Loading...
BCC Minutes 11/03/1998 R REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Naples, Florida, November 3, 1998 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Board of County Commissioners, in and for the County of Collier, and also acting as the Board of Zoning Appeals and as the governing board(s) of such special districts as have been created according to law and having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 a.m. in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRPERSON: Barbara B. Berry Pamela S. Mac'Kie John C. Norris Timothy J. Constantine Timothy L. Hancock ALSO PRESENT: Robed Fernandez, County Administrator David Weigel, County Attorney Item #3 REGULAR, CONSENT AND SUMMARY AGENDA - APPROVED AND/OR ADOPTED WITH CHANGES CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Good morning. I'd like to call to order the November 3rd meeting of the Collier County Board of Commissioners. This morning we're pleased to have with us the Reverend Susan Diamond from the First Christian Church for our invocation. If you'd please rise and remain standing for the Pledge of Allegiance. REVEREND DIAMOND: Let us pray. Creator God, we come before you this morning with thanksgiving for life, for liberty and for all of the opportunities that we have been given to care for the gifts you have given to us all. And today we as citizens of this great nation are called to make important decisions in regard to our local, state and national leadership. Guide us with wisdom, O, God, that we may elect the leadership we need to continue to be a strong, compassionate and loving force in our world, as we work together for justice and peace. We also pray for these, our County Commissioners, administrators and all others who are responsible for providing leadership, that we in this community might be good stewards of our beautiful land, its inhabitants, and all of our resources. Bless them with vision and wisdom as we move forward in community. Remind all of us that we are partners together in this endeavor, and show us ways in which we can most effectively create bridges rather than roadblocks to our common goals. We pray these things in your strong and gentle name, Amen. (The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you, Reverend Diamond. Mr. Fernandez, do we have any changes to our agenda this morning? MR. FERNANDEZ: Yes, ma'am, we do. The first is to add item E-l, 10(E) -- I'm sorry, 10(E), discussion regarding salary adjustment performance rating for the county administrator, requested by Commissioner Berry. Second is to add item 16(A)(12), which is a request to approve the final plat of The Shores at Berkshire Lakes, Phase II, Commissioner Berry's request. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I don't remember requesting that. MS. FILSON: That's the case where Mr. Higgs called and said that it was all ready and asked if you minded if it was put on. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: If it -- well, absolutely. And I said of course I didn't mind if it was put on. But I didn't request that it be put on, but -- MS. FILSON: No, right. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. MR. FERNANDEZ: Okay. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: That's fine, don't mind it. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Is there a reason -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Staff-- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- why it didn't go through the normal process? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Staff is the one that requested it. MR. FERNANDEZ: Okay, it's a staff request. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: It's not a problem. That's fine. MR. FERNANDEZ: The next is to continue item 8(A)(1). This is determination of emergency medical services impact fees to be paid by the Cleveland Clinic, Naples. It's the county administrator's request. I have two notes. We have a time certain item regarding Marco Island. If items remain after the discussion of that item, the board may need to consider the scheduling of a joint meeting, which has been requested by Marco Island. Second note is that the fiscal impact statement for item 16(C)(2) indicates that a payment by the county will be made by check when in fact payment will be made through reduction in future concessionaire payments. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. MR. FERNANDEZ: That completes the changes, Madam Chairman. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. Commissioner Mac'Kie, any changes? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No, ma'am. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Norris? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: No changes. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Constantine? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: 16(A)(11), I'd like to place on the regular agenda. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: That's-- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: You want to make it 8(A)(4)? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I don't know what -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah, that will become 8(A)(4). MR. FERNANDEZ: Yes, that will be 8(A)(4). COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Those two-sided pages are throwing you off. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I know it. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah, I like those two-sided pages. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just a second item, a note, on 8(A)(11). Mr. Fernandez indicated we're continuing. I know the clerk and our staff had some questions that they're answering on that. Cleveland Clinic has also agreed to make themselves available Wednesday to sit down with everybody and try to answer whatever questions you may have on that. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And I've already done that. I assume a lot of people have. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No, I mean with the clerk and -- not just with us, but with the clerk and with staff and -- make sure they're all on the same page. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Where did you decide to put 16(A)(11)? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: 8(A)(4). CHAIRPERSON BERRY: 8(A)(4). CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Hancock, any changes? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: One addition under 10. I will call it 10(F). I'm going to request BCC direction regarding the tournament contracts, the golf tournament contracts. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: That's under what? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I would assume that will be item 10, because I will be requesting direction. So it will be 10(F). CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Madam Chair, do you have any additional changes? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: No, I don't. Ifthere's no further changes, I'm looking for a motion. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I move approval of the consent agenda, summary agenda and regular agenda -- the summary agenda is rather thin today -- of-- as amended. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We have a motion and a second. All in favor? Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries five-zero. Item #4 MINUTES OF THE OCTOBER 6 AND OCTOBER 13, 1998 REGULAR MEETINGS - APPROVED AS PRESENTED COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Madam Chairman -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Madam Chairman -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- approval of October 6 regular meeting, October 13 regular meeting of 1998. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Second. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We have a motion and a second forthe approval of the minutes of October 6th and October 13th. All in favor? Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries five-zero. Item #5A1 PROCLAMATION PROCLAIMING NOVEMBER AS COLLIER COUNTY ADOPTION MONTH - ADOPTED This morning we're pleased to have a proclamation from Commissioner Constantine. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Madam Chairman, it's my pleasure to have a proclamation declaring November as Collier County Adoption Month. I think Danielle Stewart is here with us, along with Monica Hoehn and Kathy Rushing. I'm reading through my long list here. If you all would come up and stand up here and face our cameras, I will read the following proclamation. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Come on up here in front -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Come on up. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- and then turn around. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Don't be shy. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: The cameras will then view you. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Looks like we have a special guest with us. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Yes, we do. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The proclamation reads as follows: WHEREAS, every child has the right to grow in a secure, loving family, and adoption is a positive way to build a family; and WHEREAS, the Adoption Task Force of Southwest Florida is a collaborative effort of community agencies and individuals to create an increased awareness of adoption; and WHEREAS, the Adoption Task Force of Southwest Florida, Inc.'s purpose is to provide resources and education on the various aspects of adoption, and to promote positive attitudes toward adoption; and WHEREAS, adoption brings untold benefits to Collier County residents that are affected by the adoption process. This includes benefits to birth parents, adoptive parents and the children placed in adoptive homes, as well as their extended families -- and in my case, future spouses, as my wife Janet is adopted -- and WHEREAS, crisis pregnancy is a problem in Collier County, and adoption is a positive option that is not always considered, due to the lack of awareness in education. NOW THEREFORE, be it proclaimed by the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that the month of November be designated as Collier County Adoption Month. In honor of this event, we encourage citizens, community agencies, religious organizations, businesses and others to celebrate adoption in honor of the families that grow through adoption. Done and ordered this 3rd day of November, 1998, BCC, Barbara B. Berry, Chairman. Madam Chairman, I'd like to move approval of this proclamation. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We have a motion and a second. All in favor? Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries five-zero. I think you need to introduce him publicly, if you would, please. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah, you have to go to the microphone. MS. ALLEN: Hello, commissioners. My name is Debbie Allen. I work in your county attorney's office. And this is my son, Dustin. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Mighty handsome. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: And how old is Dustin? MS. ALLEN: Dustin's 15 months. MS. STEWART: My name is Danielle Stewart. I'm president of the Adoption Task Force of Southwest Florida, Incorporated. And I'd like to thank you for acknowledging National Adoption Month. Actually, Dusty is a product of the Adoption Task Force of Southwest Florida. We had an emergency situation arise with the birth mother, and the Adoption Task Force was called, and they said we need somebody now. So I called my resources and Debbie was right there, first on the list, and she adopted Dusty. If anyone is interested in the adoption option, our phone number is 403-5893. As the proclamation says, we answer questions for birth mothers, adoptive couples, grandparents. We get a lot of calls from grandparents where the granddaughter is in a situation. We're hosting a seminar March 5th and 6th of 1999 at Pelican Strand Country Club. It's titled anything and everything you want to know about adoption. And basically the first half of the seminar is going to be geared toward the legal aspects of adoption. The afternoon session is geared towards the medical professionals, the counsellors, the nurses, the doctors, and how to communicate and promote the positive aspects of adoption to birth mothers and couples. And then Saturday's session is geared toward parenting the adopted child in age appropriate discussions. And we'll conclude it with an adult adoptee panel discussion. We'll have a teenager, someone in their thirties and then someone in their fifties that have various openness in the adoption process. So it's going to be a very interesting seminar. And we invite all of you to attend. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What are those dates again? MS. STEWART: March 5th and 6th of 1999. And I'll send a copy of the notice to all of you. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Very good. MS. STEWART: Thank you very much for having us. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you. We appreciate all of your efforts. Thank you. And he's certainly a cute little guy. MS. ALLEN: Thank you. Item #5A2 PROCLAMATION HONORING VETERANS - ADOPTED CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Moving on then. Our next proclamation, Commissioner Norris. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Thank you, Madam Chairman. This proclamation is to honor those people who have helped to make all this possible. Can I get Henry Sherman to step forward? Mr. Sherman, if you'd come up here and kind of face the cameras there so we can get you on the TV back home. Proclamation reads: WHEREAS, November 1 lth, 1998 is the day set aside as a national holiday to honor the sacrifices and contributions of our country's military veterans; and WHEREAS, this holiday was originally designated Armistice Day to remember the close of World War I, and has since been reserved to honor all our veterans; and WHEREAS, our veterans personify commitment to citizens responsible in the defense of our nation; and WHEREAS, such examples necessitate recognition that our country survives because of our veterans. NOW THEREFORE, be it proclaimed by the Collier County Board of Commissioners, on behalf of the citizens, that honor and appreciation is owed to veterans for their service. Let all veterans know and enjoy this recognition. Done and ordered this 3rd day of November, 1998 by the Board of County Commissioners, Collier County Florida, Barbara B. Berry, Chairman. And Ms. Chairman, I would like to make a motion that we accept this proclamation. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We have a motion and a second. All in favor? Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries five-zero. (Applause.) MR. SHERMAN: I'm Dick Sherman and I'm president of the Veterans Council, which is supported by the commissioners, the County Commissioners. And I would like to invite everybody to Cambier Park at 10:00 on the 1 lth of November for our Veteran's Day celebration. We expect to have Porter Goss and many of the commissioners and several other dignitaries, and I think it will be a very inspiring occasion. We hope you'll all come. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you for being here. Item #5B EMPLOYEE SERVICE AWARDS - PRESENTED And next on our agenda, Commissioner Hancock, I believe you have some service awards this morning. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yes. Otherwise known as the longevity awards. I have the pleasure this morning of presenting seven service awards. The first is recognizing five years of service in the road and bridge department to Kurt Schabbel. Kurt? (Applause.) COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Congratulations, Kurt. Thank you. The next group, which makes Kurt look like a rookie, for 10 years of service in HUI is Ms. Joanne Dalbey. (Applause.) COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Next for 10 years in real property, Ms. Toni Mott. (Applause.) COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: One of the few on here this morning that didn't show how to pronounce it, Toni. Also with 10 years' service in graphics is Miriam Ocheltree. (Applause.) COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Also with 10 years of service in traffic operations, Hernan Pantoja. (Applause.) COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'd like to say you're a third of the way with 15 years service is with customer service and building review, Wanda Warren, 15 years' service. (Applause.) COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, we appreciate it. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Wanda didn't want to be recognized for being here for 15 years. We'll make sure that the certificates and things get to the others that weren't able to be here. Item #5C OFFICER ARCADIO RIVERA, SECURITY OFFICER, FACILITIES MANAGEMENT/COUNTY SECURITY DEPARTMENT - RECOGNIZED AS EMPLOYEE OF THE MONTH FOR NOVEMBER, 1998 CHAIRPERSON BERRY: And this morning it's my pleasure to announce Arcadio Rivera as our employee of the month. If he would come forward and stand up here in front of us. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Instead of off to the left like-- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: That's right. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- he does every Tuesday. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Officer Arcadio Rivera performs his duties in a cheerful and professional manner. While on roving patrol, Officer Rivera noticed and reported to facilities management various maintenance problems, such as broken sprinkler heads and water pipes. Having the problems rectified resulted in a great savings in the county. Thanks to Officer Rivera, cameras have been installed in the county museum to ensure the security of the building. This resulted in the director giving him a certificate of appreciation. Recently, there was an accident on the complex, and Arcadio responded immediately to a sheriffs deputy, and being bilingual served as an interpreter during the investigation. Officer Rivera possesses a very positive and professional attitude towards his job, and without reservations was selected as November's employee of the month. And this morning we're pleased to give to Officer Rivera a plaque to recognize his being employee of the month to display in a prominent place, and most importantly, of course, is a check for $50 and our sincere appreciation for all that you do. (Applause.) COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: He has to hang that plaque from his belt, I guess. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I might add that every Tuesday morning Officer Arcadio is over here and greets us when we come out to the dias, and it's always a pleasure. He's always got a smile on his face. And we're pleased to have him here and be with us. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Many times the last smile we see that day. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: That's exactly right. He's one of the few people that smiles at us. Item #8A1 - Continued Item #8A2 REQUEST BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION FOR A PUBLIC HEARING DATE FOR DOA-98-3, BRETONNE PARK, ALSO KNOWN AS GLEN EAGLES - PUBLIC HEARING SET FOR JANUARY 12, 1999 Okay, moving on then to item 8(A)(2), community development environmental services division requesting the Board of County Commissioners to set a public hearing date. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Madam Chairman, this is just an administrative item. I'll make a motion we go ahead and set January 12, 1999. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay, we have a motion and a second. Do we have any other discussion? Very controversial. And I'm sure there's no public speakers on this item. Okay, we have a motion and a second to set January 12th as the hearing date. All in favor? Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries five-zero. Item #8A3 RESOLUTION 98-440, ENDORSING STATE SCENIC HIGHWAY DESIGNATION OF THE TAMIAMI TRAIL AS PRESCRIBED BY THE CORRIDOR ADVOCACY GROUP'S CORRIDOR MANAGEMENT PLAN - ADOPTED Next item is a resolution of the Collier County Board of Commissioners endorsing the state scenic highway designation of the Tamiami Trail as prescribed by the corridor advocacy group's corridor management plan. Good morning, Mr. Jones. MR. JONES: Good morning, Madam Chairman, commissioners. My name's Gavin Jones, I'm the acting MPO coordinator. We bring before you today a resolution to endorse the corridor management plan for its transmittal to the state. They'll be reviewing it at the end of this month. We also have with us today Mr. Bill O'Neill, the chairman of the corridor advocacy group. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Good morning, Bill, we're happy to have you here this morning. MR. O'NEILL: Good morning. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Questions. MR. O'NEILL: I'm William O'Neill and I'm here in the capacity as chairperson of the corridor advocacy group, seeking designation of the Tamiami Trail, a 50-mile stretch of the Tamiami Trail, as a Florida scenic highway. I'll be very brief. You have the proposal before you. We are at the stage of the proceedings where we are now prepared to submit the final application to the Florida Department of Transportation to have the corridor designated as a Florida scenic highway. Just a couple of things that I want to mention. I do want to express our thanks on behalf of the corridor advocacy group to the board for the staff support that you have given us through the MPO. Without the good help of first Amy Taylor, who helped us out for quite a while, now Ken Heatherington and Gavin Jones, we simply couldn't have gotten this very time-consuming procedure out of the way. You have in front of you the corridor management plan. Next I just want to tell you exactly what the status is now. As most of you know, we've been working on this for quite a while. When we started this process two years ago, I had a full head of hair and a justrous brown beard. But at this -- we have since -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Some of us know better, Bill, I just want to point that out. MR. O'NEILL: We had submitted an application for eligibility to be considered a scenic highway, and that was approved about a year ago. Since that time, we've been following the procedure of the Department of Transportation, which required that we do two things, essentially: We had to have a community participation program to seek the input of the community on what elements should go into a plan for the maintenance and development of the corridor as a scenic highway. And second, we had to come up with a corridor management plan. That's what you see before you. We're now in a position where we're prepared to present the plan and the formal application for designation to the Department of Transportation. We hope that that will be forth -- that the decision has to go to a body that's called the SHAC, the Scenic Highway Advisory Committee, at the DOT level. We're hoping that that will be forth -- approval will be forthcoming within three or four weeks, at this point, if we have approval today. The last phase that we -- that will be required is that the DOT requires that we have a corridor management entity, which has continuing oversight over the implementation of the plan. Our goal and our desire is that eventually the corridor management entity will be -- will be composed of representatives of the general public, as well as governmental bodies. Because we anticipate that it may take some time, and because we're eager to get the designation going now, the corridor advocacy group, which has been in existence for some time, is going to serve as the corridor management entity for -- on an interim basis. Sometime, hopefully after the designation, we will be back to you and to the other governmental agencies involved to attempt to form the permanent corridor management entity. I'd be happy to ask (sic) any questions about the procedures or the status. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Hancock, any questions? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah. Bill, first of all, you and your group have operated for some time with zero compensation as volunteers. And I think from a lot of negatives at the outset, concerns about traffic being disbursed from Tamiami Trail to 1-75 through your plan, what's become very apparent to me, and correct me if I'm wrong, is the improvements and notoriety to U.S. 41 in this area due to this designation will in all likelihood increase tourism traffic to the adjacent properties and businesses along that corridor. Is that a fair assessment? MR. O'NEILL: Well, we certainly think it will. One of the benefits, of course, of designation is that the highway shows up as a scenic highway on maps. We'll -- part of the plan is to increase publicity for the benefits of the Trail. So I think that it will -- I think and believe that we'll have a net economic benefit to the area. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Thank you, and thank you for all your efforts. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Mr. Constantine? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Bill, what restrictions if any will this cause for property owners, business owners? I've heard an expression of concern about that. I don't know if it's accurate or not. MR. O'NEILL: Well, there has been some expression of concern about it. First of all, I think that we have to -- starting with the basics, the Florida scenic highway designation does nothing to -- it does nothing to impinge on, restrict or expand the legal authority of any of the agencies that have authority over that corridor now. And that includes the Department of Transportation and this board. The -- it does not increase the taking power, there's no legislative procedure whereby there's necessarily any -- necessarily any requirement that lands be restricted in development. There are suggestions in the plan as to how that might go in the future, but nothing that's being passed today has the force of law in terms of any restrictions. And we've tried in the plan, in fact, to be very sensitive about any statements of restrictions on the use of property. Most of the -- most of the corridor-- I would point out, 80 percent of the corridor goes through public lands as it is. There are five state and federal national parks, preserves and other entities that own most of the property that's along the trail, the section we're talking about. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And then what if any is the expected cost to taxpayer? And I ask that specifically because I read -- the final paragraph of considerations says this is an opportunity to create a public/private partnership, which often translates to expenditure of tax dollars. And if so, what are we looking at and from what sources and so on? MR. O'NEILL: Well, that's certainly not determined at this point. The process -- again, past -- becoming a scenic highway in and of itself involves zero expenditure. And what it means is that we get to call ourselves a scenic highway and presumably put a sign on the highway and have it designated as such on the maps. If the entities that are involved on an ongoing basis in the -- as part of the eventual corridor management entity decide to proceed with some of the suggestions in the plans, then there may be some expenses involved in that. But there'll be plenty of opportunity for input at every step of the way. And as I said before, nothing here adds or subtracts from the current governmental or fiscal authority of the entities that have jurisdiction there. So I don't know if I've answered your question very well. There are a couple of grant opportunities that we're -- that we're hoping to achieve in the near future, but those, as I understand it, are already allocated funds. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I think one of the concerns, Bill, at some of the meetings was the fact that this was going to be far reaching into some of the people's property that is along there, and there would be some restrictions placed on that property. I think that's been found to be an unfounded concern, from what I '- MR. O'NEILL: We've tried '- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- remember. MR. O'NEILL: Commissioner Berry, we've tried very hard to be sensitive to that issue. I think part of the source of that is that the Department of Transportation requires us to define the view shed, for purposes of this application. And that became a sensitive point, because there was some concern that by defining the view shed, which to me and I think to the Department of Transportation simply meant describe what you can see '- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Right. MR. O'NEILL: -- from the corridor. But there was some concern that by defining the view shed too broadly, that that may imply that there was some taking authority or some desire to restrict development within the view shed. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Right. MR. O'NEILL: We've tried to very carefully address that issue in the plan. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. And I -- going back to Commissioner Constantine talking about the public/private partnerships, probably that would come in in terms of if they decided to build any turn-out areas or parking areas where people could pull off the highway and there would be something set up in those areas for viewing an area, is that the kind of thing '- MR. O'NEILL: That's one very likely place -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. MR. O'NEILL: -- for a public/private partnership. A lot of what we're talking about would be implementing public decisions that are already started. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Right. MR. O'NEILL: For example, there's already money allocated from the National Park Service for certain improvements that would affect the corridor, and so we're hoping that -- we're hoping that the continuing oversight of the corridor management entity will simply see that those are done in a way that's consistent with the scenic highway character. Yes, we do envision that at some point there may be some public/private partnerships, such as informational kiosks -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Right. MR. O'NEILL: -- along the route, and perhaps opportunities for advertising in kiosks at turn-offs and things like that. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. Commissioner Norris, concern? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I think all my questions have been answered. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Mac'Kie? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Just ready to vote in favor. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. Do we have any public speakers on this? MR. FERNANDEZ: No, Madam Chairman. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay, I'll entertain a motion then. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Madam -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Motion to approve. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We have a motion and a second to endorse a resolution for the Tamiami Trail scenic highway corridor management plan. All in favor? Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries five-zero. Item #8E1 CONSIDERATION OF ITEMS ASSOCIATED WITH THE TRANSITION OF GOVERNMENTAL SERVICES TO THE CITY OF MARCO ISLAND - CONTRACTORS LICENSING AGREEMENT APPROVED WITH CHANGES; DEDICATION OF ROADS AND RIGHTS OF WAY AND EASEMENTS APPROVED WITH EXCEPTIONS; STAFF TO AMEND THE COMMUNITY PARKS IMPACT FEE ORDINANCE AND COME BACK TO THE BCC; AND STAFF TO AMEND FRANCHISE AGREEMENTS WITH PARTIAL ASSIGNMENTS TO THE CITY OF MARCO ALLOWING THEM TO COLLECT THE FEES MR. FERNANDEZ: Madam Chairman? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Yes. MR. FERNANDEZ: We had committed to a time certain for the item regarding the Marco Island issues. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Right. MR. FERNANDEZ: Since it is 9:30, it would be appropriate to take that up now. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I think so. MR. FERNANDEZ: Mr. Mike McNees -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What agenda item number is that? MR. FERNANDEZ: --is -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: This would be (E)(1). MR. FERNANDEZ: (E)(1), 8(E)(1). CHAIRPERSON BERRY: 8(E)(1). MR. FERNANDEZ: Mr. McNees will be making the presentation. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. MR. McNEES: Good morning, Madam Chairman, commissioners. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Good morning. MR. McNEES: I'm Mike McNees from the county administrator's office, and I'm very pleased to be here this morning to present to you what has become a very small package of items related to the transition of services to the City of Marco Island. These would be items that still require either some discussion or some form of approval by you as a board. In your executive summary we have listed for you a number of the items that have already come to resolution, which that list is growing daily as we continue to work with the city. We have brought to you three interlocal agreements. I'm happy to say that two of those we have reached complete agreement with on city staff. The first of those would be the road and road right-of-way transfer agreement as prepared by the county attorney's office. We present that to you today for your final approval. The second of those is an agreement for a contractor licensing that, except for three very minor grammatical changes, has been agreed to by the city staff and by the county staff. We recommend that to you for approval today. I have a record copy of that that includes the grammatical changes that I'll submit today. The only thing -- the only agreement that it appears we may not be able to resolve today is an agreement regarding the transfer of impact fees. We proposed a methodology for the transfer of road impact fees that was consistent with, in fact exactly the same method -- as a method as we use with the City of Naples. The Marco Island folks have asked for a different methodology that frankly we're not necessarily opposed to, because it ties more directly to actual project expenditures, as opposed to just a per capita allocation, which for impact fees may even be better, but it's something that they proposed yesterday, and we frankly are just not going to be able to bring you a fair resolution of that today. That will be one item that we will continue to work with the city staff. I don't think that's unresolvable. And we will probably have to follow up with a final agreement later. So that is one item that we may not be able to put away today. So we'll be asking for you today to approve both the contractor licensing and the road right-of-way agreement. As far as the other items that your executive summary listed as unresolved, there is only one that (sic) we stand here today that will require some action from you. That would be the issue of the city's retaining cable franchise fees that are collected on the island. As you will recall, when you last discussed this issue, you were not in favor of having the city retain those fees, but you did direct the county attorney to do some further legal research to come back to you what you were required to do or what you could do in the meantime. And in negotiations, I want to make it clear that the county administrator's office has represented to the city staff that we would recommend -- if the city adopted their own cable franchise ordinance, that we would recommend to you that you essentially carve the city out of our ordinances and allow them to collect that money. That obviously will be your decision. And that really is the only item that we bring to you today for your discussion and for further direction on how you want us to proceed. With that, that concludes my presentation. I know Mr. Moss is here from the city. Before we get to the discussion, I'd like to thank him and his staff, and especially Charles McCool, who worked real hard with us and all of our staff members who have put in a lot of hours grinding out these issues, and we're glad to be able to bring them to closure. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. Commissioner Hancock? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. McNees, with the City of Naples concerned on the roadway or transportation impact fees, is the city itself a singular district in which road impact fees are collected? MR. McNEES: No. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: It is part of the larger district that includes both unincorporated and incorporated portions of Collier County? MR. McNEES: Yes. And I trust Ed Ilschner will throw something at me if I -- MR. ILSCHNER: Ed Kant is coming to address that. He's familiar with that. MR. McNEES: We transferred the money to them on a -- almost on a per capita basis, a percentage basis. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Does Marco Island differ in any way, shape or form in that the funds collected through impact fees are specific to the municipality, or are they again collected district-wide? MR. KANT: Edward Kant, transportation services director. I have to correct Mr. McNees. The way the road impact fee districts are set up, the City of Naples coincidentally is a -- that's road impact fee district three. Presently the City of Marco Island is within road impact fee district four. It is not a separate road impact fee district on its own at present. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. The reason for my question is -- and I'll express to you what I expressed to Mr. Trebilcock in our discussion on this matter -- and that is that I understand that for the improvements intended for Marco Island, that number can be a variable. 200,000 was just kind of a plucked number when we did it with the City of Naples. I understand there may be a rational basis for it. But the point I was making is if our appro -- as long as our approach does not rob projects outside of Marco Island from the necessary funds to see completion, then I think that's the margin we have to work within. That's the only concern I really had at that point. So whether we proceed with the proposal that was offered yesterday by them, or on the path that we've recommended, the only real concern I'm going to have is that we make sure that projects within that district that funds have been collected for and have been going toward are not sacrificed in how we change the financial inner workings of that district where Marco Island's concerned. That's my only -- or I'll say my primary concern. MR. KANT: Yeah, I would say, Commissioner, that that agreement can be set up to work that way. We're presently negotiating an agreement for a consultant to work with us on a revision to -- or I shouldn't say revision, it was an update to the impact fee ordinance, and we can examine that as part of that update. And -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: In the meantime -- MR. KANT: -- that is to make Marco Island a separate district. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Understanding that $200,000 would probably be the minimum allocation in this relationship, would -- if that's not the case -- okay, I see Mike shaking his head. Whatever we believe the minimum allocation should be in this matter, we might want to look at allowing those funds to be released so that the City of Marco Island can perform the work that right now it financially cannot do because it doesn't have the revenues. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's exactly what I was hoping to support today, too, and that is there must be a number that we're sure of, and -- MR. McNEES: There's a number-- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- as a minimum. MR. McNEES: Excuse me. There is a number that we had proposed, which was, I believe, 136 or 139,000. It's in the agreement. I think we would probably be more comfortable keeping that money and not spending it, but rather than start handing it over, until we have some sort of agreement, we would probably not recommend that. So if you want to use a minimum number, it would be a number we've already agreed to, which is 130 some thousand. If you like, I suppose we could transfer that. We would probably prefer to have an actual agreement in place so there's a mechanism for that and a reason for that. We're talking about impact fees here, and as you know, those are the squirrellest dollars that we collect, for lack of a better word. And rather than just hand them over, because it sounds like a good idea, we'd rather have a rationale and a logic to why -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: What-- MR. McNEES: -- so we'd prefer not to do that. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: What's the time frame based on the most recent proposal that we would anticipate having an agreement that this board would approve? Because again, they're in a fiscal year. MR. McNEES: Absolutely. I think we could have it to you in a couple weeks. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Oh. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. Well, that's a different story. MR. McNEES: It is not a long process. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. I just wanted to make sure we weren't getting them a quarter of the way into their fiscal year and not releasing any funds for what we would consider necessary projects. MR. McNEES: We have no desire to hold up the process or to hold up the funds. We'd like to resolve these issues as well. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Let the record reflect that Manager Moss from Marco concurred with that. Okay. Commissioner Constantine? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: First my compliments to staff for ironing out so many of these issues. Also, I know Commissioner Berry's been in contact with Mr. Callan and others down there. I think it's a good idea we go ahead with each of those. I'd prefer, however, not to take any action on the cable franchise item right now, particularly until we get the fair share deal with the sheriff's department ironed out. I don't think if they're withholding a million dollars -- $1,053,000 in that issue, and we haven't got that solidified yet, that we ought to be giving away a $200,000 revenue source. And I hope we'll hold on and wait before we do anything with that. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. Commissioner Norris? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, I'm going to respectfully disagree on that item. I think that there's -- if you start making linkage between cable TV fees and sheriff's budget, I think that's a bit of a stretch, actually. I'm not in favor of that kind of leverage. The sheriff's budget, since you brought it up, has been mischaracterized by a number of people, including the sheriff, as somehow going to cost the rest of the county some deputies, but if you'll look at the budget, that's not what we cut. The funding for those additional deputies are in the budget. This funding was for road patrols on Marco. I still think it's between the sheriff and Marco to decide if they want sheriff's road patrols down there. But it should not affect the 17 deputies that were proposed and funded by the County Commission. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I concur. I concur on the second half of what you say. I do think if there's an issue of revenues in general, it's a mistake for us to go ahead and give away. And you said boy, I don't like this as leverage. I'm curious as to what leverage do you like. Because the more -- we've given away parks, we've agreed to go ahead and take care of the contractor licensing, we're ready to transfer the assets from the sewer district, I mean, we're dedicating the public roads at their request. We've met every hurdle here and we haven't made -- publicly haven't made any progress. I know behind the scenes I'm told there are some things going on. I don't know all the details of that. But until we have some sort of agreement, I think it's a mistake to go giving away revenue and big chunks of money until we know where that's going to go. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: And once again, the cable TV franchises are between the County Commission and the City of Marco Island. The sheriff's road patrol on Marco Island are between the City of Marco Island and the sheriff, not us. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Unfortunately, we're a participant in that, whether we want to be or not. I agree with where you're coming, we shouldn't be, but we are. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Madam Chair, my -- I have to agree with Commissioner Constantine on the issue of resolving the sheriff's budget before we give away the cable franchise fees. Because I think they're exactly alike. They're exactly alike in that we have no legal obligation to fund that. We would like to do it. I'm telling you right up front, I'm gonna do it because it's the right thing, but it's exactly like the sheriff's budget. They are under no legal obligation to budget for law enforcement, yet it is the right thing for them to do. And I wish that they would do that, and I hope that they are going to and trust that they will with the million dollars they've got in reserves. Nevertheless, it's exactly the same. And we have to -- as much as I would like to just do the right thing because it feels better, if it were my money, that might be my choice, but it's not my money, it's the general public's money and we're the stewards of it and we have to use what little leverage we do have. And I think they're exactly alike. I also think that we can continue, as long as we want to, to say that this million dollars out of Marco is not going to affect the rest of the county. But the Florida constitution says that it is. The Florida Statutes say that the sheriff's got to provide service. We can like it, we can not like it, we can wish it were different, we can talk to our legislators about requiring -- you know, changing the incorporation's statute to say that you are required to provide or to contract for your own services for law enforcement in the future, but we're where we are. We owe it to the general public to do as much as we can to get the fair share contribution out of the Marco City Council, because it is going to affect the rest of the county, whether we like it or not. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Hancock? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Pam, where I -- and I won't say disagree, but where I differ with you is it's going to affect the rest of the county because of a policy decision made by our sheriff. The constitution in the State of Florida requires that he provide calls to service. It doesn't require that he provide them five minutes, seven minutes on nonessential, 10 minutes on nonessential. We all understood the equity issue of this going into it, and so did the folks on Marco Island. And in fairness to the city council, it's my understanding that they had a proposal in front of them, they had a motion on the floor to fund I think $800,000 of that million, until they were told by the sheriff that they didn't need to, it wasn't going to affect their service level. Now, if we're up here and the sheriff says you don't need to give me a million dollars, your service will go unaffected, would we say, well, I'll tell you what, sheriff, out of the goodness of our heart we'll write the check anyway? I don't blame the city council. I think the sheriff painted a picture to the folks at Marco Island that was unfair to the other 200,000 residents of this community, and that is that your service levels won't be affected, but everybody else's will. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Ifthat's what he said, that's outrageous. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: What he said -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'd like to see a transcript. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: What he -- and I've read -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I have one. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- the transcript. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: You have? And that's -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: What he said -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- what he said? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: What he said is your service level will not be affected. That's what he said. Yet he's telling the rest of the county, the other 200,000 people that live here, your service level is going down. Now, again, I don't take exception with the city council, because if I have -- I was told the same thing by the sheriff they were told, I would have made the same decision. I still believe they have a responsibility to step up and fund that on an equity basis, on the basis that the City of Naples provides law enforcement, therefore, does not pay into the unincorporated general fund. And until the City of Marco provides its own law enforcement, they have a responsibility to pay that difference. But where we tried to take the sheriff out of this, the sheriff put himself right back in it and has made a policy decision that will adversely affect 95 percent of this county, while leaving the service level perfectly fine on Marco Island. I know that's not what he intended, but that's the result. And I disagree with it. So if we have to sit up here today and say -- you know, and talk about leverage, unfortunately our leverage has to be through the sheriff's office, not through the franchise cable fees. You know, the City of Marco didn't do anything wrong in this case. They were ready to do the right thing. But I think they were given some bad information and a poor policy decision by the sheriff, and now we have got to answer for that. So this has been shifted back to us. I don't like it, but that's where we are. But like Commissioner Norris, I'm not willing to use the franchise cable fees as a method of leverage, because I don't believe our issue at this point was what the city council said, but more with what the sheriff said to the city council that gave them the basis for that decision. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. Any other questions? Do we have any speakers, Mr. Fernandez? MR. FERNANDEZ: Yes, Madam Chairman, the first is Bill Moss, who asked to speak. MR. MOSS: Thank you, Chairman Berry and County Commission. We appreciate the opportunity to address you today. We, too, commend your staff. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Who are you? MR. MOSS: I'm sorry, I'm Bill Moss, I'm the city manager of Marco Island. We extend our appreciation to you and your staff for the fine services that you provided our city during our transition to cityhood. We also commend your staff for the work that they've done in their negotiations on these transition issues. Frankly, you have a small document before you. What you see in this notebook is less than half of the correspondence that's gone back and forth between our staffs as we've worked through 97 percent of the issues dealing with the transitions of services. There is one point that I hope you do give your staff latitude on in terms of the impact fee agreement. The agreement before you is silent on the issue of community park impact fees. Collier County Code requires that that fee be collected; it requires that there be a Marco Island park district and that these funds go to the park district for improvement of the parks. I'm not exactly sure why that has been omitted. It is our hopes that that will continue and that the county would find it appropriate to allow the city to collect these fees on behalf of the county and retain these fees to go back into the park systems that are available, as you well know, to all county residents. Again, I think that's an administrative issue, but I hope you'll allow your staff the latitude to address that particular issue. Road impact fees, I think we are in agreement with the goal. At our late discussion is how to best achieve that goal. We appreciate the offer to pay some funds up front, but frankly, we agree at this point that it would be more appropriate to have an agreement before you. We would not want to disrupt the integrity on its impact fees. That's extremely important to us. Finally, I would hope that you would consider this package before you today. I understand that the sheriff's issue is one that is troublesome. It's troublesome to our city council also. Let me say this, that as of next week, we will be interviewing candidates for the position of director of public safety. Every candidate being considered has a minimum of 25 years law enforcement, and they are either chiefs of police or public safety directors. If our council makes the decision to move into the public safety department or the public safety concept, I would not underestimate our capability of doing that very, very quickly. We're going to have the qualified director, all of our staff has previous experience in law enforcement, and we can get our own program up and running very, very quickly, which may obviate any need for any serious long-term discussions regarding sheriff's services. On the other hand, our council has committed in this letter to you that if you accept the package, they may very well revisit this issue dealing with the sheriff. As Commissioner Hancock mentioned, there was some discussions and perhaps some serious misunderstandings as to what was said at a very recent council meeting. But I can tell you this, that three of our city council members were offering dollar amounts for the payment, and then it just sort of got lost in some discussions, and again, there was some misinterpretations. And our council could very well revisit that issue. With that, I'd be pleased to try and respond to any questions. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Mac'Kie? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No questions right now, thank you. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Norris? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: (Shakes head negatively.) CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Constantine? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Hancock? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Moss, the occasional sour tones from elected officials aside, I'm pleased to hear that at the staff level that our county administrator and you are working well together, as are our staffs, and I encourage you to ignore some of the comments being made beyond that and continue that relationship. MR. MOSS: Well, thank you very much. And my compliments to the board. One thing that we are committed to do is try to meet or exceed the standards of service offered by Collier County. And I can tell you with certainty, because of the business-like approach of the County Commission and the professionalism of your staff, that task is very, very difficult. Now, we intend to strive to do that, but again, my compliments to you. Thank you very much. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you. MR. McNEES: Madam Chairman, if I could respond to the one point. Regarding community park impact fees, we may suggest doing actually a step further than what Mr. Moss requested. Since our community park impact fees are calculated county-wide, based on a county-wide level of service, and we may or may not be able to tie that directly to a level of service or a capital project need just in the Marco Island district, what we would probably recommend is that you direct us to just eliminate the Marco Island community park district from your impact fee ordinance, amend the ordinance accordingly, and then allow the city to do whatever they want to do in terms of charging their own impact fee, and keep all the money. And we believe that would be a cleaner approach, particularly given that this is an impact fee. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: How do we deal with -- is this similar -- what kind of agreement do we have with the City of Naples in this regard? MR. McNEES: We would have no agreement whatsoever. We would just -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No, what do we have with the City of Naples, I think was her question. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Exactly. MR. McNEES: It's the -- we don't have an agreement with the City of Naples. We don't do community parks in the City of Naples. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Right, but what -- okay, the community parks are the ones that we have retained down there. MR. McNEES: The community parks are the parks that we have given to the city. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. MR. McNEES: The regional parks we have retained. We will continue to charge a regional park impact fee to the city projects. What we're talking about now are Mackle Park and the smaller parks. We're saying we don't own those anymore -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Right. MR. McNEES: -- we would say we would not collect a fee, we would not under our ordinance have an ability to collect a fee. It would be up to the city to charge whatever fee they wish. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Which would be essentially identical to what the City of Naples does, because we do nothing with community park -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: That's my point. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- impact fees in -- MR. McNEES: Yes. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I mean, I just want to make -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: It makes the most sense. Why should we -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It really does. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- collect fees -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Exactly. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- from Marco Island for community parks and hand them back to Marco Island when -- assuming the structure's in place within Mr. Moss's organization to collect and distribute those impact fees internally. That makes a lot of sense to me. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Yeah, I would tend to agree. Let's just be -- you know, let's keep it pretty much even what we do. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: With whatever motion we make here today, let's include direction to, you know, pursue that. I don't want to say definitively, because it may need to be negotiated and discussed with Mr. Moss to some degree, but at least pursue it along those lines. MR. McNEES: Very good. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Constantine? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. McNees, you're looking for action on the three items, contractor licensing, road impact fees and roads and road right-of-ways? MR. McNEES: Actually, not today on the road impact fees, but on the other two. We'll have to bring the road impact fee agreement back to you within two to three weeks. MR. FERNANDEZ: Madam Chairman? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Yes. MR. FERNANDEZ: You have two other speakers -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. MR. FERNANDEZ: -- if you'd like to consider those at this time. The first is William R. Gaston and then Bruce Anderson. MR. GASTON: For the record, William R. Gaston, president of Marco Island Cable. I'm here this morning in a preventative measure to protect my franchise for Collier County. Marco Island Cable has a Collier County cable television franchise. It has fought very hard for that franchise, it finally has a secure franchise, and I'd like to express to this board that it is not acceptable to Marco Island Cable to have that franchise assigned to the City of Marco. Now, if the City of Marco would like to give Marco Island Cable a new franchise, as it appears they do, that's fine. But I want it very clear that Marco Island Cable has a Collier County franchise and which is to maintain its Collier County franchise. Thank you very much. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Madam Chair? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Question -- go ahead. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Question for Mr. Weigel. Mr. Weigel, if the City of Marco Island adopts its own cable franchise ordinance, is there anything legally that precludes this board from terminating its agreement, say with Mr. Gaston's company, and allowing Marco Island to assume that responsibility? MR. WEIGEL: I -- without looking again at the agreement -- I have of course looked at it a lot over the years -- but the unilateral determination by the county may be problematical, although the mere assignment itself may not be, quite frankly. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So what we would do is assign instead of terminate. But we have the -- is there a question of whether or not we have the legal authority to do what we've been discussing doing? MR. WEIGEL: I don't think so. And I've looked at this that if the board wished to change its relation with Marco Island Cable or any cable company that's working with a municipality, that there's either an amendment to the agreement itself, which is a bilateral two-party agreement, as far as that's concerned, or the ability to assign tends to be more unilateral, as far as that goes. And I don't recall offhand that there is any bar in the contract to that, vis-a-vis a city. Having the requisite jurisdiction in the first place, the City of Marco Island has adopted an ordinance. That was something that we had noted to the board and to the staff previously is that the pieces need to be in place before the county would act, to the detriment, potential detriment, of itself or the franchisee with whom it has a contract. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: If we were to make the absolute assign, all conditions of the contract would remain the same as the initial term or renewal of that contract; is that correct? MR. WEIGEL: Yes, the general terms of the agreement do not change. Of course, the assignee, the City of Naples, would need to agree. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Right. MR. WEIGEL: So from that standpoint, there is a contract as between the assignor, the county, and the assignee, the city. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: And you see no legal difficulty in accomplishing that? MR. WEIGEL: I don't believe so. I don't want to be absolute in the sense that I haven't looked at that just very recently, but I think we're in pretty good shape that way. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I think we'll probably want a more specific detailed response before we actually would take action in that regard. MR. WEIGEL: I would like to provide that to you. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay, thank you. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Mac'Kie, did you have a -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No, actually, that was the same question. Although, I'm just perplexed. What's at risk here if we assign that -- for you, sir, if we assign that to the City of Marco? MR. GASTON: Well, it appears as though from your administrative summary that Media One's contract will be modified to eliminate the area -- the City of Marco; whereas, my contract would be assigned to the City of Marco. I'm saying that that's not acceptable to Marco Island Cable. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Because? MR. GASTON: Because -- well, specifically, my area includes the City of -- my area that is active currently in my franchise includes the area known as Goodland, and I would not be able to serve that if I did not have a Collier County franchise. Further, Marco Island Cable fully intends to expand its services to other areas of this county. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So what we would need to do is a partial assignment. MR. GASTON: Absolutely. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. MR. GASTON: Yeah, take out the area known as the City of Marco from my franchise, and -- but leave my franchise in place. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That makes sense to me. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: That's much clearer than it's unacceptable. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Yeah, I'- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah, I understand the point now. MR. GASTON: Okay. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: No, that's better understood, I think. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thank you. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you. MR. GASTON: Okay. MR. FERNANDEZ: Next speaker is Bruce Anderson. MR. WEIGEL: Mr. Anderson had mentioned to me -- I was hoping to come to the board as a point in regard to the interlocal agreement for the roads, public roads and roads right-of-way, which is in your agenda package. That agreement of course had been reviewed, in fact drafted by me, reviewed by the attorney, Mr. Cuyler, attorney to the city. And Mr. Anderson brought to my attention that although there is no -- there is no specific language in this agreement, and it is purporting to do all that it -- we were asked to do with it, that he noted that within the roads rights-of-way adjacent to the roads are in fact drainage easements. These drainage easements, some of which -- which are in the jurisdiction of the county, some of these drainage easements do go beyond the rights-of-way into the adjacent private properties, private or public properties. And the question was raised, so that persons for whom Bruce is repre -- or other persons may be representing, if they ever needed to come forward in regard to a matter concerning the drainage easements, which are not specifically addressed in any agreement between the city and the county, they would find themselves having to come back to the county for these drainage easements that are within the jurisdiction of the City of Marco. And again, I've spoken with Mr. Cuyler in this regard, and briefly this morning with Mr. Moss, and although the staffs have worked it out and have I think a perfectly operational arrangement concerning drainage easements on Marco, I think that the recognition of this by the board and recognized by the city council in the interlocal agreement would probably be most appropriate. And I would suggest that if the board were to authorize the approval of this interlocal for roads and road right-of-way, that we also provide me the -- an authorization to put in a little blurb about drainage easements, and that the chairman be authorized to sign that. And I just wanted to bring that to your attention. And I believe with that, Mr. Anderson may have no further comment. But that's up to him. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: He just wanted to show off that subtle tie of his today. MR. ANDERSON: No. Madam Chair, members of the commission, for the record, my name is Bruce Anderson. And Mr. Weigel has raised the issue that I wanted to address. I noticed in the executive summary that it said the city has agreed to accept ownership and maintenance of the stormwater drainage systems. However, there's nothing in the public record to indicate that the easements and those systems have been formally transferred to the City of Marco Island. So that if someone ever needs to vacate those drainage easements, as I'm in the process of doing on a piece of property, that necessitates me coming before this commission, as well as the City of Marco Island, even though you may not in fact have any interest in them anymore. I just wanted to try to get that cleared up in the public records. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Anderson, if we were to give direction that also included adequate provisions regarding drainage easements and transfer of same, would that be satisfactory as a starting point? MR. ANDERSON: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Weigel, would that be sufficient to meet your needs? MR. WEIGEL: Yes, that would be fine. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: In between chocking, he said yes. MR. WEIGEL: Yes. MR. ANDERSON: Thank you. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Any other public speakers? MR. FERNANDEZ: No other public speakers, Madam Chairman. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Constantine? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Madam Chairman, I'll make a motion we approve the contractor licensing agreement as outlined on attachment one, and dedicate the existing county roads and road right-of-ways to Marco with the exceptions noted in our agenda C, attachment three, also noting Mr. Weigel's quote, blurb, end quote, about drainage easements that he'd like to put in and the chairman can take a look at and sign off on. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We have a motion and a second. MR. McNEES: Madam Chairman, a minor clarification, perhaps the contractor licensing agreement as submitted for the record with corrections. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I thought that was the first thing you said. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: He mentioned the contractor licensing and I think he said -- MR. McNEES: As opposed to the one that was in your executive summary -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. MR. McNEES: -- we have a corrected one for the record. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Hancock? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Clarification on the motion. It was not specifically included, but the staff report on cable television franchise fees includes that the county administrator has maintained throughout the discussion that once Marco Island adopts an ordinance, he would present the issue of cable franchise amendment to the board for consideration. So we're taking no action on that at this time, either for or against, but merely that it will be presented at a later date. MR. GASTON: Correct. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay, thank you. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay, so the only two items we're really dealing with is the contractor licensing and the roads and road rights-of-way. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: And there was a direction Mr. McNees requested on -- MR. McNEES: Direction for us to amend the community park impact fee ordinance. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. Is the motion maker -- are you including that? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, I didn't, but I can, and will. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And second agrees. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Clarify for me again the timing on this cable franchise discussion? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We'll bring it back for discussion, I assume, when our county administrator's prepared to. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, Marco has to adopt an ordinance first, so it's really-- MR. FERNANDEZ: They have. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I think they have -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: They have. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- adopted it. MR. FERNANDEZ: Today's presentation is the fulfilling of that commitment. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: He's bringing it to us right now, and what we're saying -- MR. FERNANDEZ: Yes. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- is we'd like to postpone that for further discussion. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I'm -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: No. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: -- not saying that. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm sorry, I misunderstood then, because I didn't realize this was the completion of that requirement. Mr. Fernandez, I thought the way this was written is that there was something coming to us in the future. That's not the case? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Right now is -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: It's here. MR. McNEES: That future is today. MR. FERNANDEZ: That is -- today is the presentation of that item, given the fact that they have in fact adopted an ordinance. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And if you would like to discuss it in more detail, but that's not part of my motion, so -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- if you want to discuss it separately, I would be happy to. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Point of order. If this vote is taken, does that preclude us from discussing -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- specifically the cable television franchise fees -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: No. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- immediately following it? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: We'll take it as a separate motion. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: So basically there's three things: Contractor licensing, roads and road rights-of-way, plus the -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Easements. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- park. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Direction -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: And easements, and the park impact fees. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Correct. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay, those are the three things in your motion? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That is correct. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Same for you, Commissioner? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yes, ma'am. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. I'll call the question, then. All in favor? Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries five-zero. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Madam Chairman? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Now, if you'd like to discuss the cable franchise, we'll do that. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I think we've already discussed it. I'd like to make a motion that we go ahead and complete the obligation and -- or the commitment, excuse me -- and arrange our cable contracts and agreements, franchises, as such where the City of Marco can collect their own fees. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: With the caveat -- again, asking to clarify the motion -- the caveat that those franchisees who have operation both inside and outside of the city limits will be separated and that a portion will apply to Marco Island, a portion will remain with the county? Mr. Gaston -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: That would be my -- that would be my intent. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: What would be the effective date forthat? MR. McNEES: I think probably what you're directing us to do is to negotiate with all of the existing franchisees to carve out the incorporated area of Marco Island from the existing franchises, so it's hard for me to say exactly how long that will take. Obviously they have to agree, we have to have amended agreements. So I can't really give -- I would hope we could get it done within a month or two, but I can't really give you a commitment on that. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: They don't have to agree to be assigned. There -- Mr. Weigel said there are two steps. One is a bilateral agreement and the second is unilateral in the sense that we assign to Marco Island the responsibility for that portion. MR. McNEES: I don't think we have anyone who serves only within the City of Marco Island, so given what Mr. Gaston said -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But isn't it just -- MR. McNEES: -- we are talking about -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- a question of carving -- I mean, what's to negotiate? You carve out the incorporated city limits of Marco Island, assign that portion. MR. McNEES: As Mr. Weigel said, he's not certain, at least as today, we can do that unilaterally, that these are two-party agreements. And I'm not saying it's going to be a problem, but it's a process we have to go through. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Sounds like more reason to wait. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Constantine? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Madam Chairman, I'm not going to support the motion. As I said before, we have and our staff has really bent over backwards. We have cooperated on every step of the way, the parks, the sewer district, everything; we could go down the line again. And regardless of whether the sheriff influenced them inappropriately or not, there is still a big, big chunk of money outstanding out there. And while these two are not connected, Commissioner Mac'Kie is absolutely right, they're very, very similar. The right thing to do is they are receiving sheriff's protection, they should pay for that. And whether we like it or not, what the sheriff has chosen to do does impact the remainder of the county. And so I think we need to look at this from a fiscal standpoint the same way. While the right thing to do in the long term is going to be to let Marco take care of their own, right now we have to look at the fiscal impacts and try to offset what isn't being done. And this is a small portion of that. But I think we find ourselves, whether we like it or not, and we can say boy that's the sheriff's bailiwick, but it is a budgetary item that we're responsible for. And so I -- I don't think we are good stewards of that public money if we go ahead and give away yet another revenue source with no indication that we've got an agreement forthcoming. I hope we do, but we don't have any commitment yet. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm going to -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Madam Chair, just on that point, just one supplemental point. I agree with everything you said, but also that we may wish that we could tell the sheriff which items in his budget to cut, but we don't have that authority. We can only say this amount of money is out. He can decide where to spend it. He has announced where he's going to spend it. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: On Marco Island. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well -- but we need to recognize the impact and use the authority that we do have. We don't have some authority in a couple of cases that we wish we had, so we have to use the little bit of authority that we do have. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Mr. Fernandez? MR. FERNANDEZ: Madam Chairman, the comment that Commissioner Mac'Kie just made is a comment that the board has traditionally taken and many boards have taken in the State of Florida with respect to the sheriff's budget, that the allocation is made to the sheriff and the distribution of those funds is the prerogative of the sheriff. However, Chapter 30 of the Florida Statutes provides that the sheriff may request that the Board of County Commissioners communicate the specific area in which the funding request that he has made was not honored by the board. And we have received such a request from the sheriff. So in other words, the Board of County Commissioners has been asked to report on the funding request made by the sheriff that has not been granted by the Board of County Commissioners. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, and probably we ought to respond the way you had outlined earlier what our intention was and how that differs with what the sheriff has said, if that's what the board as a group intends. But again, until we do that and until the City Council has a chance to respond to that, I don't think it's a good fiscal move or a good business negotiation move to go ahead and give away a revenue source that we still have at our disposal. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Madam Chair? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Just a question about that. Mr. Fernandez, the import of that, the sheriff asked us to say what did we intend that he cut. Is that basically what you're saying? MR. FERNANDEZ: Essentially, yes. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Once we tell him here's what we intend that you cut, does he have to do what we tell him to do? MR. FERNANDEZ: That essentially starts the process of appeal. And their time frame's allotted for each step in that process. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I understand. MR. FERNANDEZ: Our response to him -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But you're talking about appealing the budget to the governor. MR. FERNANDEZ: Yes. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But what -- my question is not whether or not he can appeal the budget and the governor can tell us to give him the million dollars. That's not my question. My question is, when he says please tell me why you cut a million dollars, we say because we want you to give Marco Island the law enforcement that they pay for and not more. MR. FERNANDEZ: Right. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Then if he disagrees with that -- if he continues not to want to do that but to do something else, like cut the 17 deputies, do we have the power to make him employ the 17 deputies and close down the Marco substation? Is anybody suggesting we have that authority anywhere? Because I need to know if we might have it. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: It's probably not going to be answered here in the next five minutes. But I can tell you what you just made a case for. You just made a case for establishment of county-wide patrol MSTD to separate administrative costs from patrol costs and to do it budgetarily through an MSTD adopted county-wide. You just made a case for it. And I know the sheriff doesn't want to do that, but that's something you're going to have to look at budgetarily in the future. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm ready. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: The reason I'm going to second the motion, and it's not that I terribly disagree with you, Commissioner Constantine. It's just that we can't take that $200,000 in cable franchise fees and put officers on the street. In other words, if I can't use that to alleviate some of the problems created by the internal policies in the sheriff's office of coverage in the balance of the county, then it does me no good to hold onto it. And I would rather take a position at this point to the Marco City Council that says regardless of what action you take, we're going to do things right on this side. We have proven to this point that we have been fair, we have been even handed, and we have worked every step of the way with the Marco Island City Council. And by taking this step, I think we are setting the stage that we are asking for them to reciprocate in that attitude of working together toward a common goal county-wide. Because what happens in Collier County, believe it or not, affects Marco Island. They know it and we know it. So I would rather do things the right way on this side and foster that spirit of cooperation with the City of Marco Island. Because again, I believe most of the Marco Island City Council was sitting there ready to strike a balance to find a middle point with this commission before certain comments were made at that meeting that set a tone that was, I think, inappropriate. So I'm going to second the motion. I hope we will support it, because I think regardless of what the sheriff has told the Marco Island City Council, what's right is right, and we need to conduct ourselves in that vein and expect them to do the same. And I think we will see them reciprocate in this particular arena. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. As long as whatever includes forthe cable franchise person to be able to maintain his rights to go county-wide and not be basically stuck on Marco Island. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Partial assignment. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Partial assignment, or -- ifthat's the terminology, whatever the legalese is that allows that to happen. And if that's in agreement then with the two companies, or whatever number of companies are there, that that be taken into consideration. Commissioner Constantine? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just a final comment. I guess I feel as though with all those things we have done to this point, we have shown that good faith effort -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Right. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- that you indicate, and obviously should have all along the way. I just reach back to when I worked with Texas Air, and when we would negotiate as an airline with airports or with aircraft manufacturers or any of the large corporations, there were times that you had unrelated issues that offset one another that you just used as leverage when you needed to, and it's an unfortunate reality of business negotiation. And I think we are giving up a small part of the leverage we have in this argument if we go ahead and give this money away. I don't think it's fiscally responsible. And I understand you're saying '- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: A different philosophy. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's a good thing. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Because you need to think how you're going to feel if -- the last olive branch we offered didn't work. If we offer another '- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: But it did. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It didn't work. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: The sheriff talked them out of it. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No, sir. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: They were ready to vote the money. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm sorry '- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: The motion was on the floor. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Excuse me, Mr. Norris, just please let me finish. The last olive branch we offered, which was the parks, did not accomplish the goal or we wouldn't be having this discussion. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I disagree. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: How are you going to feel if we offer another olive branch and again they vote not to fund their police services? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm going to feel the same way I do about the last four years. Good, bad or otherwise, I did the right thing. MR. McNEES: Madam Chairman, at your discretion, I think Mr. Moss has a point he'd like to raise, if '- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. MR. MOSS: Just for a matter of clarification, I wanted to inform the board that the Marco Island City Council has committed by ordinance to honor the terms and conditions of the existing franchise agreements. So on that basis, I see absolutely no threat whatsoever to the existing franchisees. On the second matter, maybe the best way to say this, if you don't want to act on the franchise agreements, I would suggest that you not act on transferring the roads and public rights-of-way, and keep those under county control until that matter is resolved. You see, right now all the rights-of-way on Marco Island are being torn up by Media One as they install their new cable for their broadband system. While -- the conflicts that's going to occur is you're going to transfer the roads and public rights-of-way and easements to the City of Marco Island, and yet the franchise agreement -- franchisee who feels he has the right to work in the easements and on the public rights-of-way, we start having this conflict as to who approves the plans and who does the supervision and that type of thing, and in fact whose rights-of-way and easements are they. So that's -- from a policy point of view, I know that may be nitpicking, but it's going to cause us and I think your staff some very, very difficult problems if we try to treat these two items separately. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I can just envision your staff out there getting into an altercation with the Media One people. I mean, who do you call? You can't call the sheriff's department, so '- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: No, no, you're on Marco Island, you can call the sheriff's department. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Oh, yes. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Oh, yeah. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Let's call the question, please. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I think that just means that the two need to be concurrent. When we make final approval of road right-of-way transfer and this franchise agreement, if it should pass, the two need be concurrent. That would solve the problem. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Are we within our legal -- what we need legally here, Mr. Weigel? MR. WEIGEL: Help me with the parliamentary procedure, Mr. Fernandez. Have they not voted on the original motion yet? MR. FERNANDEZ: No, we haven't-- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I can just barely hear you, Mr. Weigel. If you could speak up. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: The original motion passed, now there's a motion with regard to the cable franchise fees on the floor. MR. WEIGEL: I think the original motion included the approval of the road impact -- or the road -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Right. MR. WEIGEL: -- rights-of-way. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Right. MR. WEIGEL: And so are you now suggesting that you don't approve that agreement that you just approved with a vote a little while ago? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We'd have to do a motion to reconsider by somebody who was in the majority, if that's what -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: There's a motion on the floor, isn't there? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We haven't voted. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: On the first motion on the road easements, we voted. And what -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- Mr. Moss has said, if you're not going to give us the franchise, please don't give us the roads. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, if this motion is not successful, then we'll have to reconsider. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: If this motion fails, then we'll consider whether or not we want to take up his request by a motion to reconsider the first vote. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Understood. MR. WEIGEL: Now, what I could state is -- I'll get my cough drop out of the way -- is that you can give the roads, but they don't necessarily have to agree to take them. Remember, it takes two approvals from two governments to consummate the agreement. So nothing changes by the mere agreement of merely the board to give -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So even if the cable franchise item does not pass, Mr. Moss, you and your folks can just not accept them for the time being until we settle the other issues. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Which might be the simplest approach. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I ask forthe -- call the question, please? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Let's go back. Restate the motion, please. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: The motion is to go ahead and amend our franchises, giving partial assignments to the City of Marco Island, and taking whatever steps necessary to go ahead and allow the City of Marco Island to collect the cable franchise fees within the city for their own use. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second it. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: All right. And who seconded that motion? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I did. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: That was Mr. Hancock. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. I'll call the question. All in favor? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Aye. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Aye. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Aye. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Opposed? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Aye. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Aye. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries three-two. MR. MOSS: Thank you. MR. McNEES: Thank you, commissioners. That would conclude this item. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Pleasure doing business with you. Item #8A4 LEASE AGREEMENT BE'I'VVEEN COLLIER COUNTY AND COLLIER ENTERPRISES REALTY GROUP, INC. - CONTINUED UNTIL LATER IN THE MEETING CHAIRPERSON BERRY: At this point in time, the next item we're going to get into is going to take some time. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Actually, it's the summary -- I mean the consent agenda. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's 16(A) -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: It is. It is. Is this a -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Fairly quick. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: All right. Then let's go ahead and do item 16(A)(11) that was placed on the regular agenda by Commissioner Constantine. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: This is an item to enter into an agreement for a lease for our utility franchise regulation department, which is about 18,000 bucks a year. It goes up four percent annually, and then also has expenses forjanitorial maintenance, heating, AC and SO OI3. We have always tried to help out our state and federal elected officials by providing office space. We have always had some space available. I certainly want to help out Representative Elect Goodlette; however, I'm wondering, is this a good policy to set where we're providing some free rent here in the building for a state office and spending $20,000 a year plus of county money to move our own people off campus, out of this building and across the street, away? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Commissioner Constantine, I'm glad you pulled this off the consent agenda, because it bridges another question, which is I believe state representatives are afforded an allowance for office use. Now, if they aren't paying rent, where does that money go? And since we already have State Representative and soon to be State Senator Saunders in space here, we have State Representative Rojas who is rarely if ever in his office here. He has an administrative assistant here, Janet, but, you know, I'm not sure that he needs the space he has. I just think there's a better solution than an $18,000 cost to the county taxpayer for state representative offices, not to mention the question of is there compensation pay to the state representatives that could be reimbursable to the county if we do have to incur costs to try and strike a deal. So I would like to table this for a period of two weeks to determine if -- or one week, if that's appropriate, to determine the answers to those questions. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah, I mean -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Is that a motion to continue for two weeks? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yes. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: All right. We're going to continue this item 16(A)(1) for-- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: 16(A)(11). CHAIRPERSON BERRY: 16(A)(11), I'm sorry. -- for two weeks. And we have a motion and a second to do that? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yes. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And I hope the message we send is obviously we want to help out Dudley and help out each of those, but the county taxpayer probably shouldn't be picking up a $20,000 tab in order to do it. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I just want to comment, because I'm not -- that's not exactly my position. So just in a -- given some direction to the staff what -- what I'd like to see is that we provide space in the building for those representatives who have the most contact with the public here. And frankly, that would mean that if we have to put Mr. Rojas somewhere else or if something has to be done, that would make more sense to me so that Mr. Goodlette and Mr. Saunders are here and can continue to serve the constituency that's here. And if in fact there is some remuneration to them for space, it certainly should come into the county coffers. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Let me qualify that. I've heard that, but I don't know that to be the case. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I think there is. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I've never heard of it. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I've heard that. But-- and if that's the case, then I'm sorting through the question of where has that remuneration gone when we've been providing office space to people? Two questions there. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. But this item -- we'll vote on the continuance -- MR. FERNANDEZ: Madam Chair? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Yes. MR. FERNANDEZ: Before you vote, just to add one point. We were in the process of moving this office closer to community development, because after the reorganization, that's where they're organized. And for those reasons, we felt that it made some sense to move this office. We got concurrently the request to accommodate Mr. Goodlette, and we put the two together, is essentially what we did. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Would you be asking -- MR. FERNANDEZ: I understand your concern -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Would you be asking to make this move if Representative Goodlette did not need office space? MR. FERNANDEZ: Yes-- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I guess -- MR. FERNANDEZ: -- we would be making this move. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- I raise the question again then, if we are in county space and paying nothing for it right now and adding an additional 20,000 expense to vacate that, and in this case, Goodlette will go in. If it wasn't for Goodlette, then it would be empty or we'd find some other government use for it. But I just -- I need some help understanding why we would expend 20,000 additional dollars -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Just to get -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- when we have existing space. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- people closer together. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Sounds like there's two questions there: One on the move itself and the second on the issue of providing space from remuneration saying -- just to know more about that before making that decision. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Mr.-- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Commissioner Mac'Kie, I agree with you. I think obviously there are -- I think Representative Goodlette's district is entirely within Collier County, and it probably represents more of Collier County folks. So there is kind of a feeding chain there, if you will, of priority space. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I think though, too, I think you have to -- I think we need to consider the request by the county administrator when it comes to reorganization and location of people within the operation as to what is the best place for them, where should they be. And as you well know, we're so spread out because of size and lack of facilities on this particular campus, that perhaps we do need to look at reorganization and what best serves the different departments. So I think it's unfortunate that this maybe came at the same time, and so it puts a slant on it that we're vacating because of, and that probably is not the case. But on the other hand, if you need to have better office space, then I think that needs to happen. But Mr. Cautero, I think you wanted to say something. MR. CAUTERO: Thank you, Madam Chairman. Vince Cautero, community development, environmental services administrator. Two items very quickly; one you just embellished upon. We're in the midst of doing some reorganization. You're going to be hearing more about that. I believe later this month those issues would come out. Secondly, a minor point. The funds for this move, if approved, would come from utility trust fund, not the ad valorem tax base. just wanted to -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. MR. CAUTERO: -- make that clarification. But you'll be hearing more about us trying to accommodate each other as we make organizational changes. And Mr. Fernandez is quite correct that we would probably move Mr. Wallace and his staff closer to Horseshoe anyway. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay, very good. We do have a motion to go ahead and table this item. All in favor? Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries five-zero. At this time we're going to take a break because our next items -- first of all, we need to give our court reporter a break, and secondly, the next items are going to take some time. (Brief recess.) CHAIRPERSON BERRY: If we could find a seat, please. We may have some items following that are going to be taking some time. I must tell you that at about two to three minutes before the hour of 12:00, we will be adjourning for a lunch break, mainly because I have to be at the elections office for the canvassing board. That's part of what I have to do. So this will allow everyone to go get something to eat and then come back and join us in the afternoon if we're -- should we not be finished. But I just want you to know right up front what's going to happen. It's not because we're trying to put anybody off, but we've got a time thing that we have to do what we have to do. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: In the event we're not concluded at noon, will that be an extended break so that you can do what you need to do and still actually eat in between, or is that -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: It's all simultaneous, Commissioner. I don't waste time. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Fair enough. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Or words. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Basic productivity coming out up here. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Let me tell you, I don't let work interfere with food. Item #8C1 REVIEW OF OPTIONS FOR RECREATIONAL USES FOR 315 ACRES OF SOLID WASTE PROPERTY DECALARED AS SURPLUS ADJACENT TO THE CURRENT LANDFILL - STAFF TO MOVE FORWARD TO ISSUE RFP FOR ARCHITECT FOR JOINT USE; ENGINEER TO BE CONTRACTED FOR WETLAND STUDY; SITE PLAN TO BE PREPARED FOR COMBINED USE; AND STAFF TO PURSUE ACQUISITION OF ADDITIONAL PARCELS Okay, moving on then to item 8(C)(1), review of options for recreational uses of 315 acres of solid waste property? I don't think so, but property. I read this in the agenda, and I thought solid waste property, hum. I think it's property that's located perhaps where our solid waste disposal is located. It's adjacent to the current landfill, at any rate. Mr. Olliff? MR. OLLIFF: Good morning. Forthe record, Tom Olliff, public services administrator for the county. And fortunately this item has nothing to do with either the City of Marco or the sheriffs department. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That don't make it easy, though. MR. OLLIFF: This item is in follow-up to primarily a couple of public petitions that brought forth some ideas for uses of property that the county owns but which was declared surplus adjacent to the existing landfill operation. If you'll see on the map that I've got on the visualizer, the property is outlined there in the darker lines, and that sort of helps to correct what I think are two misnomers about the property up front. And one is that the property -- for some reason, there's a perception that it's 260 acres. It's actually 312 and a half acres of property that's owned by the county. And the second misnomer that I've always heard is that it is a square solidly owned rectangle of property. And I think if you'll look and see on the map that's shown, there are several properties located here and here and here that are still privately owned. Those properties are -- the three that I pointed out are primarily landlocked within properties that the county has already purchased for the landfill project earlier. The property that the county owns is still currently zoned agricultural, which does allow recreational uses as a permitted use on the site. The properties that surround the county-owned property include existing landfill to the south. Directly west of the property is still estates zoned property. And if you can see there on the map, it's got the traditional grid pattern of developed estates property. There is a -- the Golden Gate canal actually runs adjacent on the west. And then as you hop the canal, you get right into estates developed residential properties. To the north is more estates zoning. There's also an unrecorded subdivision known as Naples Farm sites, but there's very little farming that actually occurs there. And it's actually being developed primarily for residential properties. And finally, to the east is more agriculturally zoned land, but it is also being developed residentially and either at one per five units to the acre or even greater than that. But it is primarily residential in nature. Just a brief history of the property. I think the commission's familiar, but for the public's sake, I think, the board directed acquisition of a total of 360 acres of landfill property in 1990. It was designed for landfill expansion. By 1993, 43 different parcels, which total the 312 and a half acres that we're talking about today, had been acquired. In June of that year the board halted further acquisitions and directed staff to begin identifying alternative landfill sites. And finally, in late 1995, the board declared this 312 and a half acres that had been purchased as surplus. Following the board's decision that it be declared a surplus, I think there were several public petitions brought forth. One included a public golf course project that was also supported heavily by residential development. And there was also a proposal for what was called an action sports park, which included a number of alternative type sports that included everything from motocross and BMX to disk golf and a number of sport uses. The board, after that presentation, directed staff to go back and look at both an action sports park and the idea of a public golf course on the property, and bring back the report. The direction at the time was actually to bring back a report within 30 days. As you know, by memo to you earlier, that was delayed slightly, as we were trying to have this tied with the landfill trucking contract so that the board could make what were seen as cousin type items at the same time. But because of delays with the trucking contract, we are bringing this forward based on the board's previous direction to do so. If the board decides to dispose of the property -- and I need to try and address a couple of those public petition type items so that the board would understand what the process would be for that. In response to the public golf with residential development, I think the board needs to be aware that should that be an option that was pursued, the property would have to be sold outright. And it would have to be advertised for sale primarily like it was when it was advertised for strictly public golf. But I think you would have to have a competitive opportunity for developers to purchase the property. Now, you can put whatever restrictions for public golf and residential development or public golf without residential development as part of the sales advertisement, but the property would have to be advertised. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: We could just put it out with that reverter clause again and make sure no one bids on it. MR. OLLIFF: If the board decides to use the property for a county use other than for a solid waste type use, I think it needs to be noted that the solid waste fund would need to be repaid for the price and the investment that they have in the land. The solid waste ratepayers are who actually purchased that property. They have roughly $4,500 per acre invested in the land that we currently own. So if it's used for either recreational or any other type county use, there would have to be a transfer of funds somehow to fund 470, that's the solid waste fund, to repay them for that. The report that you've got in your agenda package focuses on two recreational type uses. Actually three. The first is the action sports park. The second was the public golf course, and its public golf with county retained ownership of the property. And the third is a joint proposal where you could do public golf, along with some of the alternative recreation. To begin with, on the action sports park, I think most ideas like this -- I can't believe I know how to use this. Most ideas like this are generated from a problem. And I think in this particular case there is a problem. And I think the public petitioners who came forward included not only people who participate in the alternative recreation, but they included the sheriffs department deputies, they also included the police athletic league and I think just some community leaders who understand that there are a number of these alternative type sports that people are extremely interested in and participate heavily in, but for which there is no location here in the community to practice that sport. The result is that there's a lot of illegal ATV motocross type riding that occurs, especially in the estates area, on private properties, and I believe it causes sheriff's deputies a significant problem there. It's a difficult issue, because there is no place for you to tell the public to go where you can legitimately do that activity. So I think the problem that you have is that there is a great deal of interest out there for a large number of participants and there's no place that's actually designated for those type uses. In response, you've got to give this group a particularly -- a lot of credit. They organize themselves, and they have worked together, even though there are probably a dozen different recreational interests involved. And they've put together a good solid group of people who are simply interested in trying to provide a reasonable recreational opportunity here at the landfill property. And I don't know that it's specifically geared for this landfill property, but I do think that they would like to see the county pursue some sort of a location where they could legitimately do their recreation. They have actually, through George Fogg, put together some site plans for our consideration. They put together a very detailed report that included their estimated number of users for each of the recreational types. One of the site plans is here on the visualizer, and it shows -- I don't know if you can see very well, but I've tried to highlight the trail system that they've showed. This is a site plan that encompasses most of the property. I think some of the interesting things that they've shown are recreational uses on closed but existing landfill cells. I think a lot of communities that you go to are trying to get better public use out of closed landfill cells other than just simply mothbailing that property. And I think they've recognized the recreational opportunity that that provides. This is a site plan that generally is not detailed, but it is just simply trying to show whether these type uses can fit on a property that the county has. And I think the answer to that is yes, they can fit, yes, they can work together. There are some questions about this particular design, primarily because it puts some of the trail activities out closer to the property perimeters, which are fairly close to residential development. Beyond that, they also did some additional site plans, such as this one, where they tried to isolate some of the more motorized recreation to the interiors of the property. And I think if you look at just the two highlighted boxes -- I know it's hard to read that -- but those are the locations where they've got trail and motorized activities, trying to buffer those with some of the other more passive type recreations between them and what would be the residential developments that are primarily to the east, west and north. They have put together some revenue estimates. They anticipate the fact that any of the recreation activities that the county has, we try to generate revenue to offset some of the operating expenses. I've looked at their numbers. I think frankly some of their construction numbers are a little high. They've estimated initial construction costs at somewhere between eight and nine million dollars for the total site. I think that that's high. I think they were doing the smart thing, they were trying to come in with some conservative numbers to make sure that if the board approved and the project was done, it would not be beyond what they had actually told you. In terms of operating expenses, they are indicating that they think that the operating revenue that they can generate would offset completely the operating expenses. In looking at their figures, I believe they're correct. I think that they could be self-supporting in terms of the operation, because frankly, the types of recreation that are being proposed here are not high maintenance type items. You don't have ball fields that you have to go out and cut two or three times every month in order to try and keep them playable. I think they've put together a good proposal. I think there will be some representatives from the groups here to speak to the activities. The only concern that the staff had, frankly, was noise. And we are concerned about the motorized activities in the proximity that they are to what is becoming a more and more residentialized area. I do not know and I think you would need to have some further study done as to whether or not you could internalize and buffer some of the motorized sports sufficiently to be able to have decibel readings at the property's boundaries that would be acceptable or not. If that can be answered positively, then I think there are some opportunities that even motorized sports might be able to work on this property. In terms of public golf, we were extremely fortunate. Gordy Lewis, who is a local golf course architect who has, I'm told, been involved in over 170 different golf course designs, both locally and worldwide, volunteered and put together for us this site plan. And it is very much like the action sports -- it's upside down. Very much like the action sports park. It is a conceptual type plan, primarily for our purposes, just to see if a golf course would fit on the property. What he's done is he's designed a 27-hole facility. What you can see is we've asked him to design it, given the existing properties that the county currently owns. So he did not design on top of some of those internally landlocked private properties that the county has yet to obtain. But you can also see by that design the difficulties that those private properties would cause, should you perceive this project. Because they are landlocked, the county would be obligated to provide access to those people. To provide access to certain of those properties would require traversing either right through where golf cart traffic is going to be, or through some of the hole designs that are done. So I think bottom line, there are at least three properties that should the county decide to pursue a public golf course on this property, you would want to direct staff to try and continue to obtain. In terms of the numbers, I think numbers are the big issue that will determine whether or not a public golf course proceeds or not. And I think we actually are very fortunate here. I think in looking at the number of rounds that are out there being played, we were fortunate in having the National Golf Foundation, who had done a feasibility study on this particular property for a 27-hole public golf course for the Collier County Golf Authority, which we were able to obtain, and they were generous enough to allow us to use the information. The National Golf Foundation indicates that they believe that this course would turn 52,000 rounds in its first year and 70,000 rounds by its third year. Their revenue projections indicate that for a greens fee somewhere in the neighborhood of $35, you can break even on this course and in fact probably set up a sinking fund reserve for our capital improvements in future years. And that anticipates debt service payments annually for an initial revenue bond that the county would issue to pay for the initial construction. We had Bill Reagan, the county's financial advisor, go back and look at what would the initial bond issue be, what are current interest rates, which are extremely favorable, and what would our annual debt service payment be. For this report, we also estimated extremely conservatively. We took Bill's middle number, not his low number, in terms of annual debt service. And it was roughly $800,000 a year was the figure that we plugged in. We still believe with that high a debt level, the course can not only break even but make some money in a fairly early number of years. To address an issue again, like the action sports park, I think in this particular project we were looking at what's the problem. And with a community that has some 80 golf courses, the response is always why in the world would you build another golf course? And I think the park staff included in the report some information that was found in Golf Digest -- recently, in fact, within the last six months -- that indicated that in a survey that they had done, Collier County was the worst county in terms of public golf accessibility in the State of Florida. And I think if you looked at the report, it indicated the surrounding counties that do provide public golf. Primarily every county in South Florida, with the exception of Glades and Hendry County, provide public golf courses, with the exception of Collier County. So it's Collier, Glades and Hendry that do not have public, but from all the rest '- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Not very good company. MR. OLLIFF: -- there is public golf provided. And I think it's provided because the information that we also received says that of all the golf courses in town, those that are publicly accessible have greens fees that while they are extremely reasonable in the summertime, generally, you know, with coupon books, or even without, in a lot of cases you can play golf for $20 in the summer. In the winter, those same golf courses are charging anywhere from 70 to $150. And I think -- 25? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No, I'm looking at -- go ahead. MR. OLLIFF: 75 to $150 per round. And I think they are receiving a great deal of play even at that rate. And I think what you're seeing is that their local residents are not playing in the wintertime, because they simply can't afford it, and that your visitors and seasonal people are the ones who are out filling up the golf courses in the wintertime. So I think there is a need. That is the problem. And I think if the board wanted to pursue a public golf course, I think the numbers indicate that it can be done. With that, I'm available to answer any questions that you might have. I think our recommendation to you at the end of the report was that the county pursue the 27-hole public golf course, that it also look at some alternative recreational opportunities, but primarily those that are non-motorized, try and get creative a little bit in looking at recreational opportunities on the existing landfill. And finally, in a lot of communities, we found that the solid waste fund is actually the funding mechanism for funding a lot of what is the recreational development on solid waste or landfill property. That's done because the communities have felt that the solid waste or landfill operators owe the community more than simply a closed landfill at the end of the project, and they owe them some type of use on that property that is a community benefitring kind of use. So I think that there is an opportunity to look at some funding sources for some of those alternative recreations on existing landfill. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Mac'Kie? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: They teach you in law school not to ask a question unless you know the answer to it, so I'm taking a risk here, because this is something I feel strongly about. But does the staff have a recommendation? I know that you initially tried not to bring this to us until we had resolved the trucking contract on the trash. Our-- do you have a recommendation on the timing of this as a result of the fact that we don't have resolution on the trucking contract? Or maybe that would be more appropriate for Mr. Fernandez. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: If it's helpful at all, it was actually my suggestion that we do them together before when we thought the other would be to us in September. And then when it became obvious from our memo a couple of weeks back that it would be maybe even January, then -- and I know the folks with the action park are anxious, and I know there's a number of people interested in helping with the golf. And I had suggested to Mr. Fernandez at that time that there's no sense -- we don't need to wait -- if everybody already has their reports in line, we don't need to wait until January. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And I guess my -- the reason for asking is unless -- I know that I was in the minority of that decision and that the board has decided to truck the garbage. I don't think, though, that the board has decided to truck the garbage no matter how much it cost. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Exactly. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And so until we know how much it costs, I would hope that even the majority who supports trucking the trash is not going to propose some alternative use for property. And I just -- and again, don't know the answer to the question, but is there a staff position on that? MR. FERNANDEZ: Madam Chair? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Fernandez, before you do, this property was declared surplus in 1995, though. At no point now or since, frankly, a commitment in October of 1993 by the board has been even under consideration for use as landfill. So I understand your concern, that we don't want to back ourselves in a corner, but this property has been surplussed and has been since '95 suggested for recreational use specifically back then for golf course purposes. But I don't think anyone is saying, you know, boy, let's close out all our options because we're going trucking no matter what. But at the same time, we've said repeatedly to the public since October of 1993 that under no circumstance would this property be used for landfill expansion. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And I think-- and again, I'm determined to get an answer from staff. And I'm sure the chairman will be sure that you get that opportunity. But my issue is backing ourselves into a corner. Until we have other options and know the price tag for them, I'd like not to -- I would hope that a majority wouldn't agree to close off the only other option we have at this point. It's the only other option that we do have. And only in extreme measures might we consider it. But I'm hoping that we're not going to close off the only option that we do have until we know the price tag on the alternative. And then I'll hush, because you and I obviously disagree about this. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: But I don't think we're closing anything off that we didn't already commit to the public in 1993, 4, 5,6,7. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: And 87 COMMISSIONER NORRIS: And 8. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Mr. Fernandez? MR. FERNANDEZ: Madam Chair, in answer to the question, I understand that the board has declared this property surplus; however, you have two other options that are pending for long-term landfill solutions at site L and the trucking. Which, by the way, I don't really regard the trucking as a long-term solution, I regard that as more of a short-term solution. My feeling is that the presentation today was appropriate because we had committed to come to the board with a presentation. I did not anticipate that the board was going to take action today that would commit us in one way or another before we had the opportunity to see what that trucking contract is going to look like, or move further along with the plans to acquire the site on -- at site L. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: But let me ask you a question as you go on, and maybe you can help then. Because did I -- I did miss a meeting two weeks ago with my mom's funeral. Did some action take place there that altered what we committed to the public in 1993, 1994, 1995, 6 and 77 Because we have said this is surplus land; under no circumstance will we expand the landfill there. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: No, nothing happened at that meeting. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: No. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Okay, great. Because I don't understand your rationale then, Mr. Fernandez, if you're suggesting we should wait as a safety valve. We have already committed -- MR. FERNANDEZ: I understand that. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- over and over and over that this land won't be used for that purpose. So if you're talking about that land that is currently the landfill, that's fine. But the 315 acres to the north, that commitment has been made, and why we would -- unless the board has changed their mind and altered that commitment or made some statement to the contrary, we have set a very clear direction there, and the two aren't related. The existing acreage and what we do with that and whether we open another cell there in five years or not all depends on that trucking contract. But even if that trucking contract doesn't go, at no point do I recall this board ever saying well, we're going to look at that 315 acres and we're going to back out on the commitment we've made repeatedly for five years. So I don't understand your rationale there whatsoever. MR. FERNANDEZ: Madam Chair? The rationale has to do with the fact that I feel it's our responsibility as your staff to give you our best judgment with respect to the future decision here, notwithstanding the commitment that the board has made. I understand that the board's position is that this is surplus. I understand that. What I've been asked is what is my position on this, notwithstanding what the board's policy is. And my advice is until we have something definite in place, I would advice that we not make a final decision on the use of this property. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, you're about five years late on that. MR. FERNANDEZ: I understand that. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I guess I'm a little disturbed to hear you saying something directly contrary to what board direction has been. You're saying, well, staff is doing something and you're doing something directly contrary to that. MR. FERNANDEZ: I didn't say we're doing anything. I was asked for my opinion. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm hearing him responding to Commissioner Mac'Kie's question. I'm not hearing him offer a plan adverse -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Right, exactly. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And my question -- and he and I have spoken about this issue a lot. And it's that I think that we as the board of directors of this county has to get -- we have to get the professional advice from the experts. These are the experts. And then we make policy decisions or we enforce previously made policy decisions or we change them. But we have to get the professional advice of our professional staff, and that's what I was asking him for. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And my recollection is that we did in 1993 and that we did again every year since. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. Well, we're getting it again today. MR. OLLIFF: As much as I don't like to wade in here, I will. I think -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: It's not a good move, Mr. Olliff, but go right ahead. MR. OLLIFF: The issue may be moot. I think, you know, there are certain decision items that will result, regardless of the board's decision here today, with recreational uses for this property. And there is also a landfill trucking contract that is working its way back to the board, and those decisions will be brought to the board fairly soon. And whether -- I don't think any one of those decisions is going to preclude the other timing-wise. I don't think there's anything that I can get done today contractually that is going to affect that. And I think the board's going to have a decision on landfill trucking, frankly, before we could probably get back with something fixed on this particular item. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And there's nothing -- so what you're asking for today is if we in fact can use this property for recreational uses, is there a preference on action versus golf? Is that basically the question? MR. OLLIFF: And we would expect some direction to pursue and continue to pursue the next steps. And the next steps would include doing some additional financial analysis and some design work, and probably spending some money. But there would be some specific staff actions that would result. But again, I don't think that any of the actions that will result will preclude any decision that the board wants to make or bind. But we simply didn't time this so that there would be a decision that would affect one way or the other. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Hancock? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: We are getting tremendously sidetracked from what it is we're here to talk about today. Commissioner Mac'Kie, with all due respect, it is not up to you to reconsider every time this is opened the designation of this land as surplus. That has been made. A policy decision was made by this board not to expand the existing landfill closer to, nearer to, established homes in Golden Gate. That's a policy decision formally ratified in 1995. Until such time as a majority of this board reverses that policy, to continue to revisit that or to say yeah, we'll declare it surplussed but only kind of, not really, because we want to hold it as an ace in the hole, that's not what our policy directives are intended to do. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But Tim, the only way I'll know if a majority of the board wants to change that direction is by bringing it up. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, the way you bring it up is by a formal item on the agenda, not to take a discussion over the future use of this land and turn it into a discussion about whether the decision to make it surplus or not was a good one. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We can disagree about that, and -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well-- and we do. My point is that the agenda item before us today is not a discussion on whether the board's decision in '95 was an appropriate one. But every time we talk about this, we keep coming back to that point. And I understand your tenacity on this, and while I admire it, it's frustrating, too, because we've had this discussion now, I can count, at least five times about whether we should keep our options open on this land. Until the majority of this board, there's a motion, a second, and it passes, that this land is no longer surplussed and intended for landfill use, I don't know why we continue to have this discussion. So I would like to ask the chair that we limit our discussion today on the proposals before us and whether or not this board wants to pursue one or a variation of those proposals and not to continue to have the discussion on whether or not the decision to make this surplus was an appropriate one. Period. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. We'll stick with the discussion before us today. MR. OLLIFF: With that -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Olliff, one of the things you said was you closed saying you'd recommend kind of a combination of the two. MR. OLLIFF: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And I guess I suspect we're going to have a number of public speakers on this, and probably our best thing is do that. But I like the idea of that. I know Commissioner Hancock has long trumpeted the need for a public community golf course, and you outline it fairly well in here the need for that. And particularly the high cost of public golf right now, if you can get on in the wintertime. And -- but I also like -- I've met several times with the alternative recreational uses, and I like a lot of those, and I think there's a need for those. And so if there's a way to combine the two, I think we can make some very good use of the property there and provide not one but two needs. And it appears financially each of those may pay for themselves over the long term. The one concern I'd expressed to the alternative group was money and how we were going to afford to do that. And they've put together some pretty impressive numbers here. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Why not have trail bikes as golf carts? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: There you go. Special caddies on ATV's. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Oh, I'd be the first to sign up forthat. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: One of the things that I don't see outlined in too much detail here, Mr. Olliff, that I'm wondering is, there were four alternative things, and that was to sell the property, which we're not recommending; to lease it, lease the land raw and let someone develop it into trails or into golf or both; or to build those recreational activities and then lease the operation, though, let someone operate it privately; or third, build and operate ourselves -- or fourth, build and operate ourselves. Which of those four alternatives are you recommending? MR. OLLIFF: I will tell that you we didn't do a lot of research. We wanted to get past the decision about public golf or not. But I think beyond that, we've done enough to be able to stand here and tell you that I think we would like to see the county continue to own the property, develop the project, but then probably privately manage and operate the golf course. I think there are people who do golf course management and do it for a living, and the county has not, historically. So I think at least initially that would be our recommendation COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. If there's no further questions for staff, we'll go to public speakers. MR. FERNANDEZ: First two speakers are Kathleen Passidomo and Sarah Lanius. MS. PASSIDOMO: Good morning, commissioners. Forthe record, my name is Kathleen Passidomo. I represent the Friends of Farmers, a nonprofit corporation comprised of a majority of the growers in Collier County. I also represent the owners of site L, which is the farmland selected by this commission to be acquired by the county for relocation of the existing landfill. I stood before you a few years ago at the time the commission declared surplus the 300 acres adjacent to the landfill which had been purchased by the county over a number of years for the purpose of landfill expansion. If you recall, the county was considering selling the 300 acres to the Golf Authority for the purpose of constructing a public golf course. Representing then, as I do now, the parties most directly affected by any change in the currently designated use of the 300 acres as landfill expansion, I indicated to the board my clients are certainly not against the construction and operation of a public golf course and other recreational facilities in our county. However, the site in question presents too many unresolved issues that must be addressed before the county can move forvvard. Although the county has identified site L for acquisition for landfill relocation, my clients continue to stress their position that they do not wish to sell any of the property for landfill purposes. It appears that the county will need to undertake costly and time-consuming condemnation proceedings, which we believe will not be successful. There continues to be questions as to whether or not the county can even obtain permits from the Department of Environmental Protection for another landfill in Collier County. The county has not as yet finalized its negotiations to have solid waste hauled out of the county. In short, the county may have no alternative but to use the current site and the adjacent property for landfill expansion. As I indicated to you several years ago, and I repeat now, the county pursues the issue of using the 300 acres, which is designated for landfill expansion, for some other purpose. It may be foreclosing its '- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just a correction there, it's designated as surplus land. MS. PASSIDOMO: It's still -- you're right, but it's also still shown on the comprehensive plan as landfill expansion, and that's what I'm referring. But I understand your-- yeah, I understand where you're going with that. Again, you are -- you would be, in our opinion, foreclosing any option that you have. There is no urgency to move forvvard at this time. We suggest that you wait until the issues have been resolved so that you do not foreclose out any options and put the county in a bind. Thank you for your attention. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you. Next speaker? MR. FERNANDEZ: Next speaker is Sarah Lanius and then George Fogg. MR. FOGG: I know I don't look like Sarah; however, I do have a statement for Sarah. It's -- Sarah Lanius has been -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: You are? MR. FOGG: Oh, excuse me, I'm George Fogg. But today I'm -- right now I'm Sarah, if I could make this statement for her briefly. On behalf of Sarah Lanius, who is unable to present her statement because of her work in the sheriffs department, she cannot be seen on television, she would like me to express the following two points: One is that the sheriffs department does support the action sports park specifically in relationship to the off-road vehicle use. And two, that the PAL program is proceeding and should be up and operational in the relatively near future. She again apologizes for not being able to present, but she can't. On -- my name is George Fogg. I'm a resident in -- here in Collier County, Woodshire Lane. I've spoken to you before, as you all know, on this subject, and I won't repeat what I've said in the past. That's there and in the record. I would like to, however, compliment the staff on the thoroughness of the exploration of the issues. Unfortunately I don't always agree with what the staff comes up with. And there are only two items that I wish to basically talk about very briefly. One is that -- the probable construction of an 18-hole moderate priced golf course immediately adjacent to the landfill. Most of you have probably heard or seen the article that was in the Golden Gate Gazette, which says that Larry Bird and his associates are currently proposing to build and are closing on 185 acres of land adjacent to the landfill site and, therefore, it does bring into question whether there's a need for two similar types of facilities at this time. Secondly, the numbers of users that would be satisfied for the various types of recreation use, a golf course, according to the report, would satisfy somewhere between 40 and 70,000 rounds or users per year. The action sports park should realistically satisfy about 240,000 users per year, or approximately four -- three to four times as many users for the land. It would appear to me that if we were to consider reducing the number of holes on the golf -- if we were to go that way -- to 18 holes and using the land that remained for the remaining nine holes as use for the alternative uses, that we would probably have sufficient land to do both activities effectively. I think that that -- if you add those two numbers together, that you'd come up with around 280,000 users, more or less, in that scenario as opposed to, we'll say, 60,000 for golf. I think it's a very good potential, and I think that it's one that we should look at. However, one other point that I would like to speak very briefly on, and that is the noise issue. And I think that Tom Olliff clearly brought out the need for making sure that what we are saying or what the staff has said of the problem with noise is clearly tested to see if in fact it does exist. Is there really going to be a problem with the particular configurations that we might be able to plug for the various land uses? I believe there are various techniques available where we can mitigate the sound problem, and part of it would be the placement of the sound or noise-generating facilities in the center of the land -- of the site and with non-noise activities surrounding them. I think it can work, I think we can make it compatible and live together. It's a very good opportunity. Thank you, and I look forward to working with the group on this. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you. MR. FERNANDEZ: Next two speakers are William Spring and Cheryle Newman. MR. SPRING: Morning. William Spring, Oaks Boulevard area. I have three children and they all participate in motorcycle use, ATV use. Many of their friends do. The development in that area, North Naples, has pushed any use we have of the land further and further out, and right now we've been out on Everglades and DeSoto Boulevards, and something always happens where there's a complaint and you're chased out of that area. What we end up doing is driving three to four hours every weekend and we go to the Ocala/Gainesville area, and there's areas there set up for racing, mountain bike riding, which kind of goes hand in hand with training for the sport of motocross. The uniqueness of the property by the dump is that there's large hills. And you can put a golf course fairly -- well, pretty much anywhere else in Collier County, as they do. Something that requires mountain bike riding requires hills. There's large hills at the landfill. That works. And uniqueness is what I look at. One of the parks that we go to is called Hard Rock Cycle Park, in Ocala. They combine camping, mountain bike riding, motocross, and 400 to 800 participants are there for events. It's a nice family event. You get to meet a lot of people. There's fees. The person that owns the park is a businessman and he wouldn't be doing it if it wasn't supporting itself. He's a very smart businessman. Suzuki, which is one of the companies that builds ATV's and motorcycles, offers good scholar programs when you buy a motorcycle. It keeps the kids involved in their schoolwork and making sure they keep A's and B's, which I like as an incentive for them to work hard at school so they can ride their motorcycles. Many people I've spoke to at the races this weekend, I told them I had received this information this week, and there's a lot of racers in Lee County, riders in Lee County. They would use the facility. There's many people here today that would. I just think it's a good idea. It's good for the kids. And I've been real happy. My children are A students, they -- my one son holds a job that -- it's not cheap to operate the vehicle, and so he has to work at Dairy Queen or one of the minimum wage jobs, and that money all goes back into his racing, and so he's learning to appreciate that his money -- he has to earn money to do what he wants to do in life. Unfortunately, the ride to Ocala and Gainesville, Sunday morning we left at 3:30 in the morning to get there in time for signups, and we didn't get back until g:00 at night. So the idea of having something here in Collier County would be greatly appreciated. Thank you. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Question. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm not familiar with the places you mentioned. When I rode, we'd have to go up to Brooksville, it was the Crooms up there. What I remember is there wasn't -- I mean, It was out in the middle of nowhere. There wasn't a home anywhere out there. And these places you ride, are you riding anywhere where homes are within earshot? MR. SPRING: Uh-huh. The area in Ocala is developing, like every place else. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: But the park was there first and it's developing around it? MR. SPRING: Yes. It's kind of -- there's houses not far away. I've spoke to some of the residents. They actually come over to the park. They use the park. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Just curious what the other relationships were, because I'm only familiar with the Crooms, and that was 15 years ago. MR. SPRING: And the one in Gainesville. There's a lot of development going on in Gainesville. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Thank you, MR. FERNANDEZ: Next two speakers are Cheryle Newman and Hans Wilson. MS. NEWMAN: Good morning, commissioners, Cheryle Newman, forthe record. I'm the president of the Golden Gate Area Civic Association. And I'm here not to change your mind on making a decision on this piece of property. What I would like to reiterate is a letter that I did write to you in September requesting that you reconsider the 27-hole golf course that is being presented here today, and consider an 18-hole golf course that could include some of these alternative activities for the youth. I think that it's a good fit. We would be able to have a public golf course, as well as an area where some of our youth can take part in some of these alternative activities. And that's all have I to say today. Thank you very much. MR. FERNANDEZ: Next speaker is Hans Wilson and then David Guggenheim. MR. WILSON: Good morning. Thank you forthe opportunity to talk today. My name's Hans Wilson and I'm one of the coordinators for the Collier Action Sports Park. I'm the secretary for the Southwest Florida Trail Riders, and I'm also a member of the Florida Mudcutters, an off-road bicycle organization. And I'm also a golfer. So I'm sitting here with smiles on my face, because I've hit two out of three in terms of the jackpot. I want to thank Tom Olliff and Maria Ramsey for the report that they put together. They did a very good job of representing our proposal for the Collier Action Sports Park and gave us a fair shake or a fair assessment in relation to the golf course. As a member of the Florida Mudcutters, of course I welcome the opportunity for more off-road riding trails for bicycles. And we have a very successful regional park up in Ft. Myers, the Caloosahatchee River, and it's been very successful. However, I'm very disappointed that we don't have -- or that the motorized aspect of the Collier Action Sports Park has been excluded. I might at this point take a minute just to let you know that we kind of dressed in our colors today so that you had a sense of who's here. And if I could, I'd like to ask everyone that's supporting the Collier Action Sports Park just to stand up for just a minute. I know you're not going to hear from all these people, but I wanted you to at least be aware of who was here supporting the organization of this park. The site was chosen initially based on the industrial nature of the landfill and the fact that there was some noise compatibility. We recognize that we've got a problem with noise and we've been trying to make efforts to acknowledge that. And, in fact, in our presentation in June, we actually had a selection -- I mean a section in the report talking about noise management and a proposal to implement that study. We have some concerns, really, basically over being squeezed out between residential development and conservation lands, and we're really struggling to find a place where we can pursue motorized type activities and know that it's not going to disappear over the long term. We're really looking for something that -- for our youth over the long term also. The best example I can use to show you of where that's happened is drive east towards Fort Lauderdale, and you have conservation, Everglades protection properties, and then boom, you're into development. And there is no middle ground allowed for people just to ride their motorcycles or ride their ATV's or doing their off-road bicycling activities. So it's very frustrating to see that starting to happen over on this coast. And we have an opportunity to try and address that before it does happen. The assessment of the noise, we'd like to try and get involved in perhaps taking that concern that staff has, and instead of just simply dismissing the fact that we can't include motorized sports because of noise, instead explore that issue a little bit further. We have a mid proposal that would protect -- potentially develop the combination of the 18-hole golf course, which we support, along with the motorized aspect. We would like to see the motorized activities included on this site. One thing I want to point out is that in the proposal for the 27-hole golf course, even though there was a provision made for the PAL program to be initiated, we really want to point out that the PAL program, that little corner section in that site plan you see, really, that's almost as if you're setting aside a day care center for kids on ATV's, and that's not the goal. It's really missing the point. We're trying to get families involved where the dad can get out and ride the motocross bike and motocross course, and maybe junior's in his own closed section practicing his ATV skills, and mom and the daughter can be out on their off-road bicycles or their rollerblades. And so it's a group family participation at this Collier Action Sports Park, which we had in mind really from the beginning. At this point we'd like to request tabling any action to provide time to work out some planned details with county staff and to reconsider the motorized aspects of the Collier Action Sports Park; primarily to implement a noise management program or assessment to determine really whether we can blend our activities, which we feel are very important, with the surrounding environment, as well as including the 18-hole golf course. That's all I have. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you. MR. FERNANDEZ: Next speakers are David Guggenheim and Steve Pate. MR. GUGGENHEIM: Good morning. For the record, David Guggenheim, president and CEO of The Conservancy of Southwest Florida. And I'm speaking to you on behalf of our 5,500 members and 675 volunteers. Chairman Berry, commissioners, good morning. The Conservancy's position on the status of surplus lands around the landfill has not changed over the last three years. Until we have a long-term plan for the fate of our solid waste in Collier County, we believe it is premature to consider any sale of surplus lands adjacent to the current landfill. Whether or not past boards considered this land surplus, the fact remains that this land is important for the simple reason that it can play a role as an important contingency. We believe that one of the viable alternatives for disposing of our waste is the continued use and possible expansion of the existing landfill, which studies show could have a life span of up to 50 years. To do otherwise, to sell off this land, we believe, would put this county and its environmentally sensitive land outside the urban boundary at unnecessary risk at this time. I wholeheartedly agree with Kathleen Passidomo's earlier comments that there is no urgency on this decision. I also wholeheartedly agree with the comments you heard earlier from the county administrator. I think that at this time the only action that we would not oppose would be to move forward with a lease for appropriate recreational use of the land, but in such a way as to not preclude the possible use of these lands for expansion of the landfill. Appreciate your time this morning. Thank you very much. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you. MR. FERNANDEZ: Next speaker is Steve Pate and then Michael Brigham. MR. PATE: Good morning, Madam Chairman, board. My name is Steve Pate and I'm a resident of Collier County on the First Avenue Northwest. I'm also representing the Florida Trail Riders. We're over 2,000 members state-wide. And I'm former chairman of their motocross committee and a member of their executive board. I'm also a golfer. I also enjoy riding motorcycles. And I have two teenage sons that are also racing. Not to put a fine point on or to repeat what's been said here, but one of the things that Collier County has always had a tradition of is off-road vehicle use. Swamp buggies, dirt bikes, you name it. Back to the Fifties, this county has had that tradition. There is no place left -- with the amount of development that's going on and with the speed of development, there are no appropriate places left for children to ride or for adults to ride without getting on private properties or properties that are inappropriate. We've all heard the stories from Collier County Sheriff's Department about warnings and so forth kids on ATV's. And unfortunately what happens is a lot of these teenagers and younger children get a reputation of being sort of bad seeds or outlaws. And the problem is, is that they're not bad kids, it's just that they don't have anyplace to go and they end up getting that wrap or that connotation from the sheriff's department. The thing that is I guess the most difficult thing is that as Mr. Spring had noted, is that currently the closest appropriate licensed location to ride is almost two hours away. There's a track now in Okeechobee. There's also one up in Ona where you can actually race. Those are the two closest venues to race here. At one time I understand that Florida Sports Park had a motocross track there. There is no plan to do one, so that the landfill site that we have is the most appropriate location, probably. Notwithstanding Kathleen's comments about whether this is a premature time or not to be taking action on this, what I would ask the commission is to at least consider I think delaying at least any sort of proposal or action on this until there is the opportunity to study the noise issue. We think that that's something that can be addressed. It's addressed in many other areas where these tracks are located, where there's decibel ratings on these bikes, and they can be controlled by sound. So again, I thank you for your time. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you. MR. FERNANDEZ: Michael Brigham and then Linda Wallen, our last speaker. MR. BRIGHAM: Good morning. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Good morning. MR. BRIGHAM: My name is Mike Brigham. I live in the Oaks Boulevard area as well. Today I have to say a couple things about the issues at hand here. The first is, is that I think this is an excellent time to go ahead and get started on the developing of the action sports park. We all have heard that it's definitely needed. The one idea I had, this golf course/action sports park plan would take a long time to implement, probably several years before it could be fully developed. My idea is, is to let the riders use a portion of the property now and do it as a trial basis and see how -- see how the noise factor really is. There's plenty of acres out there that are sitting there idle. It could be an inexpensive proposition to set up a temporary track and let them try it out, see how it goes. I've been to some of the other parks in Brooksville and other areas. They're -- there are residents nearby and you cannot hear -- it's not a real loud kind of a track up there. I'd urge the commission to direct staff to proceed to look at some of these other parks; go up and do some road trips and talk to the other folks in the other counties, see what positive things and negative things they have to say about this, and get this project going in a faster plan of action than to delay and delay and delay. After all, even if it was used as a recreational sports park and some day down the road they did need to add on to that landfill because there was no other area in the largest county in the state to put a landfill, you know, this isn't something that would have to be permanent as far as the action sports park goes. The golf course obviously would be permanent, but there's some things that could be done on a temporary use basis that should be considered. And I thank you for your time. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Mike, that's the largest east of the Mississippi River. MR. BRIGHAM: Is it? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: However, 73 percent of it's in government land. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And growing. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: And growing. MR. FERNANDEZ: Our final speaker, Madam Chairman, is Linda Wallen. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: With assistance. MS. WALLEN: Good -- is it morning, still? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah. MS. WALLEN: I'm Linda Wallen and I live out in Golden Gate Estates. This is my daughter, Casey. And I live off North Third Street Northwest. I also work for the Golden Gate Gazette, I'm a photojournalist, so I get out there and I see what people do and what they need and just what everybody does. Now, I have a family of four who all ride motorcycles, four-wheel motorcycles. Myself, my husband, my five-year-old son and my three-year-old daughter also rides the motorcycle. We all have our own bikes, making a total of four bikes. And there's definitely a need for a place here in town where families can enjoy their sport together that is legal and safe and managed. And my husband and I, we allow our children to ride on our two-and-a-half-acre property that we own under our supervision, but I would also like to ride with them to enjoy the sport together and to have them follow the examples of safety riding that my husband and I do. Right now there is nowhere to ride without the conflict of cars and other restrictions that are put upon wanting to ride for pleasure out in the Everglades Boulevard or whatever. And I can't even ride to G's, from Northwest Third Street to G's, without getting in trouble or whatever, you know. And it should be -- I should be able to do this. Because I'm an adult, I'm old enough to know what's right and what's wrong. And as of today there is only one place in the state that is a riding park for all ages, and it is a four-hour drive. And for that four-hour drive to be taken, we need to plan way ahead. We need to take -- my husband needs to take the time off to spend the time up there, we have to get all our equipment together, all of our camping equipment together, and gas and et cetera. You know, food, and just plan it. And then we have to pack up and transport and spend -- you know, just to spend the time up there. And having a sports park here that includes off-road motorcycle and ATC's would definitely be of benefit because it would save us the time and the money that we spend going up there that we could spend it on our own county. Now, it would also bring Collier County a benefit in tourist money, because there are a lot of friends of mine that live -- and other people that live over in Miami, over in Fort Lauderdale, they travel all the way across and up to Brooksville to get to this place. And if we had the Sports Park here and they are allowed to come over and use it, it will bring more money to us for the park, for groceries, because, you know, they want to go out and get things to eat, for gas, so the gas stations would have -- so it would benefit. There would be money here for us. And, you know, they would have to travel -- you know, they don't have to go to Tampa. But anyways, as for safety, there's very little tragedies up in Croom. I think the worst that I remember there being was up in -- we have to worry about the bees, and they get into your soda cans. And some man drank it, got a bee in his throat, and the ambulance had to come out and get him. And that was like the worst thing that ever happened to them from this motor sport -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I can tell you from personal experience worse things have happened at Croom to me, so -- MS. WALLEN: But you also have to worry about the beer and stuff. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We need to talk later. MS. WALLEN: But, you know, everyone is family orientated up there in Croom. Everyone is looking out for each other. If I send my five-year-old son around the track, which is a circle, and there's camping in the middle of it, he will definitely make it back. Because if he stops, someone definitely will come up to him, help him start his motorcycle and get him on that track to come back to me. And if he doesn't come back for a little while, then I'll go looking for him. But, you know, he's always going to come back. And, you know, we just watch out for each other. I look at other people's kids, too, and if they're having trouble, we stop and we check them out and then send them back on their way. And up in Croom also, they're really -- the only management they have is one ranger. And he goes around and he makes sure that everybody's got their equipment and their stickers on their bikes, and if he sees you riding, make sure you have your helmet. If you don't have your helmet, he yells at you and tells you to walk the bike and go back to your campsite. So he really -- it really isn't -- it's great. It's wonderful. And it's very relaxing and it's -- I would love to see that here. And let's see. And you're only allowed to ride from sunup to sunset, so if you're an early -- late sleeper, 6:00 in the morning there's motorcycles going. Now, for the golf course, I think that -- you know, there is a Larry Bird golf course going up that -- you know, let them use the Larry Bird golf course. That's what he wants it for. He's building it for the estates and for residents. And, you know, there's not going to be any golf carts and stuff. So if you're -- you know, that's what he wants to do with it, so let him do that and let us have our golf course -- I mean, our-- excuse me, I mean our riding park. But also with the noise -- is that me? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: That's you. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's you. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: That's you. MS. WALLEN: My time's up? Well, thank you. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: You're welcome. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Madam Chairman? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Constantine. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Madam Chairman, some of you may have picked up an overwhelming odor this morning when you came in here, all the way here to the government center. And that was -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm not sure I really want to hearthis confession. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: All the way to Park Shore. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It was at Park Shore this morning. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That was our friendly neighborhood landfill. And frankly, the residents at East Naples and Golden Gate don't want that further expanded into the residential area. This board's made commitments several times not to. I think it's important to keep in mind, as Mr. Olliff described this property, I wrote down each time. And several times he said, and I'm reading each quote, the area is being developed residential, as he went around the property, primarily residential in nature, what is becoming more and more residentialized area. And he said several others. But the point is, this isn't the middle of nowhere. This is -- one of the reasons we've made the decision in 1993 and again, every time -- every year since, is because it's not appropriate in the midst of a residential area. And this -- as you looked at the one map that showed area 25 out there, it shows where some of the homes are. You can see the Jenkins residence and other folks' residents that are directly adjacent to that property. And had we expanded -- one of the factors in 1993 was had we expanded up there, it would have been -- literally within about 150 feet of someone's home would have been the landfill property. So that decision was not made lightly. It was made after two public hearings with literally hundreds of people at them. It has been reiterated by the board over and over. I think it's important that we keep in mind the commitments made by government, how important it is that we keep those commitments. Right now we're in a time where people are more cynical than ever about government, and they don't believe what local government does or what the federal government does or what the state government does, because they change all the time. And I think the worst thing we could do is renege on a commitment we've made to the public repeatedly. We make a promise to the public and we ought to keep that promise. I'm going to make a motion that we take action consistent with our commitment since 1993. I'm going to ask that we move forward along -- consistent with staff's recommendations to issue an RFP for an architect, that we contract with an engineer, that we do our on-site wetlands study -- I know Mr. Olliff outlined there are some wetlands here -- and that we prepare a site plan for the combined use, and sort of find a combined use as outlined in our staff plan so that we can accommodate both the alternative recreational uses and the public golf. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Question. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Hancock? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: At first blush I looked at this and felt that there was a true incompatibility, you know, golf typically being a game of concentration, slightly before yelling obscenities. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I've played with him, that's true. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: And the possible disruption. I'm not of having a motorized use adjacent to that. I'm not sure how that can or cannot work, but I think there's an option here to pursue both tracks and adopt a test period to find out if it can happen. And here's how I see that proceeding: The original plan Mr. Lewis prepared for us -- and we want to thank him for that, for volunteering his time and effort. I've had to do those things in the past, they're not all that easy. And just laying out golf holes is not as simple as drawing a map. There are certain considerations that have to be taken in, and I think he did a fine job. But I think when you look at it, what you see are three out and back nines, and each nine is condensed into probably one-third or slightly less than one-third of the property. I think if we pursue your motion from the standpoint that we create three out and back nines, earmarking one of those envelopes for nine holes as an interim off-road vehicle use, we will have the opportunity to build and utilize 18 holes of golf to establish a test period in which we determine whether or not the use by off-road vehicles, ATV's and motorcycles is indeed compatible, whether the noise considerations can be addressed, and if they can, then the use remains an 18-hole golf course and off-road vehicle use. If we find that that is not compatible -- and everyone understands we're going into it as a test period -- we can then convert that piece to a third nine holes, understanding that the future revenues are there and whatnot. This will change the pro forma that Mr. Olliff prepared based on 27 holes. This may make it more difficult to even break even out here, but I think we need to approach it with that flexibility for the reasons I stated. And this parcel is next to City Gate DRI, which was identified as a Red Cockaded Woodpecker area by the Department of Environmental Protection. The off-road motorcycle use could be the single largest inhibitor to permitting this property based on RCW's. That's one environmental problem I see coming from the DEP that's going to have to be addressed. So I would like to see us pursue the path, and I'm going to second the motion with the standpoint of if we approach it from basically one-third, one-third, one-third, all allowable for nine holes of golf, but we determine one of those as being the most appropriate location to go down the road of looking at off-road use and let's see if it works. And if it does, great. If it doesn't, then we tried and we're going to have to pick up our pieces and find another place in the county for that kind of use, because I think it is something that we need to make a place for. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Mac'Kie? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Just a question. I mean, obviously I don't support the motion, but as it's going forward, does your motion include acquisition of the additional parcels of land? And if so, from what source of funds? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I would think that would be regional park impact fees, but I'll ask Mr. Olliff to confirm that -- MR. OLLIFF: Yes. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- to buy those additional parks. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: What would be the source of funds -- I wanted to know first of all if you were directing staff to seek acquisition of those additional parcels of land, and if so, what was the funding source? MR. OLLIFF: Well, I can't answer the first part of the question, but the second part of the question would be if directed and it was going to be used for recreational type use, both of the type uses that we're looking at are regional in nature from our interpretation of the ordinance, and so we would be looking at regional park impact fees as a repayment source. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Would you also be using regional impact fees to purchase the property from the solid waste division? MR. OLLIFF: Well, the way the report is actually structured is that there would be a revenue bond. The revenue bond would be then repaid through user fees as the funding source. Your regional park impact fees currently are committed to a regional park project in the north end of the county; however, you are also in the process of having a regional park study done by Randy Young and Associates, and that will be in front of you within 30 days. And I think you'll be able to make some of those type of decisions about what you want to use your regional park impact fees for at that time. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So we're not making the borrowing decision today? MR. 0LLIFF: No. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Not specifically. But I think the uniqueness of this is that you have to look at the 18-hole numbers. But the uniqueness is this is one of the few recreational uses that pay for -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That actually pays for itself. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- that could pay for itself. And what I heard from Mr. Fogg and from the riders is that if we're looking -- and George, I think your numbers of 5,000 people per weekend is a little high. But still, people are paying to use these facilities elsewhere, so there will be revenues generated from an action park also. And I think those revenues also need to be considered as being pledged in part to repay the initial acquisition. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So in answer to your question, yeah, I'm looking to add those from regional park impact fees, and we make the commitment, the fiscal commitment. However, obviously, we'll take the time to choose which of those is most advantageous to the public, whether that's revenue bond, whether that's future regional park impact fees, or we'll leave that -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We'll make that as we get that information back. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: The longevity of the action park there depends on how well we can work together to develop a noise buffering plan. I think that's where the long-term decision rests for that particular use, so -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Did you ever second that motion? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I did second it, yes. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Did your motion incorporate -- or are you going to incorporate his suggestion? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It does. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I guess I still have a lot of questions in regard to the motorized part of it, in terms there's a lot -- there are a lot of children not only located in that adjacent area, but other pads of Collier County, namely where I live, which happens to be a little ways from this. Would there be a place where they could leave their ATV's to somehow be able to get down -- it's not really going to address their concerns, because these kids go out and ride after school. And unless they've got transportation down to a place like this, they're not going to be able to take advantage of it. They're still going to '- and they are currently and will continue to ride illegally, which I have some concerns about. But '- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It's probably a good idea. You could have a small revenue generator, like stables, you know, for the ATV's. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Well, yeah, I mean, if they want--if they would like to leave them there. I'm sorry, sir, the public comment's done. I have a concern about that. But also, in addition to this, where -- I know it's only tentative, at least from what I've read in the newspaper. Where is the other golf course going to be located that's been talked about? How close to this particular one? Which I know is not going to be of the affordable type. Don't -- I hope all you people are not misled thinking that this is going to be something you're going to bop out there and pay for 25 bucks a round. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Wasn't it going to be called Larry Bird's 18 holes for 20 bucks? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Don't bet the ranch on that. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You and Larry, playing 18. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: But at any rate, what's the proximity to this site? MR. OLLIFF: Not being snide, but I don't read the newspaper so I don't know exactly where it's located. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Congratulations. MR. OLLIFF: I do believe it's -- I think it's north of the current section. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Section 24? MR. BRIGHAM: 24 and 5. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: And this is 25. Okay, so it's going to be '- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Roughly adjacent. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: It's going to be roughly -- well, it's supposed to be off of Brantley, or in that '- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: To the north. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: To the north? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: To the north of section 24 and half of section 2 -- well, a third of section 25, plus or minus. I'm not sure what he's required either, but I knew it was section 24 predominantly, so it's immediately to the north. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. All right, the farm section up in there. I believe that's where it is. Okay, all right. That's all, I was just curious in terms of that. MR. OLLIFF: I need to make sure that I understand the direction that I'm getting. So I believe when we leave here that we are going to -- if this motion is passed, if we're going to continue, to pursue this project and develop an RFP for some sort of architectural design work to see what type of joint recreational use we can put on this property. In addition, I've got down here that we would try and -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I can run through those, if you want, Tom. MR. OLLIFF: Okay, thank you. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We'll issue the RFP for architect; we will contract-- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Architect for what? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: As he just outlined, to lay out -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: A joint use. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- a joint use. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Joint use? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And I think that's key. I think-- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Yeah. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- everybody's supported both -- everybody who's supporting this supports both uses. Contract an engineer particularly to do the on-site wetlands study. Tom, you tell me if they're going to need to be doing other things in the meantime. But also prepare a site plan. And as you said, the combined outline and all that consistent with Commissioner Hancock's suggestion of making sure that as Mr. Fogg said, we can meet those noise requirements. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And the acquisition of the additional parcels. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Acquisition of the additional parcels and -- consistent with our comments on the regional park impact. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. So basically, Commissioner, this is just very preliminary type plans for this site, or a plan for this site? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'd say a plan for this site. I don't know that I'd say very preliminary. We're looking for an architect, we're looking for an engineer, we're preparing a site plan, we're looking to purchase those middle parcels of property, so I'd say it's beyond just -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: What are we looking at in terms of dollars spent here? Any ballpark figure? MR. OLLIFF: Honestly, I don't. I would have to come back to you and give you an indication after we've gotten an RFP out there. Because I think that we would try and do this, just from what I hear, under a single design firm type contract that would do not only site design, some environmental assessment of the property as well, but then also hopefully under that same contract do some noise study as well. So I don't know, because there's three different issues under ore -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The one thing Mr. Olliff indicated to me is he'd have to prepare a budget amendment and bring that back to us anyway. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. And the funds from this would come from? MR. OLLIFF: Up front we would be looking at regional park impact fees. Now, there may be the opportunity for a repayment of those regional park impact fees should the board decide to go with the revenue bond route. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: And which bond would be eventually repaid by revenues generated from the golf course. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Right. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: So again, I want to be very, very clear. And Commissioner Constantine, I know you're clear about this, but just so no one misunderstands, I'm not sure that there is indeed an eventual compatibility here, but I think we have a responsibility to determine that through design and even through a preliminary period of use to see if it exists. If it does, then great, everything's been solved. If it doesn't, then I think plan B is 27 holes instead of 18. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And my last parting shot will be that I just can't resist pointing out that we're continuing to spend money focusing on a goal of acquiring a piece of land that I think we will be unable to acquire. And if we could acquire it, we don't have the zoning for it or the votes to zone it. And if we could get the zoning, we couldn't get the state permits. And we don't know how much the trucking's going to cost. But despite the fact of all of those uncertainties, we continue to spend more and more money going toward a goal that is not accomplishable. And that's the good news, that it's not accomplishable. The bad news is that we're continuing to spend money on it. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's not today's agenda item. And as I said, the action -- before I made my motion, I said I want to take action consistent with the commitment we have made since 1993. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I heard you. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's all I'm asking us to do today. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I heard you. But my point still stands. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: And I disagree with your point. I'm a little more optimistic. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. I'll call forthe question. All in favor? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Aye. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Aye. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Aye. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Opposed? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Aye. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Aye. Three-two. MR. FERNANDEZ: Madam Chair, before you adjourn -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Yes. MR. FERNANDEZ: -- Mr. Thomas has asked to address the fact that there -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I would -- MR. THOMAS: Ten seconds. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I'm late. MR. THOMAS: Most of the folks that came from Immokalee committed about half a day -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay, come on. I understand, Fred. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: It's going to be longer -- MR. THOMAS: I would like to have those that may not be able to stay the whole day -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay, fine. MR. THOMAS: Those from Lake Trafford stand up, please. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I'm sorry, guys, but we have to take these agenda items. And it's unfortunate, because I know many of you have committed, you know, a lot of time to do this. So we will be back here 1:15. (Luncheon recess.) CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We will reconvene for the afternoon session. Item #8A4 LEASE AGREEMENT BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY AND COLLIER ENTERPRISES REALTY GROUP, INC. - APPROVED We've had an item that's been brought to our attention that has created, I think, some concern and some undue problems on an item that we dealt with earlier this morning, which was item 16(A)(11). COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'd like to make a motion that we reconsider. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Second. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let me just relay a discussion I had with Dudley on that, if I might. MR. FERNANDEZ: Let's hear the motion first before you -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah. First let's decide if-- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- we're going to reconsider it, then we can talk about it. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. I'll call forthe question to reconsider the motion, item 16(A)(11). All in favor? Opposed? (No response.) COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Now we're going to move approval of 16(A)(11). COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm going to ask not, and the reason being, I think we need to get Dudley into his office this week, but I don't think we need to commit to $60,000 worth of space until we've got a better answer on that. We're going into a private location, and Greg or somebody came up and told us earlier we're going to have a space study from over on Horseshoe Drive in a few weeks anyway. And maybe we can find Bleu some interim quarters until that time. But it just seems to me -- we need to make sure we take care of Dudley first and foremost, but I don't want to commit to going and renting a $60,000 contract when we may not need that, and we may know that three weeks from now. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And I don't want to get into a $60,000 discussion with the county administrator. That's -- you know, if he makes bad decisions about that, then I factor it into his evaluation, but I'm sure not going to substitute my judgment for his if he was -- already had made that determination. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, then it wouldn't need to come to us for approval, would it? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: The budget amendment, I assume, is what has to come to us for approval. And that's in, as he said -- but that's -- we'll agree to disagree another time. MR. FERNANDEZ: A lease agreement. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Approval of a lease agreement. MR. FERNANDEZ: A lease agreement. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It's not a budget amendment, it's asking something that requires our approval. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. Well -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Does somebody want to tune me in on some discussions you had? Because there are two questions here. One was is there any possible remuneration for space being -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Answer no. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Two being? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Answer from whom? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: From Representative Goodlette. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: That's not exactly right. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, the answer is they get a monthly stipend. It's not more -- they don't get more if they're paying rent. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Maybe he could tell us. MR. GOODLETTE: Thank you, Madam Chairman. Dudley Goodlette. I appreciate your taking this up this afternoon. Let me just respond to that question. Yes, on a monthly basis, as a member of the Florida House, there is an allowance that's given to each member of the House, and I think it's about 1,500 and some dollars each month. That's to cover all of the expenses associated with operating within your local district. That includes postage, mailing, subscriptions. Everything except personnel costs are included in that amount. If the issue here is you would like for me to pay the county rent for the space, I'm more than happy to do that out of that $1,500, assuming -- that would handicap me in terms of communicating with constituents and one thing or another, which I'd rather not be handicapped, but I'm not trying to sneak anything in here. I mean, this is a conversation, Madam Chairman, that you and I had, I've had with your administrator. And when I learned earlier today that this was possibly being characterized as a -- making some changes out here to accommodate my need, that's really not how this came about. This came about because I know that this county in the past has offered space to Representative Saunders and Representative Rojas, and so my first order of business a couple weeks after being elected was to come out and to discuss the possibility of locating my office under this roof, which I would very much like to do. And that's when the discussion, frankly, was this space will be becoming available, and if this would be -- would suit your needs, we think that this would be the best way to approach it. To which I said thank you very much, and -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And Representative Goodlette, my question didn't have anything to do with that. I think it's -- not only does that serve you, but it serves the public best to have us all here under one roof. Congressman Goss has got an office downstairs, we've got Rojas and Saunders across the hall. If we can have everybody in one location, that serves the public well. And I don't have any question about that at all. And as I said at the beginning of this discussion and said privately with you, if we need to get you in this week, we ought to do that. But I don't think I've seen enough to make me comfortable to commit to a three-year lease for our little office that's moving outside of you. Let's take care of you, get that done and not worry about it. I would like the item to come back as far as our lease for Bleu Wallace and his office, with some further explanation than we're provided on -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Is there somewhere -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- this one sheet. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- he could go in the meantime? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Let's hear from Mr. -- MR. GOODLETTE: Thank you very much, Madam Chair. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Stay right there, please. MR. CAUTERO: Vince Cautero for the record. We've talked to Skip Camp about this on numerous occasions. We literally have no place to go on the campus. We've looked at alternate locations in the area. The best location within the two mile radius, if I'm correct on my distance between Horseshoe and the campus, is the Collier Plaza. Three-year lease was the best we can do. I wanted two with an option for one, they would only give three. Real property management department has done an outstanding job in working with us on this. I think that it would be a good location for utility and franchise, since they'd be close to our operation. And I want them as close as possible. But in the absence of that, I could not find them any space on campus, even temporarily, because we did talk about that. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Did someone stand up, or did I imagine that, this morning and tell us we were going to have a space study back in a matter of weeks? MR. CAUTERO: That was me. I said that earlier. And what we would do, if you continue this item for two weeks, is dovetail it with that. I don't want to take away anything from Mr. Fernandez's presentation or Skip Camp in two weeks, but they're going to make a presentation to you on long-term needs for the county. The move of utility and franchise regulation, as well as a lease that we're preparing to bring to you in two or three weeks for housing to move out of Horseshoe into the Collier Plaza, would also be part of that overall plan in order to make room for expanded staff in our building in department of revenue. These are looked at as interim measures. You are going to hear more about that in two weeks when the plan came forvvard. But we had intentions of moving utility and franchise not to Horseshoe building but to Horseshoe Drive, in the Collier Plaza. Irregardless of the space plan, we need to move utility and franchise out. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. Commissioner Hancock? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Two things. First of all, Representative Goodlette made a comment that I've never heard before and that is that he'd be willing to even look at compensating the county for some space. But I think you need to understand what your monthly budget is going to be to do the response items that are necessary for you. And I would hope at the end of your first year, as you look at that budget, if there is a minimum monthly stipend that can be used to offset some of these off-campus things, that you'd come back to us and at least mention to the board what that is. And that's the first I'd heard of anybody even offering that, so thank you for at least looking at that. MR. GOODLETTE: More than happy to do that, Commissioner. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: The second item is, Mr. Fernandez, is this move for utilities -- and this is really the utility authority operation; is that correct? MR. FERNANDEZ: Utility regulation. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Utility regulation. Is this in concert with what you will be recommending as a campus space plan approach in the next few weeks? MR. FERNANDEZ: Yes. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: So if we table this thing and dovetail the two, your recommendation two to three weeks from now is still going to be to make this move as part of an overall campus space plan approach? MR. FERNANDEZ: Yes. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And if we -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Then to move twice instead of once with Mr. Wallace's department, when in fact that's going to be part of an overall recommendation, I'm not prejudging the totality of that recommendation, but it sounds like there's also going to be additional space, off-campus space, requests being made, and I have a little bit of faith that that's been thought out carefully enough that we can take this step today. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just one more quick question on that. Vince, you said quote, need to move, you need to move Bleu and his department closer to Horseshoe Drive. Is that a result of reorganization, or why is that need there? MR. CAUTERO: If l may, sir, I -- perhaps my choice of word was inappropriate. I felt more comfortable in moving as many departments as possible closer to the central operation of Horseshoe, thus I use the word need. I would like to have that is probably a better choice of words. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Is there anything in particular that brought that about? MR. CAUTERO: Pardon me, sir? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Is there anything in particular that brought that about in this instance? MR. CAUTERO: No, just my desire to have Mr. Wallace closer to my operation for communications, learn more about his departments. It's new to me, too, utility and franchise regulation. And for coordination with the Planning Department, there has been some increase in coordination over the past few years on cable -- excuse me, on the siting of towers and some Land Development Code issues. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: The campus space plan that I've reviewed is huge, as far as the decision this board's going to have to make. There are going to have to be a lot of off-site moves made interim to accomplish that space plan in the long term. Again, not trying to prejudge it in its totality, but if this is a small part of it, you know -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's fine. We've -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- I think it's reasonable to move ahead. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- got a lot of stuff left. I'll move the item. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I already did, so we'll take that as -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- a second? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Oh, I'm sorry. I thought that move was just for -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- reconsideration. I'll second it. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No, I'm going to move to approve it. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: So what we're doing is moving to approve item 16(A)(11)? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yes, ma'am. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. And there will be other items related perhaps to this move in the future. Okay. We have a motion and a second. All in favor? Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries five-zero. MR. GOODLETTE: Thank you, Madam Chairman. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Call the phone company. All right, moving on then to item 10, I believe it is. Item #10A RESOLUTION 98-44, APPOINTING ALBERT WAHBEY AND JENNIFER HINES TO FULFILL THE REMAINDER OF THE VACANT TERMS ON THE BLACK AFFAIRS ADVISORY BOARD - ADOPTED; STAFF TO ADVERTISE FOR THE VACANT SEAT COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Move committee recommendation. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I second that. That's with both of the positions to be filled at this point? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: That's the recommendation. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thank you. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Can I ask just a sideline question, as far as this, and I support your motion? Can someone tell me where they think Timber Wood Circle is, whoever prepared this? Maybe Ms. Filson? MS. FILSON: Where Timber Wood Circle is? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yes. MS. FILSON: I believe it's up off of Airport Road. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Where off Airport Road? MS. FILSON: I think it's next to the Tennis Center. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: In the Timber Wood development. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Okay. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Probably a good guess, if it's not true. MS. FILSON: And I didn't hearthe motion. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Pardon me? MS. FILSON: I didn't hear the motion. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I didn't make it. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: John made it, I seconded it. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We have a motion and a second. Commissioner Norris made the motion -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Is there a sign posted? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- Commissioner Mac'Kie seconded the motion. All in favor? Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries five-zero. Item #10B RESOLUTION 98-442, APPOINTING GENE VACCARO TO THE TOURIST DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL - ADOPTED The next item is the appointment of member to the TDC council. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm going to make a motion for Gene Vaccaro -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: --who has applied a couple of times, has a great understanding of both marketing, and a great history here in our community. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Despite your explanation, I'll continue to second it. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We have a motion and a second. All in favor? Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries five-zero. Item #10C PRESENTATION OF THE TOURISM STUDY RESULTS BY BILL MILLER AND TED SPRAGUE - REPORT ACCEPTED And the next item is a presentation of the tourism study results by Mr. Bill Miller and Mr. Ted Sprague. And coming to the podium is Ms. Ellie Krier. MS. KRIER: Good afternoon, Madam Chairman, commissioners. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Ellie, I'm sorry, just a -- MS. KRIER: Yes. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- quick question before we start. Mr. Fernandez, when -- I was the one that made the motion on this a couple months back, and one of the things staff had promised was to have a packet for us condensing everything from all around the states that other counties and cities were doing. Yeah, we have a page here. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It's a letter from Ellie. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Do we have that information that we requested? MR. FERNANDEZ: I have a report that was submitted, but I don't know if it includes all of those elements. I had some comments to staff and wanted to edit it before it came to the board, so we're not really ready to bring that -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: When would we bring that to the board? Because it's a logical time. It would seem like we're discussing the item now, that -- and it actually was supposed to be to us. You had promised us that would be ready forthe 1st of October. So you've had another 30 days. That just -- and it's pretty frustrating to have the item on the agenda and have nothing. MR. FERNANDEZ: I understand. The draft that came to me wasn't ready for the board yet, so it's going to take a little more time. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: When did it come to you? MR. FERNANDEZ: Thursday. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You hadn't seen anything prior to-- MR. FERNANDEZ: No. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- October 30th, October 29th? MR. FERNANDEZ: That's correct. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: When do you anticipate it being ready for the board? And why is it on today's agenda, if it's not ready? MR. FERNANDEZ: What's on today's agenda is the presentation from the Chamber of Commerce. I really -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We need to go back and look at the September meeting and what the motion was, because the motion wasn't that the Chamber bring something back to us. That was part of a motion. MR. FERNANDEZ: If you'd like, we can defer this item until we have that ready to go. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No, they're here. But it just --it doesn't seem like the county part of this is done. I think the Chamber has gone out of their way and spent a bunch of money and done a bunch of stuff. MR. FERNANDEZ: Right. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We were assured by you and by our staff that you could have ours done within 30 days, which would have been the first week in October. And here is it is the first week of November, and you're telling me you never saw anything 'til last week. What were you doing in October? And why don't we have anything? The motion was clearly to bring all of that back, not just that the Chamber bring their half back and you get around to it when you want. MR. FERNANDEZ: Well, I'm sorry, the report is late. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And so when can we anticipate seeing that? MR. FERNANDEZ: I would anticipate two weeks I should be able to have it ready. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I can't imagine at this point in time that that report is going to have any affect on this report. It doesn't seem to me that whatever our staff is going to bring that it's going to make any decision -- any difference in a decision. Because I don't believe we're going to be making a decision today. This is merely a report to the Board of County Commissioners, at which point in time we will take this report, and when the other report is forthcoming from our staff, we will certainly have that information to take a look and combine it all. In addition to this, it would be my hope that the Collier County Commission, along with others, or whatever, that we would do further study in regard to this whole issue. That this is -- these are merely parts that will eventually be put together for us to make a decision as to what direction we hope to go in the future. I think the idea that -- you know, to -- whether your intention was to see these reports simultaneous, Commissioner, I don't recall it that way, but then maybe that was your recollection of it. But I think at the same time, you know, I see nothing wrong with having this report and then getting the second report and then being able to think through both of them at the same time. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, it was just before lunch you were joking about how being able to do more than one thing at a time and being really productive, and I just hate having something come back multiple times for two reasons: One, it's not productive, but two, I will gladly distribute the minutes from that meeting. Because our direction was very clear that both of these would come back simultaneously so that we'd be able to weigh all that information together. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Tim, just -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We're not going to make a final decision today anyway, it's just our staff did not do what they were requested to do, and that's frustrating. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Just help me remember, what are we waiting for from staff? Staff's going to give us what that we're not going to get from the Chamber? Because I'm sorry, I just didn't -- I don't have that recollection. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: There are several communities all over the state that do -- or a handful that don't do anything with tourism. But all over the state they do varying degrees of participation, whether they hire private entities or whether they have their own little tourism office in-house, or how they approach this. And staff was going to collect that information and put that data together for us in a report. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: About how other counties spend their tourism dollars, basically. That was the unified plan versus -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: And how -- yeah, what is their mechanism and how does it all go together. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And some discussion on what was effective and what wasn't. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: If you have those minutes and wish to distribute them, then please go ahead and do so. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I will get them. I don't have them at my fingertips. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I thought you -- I was under the impression you had the minutes. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Your impression was wrong. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I think we're spending a lot of time. We've already heard from the county administrator that the report is late. I would expect an individual report to each of us from the county administrator on why that happened and why it won't happen again, and let's move on with the item. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. Mr. Mihalic, do you have something to add to this, please? MR. MIHALIC: I just wanted to say, the staff report looked at the -- how the other 41 counties within the state spend their money, we looked at models that we thought were good and talked about how we might alter our procedures to follow the models of Sarasota and Palm Beach Counties, and looked at the original ordinances and how they were set up and what that mandate was from the voters. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. MR. MIHALIC: That was the scope of our '- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: And you're telling us that perhaps in a couple of weeks you can have this ready to bring to us? MR. MIHALIC: Yes, commissioners. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. MR. FERNANDEZ: Madam Chairman, that portion of the report is complete. What I took issue with was some of the recommendations that were essentially on the executive summary, the first part of the report. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: All right. MR. FERNANDEZ: But the bulk of the work has already been done, it is complete. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. Very good. Thank you. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Your five minutes are up, Ellie. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thanks, brilliant. MS. KRIER: Thank you. It's a pleasure to be back before you. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Are you sure? MS. KRIER: Absolutely. I stood before you on August 4th, and on behalf the Naples Area Chamber of Commerce, committed our assistance and our resources to bring you the best possible information on which to base a tourism plan for Collier County. We hired a consulting firm. We mailed 300 surveys that they designed. 23 interviews were completed. The other chambers and tourism organizations were included throughout the process. And we are here today with the result of our consultants' work. The Chamber has not yet read the report, nor has anybody else. This is the beginning and this is a foundation for cooperation between government and the tourism industry, and it's now my pleasure to introduce for you Mr. Bill Miller and Mr. Ted Sprague of Travel Destinations. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I just -- Ellie? MS. KRIER: Yes? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Did you say that the Chamber doesn't even know yet what this report's going to say? MS. KRIER: We have not yet -- no, I need to make sure -- clear on that. The written report has not been distributed. It is in a box. I don't have a copy. I've not -- none of us have read that copy. There was a verbal presentation made on Thursday of last week, first to our board and then to all the tourism organizations. So that there were no surprises, they were asked to hold that confidential, and I'm proud to say that we did so. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I appreciate that. And appreciate that '- you know, that helps debunk the myth that this is a Chamber driven undertaking. MS. KRIER: This is a product of these two gentlemen here. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thanks. MS. KRIER: Thank you. MR. SPRAGUE: It's a pleasure to be in front of you. My name is Ted Sprague. I've been in the business now for about 31 years. I had the privilege of meeting three of you during my last visit here. Bill Miller's been in the business over 20 years. My last heading of a convention tourism industry organization was the Atlanta Convention Bureau from 1982 to 1991. Prior to that, I was president of the Phoenix and Valley of the Sun Convention Bureau for eight years. What we have been asked to do is come up with the best recommendation for tourism promotion for Collier County. And we've done this survey, as Ellie said. We believe that the survey and personal interviews have given us tremendous insight as to what your needs are for this area. And we have promised to make this our very best recommendation. Presently, we've worked with approximately 40 cities throughout the United States and some parts of the world; everything from Hickory, North Carolina to Hong Kong. And what we have tried to do is come up with some ideas based upon our many years of experience, plus working with many different cities, to give you the very best recommendation for your future. Bill Miller is going to give you a brief report on the findings of the survey, and then I'll come back with my recommendations. MR. MILLER: Good afternoon, everyone. We're delighted to be back. As Ted indicated, our plan of work was to make the best recommendations to you. We highly recommended to the leadership of both the Chamber and to the hospitality community that they consider us doing the local survey of perceptions and opinions first before we made our opinions, because that would give us a lot of feedback and get -- allow everyone the chance to develop their thinking. I want to make it clear, at no point did anyone ever tell us that we had to have a predisposition, or that our report should say this or that. Never was that done. Also, I'd like to make it clear that we were not asked to do an audit of any of the existing tourism programs or anything like that. That was not in our scope of work. We were merely to survey opinions and make recommendations. And finally, I'd like for all of you to please keep in mind that tourism is not just people that are in your way on a golf course or in a restaurant, it is a strong economic development or economic development type of aspect that is so important to your county and is -- brings a really clean industry that brings a lot of new fresh dollars to the community. Our report was -- our survey was done in two phases. First phase was a mail survey, the second phase were interviews. In the mail survey, we mailed to over 300. I worked with the leadership in selecting a good balance of names of community leaders, not only from the hospitality industry, but from government and general business as well. I'm happy to report that everyone pulled out all stops. We had our best response ever in any community. We had over 110 written surveys returned. We were hoping for about 40 to 50. And in addition to that, after the close -- the tabulation began, they had about another 30 come in, but we couldn't include those in the written survey. So people were very interested in this topic. Also, I'm happy to report that the majority -- of the businesses that reported and responded to the written interview, 50 percent of them were from general business, not from the hospitality industry. So it's important that you keep that in mind as well. In a few minutes I'll be passing out the written reports and will also make them public as well. The charts and graphs that were done from the written survey portion were quite lengthy. We picked out approximately 19 of those, representing different subject areas. The subject areas were economic impacts; special events, number two; number three, facilities; number four, the use of the bed tax and the TDC; number five, various tourism organizations; and number six, the resources and how they're being used. So a written survey followed those different aspects, and we made it very general so people would have a lot of room for opinions. For the written survey, we had 76 percent responded that tourism has a very strong impact on their business. That was quite surprising to me, because 50 percent of the people that participated were from general business. So the majority of the people did feel that tourism impacts them and their business, at least indirectly, if not directly. Forty-one percent felt that marketing -- tourism marketing is very important to them, as well as to the county, and that right now the existing tourism marketing is pretty effective at 41 percent. What we found was that we had 80 percent support for the present visitor information centers, and then we asked various questions about different tourism markets. I won't bore you with that, because it gets sort of into some detail. But the point is that we definitely got some good feedback for the hospitality community to consider. The second area from the written survey were special events. We asked people's opinions about that. There were about three or four questions regarding that. It was about 25 to 30 percent that people felt that the bed tax funds should be spent for special events. And then what we found when we asked further about the exact funding -- excuse me, let me rephrase that. 25 to 30 percent felt the special events helped tourism. The rest did not, or felt it was only somewhat effective. We had almost a split between people that felt that bed tax dollars should be spent on special events. About 55 percent said yes, 45 percent said no. Number three, regarding facilities, we were quite stunned to find that the majority of opinions from both the written and the interviews was that there was more support for more resorts, major resorts in this area, and that there was an overwhelming response -- I won't say 100 percent, probably 90 percent -- of the people said that they felt there should be some kind of convention center, conference center, community center built here, that it would really compliment the hotel balance. And then we had a lot of people respond that they felt that more golf facilities should be here. I think that ties into what you were talking about earlier. And another thing that surprised us was regarding attractions, people were sort of split on commercial attractions, but they were very adamant that they really supported eco-tourism. Eco-tourism has to do with ecology, such as the Everglades. They felt that was a resource that really had a lot of potential in this area. So we were quite pleased with that. Number five, regarding the tourism organizations, as you may or may not know, there are presently two major tourism organizations promoting tourism. That's VNI, Visit Naples, Incorporated, and the Marco Island CVB. Both of those organizations were rated about equally. But then what surprised us was we went ahead and put in the accommodations association and all the other various tourism related organizations that don't even do marketing, and they were rated exactly the same. So what it told us -- and again, this is my opinion, and Ted's -- was that people in general are not really sure who does what. So that was kind of surprising to us. In addition to that, one of the things that we did point out in the survey and then during the interview process was that a new tourism alliance had been formed between those two organizations. And that was a very positive move, from our opinion, and from people's perception as well. They felt that there was a coming together and beginning to work together. And then also, we did find from the written surveys, as well as the interviews, that there is a difference in the Collier products. For example, the south part of Collier County versus the middle part versus the north part are entirely different tourism products. So whatever is recommended, that somehow those areas need to be addressed. And then finally, regarding resources from the written survey, 44 percent were somewhat supportive of the way that the present resources were spent. However, 49 percent said that there was a very or extreme amount of duplication right now. So the majority felt that there was some duplication, or at least half of them. And then -- forgive me, I'm having trouble reading my notes at this angle. We had 75 percent said that there should be some kind of consolidation. And again, remember that half of these were from the general business community. I'll speed through the interviews. We interviewed 23 community leaders, including some government, general business and hospitality industry regarding tourism impact. Again, they were pretty parallel with the written surveys. The general business community seemed to feel that there was a great deal of appreciation for tourism, but also, that there was unappreciation. They didn't seem to understand what its benefit was to them when we really got into -- again, forgive me, the interview process got to some subjective opinions, whereas, the written survey was quantitative. So what I'm trying to say is we asked them more details as to why they felt certain ways. And we found that some of the general business community did not understand the importance of tourism, or that they were completely unaware about it. However, the economic impact from tourism was ranked very high, of course, by the hospitality community. Regarding special events, during the interview process, people questioned the decision-making process and past events and whether or not they really were productive in bringing exposure to the community or generating new dollars. And they also said, many of them -- about half of them said that they might support using bed tax money for special events, if indeed it could be proven that the impact would be there, but that that had not been done in the past. Regarding facilities, again, we heard the similar deal that we heard from the written survey, convention centers, resort hotels, higher end hotels. We didn't get a great deal of support for economy and moderate. There was some for moderate and things of that sort. And then finally, regarding the bed tax expenditure and the issue, a great -- people took, once they started thinking about it, after taking the written interview, and then we went by to see them a few days later, when we interviewed them, each interview was about an hour long. When they started thinking about the way the bed tax funds were spent, there was a great deal of concern over the way the designs had been made, the fact that in their perception, the county often overrides what the TDC recommends, and that was a great source of frustration. And many expressed great concern over the amount spent on beach nourishment versus other areas. Now, at one point some people have told me that there is somewhat of a state guideline regarding a 60 percent spin on beach nourishment, 40 percent for marketing. But of the 40 percent remaining, that not very much is being spent on tourism marketing, that more dollars need to be spent on that area. Regarding the tourism organizations during the interview process, again, we found even among some of the hospitality folks some confusion and unawareness of exactly which organization was what. However, we did get some nice compliments on Visit Naples, the Marco Island CVB and the fact that the alliance had been formed. In general, though, we didn't find that there was a -- we had a lot of comments made that there was not a broad support or that the organizations were not broadly represented or governed, if you will. So there was -- that was a reason some people felt they didn't know much about them, is because it seemed like it was just smaller groups of people that were involved in those organizations and not a broad county-wide type of approach to it. And also, some people indicated -- and saw this in the written survey, definitely in the interviews -- questioned some of the accountability that's been done, whether or not the ORI (sic), return on investment, was really there. To summarize then, what we found was that people feel that the tourism effort's been very fragmented; however, they did compliment the tourism organization and the fact that the alliance has been formed. They questioned the value of special events. They really questioned the way the tax dollars were being spent, and really felt strongly -- and it was overwhelming, as you'll see in the chad -- that not enough money's being spent on tourism marketing, because your competition is just killing you. And then finally, that -- the positive news was that there seemed to be a great deal more positive consensus among everybody, both hospitality in general business as well as government leaders that let's start working together in the future. Let's don't worry about the past. Let's come up with a game plan. Let's do something together and make it stronger and more productive for the community. So I thought that was quite good. Your next phase is to enter the implementation phase, to decide what of our recommendations you wish to take, if any, and number two, how to implement it. That will be the toughest. Ted? MR. SPRAGUE: We're going to make some recommendations, and let me just say that every place we have done this, I just think -- especially Palm Springs, Phoenix, Chattanooga, Mobile, Savannah and many different cities, when we make a recommendation, it's not unanimously accepted as a good thing to do. But we're giving you the very best recommendation we can possibly come up with for your area. And the first thing I'd like to do is give you some options. The first option is to form a convention and visitors bureau. And I have many pros and cons written underneath it, but let me just state some of the pros. A convention and visitors bureau would focus on bottom line productivity. It's a public/private partnership. It consolidates all facets of tourism. It contracts with the county to perform marketing and servicing and serves stakeholder businesses in the county. The only con that we have in this area to tell you about is that some destinations expect the CVB to be involved in political positions and to be involved in the community. But our response to that is that's what the Chamber of Commerce is all about. So it shouldn't be a competing organization. A convention and visitors bureau should be a marketing organization, bottom line driven, goals and objectives, incentives and so on, so forth. The second recommendation as an option would be a county department. We list for you Lee County next door as an example of that. The pro on that side is its complete control of public bed tax, governed by the county with industry advisory committee. On the con side, it sometimes lacks marketing flexibility and understanding by not getting outside the government culture. Also another con is lack of private support. Oftentimes it's just thought that bed tax will support the industry, forget about a partnership of cooperative marketing, which we're very strong in. We believe every area should have strong cooperative marketing. The lack of affected businesses may be apathetic towards stakeholder empowerment; may feel it's another government agency for services. The third option is to continue, as we have two destination marketing organizations at the present setup. The pro on that, it maintains consistency with recently developed programs. Also a pro is that each represents its own area of the county. On the con side, its limited marketing dollars are splintered; there's inconsistencies in programs and measurement accountability; some areas of the county may not get representation; limited business community input; possible duplication of effort and programs; and most important, it confuses clients. Clients are not boundary driven. The next option would be contract for tourism development, with a company like ours, for example. Many of the pros on there would be the same as any private organization, but we're not recommending that as the number one choice. Number five is have the Naples Area of Commerce (sic). The pro on that side would be counties familiar with the Chamber; Chamber has framework for past programs; there would be a broad leadership representation. On the con side, it keeps tourism development political; it may perhaps not have confidence of the rest of the county because businesses may not be fully represented. Another con is any chamber may take political positions. Chambers generally are not involved in the political process with the city and county -- excuse me, they are involved, and this does not mix well with marketing. And chambers are not experts in the tourism marketing arena. The last option is a Naples/Marco Island and other chambers. The pro on that is county is familiar with the Chambers; Chamber has a framework with past programs, and there would be a broad leadership representation. On the con side, the county is split in promotion and resources fragmented. Maybe perhaps may not have confidence in the rest of the county businesses that they are fully represented. Any chamber may take political positions, and again, another example of chambers and marketing mixing that sometimes doesn't mix well. Possible duplication of efforts and programs. Chambers are not experts in tourism marketing. And most important, it creates client confusion. Now, I'm going to have Bill give some of the additional recommendations, and then I'm going to conclude with the number one by far recommendation for your county that by far is our number one recommendation to you what you should implement. But Bill, why don't you give those additional comments for us. MR. MILLER: Six quick points, and I won't belabor them because you can read them later in the report. Number one, the tourism industry and hospitality industry needs to make sure there's a public awareness of what tourism impact is. And secondly, they need to measure what tourism is doing here. And thirdly, to measure their own productivity. So those were some related items. Number three, we highly recommend that whatever tourism organization or organizations you finally select, that there be strong cooperative programs. Because oftentimes we've found that when there's intra-county, intra-county and state-wide type cooperative programs, if your seed money from the bed tax money is being spent wisely, it will attract the marketing dollars privately, and then there's a perfect partnership. And we recommend that that -- we have a strong approach and understand that some of that's already started here. We don't want to leave the impression that it's not. We also recommend, if you look closely at your funding process for bed tax funds, the authority of the TDC, your trust of them, you need to develop trust with the hospitality community, and to know that they're making the right decision. Also in line with that would be special events, making sure that perhaps the new tourism organization or organizations makes that decision in context of the total tourism marketing plan so that things just aren't made isolated and don't fit into what's already being done, and then you have more synergy, if you will. And finally, a part of that is to make sure you keep the existing programs going. Whatever you decide to do, keep the existing programs going. Continuity is so important in the tourism industry. Until you decide what you're going to do, if you're going to do anything at all, please keep these existing programs going, because it is very important that you not withdraw from the marketplace, if you decide to regroup. And finally, I recommend that the hospitality community and the business community and the government community come together in a facilitation or visioning process to address such issues as county image, public support for tourism, funding for the new organization and what kind of organization, and you can address other infrastructure issues such as convention center, transportation and so on, so forth. Thank you. MR. SPRAGUE: Presently we're working with a number of different cities. As I said, we've worked with more than 40 throughout the United States and some parts of the world. Right now we're working with Richmond, Virginia on structuring their board; we're working with Grand Rapids, Michigan on the structure of helping them get a new expanded convention center; Lake Charles, on their new spectacular tourism center; and then also, we're working on a Jack Nicholas museum up in Columbus, Ohio. We're doing a lot of different work with different cities throughout the region. I expect to sign a contract with Destin (phonetic) on Friday. So with all that experience, and 31 years of experience for myself, we make this strong recommendation to you bottom line. Bottom line, you form a convention and visitors bureau to represent the entire county. And one of the first things you have to do is structure, number one, a board of directors that's representative of government equally, with business equally, with the tourism industry; i.e., a 21-person board of directors. For example, I brought along -- and I'm sure you don't have time to look at it now -- but an example of what we formed in Phoenix. We formed a board of directors approximately that size with that kind of representation, and that structure is still going today 25 years later. We formed a similar structure in Palm Springs, California. And that structure's still going now. It's been about 12 years. So we strongly recommend -- there's a reason why more than 600 communities throughout the United States have convention and visitors bureaus representing the area. Now, let me quickly say that there are some very poor convention bureaus. This is not a guarantee. That's why we want to give you this order in what you need to do. You need to form a balanced board of directors, number one. You need to have that board empowered to be visionary and not involved in the day-to-day routines of the organization, but rather, the bottom line. You have a sub-committee that handles marketing, and the marketing sub-committee is constantly involved in the day-to-day operation. Usually government and business are more long-term oriented than the hotel industry. The hotel industry is more short term. So therefore, that balance is very important, because you need to be involved in the short term and also the long term. And believe us, the very best organizations are a balance of those three things. For example, having seven members of government, or appointed by government, seven from the business community, perhaps interchanging with the Chamber of Commerce, which I strongly recommend in terms of officers, and then seven people from the hospitality industry, making sure you represent the entire Collier County area. So to me that's a very important first step. The second step is you hire a CEO that is bottom line driven. Not politically driven, but bottom line marketing driven. Hopefully a person from the convention and visitors bureau industry or the hotel industry. Those are the two best that we found. And believe me, we've placed different CEO's different places. Those are the kinds that produce results. You don't want a person coming in to be another Chamber of Commerce president. They have their own function and they represent the community in all aspects of the community. You want to have a person who is bottom line goal oriented, incentive driven, in order to fill hotel rooms, get more people to visit here. Then you have a strong organization. So you start with a strong board structure, then you search for the very best person you can find to be that person. And hopefully, among the leaders that you have -- I'd feel the very most important person to be chair of your board of directors would be a visionary. You need to have the big picture, the vision and big picture. You don't want a small thinking -- and it's important to have small thinking people, because you need to have people handling the details. You've always got to have that. But for your great area -- I label your area, on a scale of one to 10, a 10 in terms of product. But I do believe right now with the structure -- not the people here, but with the structure that you have -- you have a three structure, because it's confusing to the client, it doesn't have a large marketing budget. You need money to get money. The total amount of money that you spend on marketing tourism is far too small. And we've actually come up with a plan where you could have over four million dollars to do it, but that's another topic for another time. Basically, what we're presenting here is a plan that you would have in place, an organization that would be bottom line oriented, that would be reporting to both the political community, the business community and to the hospitality community, all formed within this board, with goals and objectives that are set through a marketing plan. So that would be the third thing you need to do. You need to set a marketing plan that carries out the goals and objectives of the area. And then remember, it's very important to have a sub-committee from that board totally involved in marketing. Maybe chaired by a hotelier. That way you're always accountable to the industry. And yet at the same time, you have the vision of the community, which includes government and business driving the organization to a greater accomplishment in this industry. And having said all that, I would just say to you that it's been a pleasure to have been of service to you. We now open it for some questions after Ellie makes a comment. But we have reports that we want to hand out to each one of you. We have purposely held these reports back. Commissioner Constantine, you had mentioned that in my interview with you, hoping that we would make sure that we didn't hand them out in advance. Well, to our promise, we have not done that. So here is your personal reports. Again, it's great reading material. And one thing we'd like to say is that we'd be happy to answer any questions that you would have. MS. KRIER: I just would like to say on behalf of the Chamber, thank you for allowing us to present this to you. Extensive work has been done, and that's presented and what's being distributed to you today. At this point the Chamber would like to say that we will -- we haven't reviewed it, we would like to get back to you with our own comments on it, and we will do so within the week. We do concur with their recommendation for some sort of workshop. Now, Representative Goodlette has advised me that there is a Collier County tourism summit which appears to be led by him and by Senator Saunders. It is next week, and it deals -- it says that it's speaking to state legislative and local government issues. This, however, does not preclude the need in our opinion for a workshop session where you are at liberty in a duly advertised public forum to speak and interact with the tourism community. I don't think this supplants it in any way. I'm sure it's beneficial and I think it's deeply beneficial that we begin dialogue with our state level representatives. But I think there's some decisions that you need to make. And your own report will be coming internally, which we're all looking forward to, because apart from what Mr. Mihalic referred to with his assessment of the other 40 counties of TDC, I do believe he's done assessment as to the dollar value and turn of a tourism dollar, which is an incredibly important educational benefit to all of us to understand what those dollars mean to our community. And he's applied some formulas to that, too, as I've been informed. I've not seen that either. So we would urge you to approach this as a starting point, as an information piece, as that combined with what's coming from staff as a place to begin. And we stand ready to help you in any way. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you very much. Commissioner Constantine? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: In the CVB recommendation that you have here, who finds that and how, as you envision it? MR. SPRAGUE: Okay, excellent question. It's so important that if you form this organization, in my opinion, that it would be cooperative funded. It should be funded by the county. But I always like a goal of at least 50 percent of those funds also coming from the private sector, through cooperative marketing. Not through membership, but through cooperative marketing. The reason why that's so important is that when a convention bureau that's bottom line driven forms a marketing plan, the checks and balance on that plan is when that plan is endorsed by the community with their dollars, if the private community doesn't like the program, they're not going to endorse it. But in my years of experience, I have seen private industries support well thought out marketing plans that are bottom line driven. So, therefore, the goal in the first three years should be at least 50 percent funds from the private industry through cooperative marketing. So it's a combination, to answer your question, of public funds and private funds. And with the goal always to be cooperative driven, always having -- every program having an endorsement by the private community that says yes, it's a good program; in fact, I want to get involved in it because it's going to expand my marketing dollars. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And the public funds, I assume, would be tourism dollars, as you envision? MR. SPRAGUE: Say that again? I'm sorry? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The public funds, when you talk about tax money, I assume that is the tourist tax money? MR. SPRAGUE: Yes, yes. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And just a follow-up to that. You said 50 percent private funding and then you said non-memberships. MR. SPRAGUE: Right. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Tell me -- I didn't understand that exactly. MR. SPRAGUE: Okay, the reason for that, the Chambers of Commerce in this area are membership driven, usually. I don't believe a convention bureau is best suited to be membership driven to compete with the Chamber, because I believe the hospitality community will support the chambers through their memberships. What I endorse, though, is cooperative marketing funds. For example, say there's an advertising campaign to hit the East Coast. If it's well thought out, I think the other people in the community from the hospitality field will want to endorse that. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Endorse it with a check? MR. SPRAGUE: Yes. Well, let me give -- let me just give you an example. When I took over the Atlanta Convention Bureau, we had a 1.2 million dollar budget and we were 400,000 in debt. And so what we did is we formed cooperative marketing ventures like this, and we raised it to a nine million dollar budget and in the black, by having every one of our programs giving to the hospitality community a year in advance, saying this is what our marketing plan is for the future, do you like it and would you like to be involved with a check? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Or a buy in. MR. SPRAGUE: And frankly, we had some that weren't bought into. So the simple solution is we didn't do that program. That means it's a well thought out program. That's an endorsement, if you will, a checks and balance that you folks as the leaders of the county can get behind, because then you realize the money's not going to be misspent. In my opinion, much of the dollars in the hospitality fields are misspent oftentimes, because it's not thought of as their own money. The best way to spend money, in my opinion, if you're a nonprofit organization, is to realize -- think of it as your own money, and how would you spend your own money? How would you spend your money to market an area, if it was your own dollars? This is a challenge we've given every city we've been into. The best way to spend money is think of it as your own money and how would you spend it then. And I can assure you that almost 99 percent of the hospitality organizations we've talked to have had to look at themselves in the mirror and change their spending habits as a result of that. And so to me -- to me sometimes it's very wasteful. I'm not saying it's done here, but I'm just saying valuable dollars should never be wasted. And that's why cooperative marketing is a checks and balance. And I'm not talking about just a nod investment, I'm talking about a major investment by the private sector. And that's why I'm on record today endorsing 50 percent of the funds be private. And that way you folks will have a good feeling about how the money's spent, because you'll know everybody's behind it. And if they're not, you just don't do the program. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Norris, you had a comment? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Yes. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I had asked the county attorney a question, and then I have a proposal of my OWR. A couple of weeks ago, Mr. Weigel, I asked you if you could let me know under state law what is the minimum that we can provide for special events and also for marketing B and C categories? MR. WEIGEL: Okay. Heidi, can you help me on that? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So I can understand the question while they're coming up, is there a formula state law says if you're going to have a tourist tax, you have to spend "X" percentage on -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: That's what I'm trying to find out. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It's zero. MS. ASHTON: Forthe record, Heidi Ashton, assistant county attorney. The state statute provides that -- the uses for which you can use the money for, but it does not have a maximum or minimum expenditure. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: So under the Collier County referendum, though, we established three categories, and without a referendum, I assume that we have to service all three of those categories; is that correct? MS. ASHTON: I'm not sure I understand your question. Are you saying you believe that we'd have to have another referendum -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: If we -- MS. ASHTON: -- to change it? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, if we were going to not fund a category, we would have to do that under referendum? MS. ASHTON: No, under the state statute you can amend your tourist development plan, which was adopted in your -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. MS. ASHTON: -- ordinance and -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. All right. MS. ASHTON: -- the uses by -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I think-- MS. ASHTON: -- a super majority vote. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: -- that's a sufficient answer to my question. Ever since we've gotten into this TDC business, we've had nothing but criticism. No matter what we do, we've had criticism from one side to the other and from all sides at some time. Special events category has always been a heavy source of controversy and criticism. Category B we have political end fighting, fighting between local groups trying to spend the money. My proposal is fine, if you don't like what we're doing, here's what I propose: Delete the third cent that we're currently charging for beach renourishment, the surcharge to pay off the beach renourishment project, go back to two cents, put $10,000 annually into special events, $10,000 into marketing. The rest goes to the beach and our local museum funding, and let the tourism industry take care of it themselves. I'm tired of it. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Question, Commissioner Norris. The -- one of those pennies is due to sunset next year anyway. At that point would it then become a one cent tax in your proposal, and that one cent would go toward beach primarily? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, I think you'd have to look at that, because I'm not sure that you would -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Because right there's three cents, one of those -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I understand. The third cent is the surcharge cent -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: -- let's call it. I'm proposing that you delete that now instead of next year. MR. SPRAGUE: Commissioner Norris, can I make a comment on your statement? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Sure. MR. SPRAGUE: May I? I would propose that the county could be the stimulator -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: And I'm proposing that we're not even involved in it-- MR. SPRAGUE: Well-- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: -- and I'm not sure that I care what -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But before you -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: -- your recommendation is. MR. SPRAGUE: Okay, fine. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Before you debate, Commissioner Norris, maybe you want to hear if there's a majority of the board that agrees with that, because I certainly don't agree with that. And it may be that there is a majority that agrees, and then we could have that discussion. But I think we certainly need to do a completely different job from what we've been doing with our tourist tax dollars, and that's why we asked the Chamber and they graciously agreed to hire you to give us your professional advice. I don't know what the rest of the story will be about the fallout for a CVB. I'm sure there are -- I'm sure there's more to the story. I'm sure we'll hear -- I don't know if we have public speakers today. Do we have any today on this subject? MR. FERNANDEZ: Yes, we do. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But I'm certainly not prepared to do anything as radical as you're proposing today. I think it's part of our obligation in economic development to continue to do a better job with the money, but certainly not to -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Well, I think-- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- throw it out. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- one of the things that is -- there certainly has been a point of frustration. That is something that all of us sitting up here have endured, I believe. And I can tell you that from chairing the TDC this year -- which I'm now completed and many people are happy about that, as well as I am, and there will be a new chairman come January -- it's a very, very difficult experience. And I told somebody, I said just about the time when you've got it all figured out what's going on, you're all done. And that's probably the best thing in the world. But on the other hand, I think -- Commissioner Norris, all due respect to your suggestion, and I'm sure a lot of it comes out of frustration for the criticism that we've all received. I think to scrap the whole TDC funding would be like throwing the baby out with the bath water. I think there's a lot of good things that can be accomplished in Collier County with the proper vehicle -- I call it a vehicle -- in place to do the job. And I -- hopefully, if we get that proper vehicle, which I'm -- I'm frankly determined that we're going to do this thing right. I think there's a possibility. I think Collier County has the ability to do things in the best fashion possible. I think we need some good direction on this. I see a future workshop, Mr. Fernandez, for the board in this direction to work with all of the groups involved. And I think that this is something we need to pursue in the future. Frankly, this has been a very political atmosphere that we have worked in with the TDC. Somehow or other we've got to remove that element from this whole business and do something productive to support the tourism industry and our businesses in Collier County. I look at it, too, as working in conjunction. Whatever that is, whether you are the individuals to help us with that in the future, that remains to be seen. I appreciate the fact you've done this report and you've given us some direction. And I would hope that we would come forward with some direction in this line that we have here to have a future workshop to sit down and figure out what direction we want to go, as soon as we get the county's -- what their recommendations are, and any other input that we can get, any other sources. We don't need to reinvent the wheel, we just need to do it better and then go from there. Commissioner Hancock, I think you wanted to say something? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I think Commissioner Norris's suggestion is borne out of a frustration that everybody up here has felt at one time or another. Many of the letters I received from the industry over the last two weeks, the salutation might as well have been dear tourism moron. We are particularly criticized, particularly by the hotels and by the tourism operators in this county, for making bad decisions. You know what? You're right, we've made some bad decisions. I'll own up to them personally. I have in the past. The truth is, you know, on your end, I sat in a marketing meeting when I was the chairman and watched marketing ideas pass in front of me. And I'll give you an example of how these dollars were being spent. One of these promotions was a golf promotion. The picture that was going to identify Collier County as a golf destination for the entire world to see was a golf cart, two women in their sixties hitting a chip onto a green. I asked the question, which no one else -- this was moving right along, this was going to become the image of golf in Collier County, Florida. And I asked the question, what are the demographics on who makes decisions on golf vacations? And nobody had an answer. I said, you know, it would be my guess that a lot of golf destination vacations, the majority of the decision-makers are male. I don't know that, but I think it's fairly common sense. So that picture was scrapped and we went on and were trying to bring something back at a different time. And I don't know what eventually was run, but the truth is, I sat in that room of people that had indicated to me for years that they were the industry experts, and watched probably one of the silliest marketing moves almost slide by that I had seen. The truth is, mistakes have been made everywhere throughout this, and the reason is the structure is imperfect. The structure is bad. The structure is a public entity collecting funds and trying to do marketing. The last thing government needs to be doing is marketing. That's not what we're good at, it's not what we're set up to do. And we've seen it on the financial side, we've seen it everywhere else. The decisions we make in this forum are very different than a private business would make where everything it says and does isn't plastered on the front page of a newspaper. So I think we have to recognize that. And the first thing we've got to do is get out of it. But it's the structure we transfer it to that has got to give us the confidence that the money is being well spent, and it's got to be a structure that we can establish guidelines of that spending that -- as you mentioned, don't just spend what we have, but use that to leverage more dollars to mount a meaningful campaign that is reflective of the entire community. With all due deference to the folks in tourism in this county, many of you hire marketing professionals to market your projects, your developments. You don't do it yourself, you hire someone to do it. So I think we need to recognize that this isn't the pool we should be choosing from to make those decisions. And the idea that I like about a CVB -- and for those of you who don't know, I've worked for a CVB. I know how they operate. I know what their benefits are. And I think if you look at the funds that we have in category B, they would be base funding to establish a very successful CVB with a unified approach. And one of the problems we have right now, if someone in, you know, Wisconsin wants to call Collier County, Florida about a convention trip, who do they call? They call the Chamber. The Chamber doesn't have a CVB, so Chamber gives them Visit Naples' number. They call Visit Naples. Does Visit Naples have an individual dedicated solely to the attraction of conventions to this area? I'm not aware of it. How much convention business are we losing because we don't have the structure to attract, to market and to expose our convention facilities here in this town? And that's where there's a ton of money. So the only way we're going to be able to do that is if we can use what has formerly been category B as a way to stimulate and give the baseline of operation for a single unified concerted marketing effort through a formalized CVB, then let's do it. If we can't go down that road, then let's get out of it altogether. Because the middle road, as we've been trying all along, has been nothing more than frustration, missed opportunities and in a word, failure. And I will take one-fifth of the responsibility for that failure. So with that history, I'm not going to hand to the poor gentleman who's going to sit in this chair in a couple of weeks the frustration that I've had for the last four years of trying to do what you think is right and being wrong many of the times. I think we need to get out of it, get ourselves out of the decision-making process, and give it to the true professionals, which are what CVB's are intended to establish. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: And that we'll have the checks and balances in place to let us know whether it's being done right or not. MR. SPRAGUE: Checks and -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: That, to me, is the biggest thing. MR. SPRAGUE: Checks and balances are the most important guarantee -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Absolutely. MR. SPRAGUE: -- that you would have. If you don't have checks and balances, then you're always going to wonder. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I heard somebody snicker at a 21 member board. That's not unusual for a CVB -- MR. SPRAGUE: No. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- in any way -- MR. SPRAGUE: No. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- shape or form. I think the Chamber of Commerce has how many members on the board, 21 ? I don't see them going under. I think what that does is it gives a broad enough representation and allows committee work to occur -- MR. SPRAGUE: That's right. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- whereas, if you have a board that has a single purpose, not a broad range, but a single purpose, a 10 member committee seems to work. But as broad the operation we're talking about, 21 members is sometimes required to set up committees beneath that. So I don't think 21 members is unreasonable. I think for once we're at least being offered a plan that in other areas has proven successful. And rather than try and continue to sit up here, the five of us, and tweak this thing a piece at a time without really having in mind where it is we're going, I think this is at least a direction that has a track record of success, and I think we ought to pursue it. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Hallelujah. I'll vote forthat. Commissioner Constantine? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We started out this conversation by saying we'd have the discussion, we'd get the presentation, and then we'd also hear what our staff had gathered. And it almost sounds like now everyone is hopping on the CVB train, and I hope -- it sounds like it certainly has some merit, but I hope we're not going to eliminate the part that we've collected from all the rest of the state. This is one recommendation, and I hope we'll look at others before we decide what our direction is going to be. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: The reason I've said what I have is I won't be here when that comes back. So as someone who has at least worked in tourism -- to many of you who wrote me a letter saying I don't know the first thing about tourism, you know, take that. To someone who's at least worked in tourism and made a living in tourism for a period, I think a CVB is a strong, positive direction. And it gets all the middle fighting and the end fighting out of the way and gives at least a process. And if that can't occur, then let's just abolish it altogether. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let me just ask the same question I asked before I got interrupted, and Commissioner Norris never got to answer, was the -- in your proposal, one cent is going to sit anyway. In your proposal, would the other penny disappear and the beach money would just continue to collect from the one cent that it's scheduled to anyway, or would you keep the two cents and they would all go toward future beach renourishment or beach and whatever other? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Under my proposal -- I think you need a little analysis of that, which I have not done. But I believe our original two cents was 60 percent of the beach, which would be 1.2 cents. So you couldn't retain the same level of funding, if you only had one cent. TDC tax. Now, on the -- you know, certainly, if you were going to collect one cent, you have the same collection cost as you do on two cents. So without going through a formal analysis, just with a superficial look, I would think that you would probably have to retain two cents and put that primarily into beach and past maintenance, but with some minor amount left for our museum funding as we currently do. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I kind of have a thought that's a hybrid of what the three of you had said, and that is I share some of your frustrations and I also share Commissioner Mac'Kie's thought that in our case this is a key component of our economy and we're trying to do economic development. But I think the point you made near the end is if we cannot come up with something -- I disagree that everything we've done -- I don't think that was your intention, but I don't want anyone to misinterpret what you said, that everything that has been done with the tourism dollars has been a failure. There have been failures -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: We just haven't gotten any credit for the successes. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- there have been success -- that's right, there have been some of each. And I think your point that if we cannot improve on that, we should get out of the business is agreed. And that's why I'm asking the specifics on that. If we don't come to some agreement on what that improvement is and how we can help drive that part of the economy, then I wonder what those alternatives are, and that's why I'm asking the specifics. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Madam Chair? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: You know, one of the things that I'm concerned about -- I wasn't here when the tourist tax, the bed tax, came into being. I certainly was in Collier County and heard all the comments and so forth about it. But you can go to a number of other counties, coastal counties in this state, and check into some fine hotels, and you pay a huge bed tax. It's a bargain to come to Collier County and check into a hotel. And I don't understand a reluctance to want to keep this tax. I just don't understand this. It's not coming out of your ad valorem tax dollars. Any one of you sitting out here, unless you check into a hotel, you're not paying a dime of it. Not one single penny. And I can't understand why anybody would get so upset over trying to have this tax and want to do something with it to benefit the economy and our area. I -- if there is something out there, I'll listen to your -- I'll listen to it, but I've heard this before in terms of-- you know, if it's just from the frustration of wanting to do away with it, Commissioner Norris, I understand that -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: There's another part I'd like to -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- the criticism. But I just -- I mean, I'm surprised that we've actually gotten by with the three cents, you know. Because you talk to other counties -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Seven cents in Puke Bow (phonetic), Iowa, you know. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Excuse me -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I've been -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- kindly speak of Iowa in nice terms. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- so patiently waiting. So impatiently waiting -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Mac'Kie, I just -- I'm just confused about this, because I can't imagine wanting to do away with this tax. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I don't think there's anybody -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- in the community except for people on this board who would suggest that, and maybe the hoteliers who have to collect it. (Applause.) CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay, that's fine. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And I am so aggravated -- I'm so frustrated with we on this board who don't like being criticized so we're not going to do what's good for the county. That is unacceptable. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: That's not what I said. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We're criticized because we make mistakes, because we do the wrong thing. And I take one-fifth of that responsibility, and I appreciate your taking one-fifth of it, too. But we're criticized for making mistakes. You don't throw it out because we're tired of being criticized. That's outrageous. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: You throw it out because the structure's all wrong. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: It's the structure -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: You change the structure -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- that's exactly right. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- you don't throw it out. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah, but if you can't change -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Can I make -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm not finished with my comment. Because I wasn't even going to say anything about this, but I am obliged to now because of your comments, Tim, to the hotel industry people and the tourism people who wrote me and said dear tourism moron. You know, they're welcome to write that. I know they know more about it than I do. I guarantee you they know more about it than you do, I don't care if you've worked in the CVB. They do know more about it than we do. (Applause.) COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And they don't deserve to have that kind of -- I mean, you guys cut that out, because I'm not trying to make you happy. I'm just saying it's uncalled for, for us to criticize people who have sat by while we have done a terrible job and to throw the baby out with the bath water because we're tired of being criticized for doing the wrong thing. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: My comment was to people who correspond with me, Pam. I didn't make a personal comment aimed at you '- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- nor would I do it. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No, Tim, but they corresponded with me, too. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: But the point is that no one is lily white. And for the tourism industry to sit out there and criticize our every move I think is unacceptable. You can disagree, I don't care. I mean, quite frankly, folks, just because we make mistakes, you know, to receive some of the letters that I received -- and you haven't reviewed all of them. And for those of you that wrote me letters and were at least polite, I appreciate that. But that's what I would expect. But there were about a half dozen people that were down right nasty. And I just don't think the decisions we made in earnest that were attempted to be good decisions -- if we erred, we erred, life goes on. But the truth is, this whole structure is wrong, the structure is bad, it does not accomplish what it was intended to accomplish, and I don't think anyone, anyone, is avoiding or can avoid some of the blame of this. If you've been involved with it, you're part of the problem. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Absolutely. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Which is why -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner -- wait, let -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Oh, I'm sorry. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- Norris make his comment here. He's been COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. Let me make one more point that goes to the -- speaks to the argument of letting the private sector do its own marketing, and that is that 99 percent of the work we do up here as a board, we are trying to reduce densities to keep people out of the county, to try to hold it down, to try to keep the growth down. I would say that outside of the business community and the tourism community, which these folks surveyed -- which are the people these folks surveyed, you're talking what, 80 percent of the community is retired, 70 percent, 80 percent, whatever. If you polled those people, they would say please don't do anything that would attract more people to our community. So we spend 99 percent of our time doing that on the one hand and we do this on the other hand. It's crossed purposes at its utmost here. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: It's an industry. I mean, whether you like it or not, it's an industry that -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I understand. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- employs a lot of people. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Right. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: But that doesn't mean that the Board of Commissioners has to be the ones doing it. The private sector can certainly handle it. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I think this is something that, you know, has always seemed almost at opposite ends, because we do sit up here and we review densities and we try to curb, quote, population and growth. And because we've got people that scream at us when we go out to public meetings, you know, what are you doing, you don't have any Growth Management Plan. I've heard that recently. You don't do anything in Collier County to stop the growth, look at all these developments -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Except for that when we got the state award, but-- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Right, but -- well, that's okay. But there's communities popping up all over, you're just allowing all these hotels to be built. Don't you care? You're rationing our water and yet you don't care about all these hotels being built. You don't care about these big developments. You're just letting things really go to hell in a hand basket in Collier County, and you don't care about us. And at the same time, it's true, we are sitting here today having this discussion about tourism, which is going to bring people to Collier County, and they're going to see a beautiful place. We are the most fortunate people to live in a beautiful, beautiful area of our country. And instead of everybody sitting out there with a big smile on their face, we've got people sitting out there looking like they just lost their last friend and complaining about what we have. And we've got so much. We are so blessed to be here in this part of the state and in this part of the United States. MR. WILSON: May I make a comment? As we've gone out throughout over 40 cities, we have seen sometimes in areas like -- that are more resort oriented this kind of feeling by the local populous. No, we did not poll the retired community, we polled the business community, including the hospitality. One of our recommendations was that the hospitality industry needs to communicate to the populous, not only the government and the business community, but to the rest of the populous, the impact. Because without tourism, you probably wouldn't have the beautiful beaches and the restaurants and the golf courses and all those kinds of things. I don't have any data to give you right now, but we've seen it time and time again. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: You're absolutely right, because if it weren't for these people coming here through tourism, you could not support the fine restaurants that you have, you could not support many of the things that '- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: The Philharmonic. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- we have gotten to take for granted. The Philharmonic, you're right. All of these things. I mean, there's so many things in this county, and it does rely on the tourist. And it relies on the people who may have come here as tourists who suddenly decide that this -- they want to be a part of paradise, and they decide to stay here. And I should sit up here and tell them, sorry, I've got mine, I've been here for a long time and I don't want you here. I don't think so. I '- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And I'd -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- don't think that's my role. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'd love to see an analysis -- as a part of that issue you just raised, I'd love to see an analysis of if we wanted to provide all of the services that we provide, including the beach renourishment and otherwise, that what would the property taxes of this county be if we wanted to keep the levels of service they way they are without the tourism dollars? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just a little side note. By the way, the average age now is -- in Collier County is 39. So while I'm still below the average age, it's not 80 percent of the people retired. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: So basically, Tim, you and I are the only ones on this board below average? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We knew that. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Yeah, well, the rest of '- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Oh, you mean age. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: There are some of us that are way above that average. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Commissioner Berry -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: At any rate, we've kind of strayed a little bit here, but I agree with you, Commissioner Hancock, when you talk about tourism, it's still part of the economy, a big part of our economy here in Collier County. And we do have to be concerned with it. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: That was part of my frustration, and a little bit of my venting here today, is that for four years I go out in homeowners' associations and I hear the same thing, why are you promoting tourism? And while I stand there and defend the benefits of tourism, to then be called anti-tourism from the industry was very offensive to me. Because we go out there and we try and -- I try and educate people what tourism does. I ask them time and time again, do you want a state income tax? No? Well, then you better hug tourism, you know. So while that is my position, and I think this board is anything but anti-tourism, what we are is, we've just been floundering with this category B, C thing. It's not going anywhere. Let's pick a decisive direction and make something happen, or let's get out of it. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. I would like to say to Mr. Fernandez, I would like to see us get that other report as quickly as possible, the two-week period of time. I would also -- any other information that we can gather from anyplace else that you're familiar with or whatever, I'd like that all pulled together, give us the report, that second report, give us a little bit of time to digest it, and then I think we need to establish a workshop where we sit down with Chamber people, the tourism industry representatives, et cetera, and I think it's time that we got this thing pulled together and rearranged and reworked so everybody can walk out of here and we say we're all on the same page, we're all going the same direction, and we're going to make this thing work and fly in Collier County. And it's going to be something more than we have right now, but it's going to serve all of Collier County and do it very efficiently. And that's what I would like to see for this county. MR. WILSON: May I say something? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Certainly. MR. WILSON: Number one, whatever you decide you're going to do, make sure there's a transitional period, because it can't be just -- you can't shut one thing down and start up another. So it needs to be a transition. Number two, you have some wonderful leaders on both of those organizations that are working very hard, who have worked very hard to build what they've done. They, along with the business community and the government community, as Ted pointed out on the new board, should be that balance. And that's the type of leaders you need. Because these people have worked very hard on your behalf. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Well, I think this is a good time to do it. We currently have a contract until October of next year, under our current setup the way it is, and I think now it is very appropriate. I don't think we need to drag our feet, but I think we need to get the vehicle in place. So whatever that happens to be, whatever that decision is one way or the other, everybody's going to know before we get down to that point in time. And I think it's -- MR. SPRAGUE: It took us six months to restructure the Richmond, Virginia board, because we wanted to satisfy everybody. And that's very hard to do. But we worked very hard at that, because you need to have representation from the whole area on this board. And to try to make everybody happy is a difficult chore. But that's why you have a large board, seven, seven, seven. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I think this is just critical. Plus I think we can't stress enough, whatever we do, there has got to be trust established among the people that we decide and how we decide to go in this particular arena. So -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Nothing's going to be done -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- I want to thank again both of you for coming down here. And this has been a great discussion. I think this is something -- it's too bad we didn't have it a while ago. So I'll thank you and we'll go to some public speakers at this point in time. MR. FERNANDEZ: Thank you. Very good report. Madam Chair, we have three speakers on this subject. First is Pare Brown and then Joyce Ford. MS. BROWN: Good afternoon. I'm Pare Brown. I'm on the Immokalee Chamber of Commerce, and I also work with Main Street. I really started this about six months ago, becoming involved with this. We had Visit Naples come over to the Immokalee Chamber, wanting to know if we wanted to be involved with a brochure they were putting out. And we have now -- are working with them on their marketing and brochure committee. We feel like that we're really strength here. We're all joined together. We're trying to partnership with what we're doing. I looked up a report on Florida tax -- tourist related taxes, and I was noticing that Collier County spends the lowest amount for marketing. And we are specifically doing it for off season right now. And I really -- I appreciate Commissioner Constantine saying we need to get the other survey before we come to some sort of conclusion, and I'm just endorsing us. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you. MR. FERNANDEZ: Next speaker Joyce Ford and then Bill Arthur. MS. FORD: I'll pass. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. MR. FERNANDEZ: Bill Arthur is the next one. MR. ARTHUR: I'm Bill Arthur, I represent Golden Gate Chamber, and I came specifically to see that hopefully that you wouldn't make a decision today on anything, and I guess you've decided to do that. And so maybe we'll be involved in what you do. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We're great at that, not deciding things. MR. FERNANDEZ: That's your last speaker, Madam Chairman. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: That's it? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: That was it? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay, I think at this point in time, if I have a concurrence with the rest of the board, I think we have the direction and we have received the report. I don't think we need to take any action on this other than acceptance of the report. And I think our county administrator has the direction in terms of what we expect and where we're going at this point in time. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So we'll see that on the agenda in two weeks? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: It should be on in two weeks. Okay, how are you doing? THE COURT REPORTER: Could we take a recess? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Sure. We'll take about a seven-minute break for our court reporter. Thank you. THE COURT REPORTER: Thank you. (Brief recess.) Item #10D LAKE TRAFFORD RENOVATION - STAFF TO LOOK AT THE NEXT THREE YEARS AND DETERMINE UNBUDGETED FUNDS AND PLEDGE THAT AMOUNT UP TO $2 MILLION TO LAKE TRAFFORD CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Let me -- let's call back to order this meeting, please. Our next item is the Lake Trafford renovation. It says here that I put this on the agenda. Let me tell you how this came about, please. This is a result of having been heard at the last TDC meeting, and the reason we kind of pulled this out from other normal items that you would normally be hearing as you do at their TDC meetings, there is some grants that are out there that have some time limits, and there is a concern about a decision from the Board of County Commissioners. These people need to know one way or the other what our direction is, what our thoughts are in terms of the restoration of Lake Trafford. I think I have stated that accurately, is that correct, Miss Annie? You're the one to keep me straight. Okay, let the record reflect that was Annie Olesky shaking her head up and down that I'm going in the right direction here. At any rate, we decided -- I asked that this be placed on the agenda today so we could get some direction from the board. And we'll just go from there. And I think probably Mr. Thomas would be the first person that would like to speak to us. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: While he's coming up, I'm just going to take a risk and say I think this is exactly the kind of tourism that even if it were 80 percent retirees in this community, there's suppod for it. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I have a number of questions. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: That's fine. Mr. Thomas. MR. THOMAS: Good afternoon, commissioners. After what I've heard forthe last hour, I've changed how I was going to approach you 14 times, and I -- you know, I'm a little bit at a loss, but I'll start off by saying a little something. People come to Collier County, retirees come to Collier County, because it's beautiful, it's economical, and it has all these wonderful services and things. A study was done several years ago called the American Farmland Trust Study. I've talked to you about this before, I think, but it's appropriate to bring it back together again. For every dollar, according to that study, of ad valorem tax that's collected on residential units, the folks demand $1.25 worth of services. So you're going to come up shod, unless you have something else generating some ad valorem taxes. For every dollar of industrial commercial taxes that is collected, ad va -- I mean land taxes that are collected, they only run 37 cents back in services. So you need an industrial head, a commercial head, some sod of industry, to help you provide the ambiance that your residential folks come here for. We are very much like, except for one factor, Monterey County, California. Big salad belt, very high costs, residential community on the coast, with golf courses and what have you. The difference is, the engine that drives that county is that industrial head that allows the folks on the coast to be as restrictive as they want to, as pretty as they want to, and still give bad advice cheap as they can. Now, we could get smokestacks here, that's one type of industry, we can high tech here, that's another type of industry, or we can get tourism here. Tourism has a double bang in providing other benefits to the community. Now, the kind of tourism that we're here to talk to you about today is high end ecological tourism. Doesn't require a lot of infrastructure, once we clean up our lake, brings in high dollar folks that are going to frequent the coastal hotels, the coastal restaurants, et cetera. Now, we began to think in this direction in Immokalee because of the uncertain future of agriculture, and be saying we need to do something about high end other alternative industries. We are very thankful for the wonderful work you all have done out at the airpod. We need to go that extra step to compete with other industries -- other communities as to getting industry here. We also found out with the development of the casino that tourists will come and come and come and come to our community. So we can do some other things to piggyback on that traffic that comes into our community on a tourist basis. The amendment we're asking you to do to allow state dollars -- I mean, tourist dollars to be utilized to restore the lake is a minor amendment when you go back to look at what the intent of the legislation was first, to increase tourism. And that's all we're trying to do, to help you increase tourism, which will revitalize Immokalee, broaden our economic base, and help us to pull the cad along with the rest of the folks in the county. High end eco-tourism we're talking. No duplication. We're not completing with anything else in the county. Whole new direction. And we've got a jewel. I don't know how many of you do a lot of international travel, but there are people that pay $2,000 a week to see the howling monkeys in Costa Rica, living in a wooden structure with screens on the window and no glass, just for the privilege to be able to walk someplace where they figure no man has walked before. And we can provide that same thing in and around Lake Trafford, if we can just clean up the lake and get it back to its pristine beauty. We went out and got eight million dollars' worth of federal money. And they will commit, as long as we come up with matching money. Senator Saunders says, hey, if you get a commitment from the local folks, we'll get the rest of the money you need. We're talking about two and a half million dollars from the state that he's going to go help us get. Joe (**)Sprat has agreed to go -- buy into it to help us get. So all we need is a commitment from you to, one, amend the ordinance so we can do the in-land lakes like they do, that the state allows, and allow us to become a partner to help maintain the ambiance that everybody comes here for. It's not like a risk, you know. We're going to leverage 10 million dollars for you. We're going to do that. And that 10 million dollars is going to turn around to 16 million dollars, circulating first during the construction phases, and then for a long period after that. So we just hope that you will amend -- given instructions to staff to amend the ordinance and tell them to locate the money, because there's money available when we change our priorities, or how you change your priorities, to make this happen. Now, I'm going to turn it over to Clarence Tears, who's the present chairman of the Lake Trafford restoration task force, to tell you how that wonderful lake from a hydrological standpoint benefits the coastal beaches. Thank you. MR. TEARS: Good afternoon. For the record, Clarence Tears, chairman of Lake Trafford task force and director of the Big Cypress Basin. This is a map of Lake Trafford. It shows you the connection, the CREW area. It shows you down here the Camp Keais Strand. It goes into the Fakahatchee Strand. You can almost see that Lake Trafford is the hub of that whole region. I really believe that -- if you're familiar with the Corkscrew Sanctuary, I know I've taken a few of you out on tours there, is believe Lake Trafford is like the Publix for our migrating bird populations. The health of this lake attracts the migrating birds. In those extremely dry years, the only place that you'll find water is Lake Trafford. So that's where the fish breed. And when the lake spills over, it feeds into the CREW area. And when the water dries up, the little pockets are where the birds feed. In 1994, approximately 70,000 people visited the Corkscrew Sanctuary. There was a study done by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service that it brought 9.4 million dollars into the local economy. Last year almost 100,000 people visited Lake Trafford. So if you interpellate that, that's about 13.1 million dollars into the economy. So just from that standpoint alone, Lake Trafford does have a significant impact on local tourism. Hydrology-wise, Lake Trafford historically spill about five times a year. Some of the road improvements over the years changes in citrus. Agriculture have (sic) directed the surface flows. The lake probably drains approximately once a year. It spills over. In the early Seventies or the late Sixties, you had the introduction of hydrilla, which is an exotic species. Some of the maintenance that we did at that time, the county would go in, they would spray a herbicide. It was a contact herbicide which would drop out this hydrilla, it would fall to the bottom. So over the years it accumulated on the bottom. So now what we have is about 8 million cubic yards of muck. It's a real simple process. If you remove the muck, you can restore the environment. And what we will do -- what we'll be able to do is sustain the Lake Trafford for years to come, so at least a few more generations would be able to visit this lake and it would be healthy for our overall economy. I'm here just to answer some questions. Also, just to let you know, I have some information. I recommended that we start a logbook, or somebody did, at Lake Trafford Marina, just to see who visits the lake. And just from March, '98 to August, '98, I think there was 31 countries that visited the lake, and I understand 49 states. So it's just -- these people visit the lake, yet they're not staying in Immokalee, they're staying on the coast. So this lake is important to our economy, and this lake is important to the ecological system for Collier County. And I'm here to answer any questions. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I have one. MR. TEARS: Yes. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Which state was not represented? MS. OLESKY: Hawaii. But we'll remedy that. Mr. Ochs has assured me that they'll have somebody here. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: That was Ms. Olesky. MS. OLESKY: Did that answer your -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Constantine? MR. TEARS: Did I understand Hawaii, for the record? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you. How much money are you asking for? MR. TEARS: Senator Saunders said that if I got a commitment from Collier County, he would get the rest at the state level. Our initial asking is six million dollars, but if this board couldn't afford or couldn't consider that whole six million dollars, some part of that would be accepted, and I think I could get the rest. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: This was -- as it came before the TDC, there was a -- the board came back unanimously on that and sent it on to the Board of County Commissioners. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That would be spread out overthe years, or that's one lump sum? MR. TEARS: We're looking at a three-year period. I've been able to get 8.2 million dollars at the federal level. Fish and Game has graciously provided us with 900 million dollars over a three-year period. And then the rest I'm trying to get from the county and the state. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: How much has Fish and Game provided? MR. TEARS: 900,000. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: 900 million. I like the 900 million you said first. MR. TEARS: No, I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Fernandez, how much do we collect annually in TDC dollars? MR. FERNANDEZ: About eight million dollars. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: From where will we take the two million? I mean, that's broken up at eight million right now. A chunk goes toward beach maintenance and a chunk goes toward tourism. Who will not get their money if we put the two million towards the lake instead? MR. FERNANDEZ: If Mr. Mihalic can answer that question, I'll call -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: The brave one. MR. FERNANDEZ: -- on him to take a shot at it. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I think that's the 20 dollar question because '- MR. OCHS: I get the easy question. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- it's not the concept that anyone's opposing here, it's a simple question -- MR. MIHALIC: The maintenance and res -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- of where's the money. MR. MIHALIC: -- Greg Mihalic, forthe record. The maintenance and restoration of inland lakes is an allowable use under the state statutes for TDC funding. Our local ordinance does not allow it. The local ordinance would need to be amended to allow that usage, and it would come from the A category, which is the beach renourishment category, and that's an eligible use under that category. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What does that do to our beach renourishment money overthe course of time? One of the things we -- MR. MIHALIC: Well, I think Mr. -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- continue to collect for is we realize that over time we'll need to renourish again at some point, and we have to do ongoing maintenance and -- MR. MIHALIC: Right now you have a balance of about 3.8 million dollars in that fund. However, Mr. Huber does have a five-year plan that utilizes that money. He may want to speak to it. He presented that to the TDC. MR. HUBER: Good afternoon, commissioners. For the record, Harry Huber, public works engineering department. My projections are through the year 2002. We've had -- would have a balance of approximately two and a half million in the fund balance at that point so, you know, if we gave six million, you know, we're going to have -- somewhere along the line we're going to have a deficit spending in the category A funds where we'd have to re-prioritize our projects, what have you. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let me just make sure I understand what you just said. The -- right now, not including this project, we're expected to have a balance in 02 of about two and a half million dollars? MR. HUBER: That's correct. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: If we take two million a year out for three years, we end up with a deficit in 02? MR. HUBER: Correct. Well, we would have a deficit before then also. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Right. See, that's where the problem is, is I'm not willing to sacrifice the beaches and the future of the beaches forthis. I think everybody wants to reach out and find a way to do it. I have my standard question that I have every time we've tried to tinker with the TDC ordinance, and that is state law may allow it, but the voters approved it, some particular uses, and every time we change it, we get further away from what they allow. And I have that philosophical problem. But if we were going to have some great extra amount of money here, it's certainly worthwhile. But I look at -- and when we renourish the beaches that end up being between 11 and 12 million dollars, the benefit of that is large and very obvious. Literally thousands of people a day enjoy that beach. And that's tough to make a comparison for six million, if we're taking away from beaches for the lake. And I -- somebody needs to tell me how we're going to do that, because I'm not prepared to take away from the beaches and have a deficit and not have enough money to maintain them and to improve them when time comes again in 05 or 08 or whenever it is to do improvements again. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Madam Chair? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Yes. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: What's the date, Harry, that's the current sunset for the third penny? MR. HUBER: That's January 1,2000, I believe. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So, you know, right around the corner we're talking about, you know. And somebody just said something about Paduka, Iowa, if that's such a place, you know, that the -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: That was a fictional place. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Good. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Quite -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: And I'll never use Iowa again, Madam Chair. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. MR. HUBER: It's in Kentucky. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Puke Bow, Wisconsin, how's that? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, never mind. Someplace that's not as wonderful as Naples has a tourist tax that's higher than ours, and we have -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Because why else would you go there unless they advertise? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, good point. But I guess what I'm saying is this may be something that the community would support enough to keep the third penny in place for a while. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'd be willing to put that on a ballot, but the commitment was made to sunset that tax at a set point. And government's famous for never actually sunsetting anything. Boy, you've got a tax in place, we've got to keep it, we'll find a way to spend it. So if we want to put that on the ballot, I'd support that and let the public make that choice. Perhaps at the same time you put on the ballot this and some of the other uses we've talked about expanding, and I suspect people would be overwhelmingly in favor. But I'm not comfortable ignoring again what we promised would be a sunset of a tax COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: The other-- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- tourist tax. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- question I had is ifthere's some sort of debt service answer to the question, and I don't know. MR. TEARS: Madam Chairman? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Mr. Tears? MR. TEARS: A lot of the projects that he's bringing to you and calculating haven't even been approved by the board. If you asked him what projects have already been approved and what dollar amount they handle, there is dollars available. But he's adding his own additional items onto the plate that have not been approved by this board yet. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: My guess is, though, things such as the dredging of Gordon Pass are things that this board has a responsibility to fund. I don't think Mr. Huber is -- and I want to see his list of yet to be approved projects, but my guess -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I suspect they're consistent -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: --is Mr. Huber-- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- with beach impasse renourishment. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Yeah. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: They're in that same arena. MR. TEARS: If there's two million dollars available by the year 2000, what I'm requesting at this time, if this board will make at least that commitment, that gives me some grounds to go back to the state and tell Senator Saunders, you need to find the rest. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Do we then end up with zero dollars, though, available for maintaining our beaches? MR. TEARS: But look what I'm getting in return. I'm getting 14.2 million dollars brought into Collier County. I mean, that's a major return on an investment. And I don't think any of the taxpayers in this county would be upset at that. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I do understand your point, Clarence, and that is a mathematically tempting item. But if we do not maintain and take care of our beaches, the impact is going to be huge. I mean, Lake Trafford does draw people there, people do go out there, but the beaches draw a gazillion times as many people to Collier County. If Lake Trafford were here and the beaches weren't, we wouldn't have nearly the tourism. So I don't think we can -- I think we have to be really careful not to sacrifice in that beach and past maintenance in order to do this. And if there's a way to do both, I think everybody would like to, but we can't -- I don't think we can sacrifice the beaches to accomplish it. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But that's the critical point that I just heard Clarence make, and that is that even with Harry probably completely appropriately taking -- making a projection of what he thinks we're likely to approve over -- you know, between now and 2002, because of what we've historically approved, what the policy of the board has been, even with that, there's still two million dollars that is enough today for seed money. So certainly, we want to at least go that far. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let me ask Mr. Huber a question along those lines, then, because I assume we are looking long term. At some point we need to renourish, and we also have an ongoing maintenance cost, and I assume we always want to have some sort of balance there. My worry is, I just don't know if it's very bright to go all the way to zero in our beach fund. MR. HUBER: Yeah, because, you know, Mother Nature doesn't have any schedule. And as you can see recently with the sea grass removal, it doesn't take long to chew up a lot of monies. But -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, we're getting that back with FEMA. MR. HUBER: Yeah. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Maybe. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Maybe. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, it's reasonable to expect. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: But what happens when this penny sunsets? Where's the money going to come for future beach renourishment? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: From the original 1.2. MR. HUBER: We'll still have the original -- yeah, like he says, 1.2 cents coming in. We're just -- that third penny was -- the entire third penny was dedicated to beach renourishment for a specific period of time. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Oh, for-- okay. All right, I understand. Commissioner Hancock? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: The -- and I'm glad you said that, Mr. Huber. The reason that third penny was put on was to pay off the original project and begin accruing funds for the next project so that when the anticipated seven to 10-year window of our original renourishment reached its useful life, we had cash on hand to do the renourishment without borrowing against it. That way we stayed ahead of the game. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Pay as you go. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: By not sunsetting the third penny, we will eliminate the future flexibility, unless the state law changes, to reapply that penny in the eventuality of an emergency situation that is unanticipated. If we sunset that third penny, we then know that should a hurricane or tropical storm or something happen that puts us in a bad situation, we retain the flexibility to bring that third penny back and project those future revenues against something unforeseen. So I see that third penny as something like a savings account for us that you want to hold in reserve, you know, so that emergencies can be handled of any extensive degree. So for me to look at this, I think for the public to -- we talk a lot of times about what the public did or didn't approve. And if you could ask 100 people, you'd get 60 different answers or what they thought they approved with this. But I think what they knew they were approving was that our beaches would be renourished, that the funds would be available in a fiscally responsible manner to accomplish that job. If the revenues produced two million dollars more than was necessary to do that, I think we're in a position of saying, you know, gee whiz, did they either approve that or not? And the answer is, there's no way of knowing. That wasn't anticipated. So from my perspective, my concern here was that we do not jeopardize the plans that we have for beach renourishment funds that handle beaches, passes and past maintenance. If we look at all of those things, put them all on the board and three years down the road we're two million dollars to the good, then I think we have to consider whether or not this inland lake restoration program is worthwhile of those funds. I think it is. And to be honest with you, that's not where I thought I would go with this. But as I've looked at it, again, if those funds are available, based on Mr. Huber's -- what to date have been conservative projections, we've never really operated in the margins, thanks to Harry, too much. And I appreciate that. If we know those funds are going to be available, I think we have to make a quantitative decision whether this is the kind of project that the public is truly served by applying those funds toward. And I think it is. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: If we spend the two and a half million and then have a balance of zero, where does that leave us planning? Because you mentioned the seven to 1 O-year window, and we anticipate having to go back and do some more work. Where does that leave us for both that -- for three things, for that, for ongoing maintenance and for an emergency, like the sea grass or other things that may come up? MR. HUBER: Well, the ongoing maintenance, that's already incorporated into the expenditures and spreadsheet. The planned renourishment eight to 10 years down the road, that was already incorporated in -- at one point I had the spreadsheet went out 15 years, and that was incorporated. And at that point in time there was a pretty good buildup of excess funds. And that's still -- you know, like I say, now we've now reduced it down to a five-year period, but I was talking about the year 2002, which was the end of the five years, there was like two and a half million fund balance there, so -- but if we were in the interim in, say, three -- the three years up to that point, if we took two million dollars out each year, we would have a three-and-a-half million dollar deficit, unless we re-prioritized some of the other projects. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And I -- my concern, going back to what you had said earlier, is if there is some money there at that time, that's fine, but to commit that now because we may have that money, we don't know what storm events at all will happen. We may or may not get reimbursed by FEMA. My recollection is when Andrew came through, we got reimbursed for some things, we didn't get reimbursed for others, and so there were some expenditures of ours. And I don't want to end up in a position where we're short on cash. You know, my personal life, when I have my savings and things set aside, I don't go and spend myself down to zero again. I always like to have some comfort level. And I'm real concerned when the beaches play such a prominent role in our community spending down to zero on that, so -- and, you know, I don't know if there's another number you're comfortable with, or -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, what I wanted to be sure that -- I didn't hear Harry include in his answer, but I did hear Commissioner Hancock talk about, and that is the third penny is there. If you sunsetted it, then you have the third penny available for those things that -- and I, you know, don't think anybody could be as conservative as Harry is, frankly. I think maybe a little too much. But for government, I guess that's probably the way to go. But even if Harry's ultra conservative numbers turn out to be '- you know, he's told you that the future maintenance is incorporated in his numbers, that the future project is incorporated in his numbers, and the answer to your question of what if there is an emergency, a crisis, something unforeseen, is that third penny after it sunsets can come back for those unforeseen events. The tourist tax, one of the things that I think that we've not done a good job on with the tourist taxes is it's been -- and this is an odd thing for the fourth district commissioner to say, but it's been a coastal driven project. And I think our priority was to start with the beach. Nobody's going to argue with that. But the coastal hotels have driven this train to a great extent. I think at this point '- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Oh, sure, say that after they all leave. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, no, there's still some. They're -- whatever. But the diversification of the economy, which is the biggest impact, the biggest bang for the buck, our opportunity for that and our opportunity to bring people into the county that even those, John, who 99 percent of the time, you know, we're trying to reduce the impacts on the roadways, what we're talking about here is bringing industry and tourism to an area that has previously been ignored and it is just ripe for tapping in the eco-historic tourism kind of -- it would just be a shame to miss the opportunity to get -- what is the amount of federal and state matching money? MR. TEARS: Depends how much the board provides -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: It depends on how much we commit. MR. TEARS: -- I guess, and I'll go after the rest. Also, one more '- MR. THOMAS: No, wait a minute, there's eight million from the feds locked. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Right. MR. THOMAS: And then the rest has got to come from the state. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: How much is the rest? MR. TEARS: In the maintenance of the lake -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: It's a 16 million dollar project. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: The project is a 16 million dollar project. MR. TEARS: 16.2. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We have 18 million locked from the feds. If all we could get is two million this year from the county, then we'd have to be -- MR. TEARS: I would go after the state for the rest, because they made a commitment-- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I don't see how we -- MR. TEARS: -- that if the county committed to this -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- could do anything less. MR. TEARS: -- project, they would support it. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Huber's waving. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Hold on a second. Commissioner Norris has wanted to ask a question here, or make a comment. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: In our previous discussions, whether private or in board here, it's always been, I guess, assumed, if not more directly stated, that the county was not going to funds this. How did we all of a sudden get to where the project is not going to go forward unless the county does fund it? Where did that come from all of a sudden? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I think they wanted -- I think maybe even the federal government may have said that they wanted a local commitment. I believe that was my understanding of it. They wanted the local government to -- MR. TEARS: Yes. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- make some kind of a commitment toward this project. And up until this time there hadn't been, or hasn't been any kind of a local commitment. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: How much money is private industry committing to this, those who will benefit from that tourism? MR. TEARS: Well, the private groups in that area to date have collected $10,000 by, you know, grassroots supports, sales, different events. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: These are people that have tried to -- MR. TEARS: The high school, junior -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- have some benefit -- MR. TEARS: -- high school. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- things and so forth. MR. TEARS: They've had a pick-in, different events trying to raise money for this project. So, I mean, there's been a lot of support throughout the community. There's a Clyde Butcher dinner next month '- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Right. MR. TEARS: -- to raise additional funding. There's been a lot of donations through the fishing licenses, so there's been a lot of support, with people even outside the area providing funding for this project. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Could we see Harry's budget, since that's like the critical component of this discussion? MR. FERNANDEZ: Madam Chairman? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Yes, Mr. Fernandez? MR. FERNANDEZ: If the board wishes, we could go back and look at that budget and look at the projects and their priorities, and possibly rework them, if the board's interested in our coming up with the funding for this. I think it's a question of whether you see it as a priority, whether you would like for us to try and accommodate the funding somehow, and if so, we'll try to make it work. I don't know that we'll be able to come up with any particular number, but if that's the board's wish, I'll be glad to sit down with staff and go over that priority list and see what impact it has on the priority of dredging projects that are -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Many moons ago, when I first came on the board, I had some question about just exactly what our local involvement should be in this particular lake. After I've been here awhile and have studied more about Lake Trafford and know more about what it does and how it affects a large number of areas, not only from the eco-tourism situation, but in the whole scheme of watershed and all those kinds of things, there is a great benefit to having this lake and having it in, I say, good working condition. At this point in time, Lake Trafford's not in the best condition that it should be in. Not only for any kind oftourism benefit, but also in terms of how it produces and does things for the other -- the rest of the system of which it's a part. At this point in time, I -- if the federal government has come forth and said we'll give you "X" number of dollars, and basically they have, then to what extent I think all of us have got -- we know that we've got to look at our dollars, what we do have available, make sure we're not getting out on a limb here somewhere, that we can't work with other commitments that we have that have been committed to. We certainly realize that. But I think we have to be in the mix here and say look, we do value this lake, it has a value in Collier County. Now, to what extent you want to support this value, that's a decision that we've got to make here today. And as I said before, the only reason that this came forth sooner than the rest of the TDC projects that we dealt with the other night at the meeting is because of the grants and the funding and the fact that they need to know if we're going to make the commitment. If so, what is that commitment going to be to go ahead and continue and work toward getting other dollars to restore this lake. MR. TEARS: What I'm trying to do is -- congress didn't approve the 70 million dollars that they originally said they would approve, so there's a smaller package there. I think it's roughly 16 million. So the quicker I get that agreement in to the Corps of Engineers, the better opportunity we have to move forward with this project. And my goal is by next February to have that agreement signed and committed. And I just need a little bit of support by this commission to move forward and then go after the state for the additional funding required. And the basin, the Big Cypress Basin, will maintain the lake in the future. It's a work of the basin. So what you have is you're not just restoring the lake and forgetting about it, but you have an entity that will maintain the lake and sustain it into the future. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I just wanted to say that we're here talking about tourist tax dollars because there is such a clear market for tourism -- you know, this is so definitely a tourism issue. But with my study of this, the importance of the lake hydrologically, and dare I say environmentally, this is so important to this county that it's -- if it's not a tourist tax dollar funded matter, it needs to be looked at for plain 'ol property taxes. This is essential to the SUCCESS '- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: You lost me there. Right up to that point I was '- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, what I'm saying is this is so important to the county hydrologically that we have to restore Lake Trafford. And if we have to have a public local government match to get the federal dollars, we've got to do that and be happy, frankly, that there is also the tourism benefit so that it's not local residents who are paying for it. That's the icing on the cake. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Madam Chair? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Yes. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: In an effort to offer a direction on this matter, it seems to me that one thing we have not had a history of doing, with the exception of the initial mobilization for beach renourishment, is deficit spending in our tourist development taxes categories A, B or C. I think what I would like to ask the board to do, and I'll go ahead and make a motion, that we direct Mr. Huber to look over the next three years of allocated spending, projectlye projection to determine over the next three years what funds are anticipated to be collected and are not budgeted that would not jeopardize future projects, and to make a commitment equal to that amount to the restoration of Lake Trafford, strictly from category A, TDC. In order to do that, we would have to amend the ordinance. I think we need to get that information back from Mr. Huber first, and ask that that direction be taken and be returned to the board as soon as possible, so that if the number is significant enough, we could take the necessary steps to amend the language and to allocate those additional funds. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Would the motion maker entertain the notion of capping the match amount of that two million? You left it open-ended. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Since we know full well we're not going to have more than that in the next five years, I'd be glad to do that, if it makes you comfortable. I don't think it has a material effect on the outcome. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, you did leave it open-ended, so '- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I apologize, can you repeat that? I just got interrupted there for a moment. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Repeat which part? My '- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Your motion. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- eight-minute motion? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Kind of like eight-minute abs? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Kind of. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: What I'm asking is that we direct Mr. Huber to go back and look at the next three years to determine unbudgeted funds, in other words, the revenues generated that are not budgeted over the next three years, that will not jeopardize future projects, and to pledge that amount to the Lake Trafford restoration up to two million dollars. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I second that. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Don't we have to '- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: You have to change the language of the ordinance. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- change the law? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: That's the first '- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Right, he said that the first time. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm asking that when that information comes back, that that be part of an overall decision by this board to either act on it or not act on it. And part of that will be an amendment to the language. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And the amount of the grant would be based on our review and approval of this budget -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Correct. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- this three-year budget. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: And it would be up to the amount of two million dollars. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Up to the amount of two million. I'm very comfortable with that cap, simply because as Mr. Huber has looked out into year 2002, it doesn't look like that much would be available in that period anyway, so I think it's reasonable. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I'd just like to make it clear that my support on this -- in view of my earlier comments on tourism, my support of this issue is almost purely based on the ecological value of Lake Trafford to our whole system out there in the eastern part of the county. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Speakers, huh? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Mr. Norris made an ecological statement? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Absolutely. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: He didn't mean it, so '- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Yes, I did. MR. FERNANDEZ: Madam Chairman? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Sure he did. MR. FERNANDEZ: You have two speakers you may want to consider '- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. MR. FERNANDEZ: -- before you act on this. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: All right. MR. FERNANDEZ: First is '- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We have a motion and a second, but we'll go ahead and hear a couple of speakers. MR. FERNANDEZ: Ann Olesky, and then David Guggenheim. MS. OLESKY: No, I yield. I thank you very much. You've done exactly what I wanted. By the way, Hawaii will be here. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, I'm losing support the closer David gets to this podium. Oh, my support is waning. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I think we got three anyway. MR. GUGGENHEIM: Hello again. Forthe record, David Guggenheim, president and CEO of The Conservancy of Southwest Florida. And I just wanted to briefly re-express our strongest support for the allocation of TDC funds for restoration of Lake Trafford. This is a natural resource which we heard described accurately as a jewel of Collier County. But Lake Trafford is very, very sick right now and needs our help. This issue has reached the top 10 of The Conservancy of Southwest Florida's critical issues for this area. We're working very, very hard on this issue. Our grassroots machine has revved up into full motion. We formed the Friends of Lake Trafford last year, and we've grown in that year to more than 200 strong. Friends from all over the country. More than half are actually from outside the county and outside the state. And many of them are here with us today. I think we're pretty obvious with our green heads here. And I do want to make sure, just in case your invitations were lost in the mail, to make sure '- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah, I didn't get mine. MR. GUGGENHEIM: -- you get an invitation. This is November 14th, Saturday, with world-renowned Everglades photographer Clyde Butcher, a barbecue out at -- in Immokalee at Pepper Ranch, which is soon to be a world class, world famous tourist destination. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I've already sent my money in. MR. GUGGENHEIM: Great. Thank you. The Conservancy not only supports eco-tourism, we do eco-tourism. That's part of what we do. We've served many, many people. More than 50,000 last year. Probably more than that, because I'm really only including visitation to our nature centers. But we also run additional programs outside of those visits. And we are developing programs at Lake Trafford. We use Lake Trafford as an education site. We've heard the figures about Corkscrew and about CREW. CREW draws over 10,000 a year to that area. So that's a growing area of this county. More and more awareness is developing about that. And I also want to emphasize a couple of things here. One is that this issue was invisible to the people in Washington, and had it not been for Annie Olesky and a real concerted grassroots effort, this issue would not have been elevated to the level it did. And it came -- it completed with about 50 different critical issues for federal dollars. So that's a -- it's a monumental achievement. And the only string is a show of local support. That's an important string. But I think as Clarence pointed out, it's a great bargain to this community. And there is time urgency. We do need to make a decision on this very quickly and move forward, because those monies, as we've seen, are there, but then again, politics being what they are, we don't know -- we just want to get in line with our hand out as soon as possible. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And trust government to keep its word. MR. GUGGENHEIM: There you go. As I said, we use Lake Trafford as an educational experience. But unfortunately, the way we've been using Lake Trafford is as an education in what can go wrong and what some of the critical issues are that face us. We've really looked forward to using Lake Trafford as a success story of how a community can work together to restore a precious resource for the good of its environment and the good of its economy. So I thank you very much for your consideration. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Madam Chair? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Yes. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: On my motion, I'd just like to add, the reason I stated it the way I did is that I would hope that the county attorney's office would prepare it so that when this returns and the board decides to move ahead with any specific funding, all the I's are dotted and the T's are crossed so that day it can be a final decision and they don't have to come back. MR. WEIGEL: We can submit the matter for advertising that very date. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. And the amendment -- the ordinance amendment would be prepared by your office and ready for approval that date, should the board choose to do so? MR. WEIGEL: Well, I want to make sure we're clear on that. If you're asking us to prepare it and advertise it for a date certain, we can do that at this point. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. MR. WEIGEL: Or if you're waiting to come back with a report to determine whether you -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No. MR. WEIGEL: -- want to advertise at that point. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: No, have it ready to go so if it -- when it comes back with the other report, that if we choose to go forward, it's ready to go. MR. WEIGEL: Fine. Do we have a date for when the other report will be there? Because we do have some time constraints to submit. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, he's got a 30-day -- you've got a 30-day advertising period, don't you? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: They'll beat you. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: So what he's -- MR. WEIGEL: We'll coordinate the date then. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: -- saying -- what he's saying, if you want to hear this earlier, he can have the things prepared and then advertise at that point. We don't -- you know, there's no hurry to amend the ordinance. What I think the sponsors here need is the commitment to -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: The commitment to the -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Oh, okay. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Well, whatever works. So we've got a -- so they have a commitment, they know what our commitment is, and then however it works out legal-wise to make us whole here. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Madam Chair? MR. WEIGEL: That's fine. You know, one thing, though, that when you have a public hearing on an ordinance, you hear the pros and cons of going forward with the direction at that time as opposed to making a decision to amend the ordinance ahead of time. But we can certainly prepare the ordinance and have it ready for any date. We have a 1 O-day advertisement requirement, which usually gives us about 17 days lead time if we had it prepared right now. The preparation's very easy on this, so if you want to pick a date, we could have it ready for you to hear that very date. MR. FERNANDEZ: Madam Chair? Staff can have the report to you in two weeks to make the decision on whether the funding is available and CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. MR. FERNANDEZ: -- whether you feel comfortable with that. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And then we'll -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: But then if we have the hearing-- MR. FERNANDEZ: It will have to be after that. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- on the ordinance, and what if there's a lot of negative feedback on this? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Can't we do an emergency advertisement on the ordinance amendment? MR. WEIGEL: Well, and there's the emergency ordinance which doesn't even require the 1 O-day advertisement. As a matter of courtesy and public information, we always advertise, even if it's short of 10 days. So -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: This isn't an emergency, though. MR. WEIGEL: -- we could do that. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, it is if we're going to lose federal money. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: That's my question. Does the 30-day window push us past the federal dates? I don't want to over use the emer -- well, I mean, it's up to you guys who will be here then, but MR. TEARS: I think the 30-day window would be fine. It shows the board is committed to this project. And I appreciate that. And there'll just be a little more effort on my part trying to work with the Corps to have an agreement signed by February. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I think it'd be a good idea to hearthe report in two weeks to establish a direction, but to concurrently prepare the amendment so it can be at the earliest date possible, with the full understanding that until that amendment is approved by this board, that is in fact the final action. MR. TEARS: Right. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay, that's good. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'll include that as direction with my motion. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: So two weeks, we'll hear -- we'll get the report back. MR. TEARS: Thank you. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you. And I thank all of the people from the Lake Trafford green hearters that are here today. I thank you all for enduring, and you all should get a Purple Heart for sitting here in these seats all day long. So thank you very much for being here. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: And feel free to talk up the board's pro tourism position on this. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: And also encourage you out there that are watching in TV land, Gene Hearn's here today and I believe we'll be seeing you on the 14th. MR. HEARNS: I hope so. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- out at Peppers Preserve for a wonderful barbecue. I'm looking forward to it. And anyone else that's interested, I'm sure if they called Fred Thomas or Annie Olesky, they'd be more than happy to provide tickets to that particular barbecue. MS. OLESKY: Stop beating yourself up. You really do a good job. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We know that. MS. OLESKY: You know the newspapers, they love it. MR. HEARNS: We want to see you all out there, so you can -- MS. OLESKY: Yeah, just come out and relax. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Call the question? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I'll call the question. All in favor? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Aye. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Aye. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Aye. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Aye. Opposed? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Aye. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries four-one. MR. THOMAS: Thank you all very, very much. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thank you. MR. THOMAS: We'll see you on the 14th. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Bye. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just to clarify, that's the same thing I've done for six years. I -- the voters approved some particular uses for that tax, and I don't like tinkering with it. Item #10E DISCUSSION REGARDING SALARY ADJUSTMENT/PERFORMANCE RATING FOR THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR - COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR TO RECEIVE A 2.5% SALARY INCREASE CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay, next item on the agenda, Mr. Fernandez, do you have a handout for this item? MR. FERNANDEZ: Yes. I just gave it to you. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: He just did. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Oh, you got it. You got it. We have it. I'm sorry. Sorry, about that. It's getting to be 20 minutes to 4:00. This next item has to do with the county administrator's salary, proposed salary increase, and you all at this point in time should have had an opportunity to visit with him regarding his evaluation. This has been a little later in time than what I would have liked, but at least we have gotten it done at this point in time. What this requires is that you have to mentally rank the administrator in terms of the evaluation that you discussed with him, and this will -- as you can see at the bottom of the page, there are the rating options and what it means percentage-wise in salary increase and what it would -- how it would affect his total salary. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Do you want us to do that verbally or -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: It's-- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'd like to. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- I think that would be the best way. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Good. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Whatever you'd like to do. We're doing it at a public meeting, so I believe the record -- there doesn't have to be anything written. It can be done at a public meeting, it can be done verbally, because it is recorded both on video and by our court reporter. So basically this was just provided to you so you could take a look at -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'll be glad to start. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Let me just ask a question, first. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Fernandez, did you receive a pay -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: No, he didn't. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: -- increase with -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah, his contract calls specifically for it. MR. FERNANDEZ: When the other employees received the pay increase last year, yes, sir. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: No, now. MR. FERNANDEZ: No. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: October 1 you didn't? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No. MR. FERNANDEZ: No. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: No, he did not. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Because it says on -- I'm reading from your contract, on the date the general wage adjustments are granted generally to Collier County employees, your base salary shall be modified to reflect the general wage adjustment granted to other employees. MR. FERNANDEZ: Correct. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: But it was not -- MR. FERNANDEZ: But we did not grant a general wage increase this year. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Remember, we didn't do it across the board. MR. FERNANDEZ: It's based on performance. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: We're doing merit. MR. FERNANDEZ: The only -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Nobody was guaranteed anything in this organization -- MR. FERNANDEZ: It was all based on performance. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- as of October 1. It was based on performance. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Is that -- are we on the right track, Ms. Edwards? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: She nods in the affirmative. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: She acknowledges that's correct. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: So the question here before us is to -- and actually, there are four options. One option is no wage increase, the other three are listed at 1.78 percent, 3.25 percent and 3.96 percent. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: That's correct. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I met with Mr. Fernandez and told him that I had been very satisfied with his work this year; that I had hoped for more innovative leadership, more professional opinions on items, even if I disagreed with him, that I wanted to hear those. Interestingly, he had already come to some of those same conclusions, that based on the way our board works, that that is an appropriate and necessary thing to do. Based on last year, I would give him a good evaluation, and have every reason to think that those problems that I did have are already in the correction mode. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Norris? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Good. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: All right, Commissioner Norris says good. Commissioner Constantine? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I had a number of things, and I'll provide each of you with a written copy of my comments. But I had a number of things. And I'll just hit on some highlights that I have some real concerns with. I think Mr. Fernandez is a good man and a decent man, and his integrity is good, and all the questions we had in here regarding ethics or integrity or commitment to the community and so on, I don't have any problem with at all. I did have some, though, specific -- I won't go through all of them, but I want to hit two or three of them where I had some specific concerns. And question number two was responds to the Board of County Commissioners in a prompt, thorough and appropriate manner. I've been very frustrated with this in that some of the information -- and we've talked about this -- but we have regular weekly meetings, as I did with Mr. Dorrill for five years before he left. And we go through our little checklist, as I'm sure each of you do, and have specific questions and want specific information. And as often as not, it seems I need to prompt multiple times week after week in order to get some information. Some information has come back faulty, incorrect, and it has become a struggle at times to get complete accurate information in a timely manner. Ironically, that happens at the same time where he's expressed some concern about our contact directly with some of the division administrators. And so while -- and I understand we're not to give them direction, but we ought to be able to get information. And he's very sensitive to that. It's just frustrating to not get that information back, and also have some indications he'd prefer us not ask those questions directly of staff. And so we need a lot of work there on actually getting accurate and timely information back. I think one of the good things, he -- one of the criticisms we often had of Neil was not being available to the media and not as available to the public. And Bob is everywhere. I see him at events all over, EDC, Chamber, makes himself available for public speaking, is very, very accessible to that. The only downside to that is sometimes I am concerned if anything gets neglected here as far as detail items. And -- but I'm very happy to have a county administrator who is out and readily available to the public and a part of that. I think that's more than it used to be. I have some concerns that are similar to what Commissioner Mac'Kie had said, just as far as being able to express opinions and still following board direction, but speaking up and saying what he's comfortable with. I think there have been -- and I don't get into specifics here, but there have been some specific instances where there have been very poor judgments as far as use of employees, inappropriate activities. I say okay. If our choices are superior excellent and good, I say good. I think it's okay. I think it's average. I think we've got a number of areas, and he and I have gone through them in great detail and we don't need to do that publicly, but I think there are a number of areas in his management style that need some change and need some improvement. And we bill ourselves as a blue chip community, and if we're going to do that and if we're going to continue to boast as being one of the finest communities in the country, that we need to expect our -- what I call our CEO to be second to none. And I think there are a number of areas that we need to have some managerial improvement in order to earn that. So if we're -- if we need to choose from one of these, I'd agree with my colleagues, good. But I want Mr. Fernandez to have the message clear that while we think you're doing a good job, we're hoping a year from now to have that at a superior level, not at a good level. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Hancock? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, unfortunately when three have already been at one level, it -- you realize it really doesn't matter what you're about to say. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: You're exactly right. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: But I don't want to get caught up in the words of superior, excellent or good. I think the performance by the county administrator warrants a 3.25 percent increase, whether you attach the word excellent, good, fine, dandy or okay to that. I think his efforts are in the area of 3.25 percent salary increase, so I put my vote there. Let me share with you one of the things that I expressed with Mr. Fernandez. Like many of you, I think when you have anyone new come in the position, you have certain expectations and there are going to be style differences. I think Mr. Fernandez has strengthened a lot of areas that were previously seen as weak in the county administrator's office, and has taken a less authoritative approach and a more team approach to decisions, which is a tremendous change in style and has probably created as many problems within his office as it has solutions, because it is very, very different than the way things were run in the past. The reason I would rate him above good and closer to the excellent rating of 3.25 percent is simply because when I have felt there's been a deficiency or an error or a problem with Mr. Fernandez and I discussed it with him, I saw correction. I saw a willingness to step back to take a hard look at himself, to be critical of himself and to make the improvements he deems are necessary to correct what deficiency, if I could use that word, we have discussed. That to me is a relationship worth fostering and puts him above what I would call as average for me. So that's why I would support something of a 3.25 percent range, with an expectation that that be taken up a notch in the next year. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Well, I guess last but not least, I'll weigh in here, and I'm going to be different than all the rest of you. Having worked with a number of administrators forthe last 14 years that I've been involved in public service, one of the most important things I think when you're working with someone in this particular kind of situation is that the person who sits in that administrative seat, that you have the honesty and integrity. I think that is most critical. And to be able to trust the individual that's sitting there. That is one particular individual that should not play politics. And that early on -- and I discussed this with Mr. Fernandez, that early on there were times when we were getting our summaries coming before us and there were a couple of times when there wasn't a recommendation. That was noted. And from that point on it changed. I mean -- and I think that is one thing that's critical for any administrator, to see how they deal with a problem when it's brought to their attention. And there was no hesitation, but it immediately was addressed. And I think that says a lot about the person that sits in that seat. And if you have a person sitting there that you can't trust and that has no integrity, then I think you have a serious problem. And we are very fortunate in Collier County to have an individual such as Mr. Fernandez. There's going to be a variation in management style. There's absolutely no question that our previous administrator, who had 17 years in Collier County, is certainly going to be a different administrator than a person who comes in from a different part of the state and suddenly is cast into this particular role. So though many of you, you obviously -- everybody looks at things differently. I look at Mr. Fernandez as a superior administrator from the standpoint of him being in that office, a trust in that office, a recommendation coming out of that office that what he tells us is based on his best judgment. You can't ask for anything more than that. That is his best professional judgment that comes out of that office. Now, his management style among the employees is going to be different. He's a -- everybody's an individual. If you went out here and took everyone that's still remaining in this room, every person would handle that seat a little bit differently, because it's an individual and a style difference. Certainly I would hope that the honesty and integrity would be the same among all of you. But at any rate, I think that is an absolute major plus in our administrator. And I think that we need to recognize that. So having said that, I told you my rating was a superior and a large part of that is based on that particular part of the evaluation. I think -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, does this work that there are three votes for 1.78 so that's what it is? I guess that's our only option. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Either that or you can average it out, too. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's what I was wondering about. It seems to me you would -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Weight them? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- weight them and give an average. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We could, or we could just vote the way we do with everything else. Could I ask a question -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Sure. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- of my fellow commissioners? I don't know if each of you gave a written evaluation, but seeing where CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I sat down and spoke with Mr. Fernandez. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I didn't do a written evaluation. The form didn't speak to the issues that I needed to discuss with him, so I didn't find it useful. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I guess it just --if you did -- and I've actually seen Commissioner Hancock's, and I don't know if Commissioner Norris did a written evaluation, but it would be helpful for me, too, to know what you all's concerns are specifically. And we don't have the luxury of doing that in private. And there may be things you're not comfortable with discussing on a Tuesday on television. So if you have a written one, I'd just love to see a copy of whatever you have, because it just helps me in seeing if those areas we think need improvement we're all in agreement or we're all different. Or I think it helps understand what we're looking for. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Basically what I said right here is what I said. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah, same with me. And I'll tell you, too -- besides the fact that that camera's jumping up and down. Do you see that? That's so strange. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Somehow, I hadn't noticed it, Pam. I don't know why. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I think it would be appropriate instead of a flat three to two kind of a vote that we do a proportionate weighting of all of our evaluations. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: It works out to 2.5 percent. If you weight each one equally, the average of what has been proposed is 2.5 percent. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: 2.5 percent? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Correct. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Is that adding all those up, Tim, and then -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: It's adding all five and dividing by five. It comes out to 12.55 total points divided by five is 2.5 percent. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Of course, I could alter mine to a zero and bring that average back down to 1.78. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm going to make a motion for a 2.5 percent raise. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll second that. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay, we've got a motion and a second. All -- if there's no further discussion, all in favor? Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries five-zero. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And we would be done, except for somebody added on. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yes, somebody did. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: That was an add-on. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Oh, yeah, that was an add-on. Item #1 OF DISCUSSION AND DIRECTION REGARDING THE GOLF TOURNAMEMENT CONTRACT - COUNTY ATTORNEY TO WORK WITH CLERK OF COURTS AND STATE ATTORNEY RE MISAPPROPRIATION OF FUNDS AND REPORT BACK CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay, moving on then to item 10(F). Commissioner Hancock. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Many of you have expressed, as I have, a level of frustration on hearing kind of second and third-hand information on what is or isn't going on with the whole Stadium Naples deal. As I read through the report from the state attorney's office, that was the first thing I have seen in writing based on research that said we believe there is a problem. What I think we ought to do as a board is rather than sitting and waiting to hear on what the clerk is or isn't doing, this is a contract between this commission and an entity. I think we have the legal responsibility to pursue what is shown as a deficiency in fulfillment on the other side of that contract. Based on the state attorney's report, as a response to the matters that were brought up surrounding Commissioner Norris, apparently funds were used to pay prize money. And in fact if that was the case, that that's a complete and total breach of that contract. And I would like to ask the board to give direction to the county attorney's office to pursue gathering the appropriate information in pursuit of the necessary litigation, if that in fact is true, as our point person to make sure the requirements of that contract are met. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I guess I would agree if he's a point person working with the clerk -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thank you. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- because the clerk has put at least a year into looking at this and I don't know that it makes sense to talk -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It's please don't do it again. What I -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: No, what -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- wish -- let me just say this, that the clerk is going to pursue the remedies he's going to pursue and he's told us that all along, and it doesn't matter. But there are some remedies that are only available to us, and those are contract remedies. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Correct. And my feeling is, if there are areas that are strictly the perusal of the clerk of courts, those are his to follow without any direction from us, but we were the ones who signed that contract, we are the ones going to pursue the contractual remedies there, and that is the relationship that we solely have that the clerk does not share, and it's through the county attorney's office that we need to execute any action in that. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But through the county attorney's office what I would hope is that we would request that the clerk -- that we combine our efforts with the clerk and not do something separate. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I was going to ask you earlier, obviously if the clerk would provide us what information he has, then we should request that. And I think Mr. Weigel will need that. My point is that we had a contract. If the other party defaulted on that contract, I think we have a responsibility to the taxpayer, now that evidence has at least been presented, to pursue that. And I would like to give that specific direction by way of motion to the county attorney. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Mr. Weigel? MR. WEIGEL: Thank you. I think that the county attorney, county attorney office, can certainly assist this board in regard to contract remedies and go a long way toward answering -- assisting toward finding the answers to the questions, and, in fact, ultimately pursuing the appropriate legal mechanisms to reach solutions that may be recommended after additional review. I will ssy, though, thst this msybe isn't unlike chsrging the county 8ttorney to become 8n independent prosecutor or independent counsel to do the review 8nd then do whst's necesssry to go to court. Thst's 8 very extensive project. And I would suggest thst bssed upon the prior communicstions thst I've hsd with the clerk, 8nd I believe thst the clerk hss hsd with the commissioners, thst it's probsbly best hsndled in 8 symbiotic relstionship where thst I represent your interests in probsbly the specisI wsy thst the county 8ttorney does. I'm your contrsct employee, the clerk is not. The clerk msy hsve issues thst hsve become 8ppsrent to him or 8re recognized by him through his 8nd his stsff's 8nd his outside consultsnt's 8udit expertise, which quite frsnkly neither I or the 8ttorneys hsve. If I hire consultsnts, I csn come to hsve thst expertise, but I think thst we're best working together with him to minimize costs '- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I think whst I hesrd Commissioner Hsncock 8sking, 8nd you csn clsrify this if I'm wrong, but is just let the clerk do his job, let him 8nd his people do the 8uditing thing thst you described, but 8ct 8s our point person 8nd desI with our interest there, becsuse 8s Commissioner Msc'Kie ssid, if there 8re some things thst the clerk comes 8cross thst only csn be corrected through 8ction of the bosrd -- IV1R. WEIGEL: Thst's right. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- we ought to hsve 8 point person out there bringing thst informstion bsck to us. And I think thst's whst COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And I'm going to be -- IV1R. WEIGEL: And I will inform you -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You be thst person. IV1R. WEIGEL: -- I would inform you, I think we're 811 8wsre, thst the clerk does not necesssrily look to the bosrd for 8uthorizstion to sue on behsIf of monies thst he deems '- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No, of course not. IV1R. WEIGEL: -- msy be due to the bosrd. And from thst stsndpoint, I expect thst I, 81though working with him 8nd look forwsrd to working with him, will not control whether he sues first or if I come bsck to 8dvise the bosrd 8bout different types of suits or whether it's in with the stste 8ttorney office to proceed or else-wise. I mention it to you here thst I'll work 8s csrefully 8nd csutiously 8s I csn with him, 8s well 8s closely with you 811, but there'll probsbly be 8 type of independence thst will continue to exist here, 8nd we'll do the best we csn. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: The reason '- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: The question I have -- rm sorry. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: The reason for my motion was that the clerk of courts, being an independent constitutional officer, may choose his own path. We don't know what that does or doesn't include, nor do we have any say over what it should or shouldn't include. My point is that we had a contract. The state attorney's report has indicated for the first time somebody, thank God, put something in writing that indicated a -- the potential for misappropriation of funds. That's something we should take seriously, and that's something that we should have one of -- somebody answerable to this board as the point person in pursuing that matter for us, going about that to work closely with the clerk's office, the state attorney's office and whatnot to get to that end, but we need someone answerable to us I think pursuing the elements that appear to have been misappropriated in that contractual relationship. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm just not ready at this point to say, you know, that we're not -- that the clerk's action is not going to be sufficient. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: That's not what I'm saying. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. Because let me just say, this is the only thing I've been dying to say the whole time, is that I said that about that we have remedies that are contract remedies that are only available to us as contractors. However, there's nothing that prevents us, if the clerk would be willing to accept that, from asking the clerk to in addition to all of the other claims and complaints he's going to bring, to add our contract complaint to his suit. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Here's my problem with that -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I don't have a problem with that. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: The clerk is not a prosecutor. He may have been previously. He is not. He's a clerk of court. So he would then hire outside counsel to represent this board. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And David's telling you that you're talking about an undertaking that's so significant that you're going to have to add outside counsel anyway. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Agreed. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So let's don't have two sets. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: No, no, wait, wait. Are you saying that you want the legal representation of this board to be decided by a separate constitutional officer? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Working in conjunction with keeping us informed. I'm not worried about that. I don't-- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I am. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- think that we -- I'm not. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Would you clarify what your motion is? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: My motion is to give direction to the county attorney's office to work with the clerk of courts and the state attorney's office to pursue contractual remedies in the area of monies that may have been misappropriated regarding the golf tournament, period. That's my motion. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's fine. MR. WEIGEL: Okay. And I'll-- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Does pursue -- what does pursue mean? I mean, does it mean that he's going to just advise us? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Without having all the information I can't say pursue means go to trial, I can't say pursue means fact finding. What I'm saying is it's time to bring some of that direction in-house where we have someone answerable to us as a part of that process. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Would it be correct to say you just want someone directly representing the interest of the board on top of the issues? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: That's precisely what I'm trying to say. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's fine. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Not that the clerk is not doing that or doing it good. The point is, it's a separate constitutional officer, that was our contract. We have a responsibility to the taxpayer, and I don't think we're fulfilling it unless we're involved. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Because there are other contractual questions. I mean, the prize -- the purse money was one. There are -- there are other contractual problems that showed up in the state attorney's report. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Then we will know those things. But we have to have somebody looking into it on our behalf, and I think that person logically is our county attorney. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And I'm comfortable with your motion if what you intend is for him to be our point person and to report back to us. But we're not authorizing action today, decisions -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: We can't authorize action today, we don't know where it's headed. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. You want to make that -- that's a motion? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I think I did. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'll second it. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay, we've got a motion and a second. All in favor? Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries five-zero. Item #14 EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT DIRECTOR PINEAU RE UPDATE ON TROPICAL STORM MITCH Mr. Pineau, I see you sitting here. I bet you want to say something to us. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Mitch is back. MR. PINEAU: Well, I don't want to say it, but unfortunately, they sent an Air Force weather reconnaissance aircraft out into the Bay of Kampuchea this afternoon, and they reported winds at flight level of about 55 knots, so they have renamed it again. It's back to Tropical Storm Mitch. It's forecast to go across the Yucatan during the night tonight and probably weaken back down to a tropical depression, but it's also forecast to move this way. Now, some of the models are diverging. One of them has it going up into the Tampa Bay area, another one has it down through the Straits. So at any rate, I think that we can look for some copious amounts of rainfall over the next 36 to 48 hours. I think by this time Thursday afternoon things should start improving, but we run the risk of rainfall amounts somewhere in the neighborhood of four to five inches if this thing comes pretty close to us. And also, coastal flood watch. We're also at lunar high tide the next couple of days. That will create some additional problems for our public works people. And there's also the risk of tornadoes. What we're trying to do is eliminate the perception, though, that this would turn into a major hurricane once again. People look at Mitch as a Category Five hurricane, and it's not going to be that. We may have tropical storm force winds, but that's essentially it. I don't think the need to shelter or to evacuate anybody -- that shouldn't be a problem right now. It's going to be primarily flooding. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Would you tell the court reporter who you are? MR. PINEAU: Yes. Ken Pineau, Collier County emergency management. Sorry. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you very much. I appreciate your coming. MR. PINEAU: So we'll be watching. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you. Okay. We're at the -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: End of our meeting. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: We're at the Ty Agoston portion of our agenda. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Well, and Ty's not here, so I don't think we can do that. Well, then we'll move on over. Mr. Weigel, do you have anything to report to us today? MR. WEIGEL: No, thank you. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Mr. Fernandez? MR. FERNANDEZ: Yes, Madam Chairman, I'd just like to announce that we will have coverage of the election tonight on Channel 54, starting at 7:00. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Great. Very good. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Carl Loveday once again donating his time for the betterment of society. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Is he donating his time? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Mac'Kie, do you have anything to add? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No, ma'am. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Norris? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I wouldn't dare. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Constantine? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Absolutely not. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: No, ma'am. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Hancock? The only thing I have to add, and I'm going to take the liberty of doing this. I have now been made the grandmother again of two beautiful little girls. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Twins. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Abigail Patricia and Ellie Marie. They were born -- they're 10 days old and they're just great. So anyway -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Congratulations. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you, I'm extremely pleased. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I guess so. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: With that, the meeting's adjourned. ..... Commissioner Constantine moved, seconded by Commissioner Hancock and carried unanimously, that the following items under the Consent and Summary agendas be approved and/or adopted: ..... Item #16A1 FINAL PLAT OF CAPRI COMMERCIAL CENTER Item #16A2 FINAL PLAT OF PELICAN STRAND REPLAT-6 WITH CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT AND STIPULATIONS Item #16A3 DUPREE EXCAVATION PERMIT NO. 59.657 LOCATED IN SECTION 4, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 28 EAST; BOUNDED ON THE NORTH BY 58TH AVENUE NE R/W, ON THE SOUTH BY 56TH AVENUE NE R/W, ON THE WEST AND EAST BY VACANT LOT - WITH STIPULATIONS Item #16A4 CARNIVAL PERMIT NO. 98-7, PASTOR JOSEPH SPINELLI OF ST. ELIZABETH SETON CATHOLIC CHURCH, REQUESTING A PERMIT TO CONDUCT A CARNIVAL FROM NOVEMBER 11 THROUGH NOVEMBER 15, 1998, AT 5325 28TH AVENUE S.W., GOLDEN GATE, FLORIDA Item #16A5 RESOLUTION 98-428 THROUGH 98-432 PROVIDING FOR ASSESSMENT OF LIEN RE CODE ENFORCEMENT CASE NOS. 70521-001, THOMAS MELVIN ALLMON III & KENNETH DEAN ALLMON, 71203-115- EDWARD LEROY & MELINDA ANNE WILSON, 80122-028 - DOMINGUEZ ESTATE, JULIO C/O JOHN R DOMINGUEZ; 80205-010 - M BUTRTAZZONI; 802230-024 - GILBERT & MARTHA MENDES & ANTONE MENDES Item #16A6 RESOLUTION 98-433 THROUGH 98-437 PROVIDING FOR ASSESSEMENT OF LIEN RE CODE ENFORCEMENT CASE NOS. 51129-016 - PAL BORGERSEN JR; 60509-019 - SYLVIA S. MILLER; 70820-060 CLIFF THIELEKE; 71210-018 - DINA SINNING; 71216-021 - JT GAUNT Item #16A7 RESOLUTION 98-438 ESTABLISHING AN AD HOC COLLIER COUNTY CENSUS 2000 COMPLETE COUNT COMMITTEE Item #16A8 PETITION VAC 98-022 TO DISCLAIM, RENOUNCE AND VACATE THE COUNTY'S AND THE PUBLIC'S INTEREST IN A PORTION OF A PARCEL OF LAND CONVEYED TO COLLIER COUNTY AS A DRAINAGE EASEMENT LOCATED IN THE STERLING OAKS SUBDIVISION - WITH QUIT CLAIM DEED Item #16A9 RESOLUTION 98-439 EXTENDING THE TERM OF MARCO A. ESPINAR TO SERVE ON THE ENVIROMENTAL ADVISORY BOARD FOR AN ADDITIONAL 'I'VVO MONTH PERIOD (DECEMBER 30, 1998) OR UNTIL THE SUCCESSOR ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD IS CREATED Item #16A10 BUDGET AMENDMENT TO COVER PERMITTING COSTS FOR 35 UNITS TO BE BUILT BY THE COLLIER COUNTY HOUSING AUTHORITY IN IMMOKALEE IN THE AMOUNT OF $13,909.00 Item #16A11 - MOVED TO ITEM 8A4 Added - Item #16A12 FINAL PLAT OF "THE SHORES AT BERKSHIRE LAKES, PHASE TWO" - WITH CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT AND STIPULATIONS Item #16B1 BUDGET AMENDMENT FOR DEVELOPER CONTRIBUTION BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY AND TRG NAPLES, LTD IN THE AMOUNT OF $433,981.00 Item #16B2 BID #98-2859 AWARDED TO MWM SOUTH INCORPORATED FOR INSTALLATION OF A RECLAIMED WATER POND LINER SYSTEM IN THE AMOUNT OF $148,300.00 Item #16B3 COUNTY ATTORNEY DIRECTED TO AMEND ORDINANCE 90-111 TO REDUCE THE PELICAN BAY MSTBU ADVISORY COMMITTEE TO THIRTEEN MEMBERS AND THE VOTING AND QUORUM REQUIREMENTS ACCORDINGLY Item #16B4 BUDGET AMENDMENT TRANSFERRING FUNDS FROM RESERVES TO EXPENDITURES WITHIN FUND 139 FOR STORMWATER SWALE MAINTENANCE AND WATER QUALITY MONITORING IN NAPLES PARK Item #16B5 ADVANCEMENT OF NAPA BOULEVARD ACCESS IMPROVEMENTS PURSUANT TO THE NAPA BOULEVARD PINE RIDGE ROAD AGREEMENT- V GROUP OF FLORIDA, INC., ON BEHALF OF THE DEVELOPER TO SOLICIT BIDS FOR CONSTRUCTION AND PERFORM THE CONSTRUCTION ON BEHALF OF THE COUNTY Item #16B6 BID #98-2844 AWARED TO ENVIRONMENTAL CARE, INC., FOR THE DAVIS BOULEVARD MSTD GROUNDS MAINTENANCE IN THE AMOUNT OF $53,696.00 Item #16C1 BUDGET AMENDMENTS FOR PREVIOUSLY AUTHORIZED FUNDING OF THE GOLDEN GATE FITNESS CENTER IN THE AMOUNT OF $218,305.00 AND $55,000.00 FOR THE BAYVIEW LIGHTING PROJECT Item #16C2 AMENDMENT OF THE COCOHATCHEE RIVER MARINA CONCESSION AGREEMENT Item #16D1 MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE FLORIDA WING OF THE CIVIL AIR PATROL AND COLLIER COUNTY FOR DISASTER RELATED SERVICES Item #16D2 COMPETITIVE PROCESSS WAIVED AND CURRENT INVENTORY OF ECG/12 LEAD MONITORS WITH PYSIO-CONTROL LIFE PACK 12SL MONITORS TO BE REPLACED Item #16E1 BUDGET AMENDMENTS 99-005, 99-007, 99-009, 99-012 AND 99-014 Item #1661 MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE - FILED AND/OR REFERRED The following miscellaneous correspondence as presented to the Board of County Commissioners has been directed to the various departments as indicated: Item 16H1 BUDGET AMENDMENT RECOGNIZING FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION GRANT AWARD #J7-99-06-06-01 IN THE AMOUNT OF $100,400.00 Item #16H2 ACCEPTANCE OF COPS (MAKING OFFICER REDEPLOYMENT EFFECTIVE) MORE 98 AWARD Item #1611 STIPULATED FINAL JUDGMENT RELATIVE TO THE EASEMENT ACQUISITION ON PARCEL NO. 101; AND THE LAWSUIT ENTITLED COLLIER COUNTY VS. COLLIER DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, ET AL., CASE NO. 96-4052-CA-01 (NAPLES PARK AREA DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENT MUNICIPAL SERVICE BENEFIT UNIT PROJECT) There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 4:05 p.m. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS CONTROL BARBARA B. BERRY, CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK These minutes approved by the Board on , as presented or as corrected TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING SERVICE, INC., BY CHERIE' R. LEONE, NOTARY PUBLIC