that, please. COUNCILMAN NOCERA: Where would the vessel coming into Gordon Pass coming from either Marco, south end or the north end, get fuel? MR. EAGAN: The nearest place from the Gulf is the city dock. COUNCILMAN NOCERA: Nearest one. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: What's the next nearest? MR. EAGAN: I would say Turner Marine, which is another thousand yards up the bay from us. COUNCILMAN NOCERA: It's still in the bay. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: We've been talking about -- I've curiously heard vessels from the Gulf from Fort Myers from Marco. What is the client we're serving? Are we serving the -- the -- you know, are we looking at dumping money into a facility that takes people that are traveling in the Gulf into Naples Bay that otherwise wouldn't come in? Are we looking at serving a population of boats that exist within the city, maybe in the Port Royal area? Where -- where is the population we're serving? MR. EAGAN: I would say that 75 percent of the boats that we serve at the Naples City Dock are local. The other 25 percent are transients that like to travel around the state and either come in to stay with us or just come in to get fuel. From that 75 percent, I would say at this time 30 to -- 30 to 35 percent of those vessels are from the southern end of the bay that -- most of them or a lot of those used to fill up at Keewaydin dock, but now they have to come up the bay. But 75 percent of our business is done with local people. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Is there a fueling facility on Marco Island that serves vessels of a 5-foot draft? MR. EAGAN: Yes. There's -- there's a couple of them. DR. WOODRUFF: To put this in perspective, let me ask Bob a question. You know, when you have 220,000 gallons at Keewaydin, prior to Keewaydin closing, what was our annual gallonage of sale? MR. EAGAN: I believe our annual -- annual gallonage was 550,000. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And now -- DR. WOODRUFF: That's the reason I want you to see the magnitude of what we're talking about. If we were selling at the city dock two or three million gallons a year and that facility when it closed was only selling two hundred and twenty, then you can say, well, it's not that much of an impact. But when you talk about a facility, our facility that has been there for many, many years, and we've been selling five hundred to six hundred thousand gallons a year, you're talking about a -- depending on what number you want to use, let's use even a 25 percent increase in gallonage. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: As much as I -- I appreciate the operational difficulties that this is creating at the city dock, we have a park that was designed for a specific purpose. How many -- may I ask, how many city council members, other than Fred Sullivan have been to Bayview Park? (Indicating) Okay. So if you sell it -- COUNCILMAN VAN ARSDALE: I used to own it, remember? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- a pavilion or whether it's in the parking lot, there's not much distance between you and the water, and there's some trees there that are fairly close together and so forth. Commissioner Norris brought something up that I -- I looked at the scale, and where this proposed pier would intersect the shoreline is approximately 200 feet from the nearest paved access area unless you come around to the south of the pavilion there. If we're going to put a fuel tank in there, we're going to have to have access to it on a weekly basis for -- for fill-ups for a large -- and I have to assume it's a -- it's the standard pumper you see to come in and fill these -- DR. WOODRUFF: It's not a semitruck. We do not -- Combs Oil operates by a fixed vehicle that delivers what; how many gallons of it here? MR. EAGAN: Five thousand. DR. WOODRUFF: Five thousand. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And I wasn't envisioning a semi. When I said a standard pumper, that's what I was talking about. DR. WOODRUFF: Okay. Thank you. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: But that has to have access to the fueling area, which is going to be via paved roadway. Without looking at the site plan of what facilities are in place there and how they're going to be impacted, I don't think to -- from a county facility standpoint that this is a complete presentation. The idea of the fueling pier out there I don't have a problem with. But it is the details of how it impacts Bayview Park and how the people who use it are impacted is something I'm concerned about. And that comes to play when we look at where are the fuel tanks going to be; how is it accessed; does it remove facilities that are currently there; does it impact facilities that are there. And I don't have answers to any of those questions. Maybe that's the next step. I'm sure it is. COUNCILMAN NOCERA: I think the people in Bayview Park would love to have a fueling facility. There's a ton of boats that go in there by trailer, and some of them just forget to get fuel, and many -- many times, and they can get fuel right at the dock. And the other answer to your question, on Danford Street, if you notice the -- the map we have here or chart, you could see it goes right down to the end of the parking area by that tree there. And that -- that -- he can drive right down there and possibly put that -- the tanks down in that corner and camouflage them nicely so it really wouldn't be offensive at all; so I think all your answers can be answered without a problem. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, they need to be answered, and what I'm saying is they aren't now. And the steps you take in making a final decision need to include what the end product's going to be at the outset, and I have to have a feeling for that or else I think this is premature. HAYOR BARNETT: But the key is -- the way that I understood it was that when it was proposed every -- it seemed that the -- as a matter of fact, the county had initially given their approval or you had given your approval or basic approval, anyway, of the idea and the concept. Granted, the details might not be worked out now, but I think what -- maybe if we can reach a consensus today, perhaps, with the county commission, saying, okay, we will go along with the idea, but you're going to have to work these details out. The way it was presented or the way we came in was, well, the county is against it and so, therefore, we're not going anywhere. So I think maybe that's where we're trying to reach. I don't have any problem working details to your utmost satisfaction along with the city so that everybody is happy. I don't think any of us would object to that. The idea is saying, hey, we can live with the concept there. That's what we're getting today, either, yes, you can or, no, you can't. DR. WOODRUFF: Well, there's also a very important -- if I could suggest a very important middle step. If the county commission were to vote today and say, yes, we'll enter into this lease, does that mean that we can construct this? No, it doesn't. Where we are in this process is we've done all of our analytical work, but DEP will not even accept an application to determine whether they will approve that dredge site unless the property owner signs the application, the property owner, the county commissioners. So what you could do today as a medium step, which is not a forever commitment, is simply say, all right, we will take it to the next level with the understanding that the county commission can still say no to the project. But we'll take it to the next level by at least signing the document that allows the city to submit the material to DEP. That, at least, moves us so that we will then know and you will know, will we get the permits to do the dredging. During the same time we're working on those permits, we can also work with your staff, because the city's position has been, as I mentioned to Commissioner Norris, we will put the fuel cell wherever you want it in the park. It was never our intent that it would become the dominant feature. That's a beautiful park. It's an asset to the whole community. We want to make sure that what we do there is also positive, not negative. So I might suggest that as a middle step. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm sorry. In the RFP that the county -- that we put out, was there any specification about what the impacts on the land side would be? I mean, did the RFP ask for any of these questions to be answered? DR. WOODRUFF: I think it would appropriate for your staff to address that. To be honest with you, I never read the RFP because I had staff people who dealt with that. Is there a county staffer who could address that? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And just while -- while Tom's coming up, as I understand it, the county put out an RFP some time ago. The city was the only responder. Just -- so for a frame-of-reference purpose, I think it's important for the county commissioners to remember that we asked for this proposal. We requested it. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, I think we are very aware of the history on this project. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Okay. DR. WOODRUFF: We did not actually respond, I mean, just to keep the record straight. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Oops. DR. WOODRUFF: Technically the city did not respond. What we did is we sent a letter saying we can't respond for the following reasons, but if you're interested we're still interested. MR. OLLIFF: Good morning. For the record, Tom Olliff, the public services administrator. When the original -- the issue originally arose, it did arise at -- as a result of a letter from the city where they expressed some initial interest. In order to try and see if there was other interest or see what types of proposals we might receive, we did put together an RFP. And in order just to see what the actual proposal should look like, your county staff office submitted the only proposal. The proposal at that time came in at a much higher capital cost, and I think it was mostly because of trucking of the actual spoil material that resulted from the dredging. Because of some newer adjacent spoil sites, I think the capital construction costs have come down significantly. The original estimates that we had were in excess of $800,000. The only issues that the county staff has in regards to this particular issue are several that relate to the park itself. And if I could, I'd like to at least present to you some pictures of the park just so that perhaps the city council and our county commission can get a better feel of the impact that this park already has on the existing neighborhood that's there. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Tom, the RFP that the county responded to, did you have the fueling station located in the same place as proposed? MR. OLLIFF: The fueling station needs to be located fairly much in a straight line, I believe, with Danford Road so that the fuel truck can come in and out with the least amount of maneuvering amongst the existing traffic that's already there. So somewhere in that location is -- if this proposal goes through, is where the fuel is going to be located. The pictures that -- that are being passed are on a typical Sunday afternoon. And if you're familiar with Bayview Park, it is at the end of Danford Road. And the pictures that you see show Danford Road and, frankly, on a typical Sunday afternoon -- this is not a holiday. But the cars are lined up on both sides of Danford Road all the way to what we call the T out on Thomasson Drive. The last of the pictures actually show the traffic out on Thomasson Drive which is better than a quarter of a mile from the park. And the public is already parked on both sides of the street. Our concern is just any intensification of this park and the additional impacts that it will have on this neighborhood. Unfortunately, there -- there are very few boat launch sites that can put the public into those locations where the boating public really wants to be. And this is one of those ideal spots because of its proximity to Gordon's Pass and Rookery Bay. The other issue that we have is we just didn't know if other alternative locations had been looked at. There are marinas directly to the south associated with Windstar but with some -- some PUD modifications could accommodate a fueling location and wouldn't have any impact on the neighborhood because they aren't public facilities. And so we just were concerned that perhaps that there were some other options that might be considered that wouldn't have the impact on -- on little Bayview Park that this proposal would have. And the last concerns that we had were more environmental in nature and the fact that this is an exposed pier as opposed to a city dock. It's at the back and south end of Naples Bay where it's a little more protected. This 300-foot pier would stick out pretty much all on its own, and it is an exposed location where you have fuel tanks and lines out at that particular park. Vandalism at this particular park is an issue which you have to be concerned about. And just making sure that all of those issues are covered, especially the ones that deal with other alternatives in the location before we possibly impacted this park any greater than it already is. COMHISSIONER BERRY: Mr. Olliff. MR. OLLIFF: Yes. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Has anyone contacted Windstar to see what their interest would be or -- MR. OLLIFF: Not that I know of. DR. WOODRUFF: The city has not. COMHISSIONER BERRY: The city has not? MR. OLLIFF: No, ma'am. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Because it seems like -- I can't see that this fueling station is going to change the impact of vehicular traffic one way or the other. You're going to have that regardless because you have a boat ramp there; so that's probably not going to change much. I guess what my concern is, is looking at that runway -- that's what I'll call it, the walkway out, I still have some concern about. I share Commissioner Hancock's concern about this running out connecting two areas. But I -- I would like to see some communication with Windstar, perhaps, and see if there might be something done along that line to see if there's any interest in -- in their having a fueling station. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Mayor, let me see if I can possibly move this off center. I'm not sure with the Bayview proposal whether the city council is unanimous in its support or whether it was a split vote. HAYOR BARNETT: I don't -- I don't remember. I know that we had -- DR. WOODRUFF: Actually, city council has not taken a position on this other than authorize staff time. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. What I'd like to do is we've all raised a lot of questions, varied questions. At this point I'm not -- personally am not comfortable with -- without completely understanding the -- the -- the full impact to -- it's been called little Bayview Park, and I think that's appropriate. And I know that what you're looking for is a please let us go to the next level, but that next level requires funds and efforts. And I think if you want to do that with absolutely no commitment from the board that anything is written in stone, and that's a chance you want to take, I can't -- you know, I don't see any reason to stop you but -- HAYOR BARNETT: I don't think we can do that without your okay. I think that's what you said, Dr. Woodruff; right? DR. WOODRUFF: In order to submit the material to DEP, we do have to have the county commission's approval to submit the application. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm not at this point comfortable proceeding along this course with the information I have. And I can either in the long term become more comfortable with that or less. But at this point I'm not there. And rather than spending a tremendous amount of time this morning with -- with questions that probably aren't going to give a final picture, I would probably ask that we -- we try to get the consideration of the two bodies that are here as to whether or not we can move ahead with this. COUNCILMAN NOCERA: Well, I just have a couple of things. Mr. Eagan, do you ever get any deliveries during the weekend of fuel? MR. EAGAN: Combs Oil isn't open on the weekends. There have been times when we have asked for a delivery on the weekend and they've called in somebody, but it's very rare, and it was an employee's fault because they didn't order fuel during the week. COUNCILMAN NOCERA: So basically it comes during the week when there is the least impact and the least amount of traffic? MR. EAGAN: Yes. COUNCILMAN VAN ARSDALE: Excuse me. Will they come when -- at times that you may specify? MR. EAGAN: Yes, they will. COUNCILMAN VAN ARSDALE: You say come at 8 a.m. and -- MR. EAGAN: Yes, they will. They're very cooperative. HAYOR BARNETT: I don't think that's -- that's not -- COUNCILMAN NOCERA: Well, he was worried about an impact and, you know, that the street was crowded, and the pictures show that the street is crowded. HAYOR BARNETT: I think what Chairman Hancock is saying is it just seems to be a lot that's kind of still on the table that needs to be answered and that he was not comfortable with this. I would really like to hear the other commissioners and what they have to say, and then that will kind of determine -- COUNCILMAN NOCERA: I see this as a win-win for everyone. I'm just a little disappointed on some of the negatives here. COUNCILMAN TARRANT: I agree with John Nocera in that I think it is a win-win for both the county and the city, and I think it would eliminate a lot of pollution in the bay, be an aid to the environmental situation rather than a hazard. That's my feeling. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I have to agree with our commissioner that we -- we may get to that point eventually. I'm just -- I don't know that I have the comfort level right now to make a commitment today. And I know we're all trying to find the way to serve the public, but I'm not sure I'm there yet. So I'm not comfortable enough to make a commitment today. MAYOR BARNETT: Okay. Pam. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'd like to see the Windstar question answered just because that could be such a simple solution if it's possible, and nobody knows. The other thing I'd like to see happen is that the process not stop. And the process can continue if -- if the city council is willing to go forward with no commitment from the county commission, but -- but merely approval to submit an application to the DEP. MAYOR BARNETT: But we -- we can't without your permission anyway. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's what I'm saying. I would support giving permission for you to continue if you understood that you were doing that without a commitment that even if you get the permit, it may not be -- you know, if you -- MAYOR BARNETT: I think that's what we're asking for would be that, because as Dr. Woodruff said -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And if we went through the permit process, I think that's where most of these questions would be answered because, frankly, DEP is going to ask those environmental questions with a great deal more expertise than any of us have. And site plan questions would have to be answered as a part of the permitting process. So with the understanding that there -- a permit does not equal permission to go forward, I certainly would not want to stand in the way of going forward with the permit application so that we can use that to get the answers to the questions. MAYOR BARNETT: Thank you. COUNCILMAN VAN ARSDALE: But why get a -- excuse me, Pam. Why get a permit if we don't want to go ahead with it? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Good point. COUNCILMAN VAN ARSDALE: The permit's not going to tell us anything that -- I mean, that just -- and who knows what criteria they're going to use but -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I guess -- COUNCILMAN VAN ARSDALE: I think it's a waste of time if -- if -- if we're not going to have a consensus to move ahead. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, I think that it's the only opportunity I see for there to be a possibility of moving ahead. And if you want to use the permit application as a process for answering the questions of some of my fellow commissioners, then the process continues to move. If you don't, I just don't see it continuing very possibly, and that's why I was offering that up. COUNCILMAN VAN ARSDALE: Yeah. COUNCILMAN NOCERA: Mr. Staiger, what are we looking at the fees to go for that permit? Do you have any idea? MR. STAIGER: Offhand -- HAYOR BARNETT: Jon, why don't you come up and use the mike, please. While he's doing that, Commissioner Barbara Berry. COHMISSIONER BERRY: Well, number one, I think the idea of having a fueling station out there is -- is a good idea. Number two, I think if you can do this at the lower end of the bay, I think it's a better situation for the bay. But I'm not real comfortable with the Bayview Park site, and so that -- that's where I come in. I really would like to see someone consider the Windstar situation, see if that might be available. HAYOR BARNETT: And -- and on a hypothetical basis, if it is not -- let's say we check it out and it isn't, are we just kind of dead in the water here basically? COUNCILMAN NOCERA: Look at Windstar -- if you look at Windstar, I mean, that area there to get boats in and out of would be really congested. I think that would be disaster for a residential community to do that. I don't think you would -- personally, I don't think you could get Windstar to even agree to this at all. So I think if it stops here, then it stops here, then you're going to have to get public outcry. HAYOR BARNETT: Well -- Commissioner Norris. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I think I voiced several concerns, and -- and the physical size of this park is to me going to be a big deterrent. It's a very small park. I've been over there with my family before to have picnics, and it's just really congested. And to put in even the small area that's been talked about with the fuel tanks and all, I think, is going to just exacerbate the situation, and it will attract more boaters with trailers because of the fuel. I don't know how many, but it may be a small amount, but the point is that it's way over capacity now. They park all the way out to -- to Thomasson Drive at times. So, you know, I'm going to have a difficult time supporting this in any case, and I think it would probably not be prudent to go forward with permitting until you have this brought forward to the county commission for a determinant of whether we are even going to lease you the land, and that can be accomplished in a fairly short time period, where the permitting process is going to be quite lengthy; so it really won't have much of an impact on whether you go forward or not. HAYOR BARNETT: Okay. Tim, I don't think you want to add anything. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I've said more than enough. HAYOR BARNETT: Jon, do you want to just answer Mr. Nooera's '- MR. STAIGER: Yeah, because it doesn't have any permanent mooring facilities, it would be a permit somewhere in the 200 to 500 dollar application fee range. I don't know exactly, but it's not a major expense. HAYOR BARNETT: Thank you. Well, I -- I think that we've basically heard the consensus that we should -- somebody should certainly approach Windstar and see if they would be interested. If not, perhaps we can go back to the drawing board and make a last-ditch attempt, at least to get some of the questions -- I know we have everything on tape this morning. Maybe we can get some of those questions answered. DR. WOODRUFF: Thank you. COUNCILMAN VAN ARSDALE: Let me just -- and -- you know, I don't know. I mean, this is a no-brainer for me from certainly a safety, congestion, navigational, whatever standpoint. But I certainly get the clear indication that the county's not interested in doing it. I mean, the questions are minimal, and in siting a fuel tank, I've got no indication that siting a fuel tank in an appropriate location is going to make this thing fly; so I don't see any reason, at least from my own standpoint, to go ahead. I think we should look at alternatives. I don't know if you've investigated a fueling barge. That's certainly an alternative. I think we should work hard to get a fueling site down on the south side of the bay, but I don't see where this thing's going to go. I see -- quite frankly, guys, I see so much resistance, it's not -- HAYOR BARNETT: Right. COUNCILMAN VAN ARSDALE: You don't dress it up unless -- rather than waste staff time on something else. There are alternatives. Like I said, there's a barge. You could go to platform. There's other ways that they do it in other communities all over the world to solve these kind of problems. HAYOR BARNETT: We will keep working on it. COUNCILMAN VAN ARSDALE: And I would suggest that our staff move ahead that way, because this has been a waste of time. DR. WOODRUFF: For both bodies to know -- you know, the private sector does step forward and fill voids. We do know, and the gentleman may be here today, but I did have a telephone call probably a month ago from the gentleman who said he had set up a company that actually brings fuel directly to a person's home, which is certainly a step in the right direction, because any vessel trip up the bay we can eliminate is beneficial to the whole community. COUNCILMAN TARRANT: Dr. Woodruff. DR. WOODRUFF: I would like a direction from city council, though, based on what you've heard. Do you authorize us to expend additional staff time, or do you want us now to move on to other issues? HAYOR BARNETT: Well, additional staff time on Bayview Park or -- DR. WOODRUFF: Yes, sir, on Bayview Park. HAYOR BARNETT: No. I think that based on what we've heard from the county commission that I -- I think that you -- I don't think you should -- at least I -- my feeling is don't spend any more time on it. COUNCILMAN TARRANT: I would -- I would -- HAYOR BARNETT: Look at Windstar. COUNCILMAN TARRANT: I would agree with that, Mr. Mayor. I would also like, before we end the subject, to thank Dr. Woodruff and his staff for what I think is really an excellent research and presentation. And I hear -- I understand the commissioners' concern about traffic congestion and all of that in that -- in the Bayview Park area, as we have our concerns about traffic and congestion at our beachhead points here in the city. Thank you. HAYOR BARNETT: Thank you. Let's move on to agenda item no. '- COUNCILMAN NOCERA: He needs direction. COUNCILMAN VAN ARSDALE: Well, have you looked at the idea of a barge? DR. WOODRUFF: What we would do today, if council tells us not to pursue Bayview Park, but pursue other options such as barges and so forth, we would be very happy to do that. We just ask direction from you. COUNCILMAN VAN ARSDALE: I would like to see you do that. COUNCILMAN NOCERA: I would ask you -- MAYOR BARNETT: I would get consensus from council to pursue other avenues. COUNCILMAN TARRANT: Yes. MAYOR BARNETT: Agenda Item No. B, discussion regarding interim governmental service fees. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: With that, Mr. Weigel, I think you'll be the appropriate person here, or is Mr. Yonkosky going to make a presentation? MR. YONKOSKY: Yes. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: I just met with Dave last week and I -- MR. YONKOSKY: Good morning. For the record my name is John Yonkosky. I'm the county revenue services director. Agenda Item 4-B is a discussion concerning the interim governmental service fee. As you may know, the Board of County Commissioners has put in place or in motion a procedure to charge an interim governmental service fee in the unincorporated area of the county. And for way of discussion, an interim governmental service fee is a method of charging a fee for governmental services that are used by and available to new construction. Whether it be residential or commercial construction, there's governmental services that are available to those entities. However, ad valorem taxes are not paid until the following year, and it could be as much as 22 months before the ad valorem taxes are paid for improved property. An interim governmental service fee defines the cost of those services and places a charge for those services at the time of -- of C.O. or certificate of occupancy. The Board of County Commissioners has chosen to collect this fee on the next ad valorem tax bill. And the purpose of the discussion today is to ask the city council to adopt an ordinance at their next -- which is scheduled for your next hearing on the 5th, to adopt an ordinance that would opt for the city to be inside of the municipal services benefit unit that the Board of County Commissioners will review and perhaps adopt within the next couple of weeks. And basically that is why we are here today, is to ask the city council to -- ask if there are any questions about the interim government service fee and on this coming Wednesday to adopt that ordinance. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Yonkosky, to head off probably the first round of questions, what is the time frame right now? We had a little bit of a lag over the last couple of weeks that you and I discussed last week trying to bring a solution to; so if you could give us a little heads up on the proposed time frame here, that might help. MR. YONKOSKY: We had originally settled for or requested the board adopt the ordinance -- review and possibly adopt the ordinance at the first meeting in February. However, that's been delayed for a few weeks; so it will appear that the board will adopt the ordinance towards the end of February -- or it will be brought to the board. MS. SULLIVAN: John, specifically what benefits would the city derive from this? MR. YONKOSKY: The benefits would be to the taxpayers of the city. The revenues would go into the general fund, the county-wide general fund, therefore reducing the board's need to use ad valorem taxes to pay for those services. So city residents would benefit from a -- at least holding the line, if not a reduction, in ad valorem taxes. COUNCILMAN TARRANT: John, I'm not familiar with the legal aspects of this, but I have heard from different reports that this -- to go forward with this is basically a legal challenge waiting to happen. Have -- has the county gotten a letter of approval from the State Department of Revenue indicating that this is legally acceptable? MR. YONKOSKY: No, Councilman Tarrant, they have not. However, this fee has been in place for many years. It's in existence in, I believe, 15 cities. And the City of Clearwater has been using this concept and this fee for some 15 years. I think the question is whether or not a noncharter county such as Collier County can levy this type of a fee. There was concern from the building industry, and the building industry came forward and discussed it with the Board of County Commissioners, and they seem to be satisfied with the method that the board chose to implement it, which is as a non-ad valorem special assessment on the tax bill. COUNCILMAN TARRANT: The reason I ask that is that, quite frankly, as far as my personal vote on the city council would -- would be dependent on a letter of approval from the State Department of Revenue. So without that I -- I wouldn't -- I wouldn't be in favor of it. MAYOR BARNETT: Does anybody on the council have any questions? COUNCILMAN SULLIVAN: If -- if I might, I'd like to pursue the benefit aspect. According to the information I have here, the fiscal impact would be approximately thirty to fifty thousand dollars annually from the city. MR. YONKOSKY: Yes, sir. COUNCILMAN SULLIVAN: What does that equate to, John, in terms of, again, benefit? That thirty to fifty thousand dollars seems like pretty much a drop in the bucket out there, I mean, countywide ad valorem. MR. YONKOSKY: Yes, Councilman Sullivan, that's -- thirty to fifty thousand dollars is an estimate on the fees that would come into the county's general fund from the city limits. The entire fee countywide is going to be approximately $1.4 million. Now, the city's portion of it is estimated to be between thirty and fifty thousand dollars; it's probably closer to fifty thousand dollars. It would be a small amount of the total fee, but it would, nevertheless, benefit the city residents in their ad valorem. COUNCILMAN TARRANT: Does the county have an attorney here this morning? MR. YONKOSKY: Yes, they do. COUNCILMAN TARRANT: Who is it? MR. WEIGEL: David, David Weigel. COUNCILMAN TARRANT: Oh, David. David. Good morning, David. I didn't see you, David. David, if -- if there were a legal challenge -- if the -- if the city council sign on with this -- with this proposition and there was a legal challenge, wouldn't -- wouldn't we be liable to be involved in that legal challenge as well as the county? MR. WEIGEL: Incidentally, I try to keep a low profile. But, at any rate, concerning the legal challenge, it is a county ordinance that would be putting the special assessment into effect. Whether the City of Everglades or the City of Naples were to be involved, I can't really hypothesize whether someone bringing the suit would attempt to include them -- those municipalities or not. But it would not be the base ordinance of the city, I expect, to be challenged. What is before you from the county is your city's consideration of a consent ordinance to join in pursuant to Section 125.01 of the Florida Statutes, which is a county government statute. The city might be included. The question of liability would probably be the -- during the course of a lawsuit, if the city were included or if the city were not included, there is a possibility that the funds that are reported to be collected by means of a special assessment may either be enjoined or be forced to be held in an escrow account and not distributed until the termination of the lawsuit. So from that standpoint if the lawsuit is -- if a challenge is -- is successfully beaten back, the funds would be distributed at a delayed -- potentially a delayed time, would be my best estimate. If the lawsuit is successful against the county's ordinance, then the funds conceivably may have to be administratively returned to the payers, which contrary to ad valorem taxes, is administratively an easier task here because it's from specific -- specific properties, specific amounts that are created on a proportional pro rata basis over 52 weeks of the year. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: If I may, Mr. Weigel. Councilman Tarrant, I've traveled the path that you're moving down -- COUNCILMAN TARRANT: I hear what Mr. Weigel is saying, but I also hear him saying that he cannot necessarily guarantee or rule out the possibility that the city would be involved in that expense. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: No, sir, I've never known an attorney to guarantee anything. Let me -- let me say that there are two additional facets to this that may involve your consideration. The first is that there are at least 13 other counties tracking us. Lee County is nearly lock step -- in lock step with us on this matter. And the Florida Association of Counties is tracking this. And the FAC has -- of which Collier County is a member, has a legal defense fund that should the directors of the FAC, of when -- of which I am a member, choose to take it up to the benefit of counties throughout the state, that legal defense fund can kick in. I'm not going to say it will, but there's a likelihood that it may. COUNCILMAN TARRANT: Where does the money come from the legal defense funds? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: From members of the FAC such as Collier County. It's already been prepaid through your membership dues. COUNCILMAN TARRANT: It's the taxpayers. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yes, sir, as you know, we both operate on those funds. The second thing is that the -- Tischler and Associates, who has put the ordinance together, has a firm, a law firm that has reviewed and will sign off on it, and so they become a party to any challenge and a party to that defense. Those fees are already paid. So, again, those elements are for your consideration. It may not sway your opinion, but I thought it was valid. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Mr. COMMISSIONER, while we're -- while we have two attorneys present representing governmental bodies, I'd like to ask each of them to give opinions about the legality. I agree, Mr. Tarrant, that -- that the department of revenue for the state would be the best, you know, opinion we could get, but we certainly want the advice of our own attorneys; so I'd like to ask each of them for their opinions. MR. CUYLER: For the record, Ken Cuyler. I can give a more narrow opinion than Mr. Weigel can because our -- my opinion, obviously, would have to do with the city and the city's involvement. Mr. Tarrant, possibly to give you some comfort, the -- my opinion is that the city's liability would be limited to the funds that are collected and are -- are used with regards to the general fund, the countywide general fund. You should not have any liability beyond the funds collected. The bad news about that is that if there is a challenge five or six years down the line and the monies are expended, there is a potential that you might have to go back for those monies and pay out those monies. But if the question is do you have any independent liability beyond the monies collected, my opinion would be, no, you don't. With regard to the city's involvement, as Mr. Weigel said, it is a county ordinance. What the -- in order for the county to charge these fees within the city, the city has to consent to it through a mechanism, either an ordinance or a resolution, that you'll take a look at on Wednesday. I'm not in a position to tell you that you should not go forward with that. There is some risk involved. I don't think there's any case law out there, and I'm not sure there's another nonchartered county that's doing it. So it's not a completely settled issue. As Chairman Hancock said, there's a lot of people interested in this, and there's probably a lot of people behind it because until you have a statutory mechanism to do this, this would be the only mechanism to do it. So the question really comes down to can -- can I advise you not to go forward? I can't tell you that it's not legal to go forward. And your risk is limited to the monies that are collected within the city, which would be a very small percentage of it. COUNCILMAN TARRANT: Thank you, Mr. Cuyler. I would like to ask the -- Mr. Hancock, I'm a little surprised that we don't have Mr. Carlton here from the county tax department. He's a pretty smart gentleman. He's been in this business for a long time. It would be interesting to hear his -- his read on this, and I'm wondering why he isn't here this morning. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Probably because he wasn't invited. This -- this item rests solely within the abilities of the Board of County Commissioners. If Mr. Carlton, who has been aware of this to date, has not made his concerns known in writing or by voice, I'm afraid I'm not his keeper. So I can't answer for that. We are relying upon the advice of both our council and the council that has been hired by Tischler and Associates in the development of the ordinance. I don't know a clearer way to get through this item and do so in as correct a manner as possible. But I'm sure if you'd call Mr. Carlton, he'll be glad to give you an opinion on that. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: If I can get Mr. Weigel to finish the other half of my question, I'd appreciate it. MR. WEIGEL: Thank you. Unfortunately, Mr. Cuyler left the employment of Collier County before the question came to the floor, but I have re -- been reviewing for the better part of a year the question of interim government service fees. I reviewed previous correspondence we had from outside counsel in the employ of the county in this regard. And I have opined previously that I have grave legal concern about the validity of the interim government services fee created by county ordinance. And so that the historical record is correct that has been implemented, in fact, has been in place for many years in several municipalities. Municipalities operate differently, under different statutory authority, constitutional and statutory authority, than counties in many respects. And perhaps what is good and bad is that the cities that have adopted this have never had a legal challenge. It would tend to appear that there is a great, maybe, approval in the application of these fees by municipalities in the past, but we don't have a track record of the judiciary reviewing this and telling us whether it is legal or not. HAYOR BARNETT: Okay. COUNCILMAN TARRANT: Who was that speaking? MR. CUYLER: Mr. COHMISSIONER, as David indicated, I really haven't researched interim service fees, but if you're at a point of decision where you have to go forward based on the circumstances that are involved -- HAYOR BARNETT: Yes. Then what are you saying? MR. CUYLER: I'm -- I'm saying that I'm not in a position to tell you not to go with the county. They are the ones that are going to take the brunt of the challenge. HAYOR BARNETT: Okay. MR. CUYLER: The city would be included because some of the city funds are included, but in terms of the defense, the county is going to have to defend its ordinance. COUNCILMAN TARRANT: Mr. Mayor, I don't -- I just want to say I, frankly, believe it's premature for city council to jump on board this thing without more information. HAYOR BARNETT: Thank you, Mr. Tarrant. Other council members, please. Bonnie. COUNCILWOMAN MAC KENZIE: Would the county consider underwriting the costs of defending the city? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I don't think we end up defending the city individually. The defense is of the ordinance itself, and whether the city is on board or not, those costs are going to be the same and will be borne, as I understand it, Mr. Weigel, by the county. We're going to have to defend this if we enact the ordinance so '- COUNCILWOMAN MAC KENZIE: Well, I understand that anybody can sue anybody for anything. There could be an opportunity for someone to address individually, and my question is -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: To be quite frank, without knowing what the role of the city specifically would be in that defense to commit to -- to underwriting that I'm not comfortable with, because my understanding is the role of the city would be minimal, if -- if at all, in that defense. You would be named. I'm not so sure the strategy changes from the county's defense position whether the city is named or not nor the cost. COUNCILWOMAN MAC KENZIE: Thank you. HAYOR BARNETT: John, is there any questions? COUNCILMAN NOCERA: No. HAYOR BARNETT: Fred. COUNCILMAN SULLIVAN: Just a -- just a comment that like some of the others here, including the county attorney, my comfort level is not assuaged significantly by what I've heard this morning. I -- I -- I guess I'm in kind of the same position you were in on the park. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm not trading, Fred. HAYOR BARNETT: It's not quid pro quo, is it, Fred? COUNCILMAN SULLIVAN: No. I'm just trying to get across to you -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Sure. COUNCILMAN SULLIVAN: -- that feeling of discomfort that comes when you don't have sufficient information or legal precedent to fall back on, and I don't -- I don't believe I have either. So that's where I am. HAYOR BARNETT: Thank you. Peter? COUNCILMAN VAN ARSDALE: I guess I -- the legal issue to me is too complex for certainly us to decide it now and I think certainly to decide it in advance. And for me the issue is one more of is this sort of fee appropriate, and I think it is. It's really -- accounts for the inequity that we have where people get a free ride of municipal services for, shoot, almost two years, and that doesn't make sense. So, you know, based -- so -- and that's about as deep as I can get into it. I think it's something that we should go ahead with, and certainly it will be challenged or maybe, maybe not, I mean, to challenge -- like I said, it makes imminent sense. I mean, why should somebody not pay? Why should they get this great bargain for whatever amount of time? So I think the city should support this, and I'd like to see us do that, and let the chips fall where they may, because I think it's the right thing to do. HAYOR BARNETT: Harjorie. COUNCILWOMAN PROLHAN: I agree it's fee appropriate. And I like this idea as equitable for a long time, but I think we're getting all kinds of warnings here this morning. This thing may be and probably by the qualifications, I guess -- qualifiers, I guess, waiting to happen. So I think -- I think as much as I support the idea philosophically, I don't think that I can sign on to this right now. HAYOR BARNETT: Okay. Tim. CONNISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, I've heard a couple -- at least a couple of your council people raise a question but not ask specific questions. I've heard the legal precedent, and there's nothing we can do about that; but as far as not having enough information, if there are specific questions that we can get answers to for you, we'll be happy to, but I haven't heard what those specific questions are yet. COUNCILMAN TARRANT: My -- my feeling on it, Mr. Mayor, is basically do polar bears like snow? And this is a legal challenge that is waiting to happen. It will be big, and I think it will be significant, and I think it's very, very premature to jump on this bandwagon. HAYOR BARNETT: Thank you. Does council have any specific questions that they want answered, those that don't have an opinion one way or the other? The way that I see it right now is that -- I agree with what Peter VanArsdale said. I think it's needed. I think they're getting a free ride, and if the challenge happens, it happens. So I see there's 2-4. Harjorie, you're not; and, Fred, you're not. I think we know that. COUNCILMAN NOCERA: I'm in favor of it. HAYOR BARNETT: John's in favor. COUNCILMAN TARRANT: I think Harjorie Prolman -- HAYOR BARNETT: Yes, I saw that Harjorie is not; so that's three in favor and -- COUNCILWOMAN MAC KENZIE: Well, I'd like to hear a little bit more about Lee County working with Collier County. One of the things that has struck me is that the more counties you have that feel strong -- the more municipalities you have that feel strongly about an issue, the more the state government will pay attention to you and -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Lee County -- COUNCILWOMAN MAC KENZIE: -- this is the first I've heard that you had anybody on your side. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Actually, I should have brought my stack of business cards from other counties with me -- COUNCILWOMAN MAC KENZIE: Well, I understand they're waiting to see what you-all do -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Right. Let me draw a parallel there. Lee County has not only subscribed to the idea but I believe has already contracted with Tischler and Associates who is currently creating our ordinance. So they have expended funds in the process of trying to create an ordinance for them to do the exact same thing. In the words of John Manning up there -- you know, he has said several times, "We are right behind you," and not just in a philosophical way, but in the physical steps to get the ordinance produced kind of way. Beyond that, we have a list of some ten or more counties that are continually contacting the county attorney's office. And I will draw a parallel between them and some of the uncomfortable-type comments today. They don't necessarily want to step out in the front, but Lord knows, if we're successful, they won't be far behind. Someone has to sometimes be first. And Collier has taken a position that we want to remedy the tremendous inequity in the collection of -- of taxes on new construction, that this is a -- probably the only method of doing that since our state legislature has failed to enact partial-year ad valorem continually. And we feel comfortable enough with the folks who are putting the ordinance together that have done it in other places that it's worth pursuing to resolve that inequity. And Lee County has -- has already, like I said, expended funds in that direction. Are they to the point we are? I haven't talked to John Manning about this in about six weeks; so I can't give you a current up-to-the-minute update, but I do know that they have contracted with Tischler and Associates. COUNCILMAN TARRANT: I have -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Excuse me. COUNCILMAN TARRANT: Sure, go ahead. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: But I can't imagine a group that would be more supportive of this concept than city residents for a couple reasons. One is because of the inordinate tax burden that -- more in the overall county scheme of things by city residents. And even though the amount collected in the city is only $50,000 or $30,000, the over a million dollars a year is going to offset and reduce the need for city dollars on an ad valorem basis coming into the county. And, frankly, I think that city residents, more than most, or at least as much as many are aggravated by the -- the construction community and the development community, you know, not paying for themselves, not paying as you go. And this is one more way that new construction gets a free ride. And I just would suggest to you that this is something that the City of Naples residents, I would bet, would feel strongly about and support. And sometimes, as Chairman Hancock says, somebody has to be first, and here we go. COUNCILMAN TARRANT: Mr. Mayor, I thought I heard Bonnie MacKenzie and -- and Fred Sullivan and Marjorie Prolman express misgivings and concerns about that. MAYOR BARNETT: Yes, sir, you did. COUNCILMAN TARRANT: Oh, okay. And I make four; right? MAYOR BARNETT: That's right. COUNCILWOMAN MAC KENZIE: Well, I haven't voted. COUNCILMAN VAN ARSDALE: It's all on your shoulders, Bonnie. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: It's best to vote first from now on, Bonnie. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Can I make a comment? MAYOR BARNETT: Sure. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Collier County, correct me if I'm wrong, but we're going forward whether or not the City of Naples joins in? MR. WEIGEL: You're absolutely correct. COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. So if the city is -- has got trepidation about perhaps being named in a lawsuit and not having to defend is what I've heard but being named, perhaps you could wait a few years and see if there's a challenge and whether or not it's successful, and then you can join in. In the meantime, I think I've heard your council tell you that -- that your liability would be strictly limited to repayment of any funds that were collected under the ordinance; so I don't know that -- I don't know that you have any kind of onerous liability hanging out there over your head if you were to go along with this. So, you know, we're just here to offer to you if you want to piggyback on what we're doing. If not, fine; we intend to go ahead anyway. COUNCILWOMAN MAC KENZIE: Well, in truth I agree with you that basically this rectifies an inequitable situation. And I have appeared in front of you on behalf of the city to recommend that you consider other alternative forms of increasing your income besides being so dependent on ad valorem taxes such as perhaps you might consider franchise fees and utility taxes as we do in the city in the future. MAYOR BARNETT: So what are you saying, Bonnie? COUNCILMAN VAN ARSDALE: Trying to conduct a swing vote here? COUNCILWOMAN MAC KENZIE: Yes, I would support this. I don't think it's a -- it's a question that is totally unresolved, but I think it is an egregious example of unfairness -- MAYOR BARNETT: Okay. COUNCILMAN VAN ARSDALE: So we need to do what? COUNCILWOMAN MAC KENZIE: -- and I think it needs to be addressed, and I'm never real wild about being on the front lines, but in this case, I think -- MR. CUYLER: And always keep in mind, we do have a public hearing coming up on this on Wednesday at which the public will address -- MAYOR BARNETT: Okay. Fred Sullivan. COUNCILMAN SULLIVAN: John. MR. YONKOSKY: Yes, sir. COUNCILMAN SULLIVAN: Question. Is there any way -- I understand that from what I'm being told by the legal council that the liability of the city would be restricted to the funds collected. MR. YONKOSKY: That's what I heard, too, Councilman Sullivan, yes, sir. COUNCILMAN SULLIVAN: We both heard the same thing. Can the funds which are collected, can those funds be established in a -- in some kind of account in which they would accrue on an annual basis so that if -- if there is a lot -- if there is a judgment against us and we have to go back, that some of those funds would be available to us in order to come back and -- MR. YONKOSKY: The county commission in its infinite wisdom set up so that these will be collected on the next annual ad valorem tax roll even though the individuals who are going to be responsible for those fees will be notified at the date of C.O. there is a window already established. And the way that I believe that the ordinance is going to be presented to the commissioners will set up that that money will go into a trust fund that the board establishes until after the year is over, and then the board will be asked to approve moving it into the general fund. So there is a large window that -- if someone pays or gets a C.O. in September, the window may be smaller. But if they get that C.O. in January, it's going to be a rather large window. COUNCILMAN TARRANT: In other words -- in other words, Mr. Mayor, this city council is ready to go forward without even waiting to get a letter of determination from the State Department of Revenue; is that right? HAYOR BARNETT: Mr. Tarrant, you hear as well as I do. And I have to say that the answer right now is yes. COUNCILMAN TARRANT: That's fascinating. HAYOR BARNETT: Okay. Mr. Sullivan, go ahead. COUNCILMAN SULLIVAN: Well, in -- in terms of that -- Commissioner Constantine said specific questions. I find it difficult to -- to look at -- at this. The ordinance isn't written. There is a lot of discussion, a lot of comments, a lot of direction. But until such time as an ordinance is presented and I have the ability to read it, I don't know what's going to be in that ordinance despite conversation. And that's why I -- my -- my comfort level is now assisted by the lack of the specific ordinance, because with specificity I can then look at alternatives and the consequences of those alternatives in order to make a decision. And lacking the ordinance, I can't do that. That's the reason for my discomfort. COUNCILMAN NOCERA: Why don't we see the ordinance? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: In other words, you have in your packet for Wednesday the city ordinance, but you have not yet seen the county's ordinance? MR. CUYLER: It's in draft form, but I don't think we've received -- HAYOR BARNETT: I think basically you're hearing a basic consensus, and that's all you're really asking for. And you're going ahead with it one way or the other anyway, I mean, so we're -- you've heard it's basically 4-3. And Fred will switch over if he sees -- and he's right; he wants to see the ordinance. So I don't think we need to -- I don't think any more needs to be said on it. Is that all right with you -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: That's agreed. HAYOR BARNETT: -- Chairman Hancock? Now, we have till eleven o'clock, and we are on a time schedule here. I would like to do the Item C, which is joint Economic Development Council presentation, which is going to take about 20 minutes, and that will leave us about 10 minutes. We will then do Agenda Item E. I don't think we're going to get to D today, so Agenda Item No. 4. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Good morning, John. Mr. Passidomo, I got Susan from 45 to 30. We've now got you down to 20. Is there any more shaving -- MR. PASSIDOHO: Good morning, Mr. Mayor, Mr. Commissioner, members of the City Council, members of the Board of County Commissioners. My name is John Passidomo. I serve as Commissioner of the Economic Development Council of Collier County. We appreciate this opportunity to make this presentation to you today. The presentation was made by John Ray at Enterprise Florida, in charge of expansion and retention, by Mr. Tom HcElroy, general counsel for Allen Systems here in Collier County, and by Susan Pareigis, EDC executive director. If I could make some introductory remarks with the permission of the chair. The EDC is working with partners in the region, locality, and the state building economic development tools that will help retain and expand high-wage job generators. Part of that effort deals with capital formation. Part deals with training and technology and business and systems. We're pleased to be able to participate in this presentation by Enterprise Florida on behalf of Allen Systems, a preeminent member of our business community. Tom HcElroy may share with you, but before he does, let me simply suggest that Allen Systems is the largest software developer in the State of Florida. The proposal that they have in front us is to create 61 new jobs in Collier County paying an average wage of $35,000. We're excited about it at the EDC, and we look forward to this presentation being made to you today. Thank you very much. HAYOR BARNETT: Thank you, John. MR. PASSIDOHO: John Ray will make the presentation on behalf of Enterprise Florida. MR. RAY: Good morning, members. My name is John Ray with Enterprise Florida located in Tallahassee, Florida. I manage one of the state's primary business incentives, the qualified targeted industry tax refund program. I've been requested by Collier County EDC to come here today to -- to give you a brief summary of the program and explain some of the economic benefits that this program has achieved for the State of Florida and communities throughout the state since its operation began in July 1 of 1995. First of all, I want to say it's a pleasure to be here in Naples in your beautiful city. I apologize for my cold and -- and slight voice. Apparently I'm allergic to absolutely gorgeous weather, and the next time you want to have me back, I'll be happy to come. Again, the incentive program I want to talk to you about today is called the qualified target industry tax refund incentive, and it's a mouthful, I know, and we affectionately refer to it as QTI. The Qualified Target Industry Tax Refund Program, QTI, was constructed and passed by the legislature to encourage high-quality job growth here in the state. It is a negotiated performance-based incentive that rewards businesses for creating high-wage jobs and better employment opportunities for Floridians. It is a program that is a refund program. It is not an up-front grant program like many of the horror stories that you see across the nation. It is a refund program that literally gives businesses back their taxes that they pay for -- on a per-job basis for creating these jobs. Briefly, in your packets you'll see a -- I have a document prepared here called "A Quick Look at QTI," and my comments will track -- will track this summary. It pays up to $5,000 per new job created, and it is an -- we pay the refunds only when business creates the jobs. And I think that is a very key component of the program. The business must comply and create the jobs and then -- and then subsequently is rewarded. The program has some basic minimum requirements. The business must create at least ten new jobs, or if it's in an expansion project, must expand by 10 percent of its previous employment base. The jobs -- and most importantly, must pay a hundred -- 115 percent of the prevailing wage in the county or the state. Clearly the focus of this program is to raise average wages and create better jobs, and that is why we have this 115 percent minimum requirement. Thirdly, the business must be in a targeted industry, and in your packet I have included a target industry list. This is a very -- it is, indeed, a targeted list, but it is a very inclusive list. And it includes all of the major industries that we classify as high-growth industries which we would consider high value-added activities for the state. And, lastly -- and this is where local communities are involved -- the QTI program is indeed a partnership between the state and the localities. It requires that the community provide a 20 percent match of overall total refund. The state puts in 80 percent. The local community puts in 20 percent. We believe this is an important piece of the program because it lends credence to the program, and it gives local endorsement to -- to this project, because Enterprise Florida -- we like to say we're not here to do economic development to you; we're here to do economic development with you. And we think this partnership is very important. Lastly -- and I'll be very brief -- we'd like to consider the QTI program among the most accountable and fiscally responsible incentive programs in the nation. As I mentioned before, the tax refunds are not paid until the business creates the jobs. They are paid out over a minimum of four years and sometimes longer depending on the size of the program. The practical effect of this mechanism is that we have constructed the incentive program to encourage businesses that once they get the refund, to keep the jobs here. And we don't like to see job flight once the money is made. Every -- every project that we've approved thus far since July 1 of 1995, we run a very serious fiscal analysis in the economic impact on -- on the projects. And what we have determined is -- and calculated to date is that over a ten-year period on average the projects that we have approved will pay back $11 in state revenues, tax revenues, for every dollar we invest. We think that this is something that we can hang our hats on; that's something to be proud of. This is, indeed, an important investment and a responsible investment because this is an incentive. We are trying to induce job growth. We're not trying to give any giveaways. Just a brief overview of some of the program activities that occurred over the last year and a half. We've approved roughly 35 projects. Fifteen counties have participated, and we have at least six new counties on line to -- to apply to us as of today. The average wages that are associated with the jobs we've approved so far is roughly $34,000 per year. That is almost 150 -- 150 percent of the average statewide wage. This is something we are terribly proud of, and we certainly don't hesitate to -- to highlight about the program. I also would like to include for the record and have made this available to the local EDC a report issued by the governor's office this last November which highlights the economic and fiscal returns for the state and gives you a very detailed analysis of some of the program activity associated with the program. With regard to the specific project that's before you today, the state is prepared to issue what we call a nonbinding opinion letter this week. Basically what that is is in advance of final approval, we can give the community and the business some early indication as to their eligibility and the potential amount of tax-free funds that might be awarded to the community. That might be a very useful instrument for -- for you as you consider the usefulness of this program and this particular project and your willingness to participate in the program. Also included in your packet is a more detailed three-page overview which gives you some idea about the process and the role Enterprise Florida plays in the program. And I will leave that for -- for you to read at your pleasure, and I will open it up for any questions, if you have any. COUNCILWOMAN MAC KENZIE: Yes, I have a question. The 20 percent local participation, all throughout this it says either city or county. Which one are you requesting the 20 percent from? MAYOR BARNETT: County. COUNCILWOMAN MAC KENZIE: Thank you. I'll accept that answer. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'll have to say both. Is the 20 percent that you're -- you're talking about have to be a cash match, or can the city and county find a creative way to provide an economic benefit to the business owner to equate to that 20 percent without making a cash payment? MR. RAY: Per statute the local match must come to us in one of two ways; either cash, which has been predominantly the vehicle that most counties have used, or a statutory authorized local -- local property tax abatement. Those are the only two ways we are allowed to __ COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: The second one is an avenue that I have been considering, which is if a business meets certain criteria for economic development, the area that the increase in property taxes be deferred for a set period of time after construction of a new facility or an expanded facility so that we aren't taking tax dollars out of pocket and paying them in but are deferring those tax dollars coming into the revenue stream as an incentive for business without -- again, I have a problem of collecting ad valorem taxes and then paying it to a business or for a business. But if you don't collect them, then for some reason I'm more comfortable with that, even though the end result is the same. MR. RAY: Right. The -- the -- the authority to use local property tax abatement is referenced in a very specific statute, and basically obviously that is -- that must be documented by the county, and I'll be glad to discuss it with Susan to see if that's an option. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: But we can make a 20 percent match in that method provided it's within state statutes? MR. RAY: Correct. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Thank you. COUNCILWOMAN PROLMAN: I have a question. Tell me this, do you have any requirement or policy about hiring women or minorities in this mix? COUNCILMAN VAN ARSDALE: Why? MR. RAY: In terms of the specific statute, it is -- we are -- our criteria are high-wage, high value-added jobs. I must say, however, that in learning of the projects -- and we're asked to give a very complete project description -- we are very sensitive in our scoring to those who make a significant impact to -- to some of those goals. Obviously we provide up to $7500 per job for jobs who are located in economically distressed areas like such as enterprise zones. And so while it doesn't specifically state in the statute, we certainly have built into our criteria many -- many of those -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Mayor, may I suggest a path that may help us all arrive at a joint decision, not necessarily today, but down the road, that is that we begin to understand the tax abatement criteria set in state statutes so that -- and let's take Allen Systems, for example; they're building within the city yet, you know, the -- the tax issue can run city and countywide. But we need to understand that relationship. I would like to ask that our county attorney and possibly the city attorney work with the EDC to bring back to each body individually those tax abatement criteria on how they can be met, and if we have to make joint decisions on an individual basis business by business, that may be the best course of action. But it seems to me in order to obtain these funds and encourage more high-paying jobs in the county, we're going to have to take an aggressive step, and that seems to be the best one on the horizon for me. COUNCILMAN TARRANT: Hay I ask, please -- and I apologize for having to step out and miss part of your presentation. I'm sorry about that, but could someone tell me in very quick order where the money comes from and how much money the City of Naples would be talking about, where those funds come from and how many -- how many dollars are we talking about? MR. RAY: In terms of the state contribution, it comes from our general appropriations general revenue fund which is appropriated annually by the state. And basically we ask for appropriations based upon an estimation -- an estimate on the projects and the jobs that -- and the refund applications that we have, and so that is cash. The 20 percent from the local community is -- as we discussed, is usually -- we are -- we are not -- we're not nit-picky about the source, but ultimately it comes in two varieties, which is cash or local property tax abatement. COUNCILMAN TARRANT: I understand. I understand the advantages of the program to people seeking employment and to the industry and the area and all of that. But being very libertarian in my thinking, I, frankly, don't feel that people today need tax abatement. They need tax relief. DR. WOODRUFF: Mr. Tarrant, let me address the question to you. From the city's standpoint there are a number of revenue sources that the city could use. The one that if the council wanted to move forward with this issue that the staff would recommend, job creation is one of the eligible expenditure categories for the federal community development block grant money. If the city is to proceed with its portion, your staff will tell you that our recommendation is that you fund your portion through the CDBG federal money. It would be spread over a six-year period; therefore, it would not have any significant impact on your annual allocation. COUNCILMAN TARRANT: Right. But my point is, Dr. Woodruff, that the bottom line is that the money comes out of the taxpayers' pocket. And when I was in business, and we trained hundreds and hundreds of people in different areas of the business, we -- we didn't go out and seek corporate welfare. That's my point. MAYOR BARNETT: All right. Does anybody -- any more comments? MR. MC ELROY: Mr. Mayor, if I may, Tom McElroy, vice president and general counsel of Allen Systems Group. If it's okay, I'd like to give just like a real brief overview of the Allen Systems proposal. MAYOR BARNETT: Well, I -- Tom, I think that -- I don't think it's the proposal that is in question with any of us, and I think most of us are familiar with Allen Systems. I don't think that that's the issue today. I think it's -- as Chairman Hancock said, we need a little better understanding of the abatement and figuring out -- I don't -- I like the program. I just think we need a few more answers first. So I don't want to cut you short. MR. MC ELROY: Sure. No, that's fine. Let me state for the record that Allen Systems, of course, would be in favor of any way that the matching funds can be allotted under the law; so we would, of course, be happy with a tax abatement if we're entitled to it and it would get approved. MAYOR BARNETT: Thank you. Peter. COUNCILMAN VAN ARSDALE: Yeah. I think that -- it seems to me that we have to develop either individually or -- or as a group a position on this thing, whether the city wants to proceed -- I mean, as I understand it, the city can proceed on its own. I mean, this doesn't have to be a joint effort or -- and it does -- and the county doesn't need the city to proceed with it. On the other hand, it may be something that we want to do together, but I think that that's really the issue to -- for us that we haven't wrestled with, is do we want to -- do we want to get into this kind of program. And, you know, I -- I think there's value to it. I think it makes sense; so -- COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Can I ask -- COUNCILMAN VAN ARSDALE: -- we have to look at it from all these different perspectives. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Can I ask if the EDC has made -- it was actually the Council of Economic Advisers to the county that made a presentation to us at our last meeting about the demise of a middle class in Collier County and -- and the real need for higher-paying jobs, you know, mid -- mid-wage jobs, which is what we're talking about at the thirty, thirty-five thousand dollar range, that I would commend that study to you as you try to look at this, Peter, to decide whether or not it's something that the city wants to participate in, because you will find that the net effect -- or what I learned from that is that the net effect of increasing this -- this wage of jobs, this area of jobs, this range, is a real positive effect on the property tax base, a real reduction -- by diversification a reduction in the general property taxes that are paid by homeowners; so I commend that to you. COUNCILMAN VAN ARSDALE: Yeah. But -- I mean, I -- to me the issue is, though, is -- I mean, the big issue is whether -- do we want to do this -- do we want to look at this as something that would benefit the city if we were to just do it by ourselves? MAYOR BARNETT: We haven't had any -- COUNCILMAN VAN ARSDALE: We haven't even kicked that around because it may be something we just want to do. I mean, maybe if we can't come to get -- or we may want to do it together, or we may want to do it on our own. MAYOR BARNETT: What kind of time -- COUNCILMAN VAN ARSDALE: We may even be sort of competing for these better jobs in the different pockets of the community. I don't know. MAYOR BARNETT: What time frame are we looking at? MR. HC ELROY: Well, the state, as Mr. Ray said, is ready to issue the nonbinding letter within ten days; so the only -- the next stage in this is to get the local match, and then the state then will make their ultimate decision. So our project is scheduled to begin the mid part of this year. The sooner -- the sooner we get approval for this, the sooner we're going to start creating these jobs. Our specific proposal is set up over two years for 61 new jobs. We can't hire any of those jobs in until we have this approval. We don't have any current plans to hire these jobs in absent the approval. So it's -- from a time standpoint, it's as soon as -- as soon as we want to start bringing these people into Naples and -- and have them working here. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: What's the local match amount? The 20 percent, what's that total dollar? MR. HC ELROY: In the letter I've given you that -- COUNCILWOMAN MAC KENZIE: 61,000. MR. HC ELROY: Yeah, the total is 61,000, and it's spread out over fiscal years 1997 through 2001. MAYOR BARNETT: And, Dr. Woodruff, do you feel there is grant money available? DR. WOODRUFF: Your community development block grant money is an eligible expenditure for that money for that match. COUNCILWOMAN PROLHAN: Richard, isn't that targeted, though, at low income essentially? Isn't that what that's for? I would rather not see us use that and fund it ourselves, but tell me -- DR. WOODRUFF: It is for the job creation within your community development block grant target area, so any job that is within that boundary -- and now Allen System's proposed new building, which is on the Stoneburner property -- I'm sorry, on property which you purchased from Stoneburner -- MR. HC ELROY: Correct. DR. WOODRUFF: What is the status of that building? MR. HC ELROY: Well, actually, we are ready to go. The only thing that's holding up right now is city permitting, but we -- we literally have -- we have Kraft Construction there on site ready to -- the pilings are ready to go; so we're -- we're probably going to start hopefully within the next few days. MAYOR BARNETT: And since they asked me to do the ground breaking on Friday, Valentine's Day, I guess they're pretty well ready to go. MR. HC ELROY: Right. hats for you. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: COUNCILWOMAN PROLHAN: haven't finished yet. MAYOR BARNETT: Yes, we've purchased our hard Can I ask Mr. Mayor -- No, wait. Excuse me, Tim. I No, we're still talking about this. COUNCILWOMAN PROLMAN: I'm not understanding that this -- that this targeted group of higher-salaried people is really what's served by the purpose of the whole CDBG. DR. WOODRUFF: Well, the community development block grant program does not only look at individuals, it also looks at geographic areas. So any economic development within that target area, whether it is hiring a low-income person or whether it's hiring a person who will make, let's say, a hundred thousand dollars a year, as long as it's within the borders and it helps build and uplift the economic viability of that district, then it is by federal standards eligible. You have to decide on the local level, though, whether you want to expend that money for a job that's going to pay, let's say, $36,000 versus a job that's going to pay 12,000. COUNCILWOMAN PROLHAN: Well, I guess for me I wouldn't want to see us filter those funds away from the real target. And I think that -- I think that this would be doing that, even though I think it maybe falls within the parameters generally. I think that that's really and truly not the intent. And I think that this is going to be a very strong area over this previous Stoneburner place anyway. So I think that -- I think that that really diffuses the -- just the focus of what that -- that whole grant program is for. I'd like to see us pick up the tab for this ourselves. COUNCILWOMAN MAC KENZIE: Dr. Woodruff, do we have any other opportunities within the city to use these funds along the lines that Hiss Prolman has outlined, or is this an opportunity that the -- that the Allen Systems would be able to take advantage of and -- because we have no other use for those funds right now? DR. WOODRUFF: And by those funds, you're referring to community development block grant funds? COUNCILWOMAN MAC KENZIE: For this particular program. DR. WOODRUFF: There would be others who would be eligible if they came forward. During the 5 1/2 years that I've been here, we have not had any -- Susan, come join me. We have not had any, that I know of, job creation opportunities where a private individual, private company has come forward and said we will create these jobs if you'll use block grant funds. Now, am I correct? MS. GOLDEN: Yes, that's correct. DR. WOODRUFF: Okay. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I guess I don't completely understand the logic of not wanting to create a job because it's middle income. One of the criticisms of the City of Naples and certainly of Collier County as a whole is we have not enough people in middle class. We've got two extremes. And maybe I misunderstand, and you can clarify it for me -- COUNCILWOMAN PROLHAN: You understood. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- but the idea of saying we want to target $12,000 jobs instead of $30,000 jobs doesn't make a whole lot of sense. COUNCILWOMAN PROLHAN: No, I'm talking, Tim, about our -- the way that we would be funding this in the city; that's the only focus of this. I'm not talking at all about the creation of jobs in middle -- that's not the issue. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Hiss Prolman, I think I have a path that may solve some of your concerns, at least at the outset, which is to pursue the abatement issue on the county side. I will ask the board tomorrow for direction to do just that. With that, if you will on Wednesday authorize your staff to work with us, we can determine what role and impacts the city might have in that abatement issue, and maybe these projects become joint projects that work out as a natural. If that occurs, I think the questions about the community development block grant funds are relieved for now. So that's the direction I'll be asking the county to take, assuming there's anything dry to look at tomorrow. HAYOR BARNETT: And -- and in addition, Dr. Woodruff, I know you're doing a mop-up job here, but you can hear anyway. Could perhaps -- I know you're on a time -- I know you're really on a time frame, but our problem, this is -- I mean, we haven't had any chance to talk about it and get some questions answered. I could suggest that if need be, we could -- we could perhaps workshop this on the 17th and then, if need be, put it on our agenda for the 19th and get you an answer or if we can't do it faster. I don't know any other way to do it. I just hear a lot of -- COUNCILMAN NOCERA: I like it. HAYOR BARNETT: I do too, but I -- COUNCILMAN VAN ARSDALE: I think we should workshop it MR. HC ELROY: Mr. Mayor, that will work fine on our time schedule. I mean, one of the things that we're trying to do here is we're trying to make sure that we let you-all get a set of procedures for other companies to follow down the road. HAYOR BARNETT: I don't want to see you have to lose some of that good talent that you're bringing in, but on the other hand -- so we'll workshop on the 17th. We can make it official, put it in on the agenda from the 19th, if that works for you, and you'll have an answer from the city. Tim can pursue it on the county level, and we might even want to do it as a joint venture down the road. COUNCILMAN TARRANT: You know, Mr. Mayor, this is a wonderful example of government doing what it does best, robbing Peter to pay Paul. HAYOR BARNETT: Yes, thank you, Fred. MR. HC ELROY: All right. Thank you very much. Mr. Allen thanks you. HAYOR BARNETT: John. COUNCILMAN VAN ARSDALE: Who's Paul? MR. PASSIDOHO: Mr. Tarrant, thank you for your remark, but we look at this as an investment program. One dollar invested for eleven dollars return; one dollar locally for four dollars matched in the count -- in the statewide level. We look at it as a way to create 61 high-paying jobs in exchange for investment of $5,000 a year per body over a five-year period, and what we simply hoped to accomplish today is an opportunity to send a signal that Collier County and the City of Naples welcome high-wage job creation as a way of retaining and expanding our local business base. Thank you very much. HAYOR BARNETT: Thank you, John, and thanks for the presentation. COUNCILMAN VAN ARSDALE: John, you didn't mean 5,000 per year? HAYOR BARNETT: Sure, he did. MR. PASSIDOHO: That's what we're talking about, $5,000 a year. COUNCILMAN VAN ARSDALE: Oh, it's five thousand per employee per year? MR. PASSIDOHO: No, that's the local match. HAYOR BARNETT: Local match. COUNCILMAN NOCERA: I commend John for all his efforts on this. I just think this is a great project, and we ought to really just jump in -- HAYOR BARNETT: Well, we will. I mean, I just -- I think we just need to workshop. Let me ask the county commission, what's your time schedule look like? Dr. Woodruff has asked for five minutes on Item D, and I don't know what E will take, but I don't think it'll take that long. Do you have an extra 15 minutes or so you could spare? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I do. COHMISSIONER BERRY: I'm fine. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: 11:15 is fine. HAYOR BARNETT: Okay. We'll need to wrap this up by 11:15. COUNCILMAN NOCERA: Mr. Norris has to go gas up his boat COUNCILMAN VAN ARSDALE: And now he's got to take that long route. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Just during the transition here, Greg Hihalic, if you would get that Council of Economic Advisors' information and share it with city council, I'd sure appreciate that. MR. HIHALIC: Well, thank you. MS. HC KIH: I promise to be less than 5 minutes. There are three items that the county staff and the city staff wanted to bring up as far as the comp. plans that we're working on right now. And I appreciate you getting us on the agenda because we're working on these as we speak, and they'll actually come to you before you-all meet jointly again. The three items that I wanted to talk about are the housing element, the corridor management plans, and then offshore drilling. On the first one, on the housing element -- hopefully this is a reminder, because this is something that we received direction from you some time ago we -- from the city council, the county -- from the Board of County Commissioners, to do a joint housing element. So this will be something that you-all will see for the first time. We've never done a joint housing element before. There are seven objectives, as you'll see. We have joint city and county policies within this element, and then we also have city policies that deal with just city affordable housing issues and county policies dealing with the county policy issues. You probably recall reading in the paper that the county, including the city, has a very large obligation for affordable housing as identified by the state. We're committing to try to meet that incrementally. We feel right now that we have a commitment of 500 units each year in Objective 1, and this is probably the one issue that will be discussed the most, but it commits the number of new affordable housing units shall be increased by 750 units each -- each year in an effort to continue to meet the housing needs of all current and future residents of the county. So this is something that we can discuss more as you-all talk about your affordable housing plan and -- and the city talks about the affordable -- joint housing element. But we are trying to do this jointly. Also within the housing element, there are policies that address the consolidation of the city, county, and housing authority activities under one roof to provide greater coordination and efficiency. So you'll see that interweaved, really, throughout the housing element. That was real quick. Is -- are there any questions or anybody that's really surprised about us moving ahead? The housing element is basically done, and we've worked on it with city and county staff. And I think that you'll be impressed with it. And I think the state, as well, is -- is happy to see the city and county working together on an issue like this, because from a city standpoint, it's not something that's easy for us to address. From the county standpoint, although it's not easy, there are some more opportunities there. We do have the interlocal agreement right now. This really plays off, if you will, that interlocal agreement that we currently have to combine affordable housing efforts. COUNCILWOMAN MAC KENZIE: Missy, approximately how many affordable housing units do the city and the county construct per year now? MS. MC KIM: Susan, can you help me on that or Jim? MS. GOLDEN: Through the interlocal agreement Greg's office has been tracking the number of -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm sorry. Excuse me. Just for the court reporter, can we have your name, please. MS. GOLDEN: Susan Golden, planner with the City of Naples. Greg's office has been tracking the number of permits that are issued through the county, and we've been issuing over 500 building permits each year for either affordable ownership opportunities or affordable rental units. COUNCILWOMAN MAC KENZIE: So do you feel 750 units per year is an achievable goal? MS. GOLDEN: I think it's something that we can achieve because we have been reaching and exceeding the goal that we established in the 1994 interlocal agreement that Missy referenced. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm sorry. You said we're being doing about 500 a year? MS. GOLDEN: We're doing over 500 a year when we combine ownership units as well as rental units. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I like the idea of setting goals we know we can meet rather than falling short and then being found insufficient in some -- at some later date. So if we know we can build 600 and we want to continue that path, setting the goal at 750 doesn't make it happen. Right now what happens is what the market will absorb and it can accept. So unless there is some way we can be more aggressive to make it happen, setting the goal higher than what we've already achieved, I think, is just setting yourself up for perceived failure. COUNCILMAN SULLIVAN: But the market is begging for this kind of housing. If the market is there, you -- whatever you build, it will be filled. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, I -- MS. GOLDEN: And we are finding that as soon as these affordable housing units come on line, particularly the rental units, they are leased up immediately. Most of the ownership units are being built through private -- private construction companies or owner-builders, and so there's already a specific targeted market for those ownership opportunities. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, let me make a couple comments on this. One of the things that makes me uncomfortable in that language that I saw in your previous one is that it says that affordable housing units shall be increased by 750 units each year. Well, there's a couple problems in that kind of language. I know it's just an objective, but still if you say "shall be increased," let's suppose that no one comes forward from the private sector to propose any housing units or not enough housing units in any given year, then who's expected to make that up? The local government? That certainly isn't something that either one of these bodies would want to get into. And the second thing is that our experience at the county has been that we have approved a number of projects, and that's as far as it goes. I mean, we've approved several that have not made any progress. So there may be a market for them, but for who knows whatever reason, the developers, after they get their approvals, just simply have not gone forward. And it have -- it leads one to believe, myself included, that they are getting speculative approvals that then they try to market the project before it's even constructed. So -- I just want to throw those things out. I mean, we are having problems getting the number of units actually physically on line in some cases. So that will be my comment on that section. COUNCILMAN NOCERA: It also encourages a lot of the older units that could be knocked down and rebuilt, and we need this in the service industry. I think this is an asset. COUNCILMAN VAN ARSDALE: The only comment I'll throw in, Hissy, is that I would -- it probably won't happen in this effort, but I wish that somebody would look at sort of what we're doing and how it works or kind of doesn't work in terms of really treating -- or creating truly affordable housing and -- and, I mean, to me the way -- the way we sort of try to bundle up all the cheap units and put them way out in the corner somewhere and then ignore them, it doesn't deal with the problem. And I think -- I would hope that we would look at more clearly at what the fundamental problems are with what -- I mean, we're trying to create housing that is priced below market. Well, sure, there's a big demand for that; there's always going to be if you give somebody something for less than what it costs. So -- and I know we have commissions and boards that deal with this. But I think that this approach is always going to sort of be a feel-good bandaid approach that kind of gives us a goal to meet, and we sort of make it, and everybody's happy up in Tallahassee. The bottom line is what we create for affordable housing and the sort of communities that we create for people that don't have a lot of money is really substandard, and I wish that we would come to grips with the whole issue and -- and maybe take a different look at how -- how we can treat -- how we can create truly affordable housing, stuff that people can afford to buy as opposed to subsidized stuff. MS. HC KIH: We can do that. COUNCILMAN VAN ARSDALE: We can do -- okay. MS. HC KIH: We can have that discussion. It's a long discussion. I'm not going to do -- get into it now. It is -- we are attacking affordable housing on -- from another -- a number of different angles, and that's the only way, really, I know to do it. And what is included in that 750 units or the 500 plus that you see being built today are moderate and low income. The very low income we see very little of because that basically has to have some subsidy to it; so it is a big area for discussion. We do have a joint Affordable Housing Commission that meets on a regular basis, and that's one of, if you will, their concerns. But we can have that discussion at any point. COUNCILMAN SULLIVAN: I'd just -- I'd just like to make one point, and that is that there are people paying $800 a month for what I wouldn't put a dog in -- MS. MC KIM: That's true. COUNCILMAN SULLIVAN: -- and that has to be addressed. MS. MC KIM: The next item that I wanted to bring up is the corridor management plans. In the current Comprehensive Plan there were two roadways that we accomplished corridor management plans on. One is Goodlette-Frank Road, and the other is Golden Gate Parkway. What we are proposing -- and this would be specified both in the city Comprehensive Plan as well as in the county's -- that we try to accomplish four -- at least four corridor management plans in the next five years: Pine Ridge Road from U.S. 41 to Goodlette Road, Davis Boulevard from 41 to Airport, U.S. 41 from Davis Boulevard to Airport Road, and U.S. 41 from Creech Road to Pine Ridge Road. And when we do these jointly, they're funded jointly by the city and the county. City and county staff work on it. We'll come back to you with specific proposals for each one, but our goal would be to accomplish these four this year, if you all concur with that. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: I -- corridor -- I'm sorry. Corridor management plans in the past have been a lot of effort expended for not a lot of benefit realized. I need -- before we go pursuing additional joint corridor management plans, I want to know what the goal is for each of them, because I -- again, just a lot of -- a lot of effort expended, and I haven't seen a lot of benefit. I've seen more benefit come out of streetscape and access management guidelines than I have corridor management plans. So before going down that path, at least on the county's side, I'm going to want to know what's the end goal we're trying to achieve and how does this help us achieve it, and is it the most efficient way. MS. MC KIM: Yeah. And I think you'll see that staff will be proposing a broader corridor management plan in the future than what we've done in the past and to include more design issues as well as landscaping. The current one, especially on Goodlette-Frank Road, is dependent primarily on local and private property owners, and so as they develop, we start to see that implemented. So it is done piecemeal, and we may want to look at that issue as well. The final -- final item is the one that we've talked with your staff about. The city is really asking the county to take on this because we found that we just can't at the city level be effective, and that is a policy on offshore oil drilling. The city's jurisdictional boundary is limited to a thousand feet off the shoreline; so obviously that's not the area of concern. The county has jurisdiction to 10 nautical miles, which obviously is -- is farther, probably not far enough, but it at least helps to address this issue. And, of course, to effectively control oil drilling and exploration activity, it's the county's Growth Management Plan that will need to address this issue. So we're asking your support in this and your assistance since there isn't really any way for the city to be effective on this. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: this. We passed -- COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: We've done a lot of -- COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Management Plan? MS. MC KIM: point is -- I thought we've already done I know we've written letters. It's just not in our Growth Yeah. And that's what we're asking at this COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We can get it done. MAYOR BARNETT: Thank you. MS. MC KIM: And just lastly, there are going to be in the plans, both on -- from the city and the county, a number of issues that we'll need to coordinate on over the next five years. I think we're seeing more and more that to really be effective we have to work together. There are design issues, beach parking, and coordination on many of the boards that we share. So you'll be seeing more and more of a joint effort being proposed to you by the planning staffs of the city and the county. MAYOR BARNETT: Thank you, Missy. Unfortunately, we're not going to get to E today due to time constraints; so I don't know, Dr. Woodruff, what you -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We'll invite you all back tomorrow at our regular board meeting. MAYOR BARNETT: Thank you very much. We probably will pass on that, but we appreciate that. And on behalf of council, we thank all of you. This is, I think, a very good, productive meeting. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Tim, just a question on that last item before -- will there be an opportunity for discussion before the county has to adopt their capital improvement plan, because there are -- there's a significant discussion that I heard at the county commission that needs to happen? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Let me take 30 seconds to put this whole item in a nutshell. The county in it's Fund 301 capital improvement determines its capital improvement need in the way of county parks and facilities by demand. So when we start pulling new projects into that schedule, whether they're in the city or the county, we need to know the demands, how they're driven to put it into a priority schedule. There has been no discussion on what was just recently added through your -- your letter, Dr. Woodruff. So what I'm asking is that the County Parks and Rec Advisory Board, if possible, and if not, then the board understand the reason for why those items are on there, what are the demand, what are the pushes, and what population do they serve. That helps us prioritize and whether or not they're included and in what priority. DR. WOODRUFF: I'd be happy to comply. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Thank you. MAYOR BARNETT: Thank you again. We appreciate it. Next time we'll come out and see what your pastries taste like. There being no further business for the good of the County, the workshop was adjourned at 11:13 a.m. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS CONTROL TIMOTHY L. HANCOCK, CHAIRMAN 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: Barbara A. Donovan