Loading...
BCC Minutes 11/03/1997 J (w/Naples City Council) WORKSHOP MEETING OF NOVEMBER 3, 1997 BOARD OF COUNTY COHMISSIONERS AND THE NAPLES CITY COUNCIL LET IT BE REHEHBERED, that the Board of County Commissioners in and for the County of Collier, and also acting as the Board of Zoning Appeals and as the governing board(s) of such special districts as have been created according to law and having conducted business herein, and the City of Naples Council met on this date at 8:35 a.m. in WORKSHOP SESSION in Naples City Hall, 735 Eighth Street South, Naples, Florida, with the following members present: COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COHMISSIONERS: CHAIRMAN: Timothy L. Hancock John C. Norris Pamela S. Hac'Kie Barbara B. Berry ABSENT: Timothy J. Constantine ALSO PRESENT: CITY OF NAPLES COUNCIL: HAYOR: Bill Barnett Marjorie Prolman Bonnie HacKenzie John R. Nocera Fred L. Sullivan Fred Tarrant Peter H. Van Arsdale Dr. Richard L. Woodruff, City Hanager Robert Fernandez, County Administrator HAYOR BARNETT: Good morning. Welcome to our joint workshop with our honorable county commissioners today. Madam Clerk, would you call the role, please? MS. REED: Mr. Barnett? HAYOR BARNETT: Here. MS. REED: Mrs. MacKenzie? MS MACKENZIE: Present. MS REED: Mr. Nocera? MR NOCERA: Here. MS REED: Mrs. Prolman? MS PROLHAN: Here. MS REED: Mr. Sullivan? MR SULLIVAN: Here. MS REED: Mr. Tarrant? MR TARRANT: Here. MS REED: Mr. Van Arsdale? MR VAN ARSDALE: Here. MS REED: Chairman Hancock? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Here. MS. REED: Vice Chairman Berry? (No response.) MS. REED: Commissioner Constantine? (No response.) MS. REED: Mrs. Hac'Kie? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I'm here. MS. REED: Mr. Norris? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I'm here. HAYOR BARNETT: Thank you. Are there any items to be added? DR. WOODRUFF: No, sir, not from us. HAYOR BARNETT: Okay. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Mayor? HAYOR BARNETT: Yes. (Commissioner Berry enters the room.) CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: In case the members of the council haven't seen this, I do have a note from Commissioner Constantine that he is under the weather this morning and will not be here. He says he appreciates the city council's willingness to meet with the commission and is sure will come to an amicable agreement with regard to beach parking, and that was transmitted this morning. So he sends his apologies. HAYOR BARNETT: Thank you. I notice on the Collier County Board of Commissioners' agenda item today that it says a lunch recess between 12:00 and 1:00 today. I would expect that this is -- you'll be having lunch, but it won't be here. (Laughter.) HAYOR BARNETT: I thought I would make that -- because I think that we can make this very brief. Just to get us started, if you'll indulge me for a few minutes, where we've been and how we got here is very important but I don't think we have to rehash any of that. The fact that we're here is important enough. The other thing I'd like to comment on is numbers for a minute, and, as we all know, numbers and how we get there to the bottom line are very interesting. Our numbers might differ from yours and vice versa. It sort of reminds me of a few years ago when I needed to hire an accountant. I interviewed maybe three or four accountants, and each accountant would come in to me and say -- I, of course, introduced myself, and I would ask the accountant, "Well, how much is 2 plus 2?" And each accountant would answer 4. And I'd say thank you. And finally an accountant came, and we had our normal talk and I said, "How much is 2 plus 2?" And he said, "How much do you want it to be?" And I said, "You're hired." So with that in mind and the fact that we are here, we both have a few different sets of numbers, Dr. Woodruff, Bill Harrison, myself, met with Chairman Hancock, Bob Fernandez, Tom Olliff. We went over everything. I think that Dr. Woodruff and the county commission have come up with a compromise that I certainly can support. I'll turn it over to Richard. I would also ask my fellow council members, I hope you would be in support of this compromise as well. I think we can enjoy our pastries, let Richard make a brief presentation, talk about it a little and go about our business. DR. WOODRUFF: I know you've all visited the park, but just so you'll have it fresh in your mind, of course the street at the bottom is Gulf Shore Boulevard. The park itself lays out basically north to south. When you look at the statistics of the park, you will find that it is basically a twelve acre park. It was deeded to the city when the Coquina Sands subdivision was developed. It was deeded to the city in exchange for the relief from the historic pattern of development of every avenue having its terminus at the water's edge. And, as such, it has a multitude of facilities. You know that, starting in the upper right-hand corner, you have a gazebo, two volleyball areas, and then you have a parking area down on the lower right. You have the main parking area, which dominates the picture. You have a main facility that has restrooms, showers and a small concession stand. And then in the upper left-hand corner -- which is actually the southwest corner of the park -- is another gazebo. When you look at the park from a parking arrangement, what you have in Lowdermilk Park is actually a total of 214 spaces. You can notice, beginning once again -- the left side now is the gulf -- the first row has no meters of any type. It's forty parking spaces that are under permit, six that are handicapped. Then you get into the second and third rows. They are split. The lower part, southern portion of each row, is metered parking, the upper portion is permit parking. And then the fourth row is by meter, and then the fifty -- forty-five spaces are metered. Now remember, under the arrangement that the city and the county have worked on, is that anyone with a parking permit can park anywhere. They can park in a permit space or a metered space. The only place you get in trouble with a sticker is if you park in a handicapped space and you're not handicapped. when you look at that, there are actually eighty-two spaces specifically reserved for permit, six reserved for handicapped, 126 for metered, for a total of 214. From a revenue standpoint, these are the actual figures out of the Finance Department that show, on a twenty-four-month basis, from Hay of '95 through April of '97, we collected $148,000 and change. So roughly we get, through the parking meters, $75,000 a year. As you would expect, there are fluctuations. September is not a great month from a revenue standpoint in that you roughly will see $3,300, or this past September, in '96 we had an unusual September. But, as you would expect, there are highs and lows in that. And when you begin to relieve -- when you begin to eliminate from the park, meters, it has a revenue impact. Now, under the proposal which was brought to city council, what we are doing is eliminating all meters in the main lot, so the forty-one, the nineteen and the twenty-one, which you see on this screen, those would become permits, and the only metered spaces left in the park will be the forty-five metered spaces. That means that the residents of Collier County are the ones who are getting the benefit of the park. If you eliminate those meters, it has a revenue impact, and that revenue impact, we project, is to take the annual $75,000 and reduce it down to 25,000. That is a major hit on revenue. Now, that's why we came up with the issue of, how should that be covered from a revenue shortfall? The statistics -- several years ago, county staff and the county commission came up with what we thought was a very good thing in that, up to that point, everyone who needed a permit had to come to City Hall. Well, if you live in Golden Gate or you live in North Naples or you live in Marco, that becomes a very great burden. So the county commission began a process of issuing permits out of your own parks. 1995 and 1996, we have the data because we are the ones issuing the permits. And what that data shows is that in 1995 it was roughly almost 30,000 permits issued, and you can see the split, eighty-three percent county, seventeen percent city. The next year we had roughly 30,000 again, and you can see the split, eighty-one percent county, nineteen percent city. Then, beginning in 1996 and continuing through the current date, we have a variety of places for people to get their permits, and we think that's an excellent idea. We do not have data as to what the number of permits are issued today and how the breakout is. We know that in looking at the issue -- and I apologize for not having a transparency on this -- but when the Coquina Sands Association did their study of the use of Lowdermilk Park, what they basically found was a 70/30 split, that when you did the counts that they did in -- I believe, Dick Born, it was March, is that correct? MR. BORN: March of '97. DR. WOODRUFF: -- March of '97, that it showed roughly a 70/30 split. Statistics. We all know the old story about statistics, that is, statistics don't lie but statisticians do. Well, what they actually mean in that is, you have numbers, we have numbers, somebody else can get some numbers. And I think what we really get down to is the bottom line question, and that is, is this a program that both groups of elected officials value? If it is, then -- if you pardon the bluntness -- let's get on with it. I mean, what government does is compromise in almost all situations. There is no -- if I may use the term -- there is no purist's position here. It's not that the county commission is right and the city council is wrong or vice versa. So what I would recommend we do is simply pick a number and let's get on with the program, if both governmental bodies believe that having these permits available so that the county people can park at the city without having to give meters, and likewise, the city folks can park at the county beaches without having to pay at those locations. What we'd recommend to you is real simple, and that is that -- I know that you-all enjoy having this conversation, but let's make it a five-year agreement instead of a three-year agreement. That's what the county commission has put in their proposal. On the termination clause, what we're recommending is, originally the agreement said a ninety-day termination notice. The county commission wanted a longer period and said that it must be one year prior to the adoption of the budget. What I'm recommending is we simply make it a 180-day notice. Now, why would that be? 180 days to the end of any fiscal year is when your staff and our staff start the budget process. So any year that you want out or any year the city council wants out, what we would have to do is, by the end of March, we would have to notify each other that the program is going to end. That gives us the opportunity to budget, because I know your staff is like our staff, you know, March, April, May and early June are the times we're putting the budgets together. We need to know that. So a 180 day out. And the other thing that we're recommending simply in the spirit of the compromise is take the $50,000 shortfall and simply split it 75/25. Now, what we could also do, if it would make someone more comfortable, because the $50,000 shortfall is simply a guesstimate, if the county commission would feel better about it, we could simply say 75/25 of the actual shortfall, not to exceed $50,000. So if the actual shortfall wound up at 45,000, then you're split at 75/25 on 45,000 rather than 50,000. That's basically, you know, all that our staff has. I don't know whether Bob and his staff would like to make additional comments before we open it up to discussion. MR. FERNANDEZ: No. I think you've covered it. MR. TARRANT: Dr. Woodruff? DR. WOODRUFF: Yes, sir. MR. TARRANT: Is Mr. Born going to address the council and, if he is, I would like to hear from him, you know, before we get into the discussion. HAYOR BARNETT: Well, he is going to address the council, but I would like to at least have our discussion and give our county commissioners a chance to -- I'd like to hear what they have to say and then we'll let the speakers -- when we're all done, let the speakers speak before any decisions are made. How's that? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Well, Mayor Barnett, it will come as no surprise to you that I -- what Dr. Woodruff has outlined was acceptable to me in our meeting at the county, is acceptable as we sit here today. The key realization here, I think, is that everyone can benefit from this agreement. The city benefits in getting a more appropriate level of revenue. The county residents benefit by getting additional availability at Lowdermilk Park. I used that park. When I first moved here, I'd play volleyball there after work a couple days of the week. Unfortunately, those days have ended. But I use the other facilities now. But, I think this is an agreement that benefits everyone. It benefits the residents of the city, the county, the city's revenue stream. And I'm very comfortable with it. HAYOR BARNETT: Other council or county commission members? MR. TARRANT: We're talking about a five-year agreement, Mr. Mayor? HAYOR BARNETT: Yes, sir. MR. TARRANT: I don't argue with the, with the figures, the 25 -- 75/25 split. I have a problem with, with the five-year arrangement. Coming into an election cycle in the City of Naples that's only ninety days away, I think it's wrong to lock in the council to a five-year contract, especially when the growth, population growth in Collier County is moving so rapidly. That is the -- that is the problem that I have with this issue, is the time period. MAYOR BARNETT: But it can be terminated, Bob. There's a 180-day termination period in there, Bob -- that's right in the agreement, Fred, so it's not locking it in. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: MAy I ask, Mr. MAyor? Councilman Tarrant, you make a good point. I think we all realize that the growth, population-wise, rests in the county far more than in the city and for anyone to say otherwise, I think you'd be fooling yourself. What Mr. Woodruff and the MAyor and our staff discussed is the county, in my opinion, needs to make a commitment to keep our available parking spaces commensurate with the existing population. In other words, we should be adopting a pro rata share of parking spaces, or a per capita number of parking spaces, that we have a responsibility to, to develop in the coming years as the population grows, so the burden on those spaces existing in the city does not increase unfairly. Mr. Woodruff and we all discussed having a committee of five city residents and five county residents that would look at the overall availability of spaces right now and come up with a long-term plan that the county could adopt into a -- into just that, a way of relieving some of the concerns about whether the county will or will not stay up with the number of parking spaces consistent with our future population growth. And for us to leave today without mentioning that, or mentioning that -- at least I individually am dedicated to seeing that come through -- I think would be unfair, and I think unfair for us to expect you just to sit back and watch the population increase and see the demand on parking spaces within the city increase without some action on the part of the county. So I individually pledge that action. And, if my colleagues agree to that -- which, in discussion, we have in the past -- maybe that would give some level of comfort on the terms of the agreement, including the 180-day termination ability. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Mr. Chairman? What I'd like to see, I think, for my money, that's the biggest, most positive thing we could do in this whole discussion. There could be actually, you know, a silver lining to this cloud of discussion we had, if the county will make that commitment, and, frankly, maybe make it a part of this agreement with the city council, that we will come up with that per capita beach parking requirement, and that way we will be committed to creating those in the county, because otherwise we do have the potential for a great impact on the city beach ends and all the city beach parking as a result of all the growth in the county. That's the best thing we could do, and I'd strongly support that. DR. WOODRUFF: And I want to make a comment on that. The city council will recall that, in my presentation to you back in the summer, we did not use the term "beach access". As this community grows, beach access is not the way that most of our folks are going to get what I labeled in that report as a water and sun experience. I didn't know what else to call it, so that's what I called it. And I think that, if you're going to move as joint bodies or individually towards that, you should stay away from the term "beach access". Now, why? Realistically, I mean, the county commission has done an excellent job out at what I still call Lake Avalon. I believe it's properly called -- COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Sugden Regional Park. DR. WOODRUFF: But, you know, there's an example of how you have provided a water and sun experience, but it wasn't at the beach. They don't have to be at the beach. And we've all lived somewhere else where you had a community lake and you had a floating platform. And where did the teenagers go? They went to where they could go off and show off. And it doesn't matter whether that's at the beach or whether it's ten miles inland at a lake. So, if you proceed in that vein, I would urge both bodies not to limit that experience to the beach. HAYOR BARNETT: Bonnie, did you want to say something? MR. TARRANT: But, you know, I hear what you're saying, Dr. Woodruff. But I think you'd have a very hard time persuading the tourists that come down here to evacuate the beach and go to a lake further in. I would, you know -- one thing here, I just want to make sure that we're going to hear from Mr. Born, the people that live right there in that immediate area because, as Mayor Barnett pointed out on a recent TV show, we need to listen to the people. So I would hope we would listen to the people before we make any kind of a decision. HAYOR BARNETT: Yes, we will, and that I said, Mr. Tarrant. We will hear from them but we'll wait until we're finished. MR. NOCERA: I have a point. Dr. Woodruff, can you put that first schematic of the site plan up there, please? DR. WOODRUFF: This one, sir? MR. NOCERA: Yes, fine. As you can see, where the volleyball court is, I had suggested during this discussion that the volleyball court be brought down south in that area there and pick up some more, forty to fifty more spaces, but we didn't get any support on that because they didn't want to ruin any of the green space there. But I think that is a viable solution down the road to pick up some more spaces, and I think that we should keep that in mind for the future. HAYOR BARNETT: Bonnie, did you want to say something? MS. MacKENZIE: I've looked at the agreement. I think it's a very fair agreement. I think we're all neighbors in Collier County and nobody wants to not have an agreement whereby all of us get to share the beach. The only concerns -- I have no problem with the five-year life span, and I am delighted to see included in this revised contract that the committee you had -- I had read about in the paper that you had talked about at a commission meeting, Chairman Hancock, was in fact identified and made a part of this contract. The only concern that I have was in Paragraph 3 where it says that the city will operate a beach patrol and maintenance program, but it doesn't define the jurisdictional limits of that program, and I think we ought to put in there that it will be within the city limits rather than the length of the county. HAYOR BARNETT: Thanks, Bonnie. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Well, you caught us, Bonnie. We were trying to sneak that one by you. Sorry about that. HAYOR BARNETT: Any other comments from either the commission or council? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I will. HAYOR BARNETT: Okay, John. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I don't have any objection to the basic premise here, and the five-year term is perfectly acceptable to me. I think no matter how we split the money, it's going to be fairly immaterial one way or the other, so whoever's statistician that we use is fine. But for me the real objection is -- and don't take my comments to mean that I'm not going to support this, because I am -- but my objection here is that we, the city and the county, have an existing agreement. And, as -- looking at that time from the county's perspective, we wake up one day and find the agreement has changed without any consultation with us. We find out that some parking spaces are changed -- which happens to be in favor, actually, of county residents, but at the same time the county is being asked to contribute some money, or basically informed that we will be contributing some money. And, you know, that's the only objection that I see in the whole process here, is that we weren't consulted first. If we had had this meeting before the decision was made that this is what we were going to do, fine, but it's just the fact that we had an existing agreement that was changed unilaterally by one side without consultation. That's objectionable, so -- The way it's worked out, though, I think is fine, and I intend to support the proposal. I just wanted to let you know how I felt about that whole process. HAYOR BARNETT: Thank you. If there's no other comments from either commission or council, we'll hear from our two public speakers today. Mr. Born? MR. BORN: Good morning. My name is Dick Born. I'm president of the Coquina Sands Homeowners' Association, and, Mr. Mayor and Mr. Chairman, members of the council, and members of the county commissioners, appreciate the opportunity to speak today, although I don't have a long prepared statement. This all began -- just to take you back one step -- when the city started its comprehensive planning for the year 2005 and asked for the concerns of the residents of the various communities. Without question, the number one concern of the community, of the residents of Coquina Sands was the accessibility and overuse of Lowdermilk Park. This prompted us to ask Dr. Woodruff if he would permit us to take a survey and just see who was using the park and in what degrees of use. Well, we did that, and we did that last March, and we found out that eighteen percent of the people parking in Lowdermilk were from the city, forty-one percent from the county, with permits, and forty-one percent out of the county, non-resident, non-permit users. The initial approach to the council was, we were asking to make Lowdermilk more accessible to the residents of the City of Naples, and our initial petition was put on this basis. We were advised that it wasn't right for us to consider just the City of Naples at the expense of the county residents, so we changed our recommendation to the -- to make it the -- more accessible to the permit users, the City of Naples residents and the county residents. And this was what was done with emotion, to remove the parking meters from the main lot. We found in Dr. Woodruff's iljustration of revenues that between 1995 and 1996, parking meter revenues increased twenty-four percent. That means it wasn't your residents, your county residents or your city residents, it was the out-of-county residents that were giving it the increased use. For the year, it was up twenty-four percent. In the two prime months of February and March, non-resident parking increased thirty-nine percent. That's a major stress on a very overused facility. And therefore we made the proposal that we take the parking meters out of the main lot, keep them in the north lot, which provides forty-five spaces there, to increase significantly the opportunity for the county and city permit users to use Lowdermilk Park. And therefore, we think that the solution you have reached -- and I applaud both of your organizations for the opportunity to be together and discuss this in a very sane manner. I think this is an excellent step forward in providing some of the things that county and city residents need. Each year it gets a little more difficult and a little more crowded, but we wanted to make it a little more accessible. And we thank you for your consideration and your help in this matter. MAYOR BARNETT: Thank you, Dick. Bill Boggess. MR. BOGGESS: Good morning, everyone. My name is Bill Boggess, a Collier County resident since June 1984, who, by choice, lives in the City of Naples, currently at 1100 8th Avenue South. I received my 1997 tax statement Saturday. And in checking that out, I see that I'm paying 316 percent more county taxes than I am paying city taxes. I also checked with the county property appraiser who told me that the city comprises 24.7 percent of the assessed valuation throughout the county. Using those two numbers, I have a question as to whether or not this is an equitable situation. We as city residents are paying 100 percent for the city's seventy-five to eighty percent share of providing beachside parking for the 1,050 vehicles, and we are paying twenty-five percent of the county's agreed twenty to twenty-five percent share of these costs. I think that that might -- should be looked over a little closer. Also, at this particular juncture of the contract, and questionable action, is that the city may want to get back and take a good hard look at who indeed is supporting our city coffers. For instance, tourists staying at city homes, condos, motels, spend eighty to ninety percent of their funds in the city but have to pay for beach parking. On the other hand, the non-city, county residents have free access to our streets with free beachside parking, and those who I talk with admittedly spend very little, if any, of their money in the city. The tourists are also taxed three percent by the county on the tourist tax, some of which does filter back into the City of Naples. I will not get into the rocks on the beach. I think that those items are germane to any agreement or re-adjustment of agreement, and hopefully you city folks, city fathers and mothers, will take care of it. Thank you. MAYOR BARNETT: Thank you. Tim, you want to say something? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Other than being unable to solve tax equity issues today -- MAYOR BARNETT: Right. Which we're not here for. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Actually, I've got a proposal that would go a step towards tax equity. He raises a good point about equity between the city and the county, and one of the things that, of course, could be done is you could disincorporate the City of Naples and that would help. MS. MAcKENZIE: Or you could volunteer to annex the rest of the county into the city, John. COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Good idea. That would work too. MAYOR BARNETT: Moving right around. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: What I wanted to get to is that the only concern I have, and Mr. Boggess brought it up, is I picture, when we look at the usership numbers that were brought up, the group that is probably going to have the toughest time finding a space come this season is going to be the tourists. My concern is that, on a given day, the tourist drives into the lot, sees vacant spaces that are not being used by permit holders but is unable to park at a metered space, what I was hoping is that there could be some flexibility that, you know, a metered -- that maybe we take a look at that during the first season to make sure that the lot is being optimized by residents and tourists because there's no reason to lose revenue stream while spots sit vacant during the day. So if those spaces are not being used by city or county residents, or let's just say stickered vehicles, the ability to replace meters on a temporary basis in there would make sense to me, rather than the spots going, for the most part, unused, with every year that being revisited up to the scenario we saw here today. I think your staff is more than able to review that. You have people there every day, and if that becomes the case, I think it would benefit everyone that there be a few more metered spaces initially, that maybe, over time, would be pulled out as the usership changes. I just -- I really would hate to see tourists clamoring for a space, ready to pay into the parking meters and there being ten, twelve, fifteen unused spaces sitting there for the better part of the day. If there's a way to address that, then I think the balance of it is -- I would just simply move approval of the agreement before us. MAYOR BARNETT: Mr. Tarrant? MR. TARRANT: Thank you, yes. I would like to ask Pam Mac'Kie, because she mentioned earlier to make part of this the county's intention to create more beach parking opportunities. Can you put a figure in there, Pam, how many beach parking spaces per year the county is going to put in here? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Excuse me, Mr. Tarrant. I know that Tom Olliff could tell us the number of parking spaces we presently have. And what my goal is is that the joint city/county committee, that's going to have five members each, would come up with a per capita number, how many -- what did you call them -- water and sun experience opportunities; how many parking places per resident should we provide? And that that ratio should be something similar to what today's ratio is and, as the county's population grows, the county's obligation would be to provide a per capita number of spaces to keep the ratio the same. That's my goal. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I think we need to have that decision -- before we can go putting it in an agreement between the two bodies, we need to have a number. Unfortunately, we're premature, but I think that everyone's sitting here today saying we agree that that's a proper course to take. For anyone then to change that course within the next few months or year would be a little disingenuous. And I -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Mr. Tarrant? Does that address your question, Mr. Tarrant? Because I don't know the answer to it, but I think that the ratio should stay about the same as it is today. MR. TARRANT: I appreciate your good intentions and I realize you're not able to provide a hard number. Thank you. MAYOR BARNETT: Fred Sullivan? MR. SULLIVAN: You know, this all began in an effort to provide some relief to the problem facing residents of Coquina Sands and other areas of the city who do not have direct access to the beaches and to beach ends. The current compromise plan before us today, I think, is one which can provide some relief, and I find it acceptable as it stands. But I think if we take it beyond where it is right now, we will only do a disservice to the very people for whom we tried to provide relief, and that is those people in Coquina Sands and in Lakes Park and in other districts who do not have direct beach access. And so, for that reason, I would like at this time to move approval of the compromised plan as it was presented this morning with the -- I'm not positive, but I think that there was one amendment? DR. WOODRUFF: Actually, I believe there were two amendments. In Paragraph 3 we will clarify that the beach patrol and maintenance program is inside the corporate limits, and the other is that the shortfall is on a percentage basis not to exceed $50,000. MS. PROLHAN: Richard, in the very opening paragraph it talks about our related parking sites within the City of Naples. This whole document is about the City of Naples. I'm not sure that Paragraph 3 needs to be amended. DR. WOODRUFF: Duly noted. HAYOR BARNETT: There is a motion on the floor by Mr. Sullivan. Is there a second? MR. VAN ARSDALE: Second. HAYOR BARNETT: Thank you. Second, Mr. Van Arsdale. All in favor signify by saying aye? Opposed? (No response.) The ayes have it. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: On the county commission side? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Mr. Chairman, I move approval. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Is there a second on the motion? COHMISSIONER BERRY: Second it. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Could you just restate the major points, so we know -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: To be consistent, I believe the change in Paragraph 3 is not necessary due to the qualified elements in Paragraph 1 stating that this is within the city limits. Is that acceptable to you, Ms. Hac'Kie? COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Yes. MS. MacKENZIE: As long as it's on the record that it is, that's the only part we're responsible for. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. We're not going to make you patrol the whole county. MS. MacKENZIE: Thank you very much. DR. WOODRUFF: The high points are five-year agreement, either side can get out on 180 days' notice. The revenue projection and requirement is as was in the previous agreement, then with a shortfall being 75/25, not to exceed 50,000, based upon actual shortfall. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Second. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We have a motion and second. Any discussion? Seeing none, all those in favor, signify by saying aye. Opposed? (No response.) Motion carries 4 to 0 on the commission side. HAYOR BARNETT: Thank you, county commission. We certainly appreciate the camaraderie displayed today and -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We appreciate the fine muffins in the back. MR. NOCERA: While they're all in agreement, maybe we should talk about the fuel dock. (Laughter.) HAYOR BARNETT: meeting anyway. We're adjourned, at least for this part of the There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 9:30 a.m. BOARD OF COUNTY COHMISSIONERS 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 presented or as corrected · as TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING SERVICE BY: ELIZABETH H. BROOKS, RPR