Loading...
BCC Minutes 12/13/1994 RREGULAR MEETING OF DECEMBER 13, 1994, OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COHMISSIONERS LET IT BE REHEHBERED, that the Board of County Commissioners in and for the County of Collier, and also acting as the Board of Zoning Appeals and as the governing board(s) of such special districts as have been created according to law and having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 a.m. in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following CHAIRMAN: VICE-CHAIRMAN: members present: ALSO PRESENT: Timothy J. Constantine Bettye J. Hatthews John C. Norris Tim Hancock Pam Hac'Kie Neil Dotrill, County Hanager Ken Cuyler, County Attorney CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Good morning. Welcome to the December 13th meeting of the Board of County Commissioners. Mr. Dotrill, if you'd be so kind as to lead us in an invocation and in the Pledge to the Flag. MR. DORRILL: Heavenly Father, we thank you again this morning during this holiday period and we thank you at this time for what the holidays mean to a variety of our citizens in religious faiths in this community. Father, we would ask that we pause and reflect during the holidays on the true meaning of Christmas and what it means to each and everyone one of us. Father, it is our prayer this morning that you guide the hand and the deliberations of these County Commissioners as they make important business decisions that affect our county and that you would bless our time here together. We pray these things in your Son's holy name. Amen. (The Pledge of Allegiance was invoked in unison.) ITEM #2A AGENDA AND CONSENT AGENDA - APPROVED WITH CHANGES CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: I understand we've got a couple of changes here, just a couple of changes to this morning's agenda. Very few. MR. DORRILL: Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners. I have only two changes this morning. I have an add-on line. It will be under Utilities, which is an update on several utility billing issues. These, for the new commissioners, the utility billing system has had problems in the past and we've got what we think is a good handle on that, but we would also like to get some direction concerning the current commission billing procedure in the utility accounts. That would be 8D-1. As I indicated last week, we want to continue item 8H-1 so that it coincides with an almost identical item for the North County Regional Waste Water Effluent System so that we can discuss both effluent issues at next week's meeting. And so we will continue, for one week, item 8H-1. One agenda note. Our office has received a request that item 10B be heard immediately following the proclamation's presentation and budget amendments in order to accommodate the schedule of a number of members of the Council of Economic Advisors that are here this morning. The report will be fairly brief. I have two items that I'm going to bring up at Staff Communications at the conclusion of today's meeting and I will discuss those at an appropriate time. And that's all that I have, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Mr. Cuyler, any changes? MR. CUYLER: No, sir, no other changes. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: COHMISSIONER NORRIS: CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Commissioner Norris? Nothing further. Commissioner Hancock? Nothing. Commissioner Hac'Kie? No. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Matthews? COHHISSIONER MATTHEWS: Oh, well. When I received, through the agenda, item 12- -- Let me see, which one was it. -- 9, it indicates that it's a companion item to the Parkway Center PUD. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Is that 12C-97 COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Yeah. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Right. Okay. Yeah, it must be. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Yeah. I didn't see anything in here for the Parkway Center PUD amendment specifically called that. I mean, it might be called something else. MR. TODD: It's a presentation. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Good morning, Mr. Todd. MR. TODD: That companion item has been continued. It's not a companion item to 12C-9. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Should this item then be continued as well? MR. TODD: No, it's been determined that they don't relate. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Okay. MR. TODD: One doesn't have to go with the other. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I'm little bit concerned because the Executive Summary does say companion item, and I would either like to have something to tell us it's definitely not related or continue it until the companion item does come. MR. TODD: Okay. MR. HOOVER: Could I address that item? Bill Hoover from Hoover Planning. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Go ahead. MR. HOOVER: We've submitted a PUD amendment to the Parkway Center PUD, and the applicants would like to see what happens on the vacation so we can take care of that in the PUD. And we've got some other things that we wanted to clean up in that. So they do not have a problem. And the County Staff, we've talked with them. The PUD amendment is planned on going to the Planning Commission the end of January and would come to you guys in early February. So what we're doing is vacating the alley and would be adding that to the PUD. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And that can't happen at the same time, though? I mean, those two things couldn't come before us at the same time? Is there a reason for them to come separately? MR. HOOVER: They just wanted the -- This particular petition here was able to just go through the process faster than the PUD amendment. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, I think the concern of the other board members is probably the same one that I have is that these should be companion items because if the PUD amendment is not approved, then the alley should not be vacated at that point, correct? MR. HOOVER: Well, correct, except the alley vacation is running. That's the first one that you would be looking at that we have scheduled for today. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Would the Board be more uncomfortable if these are companion items when the other item comes back? COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I would be, yes. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: It makes sense to me, and that's how we'll do it. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Unless there's some severe hardship to the petitioner, I would be comfortable. MR. HOOVER: That's fine with us. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Okay. We'll continue that item until whenever that other one comes back to us. MR. DORRILL: Russ, do we have a date on that? Is it going to be past five weeks? MR. TODD: Yes, that was a concern. We have a five-week window due to the advertising on the vacation. And the PUD amendment is when, Bill? MR. HOOVER: It's scheduled for the second Planning Commission date in January and the first BCC date in February. MR. TODD: We missed it. So we will have to -- MR. DORRILL: Why don't we do this. Why don't we continue it for five weeks if it needs to be re-advertised. For the Board's information, we have a resolution that continued items can only be continued five weeks. Then they need to be re-advertised. Let's continue it for five weeks. If it goes past that, it'll need to be re-advertised. You'll need to figure out what happening. You may have to re-advertise it before we get to the five weeks. MR. HOOVER: Thanks. MR. DORRILL: Thank you. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: If there are no others changes, we need approval of the agenda and consent's agenda. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Motion is approved as altered. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Seconded. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: There's a motion and a second. All those in favor of the motion state aye. Motion carries 5-0. Item #3 MINUTES OF OCTOBER 18, 1994 REGULAR MEETING; OCTOBER 19, 1994 GOLDEN GATE WORKSHOP; OCTOBER 25, 1994 REGULAR MEETING; OCTOBER 26, 1994 SPECIAL MEETING; AND NOVEMBER 1, 1994 REGULAR MEETING - APPROVED AS PRESENTED We need approval of the minutes for October 18, 19 and 25 and November 1st. So moved. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Seconded. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Motion and a second. All those in favor, state aye. Anyone opposed? Motion carries 5-0. Item #4C1 PRESENTATION OF PHOENIX AWARDS Next item up. We have kind of a neat award, and we go through this -- Once a year or twice a year? COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I think it's once a year. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: And we have a group of men and women with us today who are literally lifesavers in the truest sense of the word. And we have what we refer to as the Phoenix Award. I just want to read a little background with one example in particular included. And where we get the name Phoenix: it's a mythological bird who died and rose, renewed from its ashes. And these folks have literally brought people back from death. The symbol of the Phoenix has been adopted by EHS Department of Collier County to recognize EHS paramedics who through their skills and knowledge have successfully brought back to life an individual who had died. Effective October 1, 1994, the BCC, Board of County Commissioners, approved a placement of an EHS station and paramedic unit in Everglades City. And on the night of November llth, 1994, Mrs. Sylvest drove her husband to the EHS station in Everglades City. Her husband was having tightness in his chest at the time. And shortly after his arrival, his heart and breathing stopped and he was a victim of what's referred to as sudden death. EHS paramedics worked quickly, utilizing the skills and expertise they've achieved; and within five minutes, Mr. Sylvest's heart started to beat again. He was released from the hospital thirteen days later and is here today to present the Phoenix Award to the paramedics who have given the gift of life to many members of our community. And Jorge Aguilera from our EHS Department will assist in that effort as well. If we could get you to use the microphone at the podium so we can have this on tape. MR. AGUILERA: Okay. Good morning. First, I wanted to call up Mike Goguen. Thomas Yanoti. Paul Miller, but Paul Miller was unable to be here today, so Vince Gore, Chief of Achopee Fire is here today to accept for him. John Poczynski. Commissioners, this presents the reality, that of a three-member crew, which is pretty much of a pioneer program that we've done up in Everglades with a three-member crew with John Poczynski being the backup with Hed Flight One. So for being a pioneer program, we're pretty happy at the success it's had already. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: You know, Jorge, every October we wrestle with our budget and what we're going to do and what we're going to do. It's kind of nice to come back a couple of months later and have somebody standing in front of us when we can say money well spent when we literally see that you all saved a life. MR. AGUILERA: Absolutely. Continuing on, Bill Richardson. Bill Peplinski. And Mike Goguen doesn't have to come up here again. Mike Goguen gets two. Kind of a busy year. Helen Ortega. Noemi Fraguela. Beau Nix. Kevin McDonald. Laurie Klingerman. Sandra Bailes. Cheri Wilson-Watson. Jackie Loy. And there were three more paramedics, again were unable to be here today, and I'll read their names. John Ludington, Erin Percival and Jo Hihalek rounds up the seventeen. (Applause.) MR. AGUILERA: Thank you. MS. FLAGG: Commissioners, on behalf of the EHS Department, I just want to thank you for the community's lives that you've entrusted us with. And we'll be back many more times because our colleagues take saving lives very seriously. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Diane Flagg, you and your folks do a great job. MS. FLAGG: Thank you. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Thank you. Item #4C2 RECOGNITION OF DIANE FLAGG BY THE MARCO ISLAND TAXPAYERS ASSOCIATION COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Norris. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Sort of in conjunction with this item, Dr. Byles from the Marco Island's Taxpayer's Association is here to make her own presentation. If we can allow her and Dr. Lorenz. DR. BLYES: Yes. Good morning, Commissioners. You've seen what these wonderful EHS people do, and we think many times that the administrators of such programs don't get enough recognition. And so today we have a special recognition for Diane Flagg. If you'd come up, Diane. The Marco Island Taxpayers Association takes great pleasure in recognizing Diane Flagg, the Collier County Emergency Medical Services Director. Accordingly, by unanimous vote of the Board of Directors of the Marco Island Taxpayers Association, it is resolved that Diane Flagg be honored as the Association's Collier County Employee of the Year, 1994. Last year, HITA decided that each year they were going to give an award to the county person employee that did a lot with cost-effective programs. So this year, through her exemplary management of the American Emergency Medical Services Department and her dedication to providing the very best services to the residents of Collier County at the lowest cost, she has reflected those qualities of leadership and physical responsibility that should be emulated by all those involved in the unselfish provision of public services. Given this 13th day of December, 1994. Thank you. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Thank you. (Applause). MS. FLAGG: Thank you. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Diane, congratulations. MS. FLAGG: Thank you. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: And Mr. Sylvest, you take care of yourself, too. You tested them once. Please, don't ever give them that test again. Take good care of yourself. Item #5 BUDGET AMENDMENTS 95-74/79 AND 95-91 - ADOPTED Next up, we have the budget amendments. Mr. Smykowski (phonetic). MR. SYHKOWSKI: Good morning, Mr. Chairman. For the record, Mike Smykowski, Acting Budget Director. There are several different budgets on the budget amendment report this morning. Six are merely placing funds in a project number account for proper accounting and cost tracking. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Questions on the budget amendments? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Motion to approve it. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Seconded. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: All those in favor of the motion, state aye. Any opposed? Motion carries 5-0. MR. SYHKOWSKI: Thank you. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Thank you. Item #10B PROGRESS REPORT ON THE COUNCIL OF ECONOHIC ADVISORS - COUNCIL DIRECTED TO DEVELOP ECONOMIC PLAN TO BE PRESENTED TO THE BCC Item 8B-l: Recommendation to award a contract for construction of County-wide Pathways to the Richards Company. MR. DORRILL: Excuse me. At your discretion, we were going to -- CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Oh, that's right. I'm terribly sorry. Sorry, Jorge. The progress report on the Council of Economic Advisors. Item 10C. MR. DORRILL: Jim Loskill, who is -- CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Jim Loskill, you're going to be tracked here all day. MR. LOSKILL: I'm not used to such an exciting life as you all know. We do appreciate you taking us out of order, and it's a pleasure to be here to introduce our first report to the Chairman and the Commissioners. I hope you've had an opportunity to review it. We've been busy over the last four months familiarizing ourself with the issues which are many more that might seem on the surface of the issue of economic development, organizing and seeking various forms of input and trying to define the issues which I think will be far reaching. We have a meeting twice a month as to give a report in the report. And our goals are being defined and we've recorded those in the report also for you. At the end of our report, we do request some clarification on a couple of items which I believe are set forth there and also ask for some support or at least a way to discuss how we might have that in the future. In the sake of brevity, I would be more than happy to just address the Commissioners' concerns or questions about the report and to not go into a lengthy discourse. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Questions for Mr. Loskill? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I do. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Miss Mac'Kie. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I had understood just from private discussions with the members of the Council that there was some question about clarity on what your mission was or that perhaps some further direction from the Board, some additional staff support might be useful. What can we do to endorse your mission and to let you know that we support it as strongly as we can? MR. LOSKILL: Well, I believe the first thing is you may recall that we were recently constituted as nine members with three alternates. Due to some notification issues, that was not possible. We recommended back to the Board that you allow all twelve people to serve. And I believe the notices are in process, and as they have been published, if you would support that, though, we would think that's an appropriate action. We presently have the able assistance of John Yonkowski as our mentor and guide through county government. But we do think that as we go forward in 1995, some level of administrative assistance would be appropriate, and we would ask some direction or at least we should talk with the county manager on how we might provide that. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It would seem to me appropriate that as you said, Mr. Yonkowski is an able leader through the government process. I understand Barbara Cushone (phonetic) is working with you from a long-range -- MR. LOSKILL: Correct. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- planning perspective. And I would just ask you and Neil to work together to find out if we have qualified people on our staff from an economic background who might be able, also, to assist. I just want to get whatever support we can for your mission. I think we're behind and appreciate your willingness to help us catch up. MR. LOSKILL: Well, I believe that's a good point to make, because we are behind some of the competitors if you look at it that way and we do have a fair amount of work to gather all this information. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Mr. Hancock? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Loskill, are you also in need of some administrative assistance in the putting together of reports and so forth? MR. LOSKILL: Well, we feel so. John has been performing the function of recording secretary and publishing the notices we need to meet the Sunshine requirements. I just wonder if that's the best use of his time. As we go into 1995, we will be starting to draft some of the issues, and I think there's going to be a larger clerical burden and I'm just not sure where that should be lodged in county government, whether that's on Mr. Yonkowski's shoulders or whether it's on an administrative assistant in the planning. And I really haven't had a time to discuss that at length with Barbara Cushone, so it's not quite fair to her. But this is something new. This is something additional. So I think we need to think that through with the county manager's help to see how that's best dealt with. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. And, Mr. Yonkowski, I don't know what your typing skills are but we probably won't have you undertake that duty. The second part is -- and just a note for the Board -- as someone who's served on a committee, to have alternate members, there's no reason for it. So I can tell you right now, you have my support in having twelve full members and no alternates. I just don't think that's reasonable or needed. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: I think the old Board supported that concept. We just needed to go through the exercise of making it legal. MR. LOSKILL: I understand. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Jim, when I met with your council, one of the concerns was you didn't want to spend a year putting together a plan in one direction if that wasn't the direction the Board was comfortable with, and that was part of the reason why we wanted to have these quarterly reports. I shared with you at that time what my thoughts were, what direction I'd like to see, but I know you've talked with other commissioners as well and other people on our staff as well. And I wondered if you have kind of coalesced, kind of brought all that into one, for the lack of a better term, at least a general direction in which you're heading and what you're trying to accomplish in the nine or ten or twelve months. MR. LOSKILL: Thank you for framing the time frame more accurately than when we were appointed. I would think you need to go to our mission statement, which is a dynamic statement, because it's going to change. People keep asking us questions and until we get the input from the community, this is not the advisors' economic opportunity plan. This is the community's. And until we have the opportunity to go and speak with literally hundreds of those people in some process, we can't be backed into putting numbers down. This is about economic opportunity. We think we're talking in terms, basically, about a creation of job, enhancement of our economic stability and also trying to maintain, if not improve, the quality of life. Those would seem to be from our perspective at this point to be the main issues. And they're all woven into our mission statement under five subcategories which cover those, and so many of these things are interrelated. Quality shows up in almost every one of them, from capital sources to education to the quality of jobs. So it's going to be a very difficult job to define these and come back with recommendation of public policy, but that is our challenge as we see it today. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Is there a plan right now or do you need assistance from us in getting together with the public from various parts of the community? Do you intend to set up a little workshop in each segment of the community or are you just interviewing people -- I know you've met with people from East Naples Civic and so on. Do you intend to continue to do it in that fashion or is there any other -- MR. LOSKILL: At this point, we're at the very early stages of exploring. Whether we can be compatible with the visioning discussions that are in the community, it would seem to me it would be very effective. And the best way to participate in that, it may change timetables a little bit but I think it would be worth that if we could be part of that visioning process, reach a larger number of people and really set forth a comprehensive agenda with a lot of public support. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Can I? CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: I just strongly endorse your participating in that community visioning process. And one other bit of information that you can share with me is as you are gathering information from sources, I've become aware that Greg Mihalek, who's Affordable Housing, I don't know his title -- CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Guru. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah, guru. -- has some really interesting information as far as comparing haves and have-nots in Collier County and what their upward mobility opportunities are. It seems to me that has a great deal to do with what economic development is about. So I would urge the manager, to have him work with you if that's appropriate at some point and to tap that resource. MR. LOSKILL: And we would welcome his expertise and assistance. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Other questions for Mr. Loskill? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: A real short one. I have not had the opportunity to speak with your committee yet, understandably. But after I do, if you are getting five divergent directions from this Commission, we would like to know so that we can set up a workshop and put you -- put it all on one plate, if you will. There's no sense your having five directions when we can try and maybe put them together in a single, solid direction. I know that's what this Board wants. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Absolutely. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: So after talking to each individual, if we're sending you in different directions, let us know, like we wouldn't. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Did we do that? MR. LOSKILL: Not intentionally, I'm sure. There is one last matter. In the framing of the resolution that appointed us, there was language to the effect that we should help in the development of an economic plan for the County if so directed. And if that's part of your intention, then we'd appreciate to be so directed so that that piece is taken care of. It may just have been a little word sniffing but that's what that resolution said and -- CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Well, I guess what I envision -- and maybe the Board can work -- see if this is what they envision as well. As of right now, you all are kind of laying the groundwork. You've laid out somewhat of a mission statement there. And I think we can plant the seeds and several months from now be at the point where we can begin to shape that into an economic plan. And I don't know that that is the initial exercise that we're looking for you to do. However, I do -- personally, I think that's part of what we created the Council of Economic Advisors for was to help us get started in that endeavor because that's something we've all expressed an interest in. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I think it's real important at the beginning to know what you want the end result to be. And for my vote, I want the end result to be a plan. So if that's useful -- You know, if that's useful information, if it's possible for us to so direct at this meeting, I'd like to do that. Would that be an appropriate motion to make or -- CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: If you'd like to put it in the form of a motion, certainly. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I'd like to move that we direct the Council of Economic Advisors to come up with -- What's the word? COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Developing. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Create? COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Develop. Thank you. -- an economic plan. And then we'll decide whether or not it becomes -- COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Somebody get a thesaurus. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- we'll decide whether or not it becomes part of our comprehensive plan, but it will be a plan, that they are directed at this point to come forward with one. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Is there a second to the motion? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Discussion? COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Yeah. Bob, I was going to second it. I just wanted to comment that I believe the impetus for the Council came out of Strategic Planning last spring and that our ultimate goal at that time was to possibly move toward an economic element to the growth management plan. And in Strategic Planning, we've since decided that maybe we want a plan but we don't necessarily want it incorporated in our growth management plan, that DCA may come down and hammer us over the head with it. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Re-interpret. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Re-interpret what it is we said we were going to do. But I wholly support the idea that we need a plan. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Mr. Dorrill, do we have any speakers on this subject? MR. DORRILL: No, sir, you do not. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: In that case, we'll take the motion. All those in favor of the motion, please state aye. Anyone opposed? Motion carries 5-0. Mr. Loskill, thanks not only for today but for all the work. I know you folks have met often and done a lot of steps. MR. LOSKILL: The council has come together rather nicely and we're very proud of our small efforts so far. And we appreciate the Commission's support and we will look forward to being back on a frequent basis. Thank you. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Thank you. MR. DORRILL: There are a number of -- There are at least two, maybe three, members that are here. If Mr. Loskill would, first, help if he'd identify the total members. MR. LOSKILL: Henry Tribble and Allon Fish. MR. DORRILL: Thank you. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Thank you very much. A little trivia note, Allon Fish, native of Bank Goutmet. MR. DORRILL: Sir, we did have one speaker. Dr. Picowski (phonetic) is the speaker. I'm sorry, we just didn't -- swapping names and moving them forward. I didn't see -- but Dr. Picowski is -- CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Dr. Picowski. MR. DORRILL: I apologize. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Good morning. DR. PICOWSKI: I'm Jane Picowski, the Director of the Collier County Public Health Unit and, also, I'm a member of the Community Health Planning Council, I'm speaking on behalf of those today. My remarks will be brief and the purpose is to focus on the interrelationship -- and we heard that word just a little while ago -- interrelationship of a prosperous local economy with the health of its community. This is directly related to the health of individuals, families and neighborhoods in Collier County. And the key component include our living and working environments. People across the United States are embarking on missions to create healthier communities where they live and work, and this is something which I think a number of you have heard in the presentation a little while ago by the Naples Civic Association regarding the community visioning process that is being embarked through that group. Collier Community Health Planning Council is a voluntary organization and it consists of representatives from various groups throughout Collier County. It's just begun the planning process to develop a vision of health for Collier County. The chair of this planning group is Bill Morris, who is with the Naples Civic Association. And the obvious intent is that we will be collaborating with the Naples Civic Association in the whole community visioning process. And the vice chair is Dr. Charles Itel, the Medical Director of the Physician Hospital Organization. The Treasurer is Barbara Kent of the Community Foundation. Developing the vision of health is critical to answer the question: where do we want to go in Collier County? Mr. Henry Tribble of the Council of Economic Advisors is a member of the Health Visioning Planning Group. And there will be many people involved from throughout Collier County because it will be an inclusive process as we proceed through this through the next several months. Concurrently, information is being collected to give a report card, a health report card in Collier County. This will describe the current reality for Collier County, and this is done in collaboration with the University of South Florida. The gap then between that vision and where we are will be filled with the community health plan, the strategies and action plans of how to get there. Collier Community Health Planning Council will work very closely with the Council of Economic Advisors in creating a vibrant, local economy with a healthy community. Thank you. Item #SB1 RECOHMENDATION TO AWARD A CONTRACT FOR CONSTRUCTION OF COUNTY-WIDE PATHWAYS TO RICHARDS COMPANY - APPROVED; STAFF DIRECTED TO COMPLETE MAINTENANCE EVALUATION AND CHANNEL THROUGH PATHWAY ADVISORY COHMITTEE CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Thank you. If there's nothing else on that item, we'll move back to 8B-l: Recommendation to award a contract for construction of County-wide Pathways. Mr. Archibald, good morning. MR. ARCHIBALD: Good morning, Board Members. Agenda item 8B-1 involves a recommended contract award to build pathways in accordance with the County's Bid 94-2287. This agenda item was initiated by a Board item back in April the 12th of 1994 where we started out with approximately thirty-five miles of pathways that were identified as being needed. In June 28th of this year, we zeroed in on approximately those pathways that would provide direct benefit to schools, particularly some of the new schools. The total mileage there was a little less than ten miles. And based upon that direction the middle of the year, the staff went ahead and prepared the bids in August. And on October the 22nd, we opened bids. As outlined in your agenda item, the low bidder was the Richards Company out of Bonita Springs in the amount of $212,364. Of those dollars, it should be noted that the County currently only budgeted $100,000. So what your staff did was look at the budget item of 100,000 in comparison to the bid of over 200,000. And as we outlined in the agenda item, we reduced the number of projects and reduced the cost. And ultimately, as you've outlined on the agenda item and on those pathways that were continued, we've got a plan that's being recommended to the Board today that totals $100,823. And the budget item is supported by some road operations' fees to assure that there's sufficient funds to accomplish that work. Accordingly, the Board is being requested to recognize the deletion of the projects; and also of note, that most of the projects being deleted will be undertaken by the state under a state-funding program identified as part of your ISTEA Funding. And that project contract that is now being recommended represents a little less than four miles of bike ways and pathways, and it should be noted that the unit price is a little less than $34,000 per mile. Accordingly, the staff is not only recommending direction to authorize the Chairman to execute the contract in the amount -- in a reduced amount of $100,823 but also to recognize that the unit prices that are part of the contract, the unit prices for the subgrade and the bays and the asphalt surface, those contract prices are favorable to the County and that we would want to reserve approximately $6,000 for the purposes of allocating that contract to small, incompleted segments of bike ways throughout the county. Right now we've identified two locations: one off of Rattlesnake-Hammock and one off of Collier Boulevard on Marco that we would like to consider incorporating into the contract. With that, I'll be happy to address any questions the Board has. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Questions for Mr. Archibald? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Archibald, the projects that you're recommending to delete here for the time being, when do you expect that those will be completed by the state? MR. ARCHIBALD: Right now the state has a proposed road program that places those in, I believe, 1996-'97. So those are still, roughly, a year away from the start of construction. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. Then I believe I understood you to say that all the projects that you're recommending to be delayed today are nevertheless under consideration to being completed in the future under that program, under the ISTEA Program. MR. ARCHIBALD: Yes, they are. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. MR. ARCHIBALD: It should be noted that one of them is a developer commitment, a portion of a pathway along 32nd in Golden Gate City. With the exception of that, the other two, primarily, the Thomasson Drive project that serves the Avalon School, that particular project is identified under the ISTEA Program. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. Thank you.. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Are there any speakers on this? MR. DORRILL: No speakers. There's an item I read in some minutes yesterday I wanted to bring to the Board's attention. It may be a big issue in Pelican Bay. Apparently, at their last meeting, the Pelican Bay HSTU Advisory Board discussed the maintenance and condition of pedestrian and bicycle pathways within Pelican Bay. The original two or three single family areas in Pelican Bay were developed with asphalt bicycle and pedestrian path combinations, and this was their number one item reflected in the minutes at their last meeting. And a question was posed to Mr. Ward, who is their contract district manager, whether any of this had ever been coordinated with the County staff before the answer was known. So he has been directed to do that and apparently there's a large concern amongst that Board and certain residents in the old single family areas. And I just spoke to Mr. Hegsted (phonetic). Oakmont. The other one, is it Pinehurst? MR. HEGSTED: Pinecrest. MR. DORRILL: Pinecrest. Those areas in particular. And given the sensitivity about incorporation or annexation, someone has raised that issue, and I wanted to advise you that there is an issue concerning the current condition of those paths that are owned and operated by the Board of County Commissioners. So that if you see or read that in the next couple of days in the paper, apparently that came up at a meeting. It's separate issue. It was not included nor contemplated as part of this budget. There are no new paths. It's the condition of the paths that they have. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Mr. Dorrill, would the normal process for the concerns of the Pelican Bay Committee, would it be to submit their request to the Pathways Advisory Committee and have it ranked within their options? MR. DORRILL: Well, not only theirs, but I know that some of the original bike paths that we ever built were both on Marco Island and also Golden Gate City and leading to and from elementary schools was the original priority. And some of those may now be almost ten years' old, and I think perhaps we ought to do an evaluation, because the extent to which there are maintenance issues, at least in the minutes in the meeting, the primary concern seems to be tree roots that have grown through or underneath the bicycle paths and roller-blading in particular was mentioned as a possible liability. So I think we need to do an analysis of the current condition of our bicycle paths, bring that back to the Commission. That's more of a maintenance issue as opposed to a capital construction issue. I think it's an important -- It seems to be a concern in Pelican Bay, and I wanted to bring it to your attention just as part of this because it's something we need to work on. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: I think I agree with Commissioner Matthews. So the appropriate group to take that through would be the Pathways Advisory Committee. They're not strictly held back to capital projects. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: We could certainly, though, ask them if this was the first time that maintenance conditions has really come forward, and I haven't really heard about maintenance in the past, for them to take a look at that maintenance as a priority issue throughout the county. I mean, they've established the ranking for capital construction. Perhaps now we do need to ask them to take a look at maintenance and rank the pathways as they require maintenance so that we stay on top of it and keep them in the best shape that we can so that they don't -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Agreed. I do -- COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I mean, we've got to maintain capital. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I have similar conditions in the Vanderbilt Beach area, and I've heard similar complaints with regard to maintenance. So with that -- COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I'd like to make that motion. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I move that we approve the item before us, whose number has slipped me. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I'll second it. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: 8A, B. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Oh, there it is; 8B-1. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: 8B-1. There's a motion and a second. Any further discussion on that? Seeing none, all those in favor of the motion, say aye. Motion carries 5-0. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I'd like to make a separate motion that we direct our Pathways Advisory Committee to investigate the maintenance issue of pathways throughout the county and to give them a priority ranking similar to the capital project. MR. ARCHIBALD: If I could interject. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Mr. Archibald. MR. ARCHIBALD: Your transportation folks are doing an annual inspection of not only the roadways but also of the bike lanes and the sidewalks. We have a little over 300 miles that are inspected. Last year, we had allocated a little more than $22,000 for resurfacing. And what we can bring back to the Board as part of your annual road resurfacing program, it's not only the recommended priorities for road resurfacing by district but also the recommended priorities for pathways resurfacing. I recognize that there are a number of pathways in the Pelican Bay area and elsewhere that are scheduled for resurfacing, and I'd like to be able to bring back to the Board our priority list and available funding and we can discuss the difference between the needs and the funds. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Along the same lines of the difference between needs and funds, we've got a list of roughly twenty-eight members, maybe a couple more or a couple less, but twenty-eight priority pathways to be built around the county that we don't have any money for. Some of those I know we're waiting on ISTEA for. Three of us have been on the Board for a little over two years, and I've been hearing about this list of priorities for a little over two years. And I know we had to come up for money for our roadways first as a priority item, but I would like to see our staff as a part of this exercise to look and see if there are some creative ways to move along with that list. It seems each year we may be able to chip away at two or three of those, and then we have a number of those holding on ISTEA funds, but they seem to be holding and holding and holding. And it seems to me those at this point need to become a priority. We talked about alternative methods of transportation. We talked about people not utilizing their cars as much. We'll need to start providing some of those alternatives, and maybe we need to get a little creative on how we come up with the funding for those. But I'd like to see the staff come back with some alternatives for how we might be able to afford to get a majority of those anyway moving at this point. MR. ARCHIBALD: That happens to be one of your agenda items on the upcoming HPO meeting -- CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Right. MR. ARCHIBALD: -- along with that list for discussion. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Based on Mr. Archibald's input, Commissioner Matthews, your motion may need some modification that possibly the current work that the Transportation Services Department is doing regarding existing pathways be channeled through the Pathways Advisory Committee. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Certainly. The question that goes through my mind is that we have an advisory committee that's familiar with the whys and the wherefores of building pathways and certainly maintaining them. It makes very little sense to build something and not maintain it. And -- CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Do you want to reiterate what your motion is at this point? COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I'm going to alter it somewhat and make a motion that we direct staff to finish their evaluation of the maintenance and channel it through the Pathways Advisory Committee, and that the Pathways Advisory Committee produce a priority listing of the maintenance required to be done, and we'll have to discuss the cost of it at another day. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'll second that. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: There is a motion and a second. Any further discussion on that? Seeing none, all those in favor of the motion, please state aye. Anyone opposed? The motion carries by unanimous acclaim. Thanks, Mr. Archibald. Item #8C1 RECOHMENDATION THAT THE BOARD OF COLLIER COUNTY COHMISSIONERS REVIEW OPTIONS RE THE EAST NAPLES BRANCH LIBRARY PROJECT AND OTHER LLIBRARY CAPITAL PROJECTS - STAFF RECOHMENDATION APPROVED The next item, 8C-1: Recommendation that the BCC review options regarding the East Naples Branch Library Project and other Library Capital projects. Mr. Olliff, how are you? MR. OLLIFF: Very well, thank you. For the record, Tom Olliff, your Public Services Administrator. This item 8C-1 is in response to a previous Board direction that was actually responding to a proposal to move what is now the East Naples Branch Library to a location adjacent to the Edison Community College near 951 and U.S. 41. Rather than that, the Board's decision at that point was to leave the branch library location where it currently is but directed staff to go out and at least investigate adjacent commercial space in terms of a possible move of that library into existing available commercial space. In response to that, your Real Property Department received two proposals which are outlined roughly in your Executive Summary. The purchase price for the St. Andrews Square site, which if you're familiar with the East Naples Branch Library, it is directly adjacent to it. And, in fact, we were share an access easement way through that project into that branch library. Including the County's internal finish construction, the cost for that particular project will be about 1.2 million dollars, and that's f or 9,500 square foot of space. The other plaza which is located directly across the street, the purchase price for that was roughly $1,002,000; and that, again, is including County's internal finish construction costs, and that was for 9,164 square feet. The St. Andrews Square project actually lends itself a little better towards library construction simply because of the configuration of the space. It's a little wider. And in terms of being able to build a library within existing space, it works a little better for the County. For a little history, the capital improvement plan that currently exists had provided for Collier North to be expanded which the Board just cut the ribbon on last month. And the second project in the schedule was a Marco Island branch addition. However, because of a request from a great many residents in the Estates area, a donation of property and also a donation of cash towards the engineering design of a new branch library, the Board accelerated the construction of a branch library in the Estates. That library is scheduled to have its ribbon cut this coming January. So that's an ongoing project as of today which was put into the capital improvement plan a little ahead of schedule. Because of it was put in ahead of schedule, the revenue for that had to come from a commercial paper loan program, and the payment schedule for that is provided in your Executive Summary. Generally, the payments are being made the last half of last fiscal year, all of this fiscal year and through fiscal year 1996. So your revenues will be pledged for the payment of that Estates' Branch Library through 1996. The current plan continues to show Marco Island as your next branch scheduled for expansion. So the Board knows, our expansions are generally based on use statistics. The use statistics in this particular case, if you compare Marco Island to East Naples, clearly show that Marco Islnd is the branch that, based on statistics, needs to be expanded next. In terms of circulation per capita and in terms of visits per capita, Marco Island's statistics are generally in the neighborhood of two hundred times larger than our East Naples. It's a very, very busy branch. In addition, I think the Executive Summary outlines that there are some structural problems at the Marco Island Branch that we were trying to accomplish at the same time as that addition in construction. Your Library Advisory Board reviewed this item, and based on all the information that they were provided, recommended that the County Commission maintain its current capital construction schedule. In other words, having Marco Island Branch follow the Estates Branch as the next project. They did indicate -- and I think that recommendation is on page three of your Executive Summary there in bold print. There was a discussion and the staff has also had that discussion. If this particular project presents itself as simply a good business decision and it is cheaper to buy the existing commercial space, then it would be for the County to try and find a new location and build a new branch library. If it was determined to have the staff pursue that, that because there are greater priorities and because revenue are simply committed to probably for four years, that the funding source for that not come from library impact fees. That's just not a funding source that can support that. So generally what they were saying is if the Board wants to pursue that, they will recommend that a general fund reserve be used if that was what the Board chose to do. The recommendation in your Executive Summary is simply that the current capital construction schedule be maintained, that you continue to pay off your debt service for the Estates Branch and follow that with the Marco Island Branch. Just for general discussion so that the Board knows: the Library Advisory Board is talking about moving through another type of facility as well. The current branch libraries are roughly 7,000 square feet to 9,000 square feet and limit themselves in the size of a collection which you can have. We believe that the size of the community and your library system now warrants a move to a larger type of a library district type library where your professional libraries, the larger reference collection could be located and you can manage some of your branches out of a district library. And that plan will be coming to you for review probably as part of this year's growth management plan amendments. But our recommendation to you is that we currently leave that plan as is and that we pursue Marco Island construction in 1996. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: I'm not sure if it's settled with the original concept but that's not our discussion for today. Questions for our staff with regards to the East Naples Branch? Mr. Hancock. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Olliff, in a nutshell, the construction and moving ahead of the Estates Branch has basically consumed funds through 1996; is that correct? MR. OLLIFF: Correct. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: So that in 1997, we start at scratch when looking at funding for any expansion of the Marco Island Branch? MR. OLIFF: Correct. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. So sometime between now and the time I'm sixty-five, we might have enough funds to build a larger branch down there. MR. OLLIFF: This is all contingent on the pace of revenue of impact fees, and that has fluctuated greatly over the years. We try to be conservative as we can when we project impact fee revenues. So there may be an opportunity to be able to do some design work ahead of fiscal year 1997. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Any idea what the projection out of those impacts fees, and understanding they're variable, but what kind of time frame are we looking at to have the dollars before we spend them? MR. OLLIFF: Currently, on page four of your Executive Summary, we outlined from '96 through '99 what our projections are for impact fees. And if you were to begin in 1997, between '97 and '98, you would have the funds available to be able to do that expansion. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. MR. OLLIFF: Those two fiscal years. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Thank you. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Norris. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Olliff, assuming that we would go to a regional library system, just for the sake of assumption here today, this building that we have in East Naples would not be large enough; is that correct? MR. OLLIFF: Correct. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Is it large enough for our needs today as a little branch library? MR. OLLIFF: Yes, sir, I believe so. I believe the use statistics show that that current building can accommodate what's there. I think the only real issues we ever had at that particular location is when you have a large public meeting that uses the meeting room and then there is a parking issue. But in terms of library use, I think it handles it well. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: If there an opportunity perhaps on the large meetings to collimate the Thomasson Drive Community Park? MR. OLLIFF: Absolutely. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Meeting rooms there that would suffice. MR. OLLIFF: Absolutely. Both the meeting room space and the parking is much larger and accommodates those types of larger meetings. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I know in the past we've discussed perhaps converting the meeting rooms in the library to additional library space if that space becomes needed, but I think you're saying at this point in time, even that space is not necessarily needed. MR. OLLIFF: Right. COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Assuming that once again we would decide to have a regional library in East Naples, is there sufficient land at the Thomasson Park that we collocate? MR. OLLIFF: There may be. We have some environmental problems with the property that remains at that park and we're pursuing some permits now, but I'm not real excited about our chances of being able to do much there without some serious mitigation. COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. But you are investigating that right now? MR. OLLIFF: We are doing that, but we do own some park property at Manatee which might lend itself awfully well for a regional park. COMHISSIONER NORRIS: I'm not sure the community out there agrees that that would be a very good location. MR. OLLIFF: Okay. COMHISSIONER NORRIS: But there is on the south side of 41 near where the library is, there are two large developments that are proposed for the future. It might be a good time to perhaps inquire if there may be space in those developments for a library which would be right in the same area that we're located right now. If you could do that perhaps sometime in the future, bring that back to us and tell us what the results were, we would appreciate that. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Mr. Dorrill, we have some public speakers on this item? MR. DORRILL: Yes, sir, you have two. I have Miss Mellinger from Library Advisory Board and then Mr. Carpenter will follow her. If you'd stand by, please, sir. MS. MELLINGER: Good morning. For the record, I'm Sydney Mellinger, Chair of the Library Advisory Board, and you've been hearing about the concept of regional libraries. Just very briefly, and that's almost putting the cart before the horse. The Library Advisory Board is just beginning to embark on long-range planning so that eventually this county will be able to build libraries and build them once and make sure that they are sufficient for the needs as the county continues to grow. To that point, I have already met with Commissioner Hancock to utilize his background to help us as we go through with this rather painful process. I would like all citizens of the county to be aware of the fact that branch libraries are not a thing of the past. They will continue. Regional libraries are an intermediate step between a headquarters library which would have everything that we can afford and that the County needs in order to have the best possible library service. And regional libraries would be able to give us an area from which professional librarians can move. I'll be honest and say that Marco Island probably will never need a full-time professional children's librarian, but that does not mean they don't need one at some times. But a children's librarian based at a regional library that also served Marco could handle that very well, and that's just one example. There are many of them. So I would urge the Commissioners, as you are studying these concerns, to give the Library Board time to develop what we're trying to do. We're trying to find locations that will answer the needs of the population as it grows. And wonderful as it is to receive gifts of land, it's quite possible those gifts of land will not be where we need the public libraries, and that's something that we ask you to bear with us and let us get back to you on. Thank you. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Did you want to reiterate on this particular item, the Library Advisory Board's recommendation? MS. HELLINGER: For East Naples or -- CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: The item before us is recommendation on the East Naples Branch Library Project. MS. HELLINGER: The Library Advisory Board voted unanimously to not support any move or changes at East Naples Library at this time. That was based on use studies that were conducted a year ago last month. We feel it's not warranted, that that branch has everything that is needed at this point. Given the significant constraints of impact fees because of the Golden Gate Estates Branch, we also said if the Collier County Commissioners chose to do anything there, we urged you to go to ad valorem taxes or other wells and not our impact fees, because those really should be less available for the other library buildings either to be expanded or to be created as warranted. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Hay I make one comment? CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Mr. Hancock. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Miss Hellinger, and, again, a comment for the balance of the Board: we've discussed this and what has happened in the past, typically, is we have located branches where land was available through -- generally through developer commitments. Those may not always be the future site or the population projection site for library branches. And what the Library Advisory Board has done is decided to take an aggressive tack on this of where future expansion is going to happen and choose those areas in which a branch should occur. What an idea. Pick where we need to be and then find the land instead of finding the land and deciding that's where we have to be. So I endorse that concept. I look afford to helping you with it. And we'll move along and hopefully bring something back to this Board a little more concrete next year. MS. HELLINGER: I don't mean to rush your age but I do hope you turn sixty-five within the next couple of years, also. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I've got a real problem. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Commissioner Matthews? I'm well on my way. If he does that in two years, Commissioner Matthews? Syd, I want to thank you very much for the work that you're doing with the Advisory Board. Do you have any idea of when the Advisory Board anticipates finishing the master plan? MS. HELLINGER: Well, I'm going to put the burden on that on Commission Hancock because we're going to try and use him in-depth. He doesn't know it but he's got a letter in the mail today giving him the date of the first meeting that we're going to use him at. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Commissioner/in-house consultant. MS. HELLINGER: That's right. The price is right. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Oh, yeah, I get called on those committees, too. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Oh, good. COHHISSIONER MATTHEWS: Financial regions. MS. MELLINGER: We'll eventually try to use every one of you because we truly feel it's important. You've all heard me preach: Library service is one of very few public tax supported services that gives service to individuals literally from birth till death, and this county needs better library service, and I'm going to work on it as long as I can. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I guess I'm just looking for a ball-park number. Are you thinking twelve months? Eighteen months? I hope not longer. MS. HELLINGER: The first step of it is in process right now because it's state-mandated. I would hope that within eighteen months we would have a finalized document. We have a new library director who is working very, very hard, but he's kind of like a little dutchman with a finger in the dike; and every time he turns around, he's got another leak. So I don't want to put too much pressure on him. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: That's what we're going to call him from now on: the little dutchman. I just realized Jones was a dutch name. All right. MS. HELLINGER: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Next speaker. Mr. Carpenter? MR. DORRILL: Yes, sir; he's your final one. MR. CARPENTER: Hi, I'm Dave Carpenter, and I'm here representing East Naples Civic. You know, back when Commissioner Volpe made his forays into library site planning -- I think it was last spring -- there was an awful lot of confusion generated over the usage of the East Naples Branch. The Naples Daily News contributed a great deal to this by claiming that the East Naples Branch was the second most used library branch as opposed to what the reality was. It is the second least used library branch. And that created a lot of confusion and a lot of feeling in East Naples of, Boy, we'd better rush out and get a bigger library and we'd better do something immediately. In retrospect, the need is not immediate. We understand that library capital is hard to come by, and we also understand in East Naples that other branches may have more pressing physical needs such as the situation in Marco where you're not only dealing with a potential of expansion but also some correction on the existing structure in Marco Island. We're not going to argue with that. Our concerns go more towards the future in that we view that the present site of that branch library is really kind of landlocked. It does not look like a good site to expand upon. For the future, it looks like you're going to have an inadequate parking situation. And to try and kind of gerry-rig a situation where you've taken an existing branch library and kind of moving it into a shopping center, while somewhat creative, it doesn't seem to be the most logical future for a library in East Naples. Therefore, we'd like the Commission to take a long look into the future as to what type of library is going to eventually be required in Naples and take the time and the effort to find an appropriate site for future planning rather than leap into anything immediately on. We do have some other concerns, though; one of which is a library is more than a building. A library entails books and resources. And where I think there is an inadequacy is that the present library in East Naples had an inadequacy in resources rather than in building. We talked about a low usage level. I think part of the reason why there's a low usage level at the East Naples Branch is that many of the residents of East Naples drive on into Naples to the main branch where the resources are available. And I think that's our concern for the next couple of years in East Naples is that we need books rather than buildings. Thank you. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Thanks, Mr. Carpenter. Commissioner Norris. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Chairman, I can vouch for Mr. Carpenter's statement there about the usage. My children, when they need research for their schoolwork, have on many occasions gone on into the Central Library because the book collection was not what they required for their studies at the East Naples Branch. So, Mr. Olliff, is there any plans underway or is there anything that we could do to increase the size of the book collection at East Naples Branch? MR. OLLIFF: Fortunately, you've sort of done that for us. This year's book budget is larger than last year's. We actually increased the level of service for books as well. So -- and we've also, under Mr. Jones's direction, changed the way that we buy books so that each of the branches will have a hand in the actual purchase of the books that that particular branch needs. So the answer simply is yes, and hopefully a better selection of books at that location as well. MR. DORRILL: Does that include the latitude, though, to answer his questions a little more directly, concerning reference books, because his concern is that reference selection at the branch libraries is inadequate.? MR. CARPENTER: Yes. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: With that in mind, Mr. Chairman, I'll move for THE staff's recommendation. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Seconded. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Motion and a second. Further discussion? COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Excuse me. The recommendation is that we hold off doing this and proceed with the Marco when the funds become available. Is that correct? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: That's correct. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Keep the current capital plan intact. All those in favor of the motion, state aye. Anyone opposed? The motion carries 5-0. Thank you. Item #SD1 UPDATE ON UTILITY BILLING SYSTEH - PRESENTED item. 8A-l: Utilities billing issues. This was the add-on Mr. HcNees? MR. DORRILL: Yes, sir. This is -- CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Mr. Dorrill. MR. DORRILL: -- for the benefit of the new commissioners. And we're going to have to find a better term than "new commissioners" CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Well, we've already been labeled for two years, so we might as well -- MR. DORRILL: This is intended to be an update to answer some questions and also some information and some questions that the Chairman posed to me recently about the status of our utility billing and software system, and we were in a dispute. The Board has directed us to try and resolve the dispute with our software provider. But specifically, I've asked Hike to update the Board on the number of elements within the software system that are being used. We've also made some changes to the actual billing device, and we're going to pass those out and share those with the Commissioners as well. And by way of introduction, it's intended to be an update because this has been something that's been discussed a number of times recently and it will provide a forum for that information. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Mr. HcNees. MR. HcNEES: Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners. I'll give you sort of a brief update on what seem to be the most topical issues, and then I have my fine instructor here and our computer person in case you happen to have more detailed questions. Mr. Yonkowski may be able to provide some information as well. To speak directly to the billing system that we purchased from a company called NCC Utility Billing a few years ago, there were fourteen major components of that system, from file maintenance components, billing, cash receipting, service orders, interfaced with our hand-held metering devices. Of those fourteen, fourteen are installed on the system and working. That's a hundred percent of the items that we purchased in the original base contract, are on our system and are working. There is one of the thirteen components or one of the fourteen that we are not currently using, and that is the service work order component that we purchased and was installed and it doesn't provide the fully integrated inventory-work-order-type system that we would like to have. I probably need to get the two new Commissioners a copy of the consultant's report that was done over the summer that addressed that issue in how we would get to a fully integrated work order system. We're holding the implementation of that piece of it in abeyance until we determine which direction we're going. And so that's of the fourteen, thirteen are in place and working; one component, that being the service orders, is in place but we're not currently using it. There are a couple of items that we are doing today manually. Those two items would be the service work orders, which as I just explained why we're not doing that one on the system, although we are doing it on a somewhat automated basis. But as a rule, our service and work order system is manual. The other thing that we're doing manually is the tracking of the financing of impact fees. As you know, we now allow your customers to finance their impact fees over time. That system is manual, is extremely cumbersome and is one of the items that we are most anxious to automate. And one of the items that the consultant looked at and part of the recommendations that were brought to this Board in workshop a couple of months ago were how we're going to get to automating that system? That's something we are most anxious to automate. It's very labor intensive and very detail intensive. So that's something we're anxious to automate. That tracking system was never a part of the original utility billing package. I think that's a misunderstanding. That's something that was part of that package and it failed to work. That's not true. It was never part of that package. It's a different -- would be a different type of a system. It's something we're anxious to have. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Can I please ask you a question? MR. McNEES: Yes, ma'am. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: You're investigating possible software packages for that purpose at this point? MR. McNEES: Yes. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Is that where you are? MR. McNEES: Yes. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Is that something that you're coordinating or working with the Clerk's Office, the Tax Collector's Office? Since they are in a similar business, it might be good to coordinate with them. MR. McNEES: I can't say for certain that's happening but I'll sure check it. Mr. Yonkowski and the Revenue-Department- to-be are working on that and I'll sure follow up on that. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I think that would be a good idea. MR. McNEES: Absolutely. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: For which area, Commissioner? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, just for the whole -- Anything that had to do with collecting money, it seems that's what the Tax Collector does rather effectively, and that it just would make sense to communicate with them. MR. McNEES: Specifically, we're talking about the payment agreements, the time payments on the impact fees. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Impact fees and the timed payments. MR. McNEES: One of the other items, and before I go on to sort of the status of where we are today and where we're going, that seems to have taken a life of its own is this concept that we are mailing duplicate or in some cases even triplicate bills to the same customer on the same day. And I'd like to give you a brief explanation of what we used to do and what we do today and why. And then you can tell me whether you believe that's how we need to continue to operate it or whether you think we need to make a change. We mail a bill to a person called on day one. And a month later if that account has not been paid, it's called on day thirty. When that person's next month bill comes out and it shows a previous balance, our system generates what we call a termination notice or a final notice. And that's a separate notice that is mailed on that day -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: This thing, right (indicating)? MR. McNEES: Exactly. -- to that customer, to tell him that his service is in imminent danger; that is, fifteen-day danger of being terminated. Now, we believe that Florida Statutes require that we give that separate notice. As a customer service enhancement, we began many years ago to deal with the situation that happens. We have many, many, many nonowner occupied services where the owner and the person paying the water bill may be in Ohio or Michigan. And when the bill goes to the owner, the tenant has no idea that the water is about to be shut off. And often times the tenant then is caught without any water. So we, many years ago, instituted a procedure where we mailed a termination notice not only to the billing address but also to the occupant at the site address. If we -- Often times, if we mailed it to the owner at the site address, it would then be forwarded to that person's northern address or depending on the situation. So that we could cover all the customer service bases, we began to mail an occupant termination notice to the site. And what would -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's the third one? MR. McNEES: What would happen then in the worse case where it was an owner-occupied residence, they would receive their bill; they would receive their termination notice; and then they would receive that occupant termination notice on the same day. So there appeared to be a duplication there. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Wouldn't it be a very simple maneuver on the computer to match and to look at those and see if the two are the same; and if the occupant and the owner are the same, only send the one notice? MR. McNEES: It not only would be it, it was, and we have done that. As of August of this year, we made a change. The computer asks, "Is this owner-occupied?" And if that site is an owner-occupied residence, we no longer mail that "duplicate" termination notice. That's something that we have changed. We were able to -- MR. DORRILL: We added that at the same time that we changed the format for this bill. We used to take a very soft approach. And this bill used to say was a friendly reminder -- MR. McNEES: It said "Reminder Notice". MR. DORRILL: Okay. MR. McNEES: Yes. MR. DORRILL: And then we would show up, in turn, and cancel the service and they'd be mad because they'd said, "I had no way to know that this was a final notice." So at the time of final notice change was made, we also made a change in the software to make an inquiry so that we're not sending them an unnecessary duplicate bill. But the Board had previously directed that if we've got a tenant and the tenant is either paying as part of their rent or paying separately for the utility service, the accounts can only be established with the owner of the unit or the owner of the home, and that's by Board policy. Now, we would like to continue to send the occupant notice if we have reason to believe that that person is paying, as part of their rent, money for the utility bill, to let the occupant know that their service is about to be terminated because their landlord is not paying us or the real estate management is not paying us. MR. McNEES: And I'll go one step beyond Board policy. Florida courts have ruled that we are legally obligated to notify the resident, not the bill payer and not the property owner. We are legally required to notify the resident if service is going to be terminated. So that occupant final notice is very important, and we believe it not only to be good customer service but, as of recent court rulings, to be mandated. For the record, I'll tell you that we began using a "reminder" notice because a number of our customers objected to the meanness of our termination notice, and they didn't like that word "final" or termination notice. Well, we finally decided that it's ridiculous. If we're going to shut the water off, we ought to tell them that. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: One question. MR. HcNEES: Yes, ma'am. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: A couple of years ago, we went over this final notice. It must have been when we were making the change between the friendly reminder and the final notice. I had brought up, because we had so many elderly people who live in Collier County, if we could instigate funding similar to the Florida Power & Light where a person who is elderly and their children may be concerned about whether the bills are getting paid appropriately, that if they ask for a final notice like this, it would also be sent to their children -- MR. HcNEES: Third-party notification of some sort? COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: -- so that if mom and dad are slipping a little bit, if the kids can monitor what's going on. MR. HcNEES: To my knowledge, we're not doing that. I think it's a great idea and -- MR. DORRILL: We did research it, and the answer is yes. MR. HcNEES: We are doing that. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: We are doing it? MR. HcNEES: Yes. MR. DORRILL: We are. And you had two points that you made. It's been probably a year ago. The other point was if the amount due and owing on the bill is less than five dollars -- MR. HcNEES: Less than five dollars. MR. DORRILL: -- we don't send a final notice. We won't turn somebody's bill off. So that was a modification that was made at the same time. And Hiss Thurston made the other modification, that if we have a request from either an in-home nursing company for the child of an agent, customer, that we will send a third-party notice to them if the bill isn't paid. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Okay. That's fine. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: A question and a comment for the attorney. Is it necessary to have the final notice on a separate piece of paper instead of on the bill that shows late payment due? I mean, is it necessary for it to be separately mailed? MR. CUYLER: I'm not sure that the statutes require that it be separately mailed. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It seems like an expense. I would just ask you to look into that. MR. HcNEES: From a legal point of view, I don't have an answer to that but I can give you an absolute answer from a customer service point of view. When that guy calls me and his water has been shut off and he doesn't believe he has received a separate piece of paper, he is madder than a wet hen, because as a rule, every other utility and every other monthly bill that a person receives -- and people know the system. They understand how it works, and they know that when they get that last final -- sometimes it's red or in a pink envelope, a piece of paper -- they know what day they have to pay their bill. And they object strenuously to our shutting their water off when they haven't been provided that one last blindfold piece of paper that tells them we're really going to turn the water off. So it's something we can eliminate. My recommendation would be, from a customer service standpoint, that would not be a good idea. We'd save a little bit of money, and I guess they'd take it out on my hide eventually or our billing people's hide. But as a customer service recommendation, I would say that's probably not a good idea. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: My comment is, again, with apologies for being the new kid, but I'm amazed that this is a County Commission issue, and I don't think it's a worthwhile use of our time. I don't think it's a policy-making decision. I think it's something we could get a memo saying what the update is, just for what that's worth. MR. DORRILL: I don't disagree. There have been an inordinate amount of interest in this, and Mr. McNees has made any number of changes, and we thought -- we're not asking for any direction or we're not asking for a vote of approval but I thought it was important to provide it as an update to the Commission. MR. McNEES: And I would ask that you continue, as you have, ideas of things that you think will work better. And we're trying to address the things that you've given us and that you continue to do that. The last thing I was asked to do is give you sort of a where-we-are-today status. And as of our workshop of a couple of months ago, you asked that staff negotiate as best we could the closeout of the existing issues with the software vendor and the closeout on that contract and how we are going to address continuing support on that software or whether we were still going to abandon it. And Mr. Yonkowski, in conjunction with the development of the Revenue Department and that staff has been working, negotiating with NCC. And I understand that they're making considerable progress, and I don't know how much of a detailed report you want. I can tell you that that effort is ongoing and it's apparently quite fruitful at this time and you're welcome to ask him or myself any other questions you might have. But with that, I'll end my little update here. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Norris? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. McNees, as I understood it, you send out the final notice after the bill has not been paid for thirty days, at the next regular billing cycle? MR. McNEES: Correct. Correct. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Then a shutoff can come as early as fifteen days after the mailing of the final notice? MR. McNEES: No sooner than fifteen days. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Do you run into any problem with absentee owners in forwarding mail where they may not may not receive final notice by the time their water is shut off? Has that been a problem? MR. McNEES: Not to my knowledge. That's one of the reasons, originally, the occupant to the site address process began. But usually when it's an issue of people moving back and forth from up north, they're pretty good about letting us know where they are now and that sort of thing. I don't think that particular issue is a real problem. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: So there would be no purpose served by changing that to thirty days after the final notice? MR. McNEES: I don't think that in itself has been a specific problem, no. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Thank you. That's all I have. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Matthews? COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I was going to say, don't most of our Florida residents who go north for four or five months, don't they have the water turned off to avoid the minimum billing? MR. McNEES: Some have the water turned off. You cannot avoid the minimum charge by having your water turned off. That continues to bill. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Yeah, availability fees. Okay. MR. McNEES: Yeah. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Mr. Dotrill, a question on this item. Isn't this one of the projects that we are anticipating the Department of Revenue to assume when it gets up in that -- MR. DORRILL: And that's why we made a conscious decision not to try and implement yet the service work order software element. It works and we've had it verified. There's a question. We have a two-man utility crew that changes out water meters as the separate report. We had to run a separate report of water meters that appear out of sync or water meters that are older than ten years' old, like in Willoby Acres or Palm River. The question is as part of the EOR implementation plan that you directed us to pursue, where should the two-man utility meter change-out service generated crew end up? Should they stay in Utilities? Should they go to DOR? And the answer yes. It's part of the implementation plan. I think a good argument can be made to leave the change-out crew in Utilities but have it interfaced with the Department of Revenue to run the reports and have special work orders done to check meters that appear not to be functional. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Okay. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Thank you, Mr. McNees. Let's take a twelve-minute break. (A short recess was taken.) Item #SF1 ACQUISITION OF FIVE (5) MEDIUM DUTY ADVANCED LIFE SUPPORT AMBULANCES THROUGH A COOPERATIVE PURCHASE AND AUTHORIZE THE NECESSARY BUDGET AMENDMENTS - APPROVED CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Hi, and welcome back. We are on item 8F-l: Recommendation to approve the acquisition of five medium duty advanced life support ambulances. Hi. MS. FLAGG: Good morning. Just briefly, I'd like to review -- CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: You are, for the record? MS. FLAGG: Diane Flagg, I'm sorry, with the Emergency Medical Services Department. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Save a few lives and you think they're all going to know you. MS. FLAGG: Okay. Briefly, during the budget process this year, we had proposed to purchase two medium duty ambulances and refer three existing ambulances. As a result of the unique opportunity to work off a bid that is out through the Hollywood bid, we are able to purchase medium duty ambulances for less than twenty thousand than what we had originally received quotes for. As a result, we are recommending that we go ahead and instead of refurbing the three units, that we go ahead and purchase the three medium duty ambulances; and so that would be a total of five medium duty ambulances. The fiscal impact of that would be an additional $107,544 from EHS reserves. The potential cost savings is in the -- if you do refurbs, and you can refurb units every three and a half to four years, if we had followed the refurb schedule, we'll spend $157,500 per unit. If we just buy the medium duty ambulances during the same time frame, we could spend $88,348. So there is a substantial cost savings to do it. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Were you not aware of -- Were you not aware of -- Mr. Keller and Mr. Erhlichman, if you're going to talk, can we take it in the hall. Were we not aware during the budget process of the difference between these two or why are we hearing this now when we heard something different in September? MS. FLAGG: When we -- During the budget review, we had talked to the various vendors, and they said that if you're projecting costs, to project them at 100,000 a piece. And so that was our projected costs all through the budget process. That's what we budgeted. It was 100,000 per unit. But in reviewing the various bids around the state, because there is a large movement amongst the EHS providers to go to the medium duty chassis, the reason is is the current chassis, the F-350s, are under -- we're at total maximum gross weight of these units. And so what the systems across the nation and certainly in the state of Florida are doing are going with medium duty chassis to meet the increasing gross weight required by ambulances, and the vendor offered to extend the Hollywood bid. And as a county agency, we have the opportunity to use that bid price. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: On the -- I noticed the Hollywood units do not have the Vannet inverter nor the electric locks. Electric locks, in particular, you said, provide required security as six of the ten EHS stations do not have secured EHS station ambulance bays. My assumption is that manual locks would secure those equally as well? MS. FLAGG: The situation with manual locks is there is numerous outside compartments; and so when the call would come in, the medics would have to go outside and take a key and unlock each lock all the way around the unit before they could actually respond to the call. That's why we've moved to augment response time to move to automatic door locks. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: I'm just wondering what the difference is -- Does Hollywood -- That inconvenience doesn't bother Hollywood apparently but it does -- MS. FLAGG: Hollywood has all secured bays. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Okay. MS. FLAGG: Hollywood has all apparatus bays for their units, so they don't have the need for the electric locks. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And the cost of the electric locks would be less than securing all of the bays? CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Oh, yes. MS. FLAGG: Right. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: The Vannet inverter. What's the difference between us and them, why they don't feel a need for the Vannet inverter? MS. FLAGG: They don't do neonatal transports of pediatric patients and they also don't do cardiac balloon pump patient transports. These are the patients -- CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Are those patients just out of luck over there or -- MS. FLAGG: They have specialty teams that they use in Hollywood; whereas, EMS also provides that service to the community. Primarily, Hollywood, the City of Hollywood, Hollywood Memorial does open-heart. And presently Naples Community Hospital, although they will in the future do open-heart, when a patient goes in for a cardiac cath and then they need to be placed on the balloon pump, which maintains their heartbeat, keeps them alive, it's like a heart/lung machine, we take those patients attached to this pump which requires an inverter to keep the pump running during the transport to Fort Myers. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: And finally, you said this -- as it's written in the Executive Summary, it says this could result in long-term savings. And I noticed when you gave it verbally, you said it may result. And I'm always very concerned when I hear "could" or "may" from -- not from you personally but from any government entity that we may save money. MS. FLAGG: And I understand that. Let me go over these figures one more time, because I'll say this, I can give you the absolute savings right now. MR. DORRILL: The best place to start, too, as part of that is the manufacturer's warranty on the vehicle because, again, the reason that we would propose the change -- and Mr. Cooper is here who's the Fleet Management Director -- the existing warranty on the van chassis is -- and I'll pick whatever number, and you all will have to help me. MS. FLAGG: Four years. MS. DORRILL: Four years? MS. FLAGG: Three and a half to four years. MR. DORRILL: And how many miles on the chassis? MS. FLAGG: The chassis averages 30,000 miles a year; 120,000 miles before we replace that. MR. DORRILL: And my understanding is that by going to the larger chassis, it's like two or three times that? MS. FLAGG: Ten years, and the mileage is 300,000. In addition to that, keeping on the replacement schedule with mileage, in 1994, per unit, if we refurbed these three units, we'll spend $52,500. If we refurb that unit three times in 2002, so we'd refurb it again in 1998 and refurb again in the year 2002, and on those total three refurbs, we'll spend $157,500. For the same time frame in 1994, if we spend $88,348, in 1998 we won't spend anything and in 2004 we won't spend anything. So it's a comparison of 157,500 to 88,348. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: When do you refurb -- When would you anticipate doing anything to the new units? MS. FLAGG: Ten years. The midsized chassis has a ten-year schedule, a ten-year replacement schedule. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: And then what would the cost be to refurb those anticipated, and I realize obviously we don't know in ten years exactly what that will be, but ball-park figure? MS. FLAGG: There's an -- I can only do -- compare that a new F-350, which is currently what we're purchasing, is 78,000 per unit, and these are 88,000 per unit. So the refurb would be, ten years from now -- that's a tough number -- 80,000. I really don't know. We haven't really -- CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Why I ask is the refurb at -- and it's 52,500 to refurb all three or that's each? MS. FLAGG: Each. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Okay. So that's 157,500 and then three -- Go ahead. MS. FLAGG: Over the four-year schedule. Right. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Because come ten years from now -- I'm just trying to compare -- if we stayed at 2002, the differential was there. If you go to 2004 when the refurb would be due on the new units, because that then '- MS. FLAGG: It certainly won't -- CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: -- would make them more expensive again or '- MS. FLAGG: No. It'll certainly not exceed a new purchase price, which a new purchase price is 88. If you look at right now, when we buy them new, they're 78; and the cost to refurb them is 52,500, today's prices. And again, we have to continue to add. Ten years from now, those prices are logically going to increase a bit. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: I guess my question, though -- and maybe I didn't phrase it properly -- is in 2004 or 2005 by the time we get these, you would have to refurb any new units we purchased this year at a cost of 78, 88, whatever it turns out to be. MS. FLAGG: Right. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Does that then, say 80,000 per unit, ten years from now -- I need some help with the math -- COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: percentage. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: throw in new percentages. Yeah, I'm doing it right now. The come-out would be? 59,000 refurb based on the same The come-out would be -- Don't I'm confused enough as it is. And 80,000. You said it's probably 78,000 to refurb. MS. FLAGG: Hm-hm. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: So we'll say 80,000 for round figures. Does it then become more expensive in that ten-year span? Once you've refurbed those, is the total expenditure more? 80,000, 80,000, 80,0007 MS. FLAGG: NO, because -- CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Plus the purchase. MS. FLAGG: -- one lasts ten years or one unit lasts four years. The F-350 lasts four years. And now I'm going to throw in another complicating factor, and you can only refurb it three times. At the conclusion of three refurbs over a twelve-year period, then you have to get rid of it and get a whole new unit, and now you're back to spending 78,000. So -- CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: How old are the units we have right now? MS. FLAGG: The three that were scheduled for refurb, one can be refurbed one more time and then we'll need to buy a new unit, and the other two can be refurbed two more times. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: How old are they? MS. FLAGG: One of them is eight years' old and the other two are four years' old. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: So they're 1990 units? '90-'91 units? MS. FLAGG: Yeah. I don't have it in front of me but it would be -- I know one is four; and the other, two. MR. DORRILL: Again, the authorization in the budget was to do two of the medium-sized chassis this year. Because of what I think was some good and diligent staff work and they found the opportunity to buy off someone's bid from last year at the same base price, they were giving the Board the option to do the additional three. What is approved and in the budget is to do the two. If you want to do the additional three, then there are a series of recommendations and sources of money if you want to do the whole thing and have a total of five. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: All right. Thank you. Other questions? Do we have any speakers on this? MR. DORRILL: No, sir. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Is there is a motion? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Motion to approve. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Seconded. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: There's a motion and a second. Further discussion on the item? Seeing none, all those in favor of the motion, state aye. Anyone opposed? Motion carries 5-0. Item #SG1 REPORT ON THE COUNTY'S PROGRESS TO MEET THE STATE'S RECYCLING GOAL - ACCEPTED Item 8G-l: Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners accept the report on the County's progress to meet the state's recycling goal. Mr. Lorenz, good morning. MR. LORENZ: Good morning. For the record, Bill Lorenz, Environmental Services Administrator. As the Board is aware, you're going to have several issues of a solid waste nature that's going to come to you within -- certainly within the next three months. And the staff would like to take the opportunity today to brief the Board on our progress on our recycling goal in the Collier County. The 1988 Solid Waste Act and 1993 amendments requires the County to a meet a 30-percent recycling requirement by the end of 1994. Obviously we're in the final month of 1994. We want to alert the Board as to where we are and then, also, to give you some understanding of some of the areas that we'll be moving into, and then obviously provide the opportunity of the Board to evaluate the programs and offer any direction that you may wish. Jeremy, if I could have the first slide. I think it'll come out. Just for the Board's information, we did give you a packet of the same type of materials, the same information that's in your Executive Summary. It's just in the colored graphics so it's a little bit easier to read. And for the benefit of the public, there's some charts, I believe, that they can have and take a look at it during the presentation or afterwards. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Mr. Dotrill, can someone turn the florescent lights directly over your head off? MR. DORRILL: I think Miss Bilson (phonetic) just went over in the corner to do that. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Thank you. MR. LORENZ: The one thing about the Solid Waste legislation is that it brakes down our categories of materials into two categories. A Category 1 materials, basically yard waste, construction, demolition of which we can count no more than 15 percent to the 30 percent credit. Category 2 materials include other materials that we think of when we think of recycling programs such as newsprint, aluminum cans, glass. And again, that's a Category 2 material that contribute -- it's unlimited as to how we can count through our percentage. We do look at, in terms of this chart, 43.5 percent of our waste stream is basically being recycled. It's being converted from the landfill. The state, however, it only gives us 28 percent credit. So we're two percentage points shy of the mandated 30 percent requirement for 1994. Of that 28 percent, 15 percent, that is the yard waste and the construction demolition debris. And about four or five percent is our residential and multi-family curbside programs. The balance of that is basically other sources that we're able to account for, such as grocery stores who are recycling cardboard. They report their tonnages to us. Other types of private entities, we're receiving tonnage reports. So that's basically the balance of the -- that that eight percent comes into play. If I could have the next chart, Jeremy. The 1993 amendments complicated matters a little bit more. It took some of the materials, such as newsprint, glass containers, steel containers, plastic containers, and required the counties to also meet a 50 percent goal for those materials. In other words, we have to recycle at least 50 percent of those materials. Unfortunately, we're only -- we've only hit the percentage for newspaper for this particular category. The other materials, we're fairly low on. This has been a -- This is a new requirement from the state at least in the past couple of years. I'm not sure how the other counties are doing with regard to this requirement. A little bit of where we see a problem is that if we could get a little bit more public awareness for some of the materials that we don't think that the general public is still aware of: colored glass and steel cans. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It's difficult -- It's impossible actually for me to read the remarks along the bottom. MS. LORENZ: Maybe you could pull them down a little bit. Can you pull them back, Jeremy? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And I think I'm one of those people who could use some education about what is recyclable in Collier County now. I think if you would read those to us, it would help. MR. LORENZ: Okay. Great. The County's program, we currently -- Now, this is different from the city, and this causes a little bit of the confusion. But the County currently recycles newsprint, glass containers, and this is all colored glass containers, green, brown; steel containers which is, basically, steel cans, aluminum cans. And the plastic containers, basically, is plastic number 1 and number 2. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Like a milk carton. MR. LORENZ: Like a milk carton. You just look at the bottom of the container and it gives you a recycle number 1 or number 2, and those are the materials that we're currently recycling in the County. As I said, the 50 percent requirement is simply being met by newsprint. We exceeded that fairly well. Of the 36 in the populated counties, Collier County ranked six in overall recycling. And we're kind of in the middle of the pack, a tie for eighteen with five other counties for the recycling credit, a 30-percent credit. In your agenda packet is just a comparison of Collier County with a number of these 36 most populated counties. It's a little difficult to put it on the view graph. If I can have the next figure, figure number 8. One of things I think the Board can take pride in is that through the past seven years -- and let me note that the fifth or the most -- the last year, there's basically a projection for 1995. But the -- For the past seven years -- Jeremy, can you point out the total waste stream -- The total waste is basically the gray bars -- has been steadily increasing in the County. I think from about 240,000 tons in 1988 to 340,000 tons in 1994. But the brown bars there that Jeremy is tracing through is the amount that actually is going into the landfills. So we've had a fairly good reduction in the amount of the material that is going in the landfill, specifically through our construction demolition programs where we almost recycled about 80 percent of our C&D waste stream, and that was one of our strategic targets that we had identified earlier on the progress that we wanted to work on, because it was the greatest fraction of our waste stream. The recycling programs, the curbside programs that are represented in blue basically came on line at a later date; the residential program in 1990, basically in 1991; and the multi-family program just recently here in 1994. So again, I think the point here is that we have reduced the amount of material that we have to actually landfill. We're seeing it start to increase now. And unless we actually jump in to do some more aggressive recycling programs, we would kind of think that that's going to increase into the -- for being buried just as a result of normal population growth. Our plans. There's two strategic materials basically you want to try to target, and that's corrugated cardboard and mixed office paper. Those materials generally may have information in terms of actual tonnages, but those are the next greatest amount of materials. I know this state doesn't require us to recycle for us to continue to get the greatest amount out of the waste stream. Those are the materials that we're targeting. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I'm sorry, did you say the state does not require us to recycle those but because of our waste stream, that's what we're targeting? MR. LORENZ: That's correct. There's no specific requirement. It will contribute to the 30 percent credit. Waste Management has indicated that they've been trying to develop a program to target cardboard from businesses, and they've -- any month now we're really expecting them to try to launch into that program full-time. And staff has also been working with outside vendors that are coming down from Fort Myers to try to take advantage of some of the increasing prices for these materials and establish some business programs. From a sector perspective, the business community is really where we need to make inroads into, and that's basically the priority for the Solid Waste Recycling staff is their business programs. The other priority that the staff has is to continue to develop programs for public awareness for residential recycling programs to increase those target materials. And we found that it's been almost, well, twelve months since we added colored glass and steel cans. And I do a little presentation every month and I ask people what materials are we recycling, and they can list the old ones but they don't list the new ones. So it's still been difficult to actually get the public awareness out there for those new materials. So that's another priority the staff will have. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: What opportunities do you see? I mean, it seems to me there are multiple mailings going out, that there ought to be some way to insert a flyer. I mean, there ought to be -- You'd know better than I, but -- MR. LORENZ: Well, we do work with some direct mail, some bill stuffers in terms of solid waste information. We have entered into an arrangement with Lee and Charlotte Counties to do television and commercials as a joint venture because we share the same market. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: But specifically talking about what is recyclable in Collier County, because I agree with you, that most people don't know. MR. LORENZ: That's right. Again, a little bit of confusion again. The city has not added steel cans and colored glass. But again, from a county's perspective, we still need to get that public awareness out. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Just with regard for me, personally, it was the radio ads that I learned about the green and brown glass. So, for me, those are effective. But -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Maybe if we keep saying green and brown glass a lot here on the glass. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Subliminal green and brown glass. MR. COOK: I'd just like to say that we started a major meeting -- CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Just for the record, we need you to -- MR. COOK: Jeremy Cook, Recycling Coordinator. We started a major media campaign which was the radio ads. We had a major blitz last summer trying to get a lot of people aware of that. And we're doing a thing with Publix in the month of January to also -- they'll have a stuffer in all their bags that'll tell people what's recyclable in Collier County, too. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Oh, that's a great idea. MR. COOK: I think so. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah, but your blitz might want to occur with the season. MR. COOK: Well, with this year -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. MR. COOK: I didn't start here until last January, so it takes a while to get going. We're having one now that's starting in November and we'll really peak in the month of January and February, and that's on radio and on television locally. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: And that information will include green and brown glass? MR. COOK: That's correct. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Major highlight with the green and brown glass and steel cans. MR. COOK: And steel cans, because steel cans are -- well, one of them you said that was the real low point, and steel cans do represent -- a lot of people do have them and they're not really recycling those ones. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I just have a comment and that is that the fast-food restaurants that we have available to us -- Burger King, Wendy's, Arby's, Taco Bell -- gosh, if I've left somebody out, I'm sorry. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: HcDonald's. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: HcDonald's. But if -- I've recently become aware that one 501(c)(3) or one group has been successful in getting the menus or the place mats put in the trays at these different places as an advertising motif for their program. And I had brought this up a couple of years ago. And it seems to me, everything that I've heard dealing in recycling is to get the kids involved, and the kids make the parents do it. I mean, a kid sees a tin can in the trash can, "Hommy, Hommy." COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It happens in my house. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Right. So it would seem to me that if we could put together some sort of a coloring page about recycling to get the kids aware of it. MR. COOK: We work with that at HcDonald's locally here to recycle all phone books that have been dropped off for the last three years, and we're looking at other different avenues. We're working with The Chamber of Commerce to then develop these types of programs along with them, and we hope to have some more things of that instituted in the next year as well. COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: It would seem to me, though, that if we were to share in the cost of producing their inserts for their trays, for the kids to carry them in color and put on the refrigerator for mommies and daddies to see, that we might be able to move this a little further. MR. COOK: And that's what we've done. That's what we've with the Publix thing. We purchased the flyers and they are just being happy to give them out with their bags. We work with the local school system in-depth, too. We developed a coloring contest last year that we showed the T-shirts that we had done. And similar to that, we're working with other things like that, and we'll try and keep working with different agencies. A lot of these are just like big rocks. It's just like big government is, and you have to work through different layers of levels to get -- CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Mr. Lorenz, did you have more? MR. LORENZ: Just one final point and, that is, in terms of looking forward for 1995, with the multi-family program being on line 100 percent, we think that we can probably get another two percent out of that program especially with the season, and we'd like to think that we'll be right at 30 percent by this time next year. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Just for comparison sake, and maybe I missed it in one of these charts, but how has that number climbed over the last couple of years? It seems like we have -- you've been very successful in putting together percentage-wise how we've been reaching toward this goal. I didn't see five percent. I saw the -- MR. LORENZ: Right. Well, since 19 -- Well, let's face it, in 1989 we didn't have any recycling programs. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Yeah. I guess when I came on board in 1968 -- When I came on board in 1992 -- COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: You weren't born yet. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: I was born. I was small but I was born. -- there seemed to be a lot of nice airs about whether or not we could ever achieve the 30 percent. And I just want to commend you and Jeremy and the whole staff on making this a reality and doing it pretty quickly. MR. LORENZ: Thank you. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: You've done a good job. MR. LORENZ: And again, the current staff has done a very good job. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Do we have any speakers on this, Mr. Dorrill? MR. DORRILL: I don't think so. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: We don't need to take any action on this? MR. DORRILL: We have two. Here they come. COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: While the speakers turning in their things, are we anticipating the state requirement for recycling to increase in the next several years? MR. LORENZ: I'll let Jeremy, because he's had discussion with the state officials. MR. COOK: There has been discussions with going from a 30 percent to anywhere between 30 and 50 percent. There's a lot of discussions that there's enough material in the waste stream to actually make it to the 50 percent that will increase the goal. This is kind of a thing that the Estates and the county and the city, they're all going back and forth with, but there is talk about it going to a 50 percent goal. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Well, are they interested in increasing the 15 percent yard and C&Ds? MR. COOK: Yeah, well, that's what we did, a trump card that the County would like to play. And we would like to increase the amount of C&D the way it would count. I would imagine it would. And then it's not enough materials in our waste steam to make a 50 percent goal without counting at least all of our C&D and yard waste debris. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: A couple of more questions. What percent of our recycle credit comes from C&D demolition? MR. LORENZ: It can only count for 15 percent, no more than 15 percent of the 30-percent goal. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I know. Is a yard waste program -- It makes up 100 percent of the 15 percent? MR. LORENZ: Yes. Okay. We need about 45,000 tons of C&D and yard waste to make it -- we'll get about 60,000 tons a year of C&D and we'll get about 45,000 tons of yard waste. So we could make it with either one of them. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Okay. Because, you know, we're talking about optimizing the landfill, and I think one of the wonderful part of the proposal is that a blanket or Tarpaulin be put down at night instead of a daily cover we're using right now which is recyclable material. And I guess I've got some questions. If we make that change, are we going to lose some of our recycle credits because we're no longer using the C&D for daily cover? MR. LORENZ: No, we can still use that material in a variety but intermediate covers as opposed to daily covers. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Okay. MR. LORENZ: So that's -- there's still -- We think that there's still, if you will, our own market for that material for landfill operations. Now, obviously, what part of the contract requirements for -- that we're negotiating with Waste Management as part of the RFP was that they had to maintain that recycling rate for C&D. That's part of the proposal. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: But it's generally for the current contract period, isn't it? MR. LORENZ: No, this is -- We're currently recycling 80 percent of our C&D waste stream. The requirement is that they have to maintain that recycling rate -- COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Okay. MR. LORENZ: -- of our C&D waste stream. Now, whether they use it in county operations or they do something else with it -- COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: As long as we get the 80 percent and get credits for it. MR. LORENZ: Correct. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Okay. And one more question regarding recycling and our optimization of the landfill. It seems to me, at least I've heard somebody state over a period of time, that the tipping fee that we're talking about, keeping it -- if we want to keep it depressed, meaning low, that that's directly related to the amount of tonnage put in the landfill. And so it seems to me then that recycling and land-filling are diametrically opposed to one another. MR. LORENZ: Well, you have a couple of economic conditions that are set up. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Optimizing our landfill may be contra to a recycle program. And likewise, the recycle program, optimizing it, may cause the tipping fee to increase. What do we do? MR. LORENZ: Right. We are in a situation where our tipping fee is very low, so that's one of the reasons why we don't have many recyclers here in Collier County, because it's not to the advantage of, let's say, businessmen on the bottom line because you can't trade off a high tipping fee for reducing the amount of material that is actually paying the tipping fee on. So that's one thing that we've kind of got going against us. The other aspect of it, and I know that the proposal from Waste Management of which we're negotiating a contract is that the tipping fee will increase if the materials to the landfill decreases. So that's -- I know that's a concern in some folks' mind, that that's, again, that's an insensitive not to recycle because we'll be paying a higher tipping fee but a less amount of material, we dare. So that was part of the -- CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: It seems to right now we've struck a pretty good balance if we have, as far as I know, the lowest tipping fees, certainly in this region and possibly state-wide. And if we've gone from zero to nearly 45 percent of recycling in a five-year span, it would seem to have a pretty good balance going there. But I think Commissioner Matthews is right; we want to be sure and maintain that. Apparently you are looking at that as part of whether we do that contract or not, but I think it's important we maintain the balance. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I want to commend the Solid Waste Department. In the last update report we got, I think we were getting a total of like 17 or 19 percent of available credits, and now we're up to 28 percent. I think it's a marvelous job. MR. LORENZ: And a lot of that, too, I think, is Jeremy's initiatives, the way that the state is counting materials because the amount of material that we can get credit for and he's been out there beating the bushes for. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: We have two public speakers? MR. DORRILL: Yes. Mr. Perkins. And then, Mr. Cornell, if I could get you to stand by, please, sir. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: For those of you who are not aware, we have a five-minute time limit on our speakers. MR. PERKINS: That's said strictly to me because I always go over. I can't see you guys, you kids. Does that sound right? You are kids to me. Anyhow, A1 Perkins, Bellmeade Groups. I need to jump on a couple of things here. First of all, I want to take and pick up on something that Commissioner Matthews said about the kids and getting the recycling going. Now, I want to do this at this point. I want to talk to Jerry and the people who are watching the TV at home. Colony Television provides a service into the schools that are educating your kids. They're on a free basis. You better pay attention. They're doing one hell of a service for you and you don't even know it. With that in mind, if Colony Television backs up Mrs. Matthews' statement as far as getting the kids involved in school, then youwre going to see your recycling program escalate. I personally want to thank Colony Television. Next, Iwm glad to see that we are not keeping you in the dark. The recyclables. Now, Iwve heard several comments about recyclables. Ladies and gentlemen, therews not a thing in the dump or in the landfill or anyplace else in this world that is not recyclable. I got stuck with trying to find out some information. I opened a can of worms, and the information is coming at me like nobodyws business. We recycle metals, glass, cardboard, paper, plastics. What we canwt recycle -- and the technology is out there. Itws all over the place. Itws in California. Itws in New Jersey. Itws in Ohio. Some of itws right here in our own state. Some of it happens to be right here in our own town. What is left goes to composting. Composting is a means of using sewage sludge, effluent water, and the remains that are nothing left from the recycling, such as your garden and your lawn debris and everything else. It gets turned around and gets made into a usable product that you can turn right around and put it on the ground and grow. Milwaukie calls it Milwaugunite, a very similar product. Okay. At the present time out at the landfill, wewll losing about $12,000 a month in the gas, because itws being omitted to the atmosphere instead of being captured and used. Now, we can save eighteen thousand dollars just by piping it to the water treatment plan up in front and burning off the smell and saving the eighteen thousand dollarsw worth of chemicals that are being purchased by this County, to take and do the same job. We also have federal and state mandates that wewre going to have to live with. Now, nobody seems to want to keep bringing this up but you better pay attention because itws not going to happen today. Itws going to happen tomorrow or next year or next month. Now, something else that I want to take and bring up here early in the morning. Okay. College properties have expressed the possibility of exploring a joint venture involving a thousand acres of uplands, not on the car list. This is in the Bellmeade, to be used for a waste recovery facility; a thousand acres, a joint venture. They also state two things: Their resources. I canwt think what the others are or I would have remembered it. Anyhow, also, if we take the manufactured gases for which wewre doing right now but wewre not using it, we can run school buses, trucks, county vehicles, generate electricity with it, make steam with it. We have all the options of taking and putting this in place and going with it. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Mr. Perkins, I did my science term paper when I was a freshman in college several years ago on cascaded methane systems for automobiles, so youwre right. MR. PERKINS: Well, something else has taken place. Since recycling, and the problem exists, and you people out there listen at home: as long as we eat, wewre going to have two problems. Wewre going to have sewage and wewre going to have trash and garbage. So you better pay attention. Itws now or itws going to be tomorrow, whatever which way you people go, but you better sit and think about it a little bit because youwre going to have to pay for this to upstart. But we can make money, actually make money on the landfill. Now, we can offset the expenses. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Thank you, A1. MR. PERKINS: Thank you, Commissioners, and I'll see you tomorrow night. Anyhow, with closing, we're totally against the privatization of the dump, and we're totally against any deep well injection. I can't see where it's going to go. And down here, it's liable to pop up anyplace. Thank you. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Mr. Cornell. And no other speakers. MR. CORNELL: Thank you. My name is Brad Cornell. I'll be very brief. I just wanted to make a couple of comments on the recycling progress report. I do want to add my congratulations to both the Board and to the Solid Waste Department and Recycling Staff in achieving a very commendable 28 percent. That's great. And I would like to encourage all of us to main this momentum, recycling and waste reduction. Since there is a likelihood of the goal being raised above 30 percent, maybe 40 percent in the near future, since December is the final deadline for the current goal, I think this is good motivation for us to look at more options for improving waste reduction and recycling. And, in fact, we shouldn't use the goal as the only motivation. We should go beyond what the goals are that are set. Many effective things we can still do in minimizing our landfill waste would include a good commercial program, which we don't have presently; volume or weight-based garbage collection rates, once-a-week garbage collection, which would save money and free it up for better recycling programs; promotion of neighborhood and home composting; establishing easy comprehensive drop-offs, especially in North Naples which I think there's a growing population in North Naples that would take advantage of such a drop-off. I think this is something we should all consider and would be well supported. Adding high and load grade papers, plus cardboard, to home collection. And if we do that, which that represents a very large percentage of home waste, I think that your staff will tell you that we'll need to also consider putting in something like a clean materials recovery facility. And this is something that we're looking towards the future in waste management for Collier County, but I think it would also improve our ability to recycle the maximum of our waste stream. And finally, I would like us to recognize the importance of creating markets for all these materials which we are collecting. It's one thing to collect the materials but it's another thing to actually use them. Recycling is a complete loop, and I would like to see the Collier County government set a good example for all of us by instituting recycled content requirements in a procurement policy. So some other things to think about in terms of recycling. Again, congratulations to the staff in their good efforts and hope it continues. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Thank you. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a motion that we accept the recycling report. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I second that motion. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: There's a motion and a second. All those in favor of that motion, be so kind as to state aye. Anyone opposed? Motion carries 5-0. Thanks, Mr. Lorenz. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Could I ask a question about the agenda, just whether or not it's appropriate to make a change? CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Probably not at this point. We've made a habit of just trying not to juggle, because it becomes frustrating for those who are not being juggled. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Okay. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: What you may want to do, a discussion at the end of the day, bring it up. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I did write a note. ITEM #8H2 RECOHMENDATION THAT THE BOARD CONSIDER ALTERNATIVES FOR ADVANCING THE CONSTRUCTION OF COUNTY ROAD 951 FROM DAVIS BOULEVARD TO U.S. 41 - STAFF DIRECTED TO PURSUE OPTION #3 CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Item 8H-2: Recommendation that the Board consider alternatives for advancing the construction of County Road 951. MR. CONRECODE: Commissioners, for the record, Tom Conrecode from your Capital Projects Office. County Road 951 between U.S. 41 and Davis Boulevard was actually two separate road projects of which the Board entered into a design contract in June of 1988 in order to do the design, the permitting, and the utility work associated with that particular road corridor. As part of this year's Annual Update, Inventory Report and the CIE Update, the Board bumped those projects in conjunction with its pay-as-you-go road construction program. The staff has done some analysis alternatives and sees the potential for the Board to advance these two particular projects as one project, recognize a number of saving opportunities and provide for improvements of this particular corridor years in advance when it would otherwise be done. I've met privately with a number of members of the Board and have gone through some of the options. I commend the budget staff for their fiscal analysis of what all those options will do for the Board and would really kind of limit my discussion at this point to your questions on whether or not you'd like to go forward with the options. In the Executive Summary, we lay out four options. The Staff thinks that the third option is certainly the most practical and feasible. And ultimately, aside from the pledge to borrow money, we would actually not have to borrow any money and it could advance this project by a number of years. So subject to the Board's questions. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Questions for staff? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Chairman, the reason for bringing this forward is that this particular road has got the reputation just by it solely as being one of the most dangerous, if not the most dangerous stretch in our entire roadway network. I think what the staff is proposing here today shows a way to go ahead and move this construction up ahead of schedule without interfering at all with any other of our road projects in the future, without altering any of their time schedules, and without having to physically borrow the money. We have to pledge to borrow it, if needed, but I think the staff is going to show us that is almost a certainty that we will not get to the point that we have to borrow at all; and even if we did, it would be for a very short portion. So I think it's probably a prudent decision for us to go ahead from a safety standpoint and take a good close look at the option that they're going to present to us here. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Mr. Hancock? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: First of all, again, I commend Mr. Conrecode and Mr. Hargett on your work on this. I want to state something that I expressed to you in my meeting with you; and that is that the method in which you have arrived at to secure the funding for this project without going out and getting loans does not eat up everything that is there, and I think that's an important point. Should another project be brought to our attention in the next two years of the magnitude of this one where there's a public safety issue at hand that is important, there is still the possibility that we could do the same type of procedure, secure funding for that project also. So, you know, again, I just want everyone on the Board to understand, this isn't a use-it-all-now but there is the process by which we're talking about utilizing here, it still has a little room left in it. Am I reading that correctly, Mr. Conrecode? MR. CONRECODE: Yes, sir, you are. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Thank you. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Specifically, and the question was posed: would this in any way affect the Board's desire to accelerate Vanderbilt Beach Road construction? The answer is no. This in no way would affect the acceleration of that road. And again, I think it's because of some good work on Mr. Hargett's part and also Mr. Conrecode. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Mr. Hargett, do you want to run through the explanation for us? I think you've had a chance to meet with each member of the Board but the public certainly hasn't had an opportunity to hear this. MR. HARGETT: Yes, sir. There are two phases of County Road 951 that were proposed to be constructed, one in fiscal year '96 and one in fiscal year '97, and the proposal before you is to combine those into one project and to advance the funding of that to fiscal year '95. I think the important thing to understand, that both of these projects are in the existing road construction plan and are funded, and the issue is whether or not to advance that. Commissioner Norris had asked sometime ago that we take a look at the possibility of advancing either one or more of these sections. The estimated cost of the project is $15,678,000 combined. And what we have done is certainly take a look at our unappropriated balance in the road construction program. We've analyzed that and we've also taken a very close look at our cash flows on an annual basis, indicating that approximately 62 percent of the budget is expended on an annual basis, which leaves us in terms of cash flow, the available funds in which to construct this project. The proposed funding for the project is to use eight and a half million dollars from existing unappropriated balance or reserves in the road program. There's currently $300,000 already budgeted in fiscal year '95 for one phase of this project, and there would be an additional 6.8 million dollars that we would use from available cash flow in the projects. And as Mr. Conrecode indicated to me, however, it will be necessary to make a commitment to actually borrow that money should the need exist. We do not anticipate that that will be necessary at any time. We've presented to you what we think is the most likely scenario in terms of available cash as well as the worst case scenario. Another worse case scenario, as we've presented to you, there will be three-quarters over the next three years in which there would be a negative cash flow, at which point you would borrow those funds at an estimated total cost of about $190,000. We think there's significant economy of scale and financial advantages to combining the projects and accelerating them which would more than offset any costs should that worst case scenario ever develop. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Mr. Conrecode, when you and I had spoke, you indicated specifically what a couple of those cost savings are by combining the projects. MR. CONRECODE: Yes, sir. Our conservative estimate in combining the projects to the economy scale is about $150,000. In addition, we think that there's some potential in advancing it, reducing the cost to do the construction, an inflation of about $200,000. And then there's about $50,000 that we think we can save in some of the transitional issues if we were to build a project in two segments and have to build temporary transition lanes and things of that nature. MR. DORRILL: Further to that, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Conrecode and Mr. Hargett had recommended the combination and also trying to accelerate the bid phase for this, the two largest competitors for road construction in our community are APAC (phonetic) and Highway Pavers, and they are both completing major work that they have under contract and going into the late winter and early spring. And they don't have current county or state work. And we would hope to get very aggressive in competitive bids from both of them, buying for what will be the largest road construction project in the history of the County at some almost sixteen million dollars. So your staff is thinking ahead during the bid phase to hopefully get very, very competitive bids on what will be a very big job to coincide with their current lack of other work, to take advantage of what we see is a good market. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Mr. Dorrill, do we have some public speakers on this item? MR. DORRILL: You have three. The first one, I have to admit when I looked at it earlier, I thought that was Lynnbald (phonetic). But as I look again now, I think it's Limehand or Limeband? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Not Rush. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: And he will be followed by -- MR. LINNEHAN: Oh, the advantages of being a Smith. I'm Swedish. My name is Linnehan from County Ruscomin (phonetic). I'm going to withdraw what I was going to say because John Norris has filled me in on what information that I didn't have that is specific at this time. So I simply want to offer on behalf of the people we represent, which is a Gulfview man and, number two, and some others along Rattlesnake-Hammock Road. The last time I appeared here was in 1998. Four weeks later, I was up at Fort Myers getting a bypass, and I wouldn't want that to repeat. However, we feel very strongly about one phase and then I'll withdraw. The additional highways or the lanes that are required at Rattlesnake-Hammock Road and County Barn Road, County Barn was always favored as a small road going north and south or going what you might call nowhere. So why extend it or expand it? The same thing is said to be true of Rattlesnake-Hammock Road. It's about 99 percent residential, elderly residential. So we're as concerned about safety as anybody else in the town. But we would be very happy to postpone the expenses that were directed towards those two boulevards, County Barn. And we speak, I think, for a high percentage of the majority. It's not necessary. When you extend Santa Barbara Road down to Rattlesnake-Hammock Road, you will take care of all the problems we have today on County Barn and Rattlesnake-Hammock. They won't be there. That whole nucleus up there in Lely is coming down Santa -- What's the name of that road? Augusta Boulevard and Santa -- MR. DORRILL: St. Andrews. MR. LINNEHAN: Santa -- No, no. St. Andrews. Excuse me. I'm sorry. Yeah. They're all flowing into and that's where the traffic is coming from. Four years ago, when we started introducing this increased traffic, I was going up to the center of town, the mall, on 41. And my neighbor said, What the hell are you going up there for? Go up here to County Barn Road, take a right and take a left on Santa Boulevard. It goes nowhere north or south but it's available to you, a four-lane highway, you take up there. And I've been lonesome going up there for years on Santa Barbara. That's a fact. Now, you open up that boulevard, four lanes, into Rattlesnake-Hammock Road, you'll save a hell of a lot money and save an awful lot of lives. I mean that very seriously. You know, we're not engineers. We don't claim to be. We live there. We look at it all day, every day for thirteen years now, and we like it as it is. It's no problem to us. So if you want to take some money, take that money and put it in what we call suicide highway 951. It's all yours as far as -- a great majority of people who live in those two streets, I'm sure, if you took survey over there, you'd find it to be a fact. I'm sorry, I had a long speech to make but the gentleman has filled me in on the facts of life and I'll withdraw it. It's nice to see you again and we'll have no bypass operations. Thank you. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Thank you very much and take good care of yourself. Mr. Keller. MR. KELLER: George Keller, a concerned citizen. I also represent the Golden Gate Estates Association. I'll be very short. I appreciate what the County staff has done. Please, do the job right now as quick as you can. We need it. Thank you. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Thank you. Dr. Byles? MS. BYLES: Fay Byles, and I'm President of the Marco Island Taxpayers Association. At our last board meeting, we discussed this and we are very much in favor of doing it right away. Most of us travel 951 to go to 75, to the airport or even to North and East Naples. It is a bad road. It's unsafe. There's no doubt about it. The ruts are getting worse every day. I'm on a committee at Edison Community College. The traffic coming in and out of Edison Community College has greatly increased and they're all using 951. So there's no doubt in our minds that we are very much in favor of doing it just as quickly as possible. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Thanks. Mr. Hancock? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a motion that we recommend that the staff pursue with -- Is it option C, Mr. Conrecode? MR. CONRECODE: It was the third option. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Third option. Option number three in their staff report, by joining the two projects together and moving ahead with it. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I'll second that, Mr. Chairman. And I'd like to commend Mr. Hargett and Mr. Conrecode for their work that they've done on this. I think they've brought this project to us in a very cost-efficient and creative manner. I'm glad to see that we've lost enough lives out there on 951. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: If I would add to that, I travel that daily. And interesting to note, those are 10-foot wide lanes as opposed to a standard 12-foot wide out there right now, which I think adds to the discomfort of a lot of travelers. Oddly enough, on Carl Loveday's show when we take the call-ins, I get more calls on this over the last two years than any other single project. You get calls on a lot of stuff. But even when this item is not specifically in the news or in the newspaper, we get calls on this, every single show. So great work on this. I think it is, as Commissioner Norris said, overdue and well done. All those in favor of the motion, state aye. Anyone opposed? The motion carries 5-0. Item #8H3 RECOHMENDATION THAT THE BOARD OF COUNTY COHMISSIONERS AWARD BID #94-2277 AND AUTHORIZE THE CHAIRMAN TO EXECUTE A CONSTRUCTION AGREEMENT FOR THE COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER IN IHMOKALEE - AWARDED TO SURETY CONSTRUCTION WITH BID ALTERNATES 2-8; AND ACCEPTANCE OF BID WITHDRAWAL FROM MURPHY CONSTRUCTORS The next item: Recommendation that the BCC award Bid 94-2277 and authorize the Chairman to execute a construction agreement for the Collier County Government Center in Immokalee. Hello again, Mr. Conrecode. MR. CONRECODE: For the record, Tom Conrecode from the Capital Projects Office. Commissioners, just to clarify, there's been one circumstance that's occurred since we prepared the Executive Summary packet on this particular item that I wanted to make the Board aware of. And we're going to also ask the Board to consider two basic options with regard to this particular facility. The staff, in preparing the Executive Summary, reviewed the bids for this; and the low bidder, it was found, and he had requested relief from an erroneous bid. The bid was submitted at $122,000 under the next pack of bidders, and the low bidder, D.E. Murphy, has requested to be let out of that bid. Staff had reviewed the documentation that Mr. Murphy had provided. And in the Executive Summary packet, we weren't really at odds but we differed with the attorney's recommendation. They recommended that he be let out of the bid. We recommend that we hold the bid for the purpose of maintaining the integrity of the bid process. In the meantime, Mr. Murphy has come through with a proposal; if he's let out of the bid without prejudice, that he would make a contribution to the County in the amount of $15,000 in order to offset some of the pain that the County would feel in going with the second low bidder. And I think that does a couple of things. It maintains the integrity of the bid process. It spreads the pain a little bit. He's not just being let off the hook completely. And subject to the Board's approval of that particular item, we would move forward with our recommendation then to award to the second low bidder, that being Surety. That's entirely up to the Board, though, whether or not they want to accept that particular option. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Matthews? COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: Do we have the bid bond on this project? MR. CONRECODE: Yes, ma'am, we do. And the approximate value is $45,000. COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: And he would be offering us one third of that amount to not pull the bond? MR. CONRECODE: Yes, ma'am. The other the option, and he's indicated that if we were to go after the bid bond, that he would attempt to do the project anyway so that he didn't sacrifice the bid bond. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Has this ever happened before? MR. CONRECODE: It hasn't happened in my experience with the County. I believe that there was one or two projects like this that the school board recently had an experience with on an elementary school, but I haven't had contact with the school board to follow up on what action they took. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: So what we do today would set a precedent. MR. CONRECODE: Yes, ma'am. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Whether we elected to just let him out with no penalties or what have you? MR. CONRECODE: Yeah, staff would recommend that you -- There's a minimum to accept the penalty if you let him out of the bid. And we think that the $15,000, although it's arbitrary or a token amount, it is a substantial amount, and I think would really continue to maintain the integrity of the bid process and that this guy did, in fact, he acknowledged that he had made a mistake. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: As part of the discussion, you are familiar with this vendor? MR. CONRECODE: Yes, sir. We have him under a contract for the Immokalee Rec and Pool Project. It's approximately a three- million-dollar contract. He is an excellent contractor. We've had good experience with him. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: And this is an honest mistake as far as the low bid, making the error and the costs involved? MR. CONRECODE: As best we can tell. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I'd like to hear from Steve Camell about accepting the $15,000 in lieu of the bid bond. What kind of precedent will that set? Will that make his job more difficult if low bidders later realize that, Geez, I can claim a mistake and get out of it for one third of the bid bond? MR. CARNELL: Well, for the record, Steve Camell, Purchasing Director. The Executive Summary, they're giving you two options which were more extremes; one being releasing him without prejudice, or, secondly, holding him to the contract and having him do the work. Both of those have some apparent flaws right on the surface from my perspective as well as Mr. Conrecode and the balance of the staff. And I guess it's my feeling that some type of compromise arrangement where Mr. Murphy would compensate the County some amount of money is an appropriate solution, because as Mr. Conrecode had said, you would have the contractor forfeiting some money, sharing in the pain, if you will, the County having to go to the higher bidder, compensating us for our added expenditure and portion, in part, at least. And I think it would discourage bidders who would try to come in and frivolously bid with the thought that, Oh, we can talk Collier County out of this later if we leave money on the table. You know, some of this, you talk about precedent. It's very good you're concerned about precedent, but all of this is always very case specific, too. And in this particular instance, I believe the facts do support Mr. Murphy's contention that he made an honest mistake. He looked at his notes very closely in terms of how he formulated his bid. You know, in short of some out and out, just blatant misrepresentation of what he did, his notes do support his explanation to us that he inadvertently left out one of the components of the work in forming his base bid. Just some thoughts both ways. If you hold Mr. Murphy to the work, from every indication we've had, he's indicated he will do the work. He's going to take a loss somewhere in the neighborhood of $50,000 if he does the work and eats the contract cost as it was bid. There potentially could be some chilling effect there if it appears that we are just overly arbitrary and are going to hold people to, when they make honest mistakes and even when they make a good faith effort to explain, which Mr. Murphy has and very forthright in disclosing everything that he did in association with the bid. Likewise, if you release him, you set the potential precedent there of, Well, if you talk a good shop with Collier County, you can get out of this. We think the compensation approach of some type of payment to us is a reasonable solution that will let the bidding community know that we won't necessarily hold them to the worse possible consequence and that we'll try to find the medium solution when these situations arise. But by the same token, that there may be a little dollar-and-cents cost and expense associated with a mistake. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Just to follow up after that: Mr. Cuyler, from a legal standpoint, does this set any precedent, whatever our decision is today? MR. CUYLER: No, it doesn't. And frankly, you've got -- If you go after a contractor's bid bond, you're going to place him in one or two positions usually. Either he's going to litigate or he's going to go in and take the loss, and then you've got a contractor on the job that knows he's taken a loss, and you've got to deal with that type of situation. We've discussed this thoroughly, and I find it to be inappropriate from a legal perspective. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Hac'Kie? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Yes, my question -- But since I have the floor, let me say that there are -- I'm satisfied with that option, with this penalty as a -- in the case of somebody having made a reasonable mistake and we're confident it was a mistake. I would hope that in this discussion we're going to get to the issues of what are the changes to be made in the plans, and I know that the judiciary had some comments on what would be appropriate changes. So I wanted to get to that part of the discussion when it's appropriate. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: I won't right now. I understand we have one speaker, and that is Judge Wilson? MR. DORRILL: We do have also have a representative from the Sheriff's Department, Mr. Barnett. I don't know whether Judge Wilson or Mr. Barnett -- I would think that both of their issues are going to deal with the add-alternates that were proposed as part of the bid. So we'll move to the second item. MR. CONRECODE: Mr. Chairman, I usually don't interrupt the judge and I, for one, don't want to. The staff doesn't want to in any way indicate that we will not go against somebody's bid bond under the right circumstances. It's just this particular set of circumstances. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: That was going to be one of my questions. If we can in the process of this make it perfectly clear that this is case specific. MR. DORRILL: Since the next issues are going to deal with the add alternates, it might help if Mr. Conrecode could at least list for you the add alternates and their affects on both the interior and exterior finishes for the building and also some rest-room issue, too. MR. CONRECODE: Okay. And this is really the second half of the Executive Summary that I kind of wanted to separate for the Board so that they recognize there are two issues. As a result of taking the second low bid, this project is, in essence, over budget. And we've done a couple of things to help us bring the project back within its budget. One is we've done some value engineering and are recommending some value engineered cuts of almost $79,000 to bring that project back in line. In addition to that, we had bid because we knew that this project was -- we bid a number of add alternates that staff couldn't recommend because of funding. We couldn't recommend that we take those add alternates. Now, the Board obviously has the option to elect any one of the number of add alternates as we go down through the package. The judiciary is interested in certain of those. I believe that members of the community may be interested in certain of those as well. But the Board can really pick and choose to add whatever they want in the contract and we'll bring the contract back for the Chairman's signature which consists or that carries each of those items as you select them. So you'd like, I can walk you through what the value engineered items are and then I can walk you through the add alternates items as well, and we'll prepare a contract based on what the Board directs us. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Why don't you jog us through those. MR. CONRECODE: Jog. Short of a sprint. The add alternates. Again, there are eight of them. We didn't recommend any of them. Alternate one was to provide an enclosed prisoner deposit in a handling area. It was almost 42,000. That will be a fenced area in lieu of a brick and roofed area. Alternate number two was to provide an outdoor terrace area. That would be on -- One side of the building, it provides some assembly in a control area for people who are waiting for court time or whatever, and it keeps the assembly out of the building and the noise out of the court operations. Alternate number three would be automatic sliding doors in lieu of the typical swing doors that you see on buildings. Alternate number four was some exterior stucco and metal roof upgrades that we thought would tie this building in with the building that you just recently built next to it. We've had a rendering prepared and colored, to give you some sort of an indication as well as some photographs that you have in front of you that show you the differences between the two buildings. They are a matter of a few hundred feet apart. This esthetic issue would tie the buildings together in kind of a campus setting, to give you an indication. In fact, the older building was built in the early '60s, so it will give you a pretty good indication of where we would take these facilities. The next item didn't have a charge and it was the metal roof. It's kind of tied in with alternate number four. Alternate number six was bulletproof glass in the clerk area. That's an item that we did as an alternate because it wasn't originally requested as part of the program but we had provided it in the court facility here and thought that it would be a worthwhile add alternate to list. MR. DORRILL: That area, in fairness, is not routine area. That's the area for fines and forfeitures. And these people, for all practical purposes, are cash tellers who are receiving cash as a result of court fines, tickets and things like that. MR. CONRECODE: Alternate number seven would be to provide some additional site similar drainage work on the east side of the building. And we really just bring up to current codes, the current standards. It's not a requirement. If we want to do it, we can. It's a ticket of fourteen -- or fifteen thousand dollars. And then item number eight is a relocate of some poles. We've taken that out because we think we can handle that within the project without doing it as an add alternate. In addition to that, we had gone through some value engineering items. They're summarized in detail. Very few of them, with the exception of the elimination of staff toilet facilities, have any real effect on the occupants of the building. They would not even know that those changes were made. So staff recommends that we adopt all of those. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Matthews? COHHISSIONER MATTHEWS: The facilities on the interior of the building are four restrooms that you had just alluded to? MR. CONRECODE: Yes, ma'am. And we would provide for shared use of staff restrooms in that area in lieu of. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: And you're comfortable that restrooms are conveniently located, that a great deal of staff time won't be lost in their coming and going? MR. CONRECODE: Yes, ma'am, I am. I think the occupants are comfortable with that as well. They've seen some of the alternatives. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Okay. Now, it's my understanding that the EHS Sheriff Building came in about a hundred or a hundred fifteen thousand dollars under budget? MR. CONRECODE: Yes, ma'am. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: So in theory, there is money available to do these add alternates. All we have to do is transfer the money from one project to another? MR. CONRECODE: Yes, ma'am. We had proposed originally that that would be carried forward from last fiscal year to this year because of delays in bringing that project in. We didn't get that done and as a result, it went into your 301 fund reserves in lieu of carrying forward into this project. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Okay. You want to show us what the rendering will look like? MR. CONRECODE: Yes, ma'am (indicating). The treatment on the building would be very similar to the photograph. We didn't exactly match the colors that you have for the EHS -- or the Emergency Service Center Facility but we would pick up the same roof features and the same stucco treatment as well as the split-faced block where you currently see stone work on the current Government Center Facility there. We really just kind of tie those colors together to provide, again, a more modern facility, bringing it up to handicap code, bring it up to current -- same similar codes as well. That's what one of those add alternatives was for. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Now, Mr. Conrecode, we talked last week about this project when you sent me the add alternate sheet, and we discussed the automatic sliding doors and you had indicated that there probably could be some benefit to going ahead and doing the sliding doors because of, number one, the ADA requirements and, number two, the constant adjusting of the pressure required to open manual doors. MR. CONRECODE: Yes, ma'am. Under the new ADA code, we're constantly adjusting in order to maintain the five-pump full requirement in order for the handicap to have readily available access. As an alternate -- in fact, you find it in this building -- automatic doors have been installed because it's much more convenient. It's simply a motion-detector activated door, and that would be what we would propose for here. It's strongly endorsed by the Handicap Association, and the Facilities Management people meet with them regularly, and they recommend that we take that add alternate. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Judge Wilson? JUDGE WILSON: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak and apologize. I didn't sign up. So thank you very much for graciously allowing me to speak. And I am not here to speak bathrooms. We are happy with and have no problem on that particular issue. There are only -- Well, just for the full Board's information, the three county judges are the judges that hold court in Immokalee. You do have a judge every week for a day in Immokalee. So I'm there once every three weeks. And so there are certain things that were very important to us in conducting our business in that building. And those two things that we would like you to consider as add alternates are the terrace that is referenced as alternate number two and the alternate number seven which is the paving and drainage. The terrace is very important because we do have a lot of our citizens that are required to be outside of the lobby and the courtroom area. And if we -- Instead of having it as a concrete block, if we instead only have sod, I think that there's a good likelihood that it will soon become mud and will be transported very quickly into our new building. And I also think that it would not be as conducive to allowing us to have the overflow outside as a concrete slab would be. We're not concerned necessarily in the esthetics of it. I think that's something that you as a Board should be more concerned about. We're just interested in the utilitarian approach. The paving and the drainage, we think, is more of a necessity than an extra, because we have been using that building for quite sometime. As Tom said, it is a very old building. You have the new building right next door, which I cannot say with any technical authority but I would assume probably has changed the drainage of that area somewhat. And in the past, we have had great difficulty in, particularly in the rainy season, getting to the building from the parking area. So I would on behalf of the three county judges strongly request that those two add alternates be included in the project. And we are, of course, very interested in getting this bid out and the project underway as soon as possible. We're very happy to be serving the citizens of Immokalee in the Community Center now, but we think we would better serve them in the new government center. And I'd be happy to answer any questions that you have about how we do things out there, anything else that you'd like to know. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I have one question. Alternate number one, prisoner depot and associated mechanical, electrical and plumbing. How does that -- JUDGE WILSON: Well, I didn't really address some of the things that the county judges considered were not vital to our jobs but that were more within the other constitutional officers' province. And I did expect that Sheriff Hunter might have had a representative here to discuss this. This is, as I understand it, and Tom can go into more detail about it, but right now the way it is planned is that the prisoners will just be dropped off at a door and then would be taken into the holding area within the facility. As I understood from Mr. Shands in Capital Projects Office, this prisoner deposit area that will cost that much is actually like a salley port where the transportation of the prisoners can go into a secured area before moving them into the courthouse facility. I think that the concern, as I understand it, was that I believe that you're all aware of the Immokalee stockade problem that we have had on occasion with prisoners walking out and climbing over the fence. And as it is planned now, it would only be a fence, I believe, that is around that area. Tom, you know better than I. MR. CONRECODE: Yeah, if I could speak to the specifics of that. The area that we're talking about on the site plan is this relatively small area where prisoners would be brought in either from Naples or from the Immokalee stockade, brought into this area, the compound secured. It would be a six-foot high fence with Consurtino (phonetic) wire and then they would be brought in here for holding, pretrial. In the alternate, this would be built as a concrete masonry structure all the way around here en route with some sort of mechanical door in order to allow prisoners to be brought in under, again, the continuous watch of the deputy, the transport deputy, and then into the compound. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: So just to make sure I understand. Without the add alternate, they come into a fenced area with a razor ribbon and are taken inside into a secured area. MR. CONRECODE: That's correct. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Okay. Commissioner Hancock? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Conrecode, on that, have we looked at just doing an aluminum architectural-styled roof over that without walling it in, because I do know that, you know, the corrections officers or the deputies that bring the prisoners in if it's raining, that can be a real inconvenience. MR. CONRECODE: We haven't looked at it specifically. But I can tell you, we can put that on for about forty cents a square foot -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. MR. CONRECODE: -- over that particular area if we want to. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: The reason I ask is a thirty-four- thousand-dollar item to put masonry block instead of a chain-linked fence, it appears to me to be a little bit of a luxury. However, the roofing might be something I would consider more necessary, not necessarily to make the prisoners comfortable but to make our corrections officers, make their job a little easier. that might be an option. I would suggest consideration for the Board. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Go ahead. JUDGE WILSON: Let me just as a closing comment say that I think -- and then your little button here is telling me to sum up. So I will. I would just encourage you to look at this project as something, you know, that hopefully we don't have to come back to you till twenty-five years from now, if we're all still around, to ask for any changes. And that's why I'm hoping that you will look at this as being an overall project that we can live with for a very long time and will consider some of these things more on a permanent basis. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Mr. Dorrill, do we have any other speakers? MR. DORRILL: You had a representative from the Sheriff's Department, Lt. Barnett. HR. BARNETT: Hy name is Scott Barnett, Collier County Sheriff's Office. We are satisfied with the roofing as an option for us if we get that benefit. I'm here basically to ask about the compound area that we had the original plans for the Sheriff's Office. My capacity with the Sheriff's Office is the property and evidence custodian, and I need a secured area in Immokalee to put vehicles, bicycles, large objects for evidence in storage; otherwise, we're stuck with bringing all that stuff to Naples where we do have a large facility here, but I think it would be an undue hardship on the residents in Immokalee and would create a lot of extra paperwork and involvement with the Sheriff's Office if we don't get the fenced area. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: What do you currently do? MR. BARNETT: We put in a fenced area that we have in Immokalee that's supposed to be moved because of this construction. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Mr. Conrecode? MR. CONRECODE: That's still in the bid. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: It's still in the bid, so it's still there. MR. CONRECODE: Well, we were under the impression it was removed. MR. BARNETT: My understanding is that it will be moved next door, what is the Emergency Service Complex area. It needs to be moved because this building is being expanded and it's going to be moved to a new area, but it was in the bid. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Would it be reestablished the same size? MR. CONRECODE: By the refueling point is where it's going to be. MR. YOUNG: My name is Gary Young from the -- CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: We need you to come to the microphone and I need you to say that again. MR. YOUNG: Gary Young of the Sheriff's Office. I believe that the buildings are moved. They're on the plans but they haven't moved the fence. I guess I can take these off. They haven't moved the fence. They said it cost $1800 and they had to cut that expense out. We've had people dig under our existing fence over there. And inside the fence, there's also a metal building that's used to store, for one thing, clothing from Homicide that has to air dry. We won't get specific about why. And that has to be secured. But we have to have the fence. It's as simple as that. We're going backwards if we take the fence down. Also, on the salley port, if we attempt to certify the jail, as we just certified the Sheriff's Office, part of certification requires a salley port. They just don't build holding facilities or jails without them. I realize that's a big expense. And as an alternative to that, we could live with a dried-in area with a chain-linked fence temporarily. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Is that the one we're talking about, masonry walls and stuff, this salley something? MR. YOUNG: Yes, ma'am. It looks -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Are you saying you can't get certified unless we build masonry walls there? MR. YOUNG: If we go for jail certification, one of the standards that you have to meet is a closed-in salley port. COHHISSIONER MATTHEWS: It's required to be -- MR. CONRECODE: At the courthouse or at the jail? MR. YOUNG: Any holding area like that. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: And it has to be masonry? It can't be fenced and -- MR. YOUNG: Well, I suppose it could be a framed structure, but it has to be closed in. In essence, this is a garage. If you looked at it from the outside, it would just look like a garage coming out from the main building with a much bigger door over to accommodate the prisoner pen. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: I guess in my mind, the most important thing is that we can effectively do the job we're supposed to be doing, and if we can drop the prisoners off within a fenced area that has razor ribbon on the top and walk them a few feet into the building into a secured area, it seems like that's doing the job for me. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Conrecode, did you respond? The gentleman thinks that there's not going to be a fence there but you've told us that there is in the bid? MR. CONRECODE: Right. I talked with the project manager on this particular project, and I don't know about the specifics of the metal building. But the elimination of the fence as a result of the changes on the site, it's going to be relocated. It's one that we felt that we didn't have to show as a deduct or as an add alternate. And the $1800 can be handled within the project. JUDGE WILSON: It's listed on number thirteen: Omit relocation of compound fence. MR. YOUNG: That's it. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, I think we need to it change that. MR. CONRECODE: But it's one that we can handle within the project. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. So it is going to be relocated to a similar size elsewhere on the property. MR. CONRECODE: Adjacent to the re-fueling site. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: The refueling site. What about the metal building? MR. CONRECODE: The metal building, I don't have any knowledge of. We just built the new evidence storage area within the Sheriff's new facilities. If we need to relocate the building or something, we can look at that. MR. YOUNG: That's taken care of. And that's on the plan. It's actually three structures, and they are in the bid. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: We're going to move the fence internally? MR. CONRECODE: Yes, ma'am. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: And Surety is not going to do it. HR. YOUNG: It sounds like we're all square. HR. CONRECODE: Well, we'll do it within the contract. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Okay. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: There are no other public speakers. Just a thought. The outdoor terrace and the paving and drainage that the judge mentioned, it seemed to be just common sense items, to me. And Commissioner Hancock mentioned there might be an affordable way to do some roofing over the salley port. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Any motion to approve the add-ons, I would like that to include a roof structure over a fenced-in salley port area, opposed to masonry wall structure. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: I guess I'm less comfortable. I don't have any interest either in that masonry structure. I'm less comfortable with the doors and the stucco and the clerk's bulletproof glass, but I don't know. We'll see what the rest of the Board will say. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: My feeling is I agree with all of the items that the two of you just listed, but that the bulletproof glass is very important for the clerk. They have a lot of cash that they're collecting and sitting there and I don't want to wait for a disaster. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I would agree with that. And I must ask Mr. Conrecode, if we're not going to pursue the exterior stucco, are the exterior renovations going to be including paint or anything? I mean, I just -- I look at these two and there's a disparity here and we have a responsibility in the Immokalee community to do more of this and less of this (indicating). We have a responsibility in our entire community to do that. MR. CONRECODE: It would simply be cleaning and painting. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Just cleaning and painting. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: It would not be a whole lot better than what you see there. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It wouldn't look like what you showed us. MR. CONRECODE: Correct. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Likewise, just because we have money sitting there, I'm not apt to spend it. But by the same token, I would support a motion that included the exterior renovations for the simple reason that I think the community warrants it. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Matthews? COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Yeah. I'd like to make a motion that we approve add alternates two through eight. And as for add alternate one for the salley port, that we continue to investigate the fenced-in area with a possibility of an aluminum roof. We don't have a fixed dollar amount for that but that we look at what that cost is. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Seconded. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: There's a motion and a second. Further discussion on that motion? Seeing none, all those in favor of the motion, state aye. Anyone opposed? Motion carries 5-0. It's just about -- Mr. Conrecode? MR. CONRECODE: We do need to ask the Board to formally accept Mr. Murphy's offer or award to the second low bidder or something. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Matthews? COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Yeah, I would like to make a motion that we accept Mr. Murphy's request to withdraw his bid and that in lieu of, in this special case, we accept the fifteen-thousand-dollar payment in lieu of pulling his bid bond, and that we award the contractor, the second low bidder, Surety Construction. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: That motion takes into consideration the unique circumstances here -- COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: the County? COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Very much so. -- and Murphy's reputation with Pretty much so. I'll second that. Yeah, second. There's a motion and a second. Any further discussion on that. Seeing none, all those in favor of the motion, state aye. Motion carries 5-0. Thank you, Mr. Conrecode. MR. CONRECODE: Thank you. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: We're just about at the lunch hour. Let's do one final items. The next two items, it looks like they may take a little bit, but let's do the county attorney's report before we go to lunch and then we'll take a break. And that is: Recommendation for the BCC to approve a developer contribution credit. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Mr. Chairman, I don't know when it's appropriate in this agenda but I need to abstain from voting -- CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: On this item? COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- on this item. I have a client who could potentially benefit from the Board's decision, so I would abstain. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: So noted. Who's doing the presentation on this? COUNTY ATTORNEY: Mr. Chairman, I was supposed to call on my assistant but he -- CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: We'll take lunch now then. We'll do it after lunch. We're not going to sit for five minutes. We'll see you in an hour at 1:15. (A lunch break was held until 2:15 p.m.) Item #9A1 RECOHMENDATION FOR THE BOARD OF COUNTY COHMISSIONERS TO APPROVE A DEVELOPER CONTRIBUTION CREDIT OF EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES IMPACT FEES IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,013,000 FOR THE CONVEYANCE OF THE PELICAN HARSH SCHOOL SITE AND THE PAYMENT OF CERTAIN INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS BY WCN COHMUNITIES, INC. TO THE COLLIER COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD PURSUANT TO SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE SCHOOL BOARD AND WCN COHMUNITIES, INC. - STAFF RECOHMENDATION APPROVED CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Hello and welcome back. Our next item on the agenda, 8H(4), recommendation to consider a joint participation analysis of water reservoirs for Collier County. The reason we were going to take 9A(1) is because we assumed it was quick and we could get it out of the way before lunch. If it's equally quick now, we can do that now if you like. We'll get that out of the way now. MS. ASHTON: Good afternoon, Commissioners. For the record, Heidi Ashton, Assistant County Attorney. The item before you is the developer contribution agreement between the County and WCN Communities, Inc. It is for educational facilities impact fees in the amount of one million dollars -- $1,013,000. It is pursuant to a settlement agreement which Westinghouse and the school board have entered into. I won't get into the details of that other than what is applicable today. The developer contribution is a 20-acre school site in Pelican Marsh and a $213,000 developer contribution to the school board for certain infrastructure improvements at the site, the Pelican Marsh site. We've drafted a proposed agreement which is attached to your agenda package. I would like to point out a couple of items. First of all, the school board has submitted a resolution recommending that the Board approve the developer contribution credit. We also have a letter dated December 13 from the school board's attorney which has not been provided to you which we're maintaining on file concerning certain findings the school board has made. MR. CUYLER: And we're going to submit that for the record. MS. ASHTON: I'd like to submit it as part of the record. Two other points. We had not received an appraisal on this. We're relying on the value of the 20-acre school site and the contribution which the school board and Westinghouse has agreed upon which is the $1,013,000. Also, if -- the 20-acre school site has already been conveyed to the school board, but the $213,000 will be transferred no later than June 1st, 1995. If there is a default, if Westinghouse doesn't pay the $213,000, that's a matter that we've left to the school board to enforce pursuant to their settlement agreement and we've -- the County Attorney's Office has reviewed the agreement and we're recommending approval. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Questions for the county attorney? Do we have public speakers on this item, Mr. Dotrill? MR. DORRILL: I only have one. Mr. Keller. MR. KELLER: George Keller, concerned citizen. In the first place, it's up to you to decide whether this impact fee will be forgiven and not the school board. In the second place, we're talking about $40,000 an acre here, and I recently read in the newspaper that this particular developer has bought two pieces of property recently at a considerably lower price than that. Thirdly, I would like to remind you that the precedent in this county for years has been when a developer of this size -- this development may have as many as 20,000 people in it. They normally contribute areas for schools and areas for firehouses and areas for libraries and things like that. It always was a precedent. Now, what happens since we've got impact fees, the first thing we do is they contribute what they normally would have contributed anyway, and then we waive a million dollars worth of impact fees. What bothers me, for many years before this Board, I was one of the first people that started out the impact fee deal, but I never thought that if a poor individual, a working-class person wanted to build a house, he'd have to pay six to $8,000 impact fee and it wouldn't be forgiven and a developer this size could ask for a million dollars. It doesn't make sense and it's not fair, period. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Would anybody from Westinghouse like to speak? MR. CRONIN: For the record, my name is Dennis Cronin. I'm an attorney representing Westinghouse and WCN. Mr. Higstead is here from Westinghouse, Vivien Hastings from WCN, and if the Board has any questions, I think we can try to address them. Mr. Clapper from the school board who is the -- who wrote the letter that Miss Ashton referenced is dated today which clarified certain issues is also here to try to help the Board if they have any further questions. I would just like to clarify Miss Ashton's comments. On page four of the contribution agreement, it does cite the existence of an appraisal for the property which was contributed to the school board the existence of a written appraisal dated July 12, 1994, prepared by Criteria and Associates. If there's any specific questions that the Board has, I'll try to answer them. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Questions? COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: One question for procedure only. If this is property that WCN is giving to the school board and the school board is saying that they're going to pay for the property with impact fees, why are we involved? MR. CUYLER: If I go astray, Heidi, let me know, but let me mention one thing real quick, and then I will let Heidi address that specific question. This ordinance as a whole is a little different than your normal impact fees ordinance. As you know, school board requested this ordinance be put in place. The revenues go directly to the school board. The developer meets the criteria of the ordinance. The only question really is the valuation, the amount of the credit, and as Heidi indicated, that's something that we have -- I guess this Board will defer to the school board in determining exactly what that figure is. But since it's our ordinance, Heidi, you can explain why we're involved. MS. ASHTON: We're involved at the request of the school board and WCN Communities in that they have had some litigation, and as part of the settlement -- and you might want them to possibly comment on that if I'm making -- anything you would like to comment on. There was a litigation settlement amount, and then there was a developer contribution I think is the position that they've taken. So they've made a cash settlement, and then this developer contribution I guess is additional incentive to enter into some sort of resolution of their litigation. So the portion that we're looking at, it is part of their settlement agreement, yes, but it involves the impact fees giving a developer contribution credit, and the contribution as I previously stated is a conveyance of a 20-acre school site in Pelican Marsh and a $213,000 cash value. I believe that the previous litigation concerned a 20-acre site in Pelican Bay that was pursuant to PUD and they resolved that through a cash settlement. Separate issue. MR. CUYLER: Excuse me, Heidi. The reason the Board's involved is because it's the Board's ordinance, and under the ordinance, you have to approve the impact fee credit. MR. CRONIN: But the ordinance does provide a mechanism for the school board to give to you a resolution in which they have recommending that you approve this impact fee credit. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Questions? MS. ASHTON: The school board doesn't have the ability on its own. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: There appear to be no questions. We'll entertain a motion. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I would make a motion to approve. And just briefly, Mr. Keller, I understand your comments; however, we did an either/or with impact fees. With impact fees, there's no more taking of land for the purpose of setting aside school sites and charging impact fees. That's a double wammy. So we went to impact fees that -- the previous practice no longer can legally be done. I don't agree with your assessment there, and I'd be happy to talk to you about it at another time, but I'm going to make a motion to approve staff's recommendation. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: There's a motion and a second from Commissioner Matthews. Any further discussion? Seeing none, all those in favor of the motion state aye. Anyone opposed? Motion carries 5-0. Thank you. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: No. Excuse me. 4-0. One abstaining. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Oh. That's right. I'm sorry. You mentioned that prior to the break. 4-0. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Abstaining. Thank you. Item #8H4 RECOHMENDATION TO CONSIDER A JOINT PARTICIPATION ANALYSIS OF WATER RESERVOIRS FOR COLLIER COUNTY - APPROVED 8H(4), recommendation to consider a joint participation analysis of water reservoirs in Collier County. MR. DORRILL: Mr. Chairman, I wrote the executive summary here because the original request to consider this proposal came through a combined process involving Commissioner Norris in a project that he had discussed with us as early as last year in spring at a water resource conference. The Commission will recall that the issue of water resource in the commodity aspect of that during the dry season for the purposes of irrigation has been one of the leading goal areas that you identified in your strategic planning. With that in mind, while you have explored previously the concept of aquifer storage and recovery, we have received from the Wilson, Miller firm an unsolicited proposal providing an opportunity for the Board to explore an alternative concept but, again, with the desired result being that we would try and capture and hold what is otherwise that water resource that is lost through the four major Golden Gate canal and basin systems. I was surprised to find out that the annual estimate of fresh water, ground water that is lost through that drainage process is 167 billion gallons per year that is otherwise affecting not only the ground water table and shallow wells throughout Golden Gate, Golden Gate Estates but certainly has had an impact in the estuary and bay and river inlet system throughout Collier County ranging from the Cocohatchee River south all the way to the Faka Union Canal and the impact that that has had on the hydro period for the estuary systems that are there. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Dorrill, if I may, before we get to the end of this, as a matter of record, last week I sent a letter to the County Attorney's Office requesting clarification regarding potential conflict of interest that I may have voting on any issues involving Wilson, Miller, Barton and Peek. They are a previous employer which my employment with them was terminated November 18 of this year. I addressed the question to Mr. Cuyler. His response to me -- and I'll paraphrase this and you can correct me if I'm wrong, Mr. Cuyler -- is that conflict of interest is determined basically by having any existing or future financial ties to the petitioner of which I have none so -- and Mr. Cuyler, I guess I could ask you to elaborate on that a little bit. MR. CUYLER: That's correct. There's really two bases of conflict. One is an employment-type conflict. The other is a specific case-by-case voting conflict. Clearly since you've resigned from the firm, you have no financial interest in the firm. There is no continuing employment-type conflict. So that statutory provision is out of the way. The question then becomes on a case-by-case situation whether there is a vote that enures to your special gain or that of a relative. In this particular case, we have discussed this, and there obviously is not in this case. And as a matter of fact, there is a statutory provision that requires you to vote if there is not a -- a conflict and I -- clearly in this case there is no conflict. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. And that's the element that I think is important. Again, statutory -- the statutes require me to vote. I do not have a financial conflict. So that being said, this will be reviewed on every issue until we've covered all the bases possible as they come up, and we'll review each one thoroughly. So I just wanted that to be on the record. The county attorney has been advised. We have discussed it. And it is the county attorney's opinion that there is not a conflict of interest on this particular issue. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Mr. Dorrill, would you like to continue? MR. DORRILL: I will continue only to say that I have attached a proposed scope of services and an introductory letter that was part of a proposal that was received by Wilson, Miller with the thought being that we would have this type of analysis done and complete before a desired workshop between you and the governing board of the South Florida Water Management District that we've discussed would be sometime early in the spring of 1995. The focus of that workshop again being water resource and the commodity aspect of water and water use in Collier County. With that in mind, Mr. Barton has registered, and the proposed project is his, and I won't steal his thunder, and there are a number of additional speakers. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Mr. Chairman, may I ask a question? CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Certainly. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: We have had several water issues coming before the board as particularly affects the effluent and the items that you referenced, and at my request and now at staff's request, you've continued those until I believe next week's agenda because we hope to get some kind of report from staff. I like to call it a water workshop. Maybe I'm being overly optimistic, but a report on the status of long-range planning for water issues in Collier County, and it seems to me this likewise would be an appropriate item to postpone until we address all those issues in an overall scope kind of a format. So I just wanted to put that on the table to see if any of my other commissioners agree or disagree with that. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: I guess two things. At 9 a.m. This morning would have been the appropriate time. Mr. Barton and a number of other people have been here five or six hours now waiting for the item. So now is probably not the appropriate time to continue it. But I agree that we want to look at -- we have had a number of items come up, and we'd probably want to look at an overall scope; however, I think if we can move forward, I'm fairly well familiar and, again, don't want to get into the scope of the projection of what is outlined here, but I'm fairly comfortable with doing this. I think this may be a step toward doing that, but I'd prefer not to continue this specific item at this point. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I agree. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Same. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: We can listen to it, but I too find this particular issue, especially since it deals with irrigation water to be a little bit different than what I had first thought it was dealing with potable water. But we have asked our staff to bring us an effluent reuse program which is also irrigation. So, I mean, at this point, wewve got people going off in different directions, and I would prefer to get everything back at one time before we spend another dime on it. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: If I may, Commissioner Matthews, the only difference I see is that we have had the opportunity in the past to look at the ASR as an option, and I donwt think today again that wewre making a decision but looking at this as whether this is a piece we want to add to that puzzle or whether or not this is not viable and not something we want to pursue. So as far as Iwm concerned, we donwt know anything about this at this point. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Youlre absolutely right. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: And before we go workshopping it, whether itls viable or not, I would like to know a little bit about it, and I see today as an opportunity to do that. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Letls go ahead and hear the item and then weill decide how we want to close the item after welve heard it. Mr. Barton. MR. BARTON: Commissioners, for the record, let me introduce myself. Iim Bill Barton. Iim president of Wilson, Miller, Barton and Peek. Also from Wilson, Millerls staff today, I think most of you have met him, but let me introduce to you Dr. Hugh Mitchell-Tapping. Iive asked Hugh to come along because if you get into questions that are too difficult, Iim just going to sit down and let him stand up. I think it would be worthwhile for us to take a few moments to give you a little background on the subject before us today. On March the 3rd of this past year, the Commission had and held a workshop on water resources, and the Commission asked me if I would be a presenter at that workshop which I did. One of the things that I emphasized in my comments is a long-held belief of mine that surface water reservoirs had not been looked at sufficiently in Collier County for a means of trying to find a way to save that heavy rainfall runoff for the dryer part of the season. Following in my remarks then -- I think it was the very next day -- Commissioner John Norris called me and said,"Bill, I wanted to tell you that your expressed opinions on surface water reservoirs are opinions that I have also held for quite some time. Why donlt we have lunch and talk about this." So we did that. To make a long story short, John and I have pursued this, and I want to tell you that candidly if it had not been for John Norrisi interest in this, we would not be here today. Where is it going from today? None of us know. But whatever level of debate has been created by the subject before us today -- and I will tell you that I was astonished at the level of the debate that this little issue has created. John -- Commissioner John Norris deserves the credit for raising that level of debate on this important subject in this particular instance. The purpose of this study -- and I want to try to make this really clear -- is not to look at surface water reservoirs as the solution to Collier Countyls future water supply. Commissioners, it will not accomplish that. That overall objective will, in my humble opinion, be a variety of things that will come together to make that overall plan, and I want to talk to you about that overall plan in a few minutes. However, we believe that surface water reservoirs may be a key component to such an overall plan. It will have very many other elements involved in it. But I want to also tell you that reservoirs are not unique. They are not unusual. We are using them in Collier County today. Those of you that drive down Airport Road and look at the weir structure immediately across from Poinciana Village will note that there is a pump associated with that weir. There's about a six- to eight-foot difference in elevation between the upstream side and the downstream side, and all we have there is a small reservoir. We're using the canal system as a reservoir. One of the things that's unique in the little study we're proposing to you, though, is the vertical component of a reservoir. That is somewhat unique in South Florida. And in our opinion, it's what will make this reservoir feasible if, indeed, it is feasible. To tie the reservoir to the ground water system simply does not provide adequate water storage without using vast amounts of geographical area without beginning to deplete and harm the associated environment around it. As you pull the water table down, you pull it down not only in the reservoir but around the reservoir. So we believe that the vertical component is the key here. I will also tell you that separating reservoirs from ground water table is also not unique in Collier County, and I can tell you we have done that in a number of occasions. The one you may be most familiar with is Bonita Bay. As you drive into the entrance of Bonita Bay, you may not be aware of it, but the lakes on either side of that entrance are lined, and the reason for lining them was to separate them from the ground water table so that we could maintain a water elevation in those lakes that would have a more aesthetic and pleasing entry in the dry season when normally the water table recedes. So lining lakes or reservoirs is also not unique. What is unique is the thought of doing it on a large scale and doing it in a fashion that would allow us to stack water vertically and store it for a significant period of time, that being four to six months. That has not been studied well. We think it deserves a look to see whether or not it's economically feasible and practical from the standpoint of serving Collier County's needs in the future. Commissioner Mac'Kie's concern -- and I commend her on wanting to look at the broad picture. Certainly that is something that you as commissioners should strive to do. I would contend though that this little study is an isolated event that can be set over here by itself and needs to be conducted so that we know the results of it as you go forward with your study. Now, I keep using that word, "study." I would like to spend a few moments expressing another opinion if I may, and that is that I believe that Collier County must take control of its own future where water resources are concerned. In my opinion, we have been allowing ourselves to rely on other agencies for that work, South Florida Water Management District being the primary agency, and I would suggest to you that that in my opinion is not the proper thing for Collier County to do in the long term, and I'm not suggesting that South Florida Water Management District is not a very good agency. I think it is. They've got some very qualified people on their staff. They take their business very seriously, but I would point out to you that their board of directors is made up of 80 to 85 percent of residents that live in east and southeast coast of Florida. That's never going to change under the current makeup of the board, and it shouldn't because that's where the population is. I would further suggest to you that those board members have a duty and a responsibility to their constituents just as do you. They are inclined to pay more attention to the needs of Dade County and Broward County where water resources are concerned. Human nature. Not a criticism. If I were in their place, I would be exactly in the same persuasion. My concern is that in certain instances as we go forward, that relationship could and many times be contrary to the best interests of the citizens of Collier County, and that's the reason I would like to see Collier County take a much more proactive posture in its future water resource protection. To do that, I would strongly recommend -- and I think you may hear this from others today -- that we truly put together a county water resource plan and water resource budget. Whether that is done with your staff or whether that's a job that is sufficiently large to use a consultant is a decision you would have to make, but it's my fond hope that we go forward with such a study. The little thing we're talking about today though is -- should be a precursor to that study because such a study will be flawed if it doesn't have the data of the kind of things we're talking about today. Will a surface water reservoir work? Is it feasible both economically and from a construction practical standpoint? If so, then let's include it as a component of that study or allow it to be included if it's useful. Without the knowledge though that the little study we're talking about would provide to us, then whoever does the study is going to be working in a vacuum where surface water reservoirs are concerned. So we believe it's an item that can be easily separated and independent. It's simply a data-gathering process to make you and your consultant or in-house component that does such a future water budget will have for their use. And with that, let me try to answer any questions you may ask. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Norris. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Let me also add a little bit to Mr. Barton's comments. This discussion has centered now on surface reservoirs, but this concept proposal that we're talking about here that I've been trying to get some support on for sometime really is much more than that. I think some of the environmental concerns that we hear about all the time that are very important to our county are, number one, we have a billion gallons a day average going out our canal system into bays and estuaries, 550 million of that through the Golden Gate Canal alone. Number two is we need to bring some of this water out east and recharge aquifers. Number three, we need to take some of this water and rehydrate wetlands and get them back to their proper balance. And number four is we need to slow this water down and let it cleanse itself and go back into the estuary system in a more natural manner. And the concept that I brought forward encompasses all of that, and at the same time we intend to take some of this water and, if feasible, put it into storage that we may use it for some of our fresh water demands in the future. So the reservoirs itself are sort of an ancillary part of the whole program that I would like to see go forward. If we don't know whether or not reservoirs are feasible in this particular geographical area, then we don't know if we can integrate them into this concept in the first place. And so for that reason, I think we have an opportunity here to answer some of the questions that have been asked, and there are a number of them that have been asked, and we need to answer this question, all of these questions so that we can go forward with an informed decision in the future whether we're going to do this or not. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Norris, we're being asked here to do exactly what as far as our recommendation? That wasn't covered in the presentation. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: We are being asked to fund, as I understand it, half of the study and ask -- is it the basin board -- going to be asked to fund the other half, $5,000 each for a $30,000 study. Mr. Barton, you may want to amplify on that. MR. BARTON: I will be happy to, Commissioner. One of the things the proposal before you points out is that our estimate of what this little study will cost is approximately $30,000. How did we get to a $10,000 fee. Several ways. First of all, as the county administrator mentioned earlier, one of the goals is to try to get this accomplished or at least have as much data out of this little study as we can prior to the proposed meeting between the County Commission and Big Cypress Basin Board. We knew that schedule was impossible to be met if we went through the CCNA process because that in and of itself takes four to six months depending on the complexity of the issue. So that CCNA was ruled out if there was any hope of making the presentation at the -- for you to have an information available to you at that joint meeting. Secondly, Wilson, Miller looked at this and some very small studies like this are -- they're almost as expensive to go through the CCNA process as it is just to do the study. I can tell you we have had occasion such as in the instance of the upper Gordon River water management study that Wilson, Miller spent about $25,000 through the process of being selected, and we were fortunate enough to be selected and negotiated a contract only to have the decision made then that we wouldn't do that job. Well, I'm not going to lose as much money on this study as I lost on that one. So our thought was that there are real benefits to this process for Wilson, Miller. We look at this as an opportunity to have a public partnership, public/private partnership where you all have the ability to gain something and we have an ability to gain something. So that's how we came to that decision. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Hac'Kie. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I applaud the public/private partnership idea and appreciate your coming forward to try to help us get more information because that is the challenge so far in this new job is to get adequate information to make decisions. I have a couple of questions. I wonder if, in fact, we have -- if, in fact, there is no information on whether or not this concept would work in Collier County or if perhaps there is some information already available. I wonder if there are other options that should also be investigated, and I assume that there would be others in addition to reservoirs. And then I wonder if there are -- if, indeed, there are other options that could and should be investigated, is there some economy of scale or some efficiency in investigating multiple issues in tandem instead of identifying one issue and working on it. And then with all due respect and I sincerely mean no disrespect by this, I'm uncomfortable without any kind of bidding on a process where we're boarding a contract, and I don't know yet what are the limits. You know, I'm sure Mr. Cuyler can advise when we have to and when we don't have to bid but I'd like to MR. BARTON: Let me try to respond to those in order. The question first as I recollect was, do we have any information on reservoirs that could be helpful to us. And as I mentioned earlier, reservoirs are not new even in Southwest Florida; however, I am not aware of any meaningful study that has aimed at trying to introduce into the reservoir the concept of vertical storage -- that is, to go 10, 12, 15 feet above ground. In order to do that, you've got to separate that reservoir from the ground water system. If there is such a study out there, I'm not familiar with it. So the answer to that question to the best of my knowledge is, no, we don't have a meaningful study that would help us with that. Are there other areas to be studied? I hope we never run out of them because when we do, then we're locked in with whatever we've got. And, as you may have read in the paper this morning, there's a brand new idea out there. I don't know much about it, but I hope we never run out of ideas. Is there an economy of scale in studying them together? I would say the answer to that is sometimes yes, sometimes no. If we're dealing with reservoirs, then trying to couple that with an increased study or trying to better understand deep-well injection, there's no economy of scale there because they are two totally different issues. In this instance, we really are dealing purely with a single subject and that's surface water reservoirs. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: On that point, that -- and I believe you can help me understand this. My question is, I know that this proposal today is dealing with the single subject and that is reservoirs. My approach to the issue though is much broader than that and is in terms of what are the available solutions, what are the cost-effective -- Please. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I see what you're getting at. You want to put the whole package together and look at all the options. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yes. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: That's what we're trying to arrange with the basin board in the spring, but we want to be able to present and discuss all the options, and if we don't have the information developed on this particular option, how can we discuss it, and that's where we are today. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Question on that. Mr. Dotrill, are we meeting with the basin board or with the water management district? MR. DORRILL: My primary focus was with Ms. Boyd who chairs both the water management district and the basin board, and while the basin board may be invited, I thought it was your desire to try and have the governors of the South Florida Water Management District. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: But in that direction Mr. Barton is correct. The Water Management District Board of Governors I would think has a greater interest in the east coast because that's where the population is where the Big Cypress Basin Board, if my understanding is correct, was created specifically because we complained that, Hey, you guys aren't paying any attention to us, and we tax ourselves to form that board, and I'm just wondering if perhaps that meeting should be really comprehensive. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Big Cypress Basin Board also. It's a great idea. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: We have -- MR. BARTON: The one other issue that you asked about that I haven't touched on is the issue of bidding. And, of course, in this instance we are dealing with a professional service which is covered under the State of Florida as a Competitive Consultant Negotiation Act, and the bidding per se could be -- you could have a bid for something that does not reach that threshold which in this instance is the case, and candidly if you've got somebody out there that wants to do it less than $10,000, they've got it. It's theirs. But if it were over 10,000, then, of course, it would be a qualification base selection process and ultimately a negotiated fee. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: The 10,000 is the minimum? MR. BARTON: That's correct. MR. CUYLER: The 5,000 is both under the CCNA and the standard bidding. It's under both of those thresholds. MR. BARTON: Commissioner Matthews, earlier you mentioned the potential for such -- for surface water reservoirs to be exclusively for irrigation, and candidly I don't see that. I think that they can be -- I think they have the potential to be used for either a raw water source for irrigation or with certain measures for potable as well. You wouldn't be able to draw directly out of a reservoir, but there's no reason you cannot use the reservoir as a recharge system for an adjacent well field and pull from that well field. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I understand that and when I -- when we've been in and out discussing reservoirs for the last 18 months, I guess, John, hasn't it? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Something like that. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Yeah. My thought process in those discussions dealt with providing potable water, and when I got into the executive summary here and some other information, it began to appear to me that the purpose behind this was to provide irrigation water, and just a few short weeks ago we directed our staff and consulted the South County Waste Water Treatment Plant to come back with a comprehensive plan for effluent disposal tense as opposed to a deep-injection well, I guess is the phrase. So it would seem to me that if we're producing 30, 40, 60 million gallons a day of effluent, that we may have all the irrigation tense that we could possibly stand for. MR. BARTON: Well, in the coastal area that may be true, but as you move out into the agricultural areas, certainly that -- we will never create enough effluent to satisfy the agricultural irrigation demands in Collier County. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: But the farmers are getting better and better and better at managing their water. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Mr. Dorrill, I understand we have some public speakers on this item. MR. DORRILL: Yes, sir. We have about eight. I'll call two, Mr. Drake. Following Mr. Drake, I'd like to have Mr. Rodinsky stand by, please. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Just to give a couple of game rules here. We do ask you to limit your comments to five minutes. You'll be timed on the clock. Also, whoever is on deck, whoever is -- we'll read two names continuously and whoever is due up next just to help us move it along, if you could come over by the double doors, and we'll be able to move a little more quickly. Thank you. MR. DRAKE: Thank you. For the record, my name is Chuck Drake. I'm a hydrogeologist and one of the owners of Hartman and Associates. We have an office in Fort Myers and Orlando, and I just happened to be down here coming down Friday and then today to do some work and I saw the advertisement for the meeting so I thought I would show up and maybe throw my two cents in on my experience with lined reservoirs and mostly in the phosphate mining industry. They have 600-, 800-acre -- they call them lined water surge areas that have 25-, 30-foot high berms that impound 600 acres worth of water 20 feet deep. They have recycled water ponds that hold acidic water that is created from their phosphate mining process. And then also they have their gypsum stacks that are lined that are 100 feet high and cover several hundred acres. So just to let you know that when you line something like a burrow pit, especially in limestone, that the bottom of that pit is not perfectly flat. So when you think there might be a -- lay down a six-inch thick clay layer, that six inches may be six feet or two feet and it becomes an engineering and geotechnical problem. You have to be aware of that to get that clay liner or the -- actually the clay into the limestone is porous and fractured so that you don't in gross terms suck up all the bentonite clay into the limestone and it just goes away. That's a very important aspect. Just to let you know too something about the costs, we also work Lake County on some of their landfills. The bid cost they got for laying a high-density polyethylene liner was about 38 cents a square foot installed. If you're talking about big reservoirs, you can probably get that down to somewhere in the order of 20 cents a square foot. Very low density polyethylene which may be better in this instance because it can -- it's more deformable than the high density, 20 cents a square foot for that. So you start adding those costs and plus the cost of dewatering. You'd have to dewater quite a bit to get that liner installed plus the liners on the side to hold the water too. But this project is very important because it needs to be one of many water supply aspects. In New Smyrna Beach we're designing injection wells for storing and reclaiming tense water. Pumping it down to the aquifer, storing a couple hundred million gallons and then pumping it out and tensing it. And I think there is an economy of scale in studying all those options because let's say if you pump the water out of the canal and store it in the reservoir, which is a good idea, you've diverted some of that flow from the canal. And if you were going take some of that canal water and put it into an injection well, you want to withdraw some of that water, take it out of storage. So you need to know basically what that water budget is. How much water is coming into the system and how much is going out. If I take out certain parts upstream, how is that going to affect the downstream use. So I think there could be some economies of scale in an overall water management plan. So I just wanted to throw my two cents in just to let you know there are options out there, other things that you need to consider -- or excuse me, should consider in my opinion. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Thank you. MR. DRAKE: You're welcome. MR. DORRILL: Is Mr. Rodinsky still here? Apparently not. Miss Straton. And, Mr. Neron, if you'd stand by, please. MS. STRATON: Thank you. My name is Chris Straton, and I'm here as the conservation chair for the Collier County Audubon Society. We're pleased and we applaud the County for looking into a multi-approach to resolving many of our water issues; however, I'd just like to go through some of the things that are already going on. Currently you're involved in strategic planning, and water is part of that, and there's been a lot of talk about integrated plans, long-term strategic plans. The State is busy acquiring land. Based on the last round of the recommendations, many of the projects here in Collier County on the CARL list have moved up into the top ten and will be major acquisitions going on. For those that don't know, we've got crew which will be feeding into the Cocohatchee River Canal. Part of the acquisition for that is for water recharge purposes. We have the southern Golden Gate Estates. That will be feeding into Golden Gate Canal and the Faka Union Canal. The purpose of that acquisition is for water recharge and storage and sheet flow. Fakahatchee Strand continues to be acquired and Belle Meade has now moved up into number four, and that will be again for a water restoration hydrological flow, and that will be feeding into the Henderson Creek Canal and then eventually into Rookery Bay. The point is that we are and the State using taxpayer dollars is acquiring a lot of land with the idea of doing water restoration hydrology. Mr. Barton talks about this as being -- this little project being an isolated project; however, he's talking about addressing the four drainage systems that will be impacted by the hydrological plans that are part of the acquisition of the land. So I think it's going to be very difficult to try to evaluate that with this little study when the State is still in the process of acquiring land, and I believe the Big Cypress Basin Board is still in the process of trying to develop what the plans will be for restoring that sheet flow. So we're potentially at cross purposes. And while a $30,000 study for only $10,000 is a good deal, it's not a good deal -- and I just sort of use that argument with my husband,"But I've saved all this money," and he says, "No. You've cost me some money. It's not what you saved that really matters." There are other things that are going on. We have the lower west coast water supply study. The ASR issue needs to be addressed. We've talked about effluent. We still don't have a storm water management process in place, and what we may be doing to address our storm water needs may be counter to what the results of this study might suggest. So I guess what Iwm saying is that on behalf of the Audubon Society, we applaud the efforts. Wewre glad wewre really beginning to look at water issues seriously; however, we would encourage you to not to continue to piecemeal. Wewre not hydrologists. Wewre not here to argue about the pros and cons of the reservoir, but from our standpoint it appears that there are already investments of taxpayersw money on some issues that are at potentially cross purposes of what this study is doing. Thank you. Oh, and on behalf of the League of Women Voters, they did want to make sure that we remind you that itws always a league position to not forgo the competitive bidding on projects. So, you know, wewre glad to hear that youwre concerned about that. Thank you. MR. DORRILL: Mr. Neron. I'll presume Mr. Keller has clocked out for the day, and we'll have Ms. Nichols-Lucy. MR. KELLER: I've got something to say. MR. DORRILL: Nope. He's still here. He's slouching. MR. NERON: For the record, my name is Bill Neron. I'm director of Government Affairs for the Economic Development Council. In our new fiscal year as part of one of the issues that we approved as part of our legislative program this year, we added water policy as a new major issue for us to become involved in. In our initial meeting in discussing this issue, we reviewed some of the material that was presented to this Board's workshop last March, and I'm by no means an engineer or a water policy expert, but the one thing I learned from that workshop is we have a lot of rainfall and water coming down on Collier County, and our forefathers have done a very good job of setting up a canal system where this water comes into the county and goes right back out again and we don't have necessarily water when and where we need it. Water is going to be one of the most important quality of life issues that we have affecting our community over the next 15 to 20 years. As we said, we're going to need to do long-range planning to make sure we have the right amount of water when and where we need it, that we have water at an affordable cost. And, finally, in order to do both of those things, there's no one strategy that's going to be the one and final answer. A variety of strategies need to be pursued and looked at for the board in developing a master plan which we encourage you to do. When you're looking at water, we see four major users of this water that's needed in this quality of life. Agriculture, a mainstay, one of the three major economic elements of our economic base is a major user of water. Another aspect of our quality of life is the environment. Your wetlands and your critters need water at the proper time and the right amount in the right place. Your two-legged critters, people like ourselves, are going to need water to drink and for living and quality of life. And, finally, a fourth potential major user of water for Collier County as mentioned earlier might be the other coast of Florida. We don't want to be a major export of water until we're assured we have our water that we need over here. So I think we need some long-range planning to look at the water supplies, those issues, the governance issues relating to water, and I think over the last several years Collier County has not been a big enough player in some of these governance issues with the South Water Management District, the Big Cypress Basin Board, and we would encourage the Collier County Commission to step up to the table along with the EDC as we hope to do over the next year to become much better informed and a lot more involved on these important water policy issues. Thank you. MR. DORRILL: Mr. Keller and then Ms. Nichols-Lucy. I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Mr. Chairman, may I ask a question? Well, he's not there. Miss Chairman, may I ask -- COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Yes. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Has Audubon Society raised issues that perhaps there are some hydrological issues associated with this study that might somehow interfere with existing programs? Is there somebody on our staff who could give us some advice in that regard? MR. DORRILL: The County has a water management director. I guess I would need Mr. Drake to be a little more specific in terms of what hydrogeological issues are of a concern. There are issues that affect not only the ground water but potential cones of influence within the county well field in Golden Gate Estates that is immediately adjacent to the main Golden Gate Canal and across the canal from one of the areas that has been identified as a potential reservoir. I'm sure that all of that needs to be taken into account as part of any study because of the effect that it has on the wells that you own and operate that are at depths anywhere from 80 to 120 feet. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I guess I would appreciate it if there is somebody who knows what kind of issues we're talking about if we could -- the threat that there is something out there that we might be interfering with that we've already spent taxpayer money on is a frightening threat so I'd like more information if anybody has it. MR. DORRILL: Mr. Keller. MR. KELLER: George Keller, concerned citizen, also a resident of Golden Gate Estates who is going to be affected considerably by any control of waters. I myself don't know anything about water, but I know enough that when the well driller comes, I tell them, "As soon as you get water, stop pumping and don't go any further," and I'm getting good water at 21 feet. I had my neighbors do the same thing later on after they spent $2,000 for all kind of equipment to go and get rid of the sulfur when the builder decided the best way to do is go down to 35 feet. There's plenty of water down there no matter what quality it is. So, consequently, I have had a little experience. I also spent many, many hours with the water management with the Big Cypress Management Board when it was a management board and it cost less than $200,000 to run. We've now got a Big Cypress Management Board where the budget is somewhere close to $3 million, and I'm just wondering when we got this Big Cypress Board, I thought they were going to take care of all of our water problems since we're spending all that kind of money. And has the Big Cypress Board committed themselves to part of this expense officially? UNKNOWN SPEAKER: No. MR. KELLER: No, they haven't. So I'm just wondering how many different agencies we're going to have handling the same problem. That bothers me because the Big Cypress Board is supposed to be a very active board now, and I thought it was a terrible mistake when the county water department gave control of the canals to the Big Cypress Board myself, and I stopped going to their meetings to be honest with you. But, secondly, I proposed a reservoir to be used in Collier County some 13 years ago, and I was told right there and then that the evaporation process in this part of the country was such that a reservoir was impractical unless it was covered. So I'm wondering whether anything has been done about that theory. In my life, I've listened to a lot of theories, and a lot of them didn't turn out to be too practical. If this reservoir is to be built, it doesn't seem sensible to me to dig a hole and then try to line it out and then -- because actually what you're doing is you're trying to keep the water from going down into the sub -- beyond the subsoil, and it would appear to me if we're going to have a reservoir, we're going to have to have a reservoir above the ground. Many reservoirs up North are situated so they are considerably higher than the surrounding areas naturally and you have a damn at the end of some kind of waterway to hold the water back as a reservoir. In fact, that's what most of the reservoirs in the United States are. So it's really questionable to me. All I know about is what I read in the paper, and it showed a map, a diagram of the subsurface hole and also the berm and a place on the top of the ground to hold the water. Now, that would be subject to the same problem that I -- when I suggested a reservoir, that it would be subject to evaporation. Thirdly, as some of you brought up, is this a solution to our water shortage, drink -- potable water shortage or is this a solution to irrigation. If it's a solution to irrigation, then this reservoir has to be out where -- the agricultural area basically. it's not going to -- it's something that we have to find out where the farmers are with this new setup here when we're going to be importing a lot of our produce from South America whether we'll even have an agricultural economy in Collier County. And, thirdly, if we're going to have this reservoir to retain water to be used as potable water, then it's going to have to be built somewhere near our well fields. We don't have well fields all over this county. Our well fields are specialized in certain areas, so that's where it's going to have to be. And right now, as I said, I'm drawing water at 21 feet, and I've got good water, and I don't have to have -- only a $50 filter on it to be honest with you, and I've been drinking it for 16 years and in perfectly good health and never disturbed from that water and I only change a $3 filter once every three months. So basically we have a lot of good water right now. So I would say, please, don't go off half-cocked on another direction, that I believe we should stick with some of the programs we've got going now on an overall study of the water and what our watering needs are, and then make a decision so that when you make a decision it's a sensible one. Thank you. MR. DORRILL: Ms. Nichols-Lucy and then Mr. Simpson. MS. NICHOLS-LUCY: Good afternoon. My name is Sue Nichols-Lucy and I'm speaking on behalf of the Conservancy. I don't really have anything new and different from the previous speakers except to urge you to do some long-term strategic planning. We've been using these terms. We've been starting this approach and now you're -- if you support this, you'll be reverting back to an isolated event, and I think that's what we were trying to stay away from. You need to look and assess at what use we have, what demand we have, what access we have to potable water, to the effluent situation, to what is available in the sheet flow, and I'm not sure that we have a clear picture of what is available. Also, water conservation efforts have been mentioned, but I feel very strongly that they should be encouraged. I would like to point out that you will notice today economic development groups and the environmental groups are urging you to do the same thing. Take a step back. Work with Big Cypress. Work with South Florida Water Management and do some long-term strategic planning. It's only $10,000, but I think we've had enough of these isolated events to kind of get in some of the problems that we've gotten into. Thank you. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Hay I ask you a question? Just can you help me to understand why the idea of studying this individual issue is contrary to -- I mean, why isn't it that this is one piece of a big puzzle that later we'll put together? MS. NICHOLS-LUCY: Well, I think you should be looking at the big puzzle all at once. I mean, I'm not sure you have all the pieces, all the members of all the pieces. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: So you don't want us to look at this piece. You want all the pieces to be looked at, but you don't want us to look at this piece. MS. NICHOLS-LUCY: All at once. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: How could we look at all the pieces at once if we don't look at this piece? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I have to admit, I wrote a little comment down here on a previous speaker, and it's almost as if I'm hearing we have enough good ideas, we don't need anymore? You know, I don't know if this is a good idea or not. I honestly don't, but how am I going to know? MS. LUCY-NICHOLS: Well, I guess you have a workshop planned next week. I would assume you would be laying everything out on the table, you know, and trying to see where you are and what you need in terms of potable, irrigation, everything. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I continue just to bark up the tree that I wish we were talking about this a week from today. Then I would be perfectly comfortable with it because I could see that we were looking at -- but it's kind of silly to be focusing on seven days so -- CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Okay. We'll keep that discussion until after all the speakers. MR. DORRILL: Is Mr. Simpson here? MR. SIMPSON: Yeah. MR. DORRILL: And then Dr. Stallings. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Excuse me. Mr. Simpson, you sit on the Big Cypress Basin Board, don't you? MR. SIMPSON: Yes. I'm vice chairman of the Big Cypress Basin Board. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Mr. Barton has said that the Big Cypress Basin Board has not joined in this effort yet with its contribution toward this; is that correct? MR. SIMPSON: That's correct. We haven't. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Is there money in your budget for it? MR. SIMPSON: We have -- We had some money available within our budget to help support alternative water supply achievement within the county or within the basin. That money at this point has primarily been designated for projects that were submitted before a certain deadline. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Before this one came up. Uh-huh. MR. SIMPSON: Considering the amount of money that's there and a couple of things I'll be talking about, aspects of this, if we investigate the proposal and we see that it does show merit, I think that it's well worth finding within our budget the resources to assist in this. It's a relatively small number. If the question were, should we participate in funding it, I don't think we're anywhere close to the time that we have the knowledge that we need to determine whether this is truly a feasible alternative or not. There are many aspects of that that need to be addressed. I'm just going to ease into my comments from that. Thank you. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I'm sorry for interrupting. MR. SIMPSON: No. No. That's quite all right. That's quite all right because that's one of the issues. That's one of the reasons why I'm here, is to basically bring that point up. There's really two issues that are on the table here for discussion. One of them is the specific project, and the other, in my opinion, is the most important issue here which is what is the long-term water supply, how do we get there, how do we know what the pieces look like when we are here in the year 2050 and we have a lot of needs and demands of water. That, I think, is the most important question. The issue of above-ground reservoirs, I've been designing and constructing above-ground reservoirs since about 1985. Two of the commissioners have actually been to my orange grove, stood on top of my reservoir which has a four-foot high capacity above natural ground level. It's an unlined system. These have been used in the county for many years in conjunction with agricultural operations. In some conditions, and it's very dependent on the specific geology of where you construct it, it's providing tremendous benefits by having this particular design system through the recharge that it provides during the time that the water is stacked on top of there as it pushes the water back into the ground, makes it available through the aquifers for use later in the dry season. There are ongoing monitoring programs to truly assess what that benefit is, how much more water is available and comparing those to some of the older systems, are you truly making more available for you to use later in the dry season. So far the indications are it's very successful. This is a little different scenario. There are many questions that need to be asked about sealed above-ground impoundment; you know, how will the soil biology that provides certain cleansing as water seeps through the floor into the aquifer. That provides a lot of benefit in cleaning up some of the problems in the water. Is there a way or even a concern for an above-ground sealed impoundment. How will it be managed. These are all different issues that need to be studied and questions that need to be asked. I mean, simple things like make sure you don't drop the water level of your sealed impoundment below what the natural water table is because it will -- you know what happens to swimming pools when you let the water run out. They are then above-ground pools rather than in-ground pools. There's little things like that that need to be thought through. The real issue and I think the most important issue here is related to the long-term water supply. The Big Cypress Basin has already undertaken the west basin study which will include water supply management, where the water is, where is it coming from. We have a lot of water that flows into our system from Lee and Hendry Counties that actually end up -- CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Take a little bit because I know we slowed you down at the beginning with a couple of questions. So if you need to sum up, go ahead. MR. SIMPSON: Okay. How that water is occupying the available flood protection we have for our county residents and we have no ability to manage and control it. That is part of the issue that we need to address. The basin has the availability of expertise in the technical end of it, looking at how we manage our natural systems to increase the storage and availability, how we manage the existing systems with well fields and canals and moving that water that's stored in different areas to enhance the existing system to minimize our dependency on new projects in order to provide water resources is part of what has to be taken into consideration. Also, that won't solve the problem on its own. We have to be looking at new and creative alternatives for our water supply. That also is part of what the basin study will do. I'm proposing for this next year's budget that we will establish a line item for support of enhancement programs, water supply enhancement to help accomplish some of these goals to provide some funding, hopefully matched funding to help achieve long-term water supply availability for the people of the county. What I would like to suggest is that the County and the Big Cypress Basin have joint meetings, joint workshops, so that we don't have to have duplication of expenses for the knowledge that needs to be gained and the burden put on the taxpayers, that we utilize the resources we currently have to our greatest advantage, to the taxpayers' greatest advantage, utilize the technical expertise available through the basin or the water management district, utilize the financial expertise to look at the most cost-effective ways to take these technical alternatives and provide the solution to the people of the county. I suggest that we go forward and we work together in trying to find these long-term solutions. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Thank you, sir. MR. DORRILL: Dr. Stallings and then Mr. Taylor. MR. STALLINGS: I'm Fran Stallings representing the Florida Wildlife Federation. Reservoirs are things that have been around I guess about as long as man has. I would imagine that one of the first kinds of modifications to the landscape that ever occurred was to go out and build reservoirs. They've been around so long that I think we know a great deal about them, and I think we know a great deal about the possibility of building reservoirs here. Glenn just described reservoirs as he uses it in his agricultural operations and they work quite well; however, I would strongly question the concept of reservoirs as I've heard proposed in this study as being something that's practical in Collier County. Frankly, we just don't think the particular study is necessary. We think that there's enough known about it, that it's not a practical idea. Now, one of the ideas that I have heard expressed here is that we do need a county-wide water management plan, and I would very, very strongly support that, and I commend Commissioner Norris on his foresight and his concern there. I also believe that we need to study the whole business at one time, and I think that that perhaps is where COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Was coming from in terms of her comments regarding economies of scale. If we do a large study that's aimed at addressing in a comprehensive manner the County's water problems and needs, then however we may choose to use reservoirs could well be a component of that study, and I would think that it could be treated there in a more economical manner than going out alone and doing it here. So I really think this is one of those things that sounds too good to be true and is. I do have a very strong background in water resources. I've worked as a professional consultant in water resource matters. I've taught it on the graduate level at universities. I've been accepted in courts of law as an expert in water resource affairs. So I do have a strong background on it, and I just don't think this particular piecemeal approach that we are proposing to spend the $10,000 on is something that's needed at this point, again, if we can do it all as a single unit. Also, I notice here that there in the work scope is discussion of net -- canal network flow direction diversions and things of that sort. There's also a mention here of the environmental consequences and also note that this is all going to be done in 90 days. So I'm not really comfortable with this scope of work and the way I see it set up, the time frame and what it proposes to accomplish. So I certainly would not support the proposed study at this point. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Dr. Stallings, you opened your comments saying that we have used reservoirs for a long, long time, and as a result you think we have plenty of knowledge on these. On what set of facts or what study, government or otherwise, are you basing your comment that you don't believe even looking at this idea is worth pursuing? MR. STALLINGS: Well, not looking at it in the sense of stacking it up, like, 15 feet high because if you go in there and start looking at the logistics of it, we can do it. There's no question about that. But if you start measuring the evaporation rate, if you start looking at the problems where you get a concentration of pollutants within the reservoir and then you start looking at other alternatives, this particular one does not look that good. There also are problems in terms of sealing it off. There's problems in terms of how much water you can store in there as opposed to this business of putting a weir across the canal. When you put a weir across a canal -- I heard that idea mentioned -- you back up water. You're not just using that canal as your reservoir. You're using the entire aquifer in that area as your reservoir, and you can get a tremendous amount of storage that way, and you don't change the evaporation rate that much as you increase your volume of storage. there's an awful lot to recommend this idea of putting a barrier in a canal and backing it right on up into the aquifer system. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: You raise some points that may be valid, but again I ask, is there some study that we're not familiar with that has been done by a private organization like yours or by a government entity that we're overlooking? MR. STALLINGS: Well, there's virtually hundreds of studies. There's textbooks. There's just -- CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: From Southwest Florida? MR. STALLINGS: -- A mound of material all relating to reservoirs, the geology of Florida, the experiences people have had in the phosphate area, Hanatee County. Hanatee County has a reservoir with the damned up Little Hanatee River, but their geology is different. And what I'm saying is, if you sit a group of people down together that are experts in the area and let them examine this idea, I don't think they're going to come up with the option of this above-ground reservoirs as being viable. So what I'm saying is really that I consider this study -- this part of the study to be unnecessary or at least not to deserve $10,000 worth of attention. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Thank you. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I do have a question. Dr. Stallings, I've heard you state the problem that we have an excess amount of fresh water pouring into the estuaries at point source. Because of the canal system, we don't have an overland or sheet flow where the water is contributed at a slower rate to the estuarine system; is that correct? MR. STALLINGS: Well, we've had some wholesale modifications to the hydrology, and as you correctly indicated, in the historic sense we had the overland sheet flow, and one of the problems at this point is that the natural timing of the discharge into the estuarine system has been changed around. As an example, there was an article in the Fort Myers paper fairly recently about a fellow raising stone crabs. I think it was out at Sanibel. They suddenly all died. That would not happen under normal circumstances. And what had happened was there had been a release of water from Lake Okeechobee down to the Caloosahatchee River which changed the salinity very rapidly in Estero Bay and caused the deaths. That's the type of problem that we're having here is that we're getting such wide fluctuations in the salinity in our estuarine system that the creatures that had adapted over the centuries to what to them was normal conditions suddenly can no longer adapt to the conditions they find today, and we do need to do something to correct it. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And I agree. If we have had a way, whether it be a weir, a damn, a backup mechanism to regulate that flow, wouldn't that be an environmental benefit to those estuaries? MR. STALLINGS: If it's done correctly, it certainly would be. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Would a reservoir be a tool in which that we could pursue the regulation of that water into the estuarine systems? MR. STALLINGS: A reservoir is a component of a much larger system, and I'm not arguing at all with reservoirs and their value, but I am questioning their value in the sense that I've heard this gentleman who works for Mr. Barton explain his concept at that workshop the other day. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm admittedly not a big fan of lining them. I like the idea of them being connected to the water table more so if that's -- and, again, we'd have to listen to the folks to find out if that's a possibility, but I just wanted your comments on whether or not -- I've seen this as an idea that possibly could regulate the flow from the canal system to avoid the degradation of the estuarine system from that type of inefficient flow or ineffective flow as you mentioned. What I hear you saying is that, yes, it could be used that way. MR. STALLINGS: As a regulator of flow, I would say so as opposed to more of a water storage capacity in the sense of where you pile up water 15 feet high. Glenn was talking about stacking water up two or three feet there. It recharges into the ground and, you know, that's something that's valuable. But as far as stacking it up 15 feet, you have to seal it off or you're going to lose it all real quick. And if you seal it off, then you lose most of what you're trying to save according -- you know, because of evaporation. And if you take the amount of water you're going to put in one of these reservoirs versus what goes down the canals each year into the Gulf, I wonder if you're going to be saving enough in a particular above-ground reservoir to do it as compared to what you could save for the same amount of money if you put in a weir or just a very low level or reservoir as you're talking where you would increase the head by a couple of feet. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Matthews. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Dr. Stallings, one more question because I'm hearing some comments about the reservoir being used as a method for controlling the flow of water through the canals into the Florida Bay, Rookery Bay, wherever it's going to go. If we were to move forward and the study comes back and says, yes, we ought to do this and we do it and we build a -- what is essentially a tank that will hold "X" number of gallons of water, once the tank is full, we can't control the water after that; is that correct? MR. STALLINGS: Well, you certainly can't add any more to it. You can only release from it, and you still get into some problems with reservoirs. In other words, you've got the water behind the damn there. You've got a heavy rainy period coming. Do you hold the level up higher? Do you develop a margin where you can absorb some of it? COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Well, we have that now. When a storm is coming, the water management district or the Big Cypress Basin Board opens the weirs and the water goes out to get the canals down to take the water. MR. STALLINGS: That's correct. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: So, I mean, the same scenario would be going on with this as well. So I don't see it as being a method for controlling the flow because once it's full, it's to me no further value for that purpose. MR. STALLINGS: I think one of the differences that we're talking about here is that with the reservoir, we're considering really what is a small-scale storage of water in most cases. If we talk about raising the ground water level by a foot or two, then we're talking about a very large-scale storage of water. We talk about pumping water into one of these aquifers to later recovery, we can talk about a very, very large-scale storage of water. So I could see the reservoir working in a small scale, as a small-scale storage device but not as a large-scale kind of thing where you're going to turn water loose to irrigate thousands of acres or something like that. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: through this information. Thank you, Dr. Stallings. I have one more question. Whoops. I'm sorry. Just I'm continuing to try to dig If you can see that a reservoir has some potential value in this system in the big picture, what is wrong with looking at it in a snapshot, you know, as an individual issue? MR. STALLINGS: Well, again, we're looking at it by itself when we really ought to be looking at the whole thing together, and I would say that we have enough background knowledge already that we can take the data base that we have and sort of integrate it into a management system. I don't think -- COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Because it's basically a bad -- a waste of money? MR. STALLINGS: That's our position on it, that this particular study just is not necessary, that we already know enough about it. We have enough of a data base as far as how reservoirs work that we can plug that in at the appropriate times in the larger scheme of things. COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: That includes the vertical stacking issue? Because that's what I'm hearing that apparently is the new concept thrown into the reservoir idea. MR. STALLINGS: Well, yes. Anytime you put a damn up or damn a stream, you've got the vertical stacking. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Thank you. Final speaker is -- MR. DORRILL: Mr. Taylor. MR. TAYLOR: For the record, my name is Tom Taylor. I'm vice president of Hole, Hontes and Associates, and I think there have been a number of really interesting issues that have been brought out with this, and the deliberations I'm sure are going to go on for quite some time. One of the things that's inevitable is we're going to have water use increases. With people we have growth. That's going to continue, and our water use will continue to increase. I think one of the things out of the discussion over the last few weeks is that we have now, I think, a clear linkage. I think everyone is now recognizing that waste water or tense water that's generated from treatment of waste water along with our potable and irrigation of water resources and storm water management really are interconnected. They're all linked. Historically they've all been looked at separately, and I think finally we're reaching the point here where we're starting to see that there is an interconnection between the two, particularly when you're pursuing a separate tense irrigation system. During the past ten years, the County has done an outstanding job at developing infrastructure. They've developed water and waste water treatment plants. They've developed potable water distribution and transmission systems along with waste water collection systems. Along with that was the start of a tense irrigation system. It reaches out to several golf courses. Probably the area that's most comprehensive in service is Pelican Bay where they do have a total dual system in place serving not only the golf courses but all the residential areas as well with a combination of irrigation water and tense water, the combination of the two. I think, if anything, though the tense and irrigation component of the three-legged component -- water, waste water, and tense water -- that third component, the tense irrigation system, has probably been the one that's been the least focused on, and it's probably been the most short-changed. I think we should now really focus on taking it to the next level, both the water resources divisioning and the strategic planning. You've probably heard some of the facts stated before, but during dry season about 60 percent of our potable water use has gone to irrigation. It's used to irrigate our lawns and gardens and things as such, and that's a tremendous waste of a very good water supply, a very high-quality water supply. We're putting it unfortunately on our lawns and gardens. Next week -- Hiss Hac'Kie brought it up. It was unfortunate because these things were intended to be on the same agenda so we could discuss the tense issues and some of the discussion we had on deep-injection well last week, but next week I think you'll be hearing a little bit more of the total tense concept and that was -- We had originally talked about it about a year ago. We want to revisit that issue and present it to this particular Commission and see what your feelings are. That concept does take advantage of the storm water component of these facilities and the overall idea. The key to the concept though as we discussed here today is the storage of that storm water from the wet season for use during the dry season. There are several other -- several concepts for that storage mechanism out there. I think -- of which the reservoir is one. I think as a professional that's involved in water resources and has been involved in water resources in Collier County for a long time now, I think we should be evaluating all of the alternatives. I think that they all have their own technical complexities to overcome. They will all have associated costs. They will all have advantages and disadvantages. So we should evaluate all of those on a comprehensive basis and then we can move forward. I suspect that to solve our problem, as Mr. Barton and some of the others said here today, that the answer is going to be a multi-pronged approach. In order to have sufficient water for our environment, for our people, for our lawns, it's going to be a multi-pronged approach to doing it. I think it's certainly brought out a lot of debate. I think it's important that we do proceed with evaluation of the alternatives. I think the reservoir -- Mr. Barton has brought up some interesting concepts that, to my knowledge, are somewhat different than what have been historically looked at in Collier County or in Southwest Florida. So I'm not one that would say let's not look at this. I think we should look at that as an alternative and proceed in a comprehensive manner. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Norris. COHHISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Taylor, wasn't it your firm that did the studies for the aquifer storage and recovery program? MR. TAYLOR: There was a -- again, it was done something of an unsolicited-type program between ourselves and Hissimer Associates and Hike Slaten with the Big Cypress Basin Board and your County's staff developed a concept that would give total -- look at the total tense concept. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: What was the price tag on that particular study? MR. TAYLOR: Kirk may have that. I think the -- COHMISSIONER NORRIS: About. MR. TAYLOR: The study component of that, not just the study component but the engineering, the planning, the hydrogeologic work along with permitting and design was about $400,000 I believe. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: 400,000. Okay. MR. TAYLOR: That's correct. That was taking it all the way through permitting and design as opposed to a preliminary study, and we did that first study for nothing which is similar to what is proposed here. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. Now, the second thing is I guess forever essentially Marco Island has been -- its major water supply source is, in fact, two rock-pit above-ground reservoirs. That's about five million gallons a day they extract from those on average? MR. TAYLOR: I'm not sure that it's an above-ground reservoir. It is a rock-pit that's excavated, and it basically is a lake. They use that as a raw water supply, yes. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: That's right. MR. TAYLOR: That's correct. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: And that -- Do you remember how long they've been doing that? MR. TAYLOR: Quite some time. You know, 20-plus years I would imagine. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: It's about five million gallon a day they extract from that or is it five, six, seven? MR. HARTIN: About three to four million. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Three to four million. MR. TAYLOR: Three to four. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Thank you. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: That concludes the public speakers, Mr. Dotrill? MR. DORRILL: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Let's open it up for deliberations. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Why are you looking at me? You think I've got something to say? I do. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: I suspect you might. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: It's what I've already said. I just would like to postpone this decision for one week. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Do you want to go through rehearing all this again next week? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: In one week Mr. Stallings and Miss Drake will tell us what they told us today and Mr. Barton will tell us what he told us today, and we still won't know anything and -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Gee. Nothing. MR. BARTON: You won't have to listen to me. I'm going to Colorado. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I don't suppose the rest of you will be going to Colorado? No? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I'm a little facetious when I say, you know, that I want to just postpone it for a week. I'd like to be able to make the decision to undertake a comprehensive study of our water needs. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Isn't that a separate subject? I mean, I find it to be an absurd dichotomy that peop1 say we want to look at the entire piece of the puzzle and don't piecemeal it. How can you look at the entire piece of the puzzle if you don't look at all the pieces? I mean, it's just -- you can't on the one hand say don't piecemeal it and on the other hand say let's look at the entire picture. You can't do that. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Are we going to do separates studies for each of the -- or perhaps there are already County studies for the other available alternatives and you know about those and I don't. Are there in fact? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I assume that all the other alternatives that we are looking at have been studied. Is there any comment to the contrary? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Next week when we have our presentation we will have a presentation made to us on all of the other puzzle pieces and this will be the missing one? If that's the case, then I understand this approach. If it's not the case, then I don't understand why we don't examine all the pieces. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: In order to examine all the pieces, you must have the information collected and presented in a form that you can understand. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Sure. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: We don't have that on this particular piece of the puzzle. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Hancock. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I know where you're going because I need to know something about ASR and how did I find out about ASR? Well, the County's been writing checks because we paid to find out about ASR. The recapture amounts and so forth for ASR, whether it's efficient, whether it's not, whether it's possible in Collier County was not free information. So I guess the easiest thing for me to do today and to keep from getting beat heavily by the Naples Daily News tomorrow is to say, "Bad Wilson, Miller, and I don't think this is a good idea." The truth is I do want to know more about this, and I don't know any other way to do it than to have a study done, and whether we decide having a study on this is a good idea today or whether we decide seven days from now it's a good idea, I have a tough time with folks who don't have technical data in their hands to say this is not feasible, this is dumb, this won't work and here's the proof, telling us we don't need to know about it. That's where I have a little bit of a problem is, "No, I don't know anything about it." I'm confident if we get a study, it's going to say it's a great idea, but at least I want the technical data. I want some backup. We don't have it, and to say I'd want to turn the cheek and I want to put a blinder onto this item, I don't understand that. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Matthews. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I'm confused. Mr. Simpson, I need to ask one more question. When is the Basin Board's study of Eastern Collier County going to be done? MR. SIMPSON: Because of the complexity of the study and the number of issues that have to be addressed, it will take about another two and a half years. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Ooooh. Okay. Now -- MR. SIMPSON: Well, you've got to realize, this is 1995, and it hasn't been done in the last 20 years. I think another two and a half to do the right study is important. Hay I make one comment? From my personal knowledge of all of the information that's available on the alternatives that are out there, this alternative is the one that has the least amount of information available. We know less about lined above-ground impoundment than we do the other alternatives. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Now, one more series of questions, probably a series. MR. SIMPSON: Okay. I'm here. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: If you'll put your water management district hat on now -- MR. SIMPSON: Okay. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: -- The three ag areas west of Hiami where the water management district -- I believe the water management district is in charge of the repumping of water from the river and canal system in Dade County back into the three ag areas. MR. SIMPSON: I'm vaguely familiar with that, not as familiar as I am on the west coast. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Okay. It would seem to me other than this being an above-ground and other than it being lined, that the repumping of this water moving through the canals and the Hiami River, if it's still a river or not, is essentially the same thing we're talking about doing here except it's got a connection to the ground water. MR. SIMPSON: In principle what you're doing is taking water that would be lost and capturing it for potential use elsewhere, and I think that that is part of the solution in principle. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: But in the recent reading I've been doing -- and maybe I read it wrong -- in the cleanup of the Everglades, the pollutants that are now in these three individual ag areas are so heavy and so much that that's where a significant amount of dollars is going to have to be spent to clean up the heavy metals and other things that are now in the soil of those ag areas. MR. SIMPSON: That's part of the problem that needs to be addressed through the study, is what is the compounding effect over time of putting materials in there. You reach a state of equilibrium where the absorption of pollutants, nutrients, whatever -- COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Is that adsorption or absorption? MR. SIMPSON: Pardon me? COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Is that adsorption or absorption? MR. SIMPSON: The way I'm using it is the absorption of the pollutants that are being applied to the system through natural means reaches a state of equilibrium. Once that state is reached, you may be putting them in there. The forces may be taking them up but they're also putting them back in and going out the other side. That's one of the issues that needs to be addressed. My familiarity with the unlined system is there's a soil biology that I takes care of that, once again, to a point. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: I support the idea of this particular study for a number of reasons. We've been talking about -- COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Simpson. Sorry. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: We've been talking about the pieces of the puzzle and trying to look at the big picture and so on. In order to look at the picture that any puzzle represents, you have to take each piece individually, touch it, feel it, look at it, see where it fits. If you put on a blindfold and put on gloves, it's pretty hard to put that puzzle together and ever see the big picture. So the suggestion that we shouldn't even look at this, that there's enough in textbooks somewhere that we don't need to be dealing with this I think is putting on a blindfold and gloves. I think we need to look at the idea. I use the analogy perhaps of a tune-up on a car. There are certain expendable parts and fluids that I need to purchase, and in the big picture nine times out of ten, if I go and buy all those at the same time, I'm going to get a better price; however, if someone comes to me and says, I'll give you spark plugs for 25 cents a piece and they happen to be the name brand that I'm looking for, I probably would take advantage of that and then put that into the whole tune-up puzzle, if you will, and go ahead and do that. So I think here we have an opportunity. We heard several times about economy of scale. I'm not sure we're going to find an opportunity for $5,000 or less to get to this kind of information. So I support it wholeheartedly. I think you're correct, that we need to look at the big picture. But unless you can see each piece of that puzzle, you're never going to get to see that big picture. So I support the idea wholeheartedly. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I couldn't agree with you more, Mr. Chairman. Your comments are well-taken, and I will make a motion to approve this item. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I will hurl myself on the mercy of the media and second that. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: There's a motion and a second. Further discussion -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: You couldn't wait six months, could you, Bill? COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I'm not going to support the motion, and I'll tell you the reason why I'm not going to support it, and I think the last discussion that Mr. Simpson and I have had here is telling me that if this were a good idea, it would have been done on the east coast a long time ago, and it wasn't done. And I have a strong suspicion that they have done this study and that we don't need to do a whole lot more than make a phone call to get this $5,000 worth of money. I'd like to look at that before we even elect to go off and spend more money. MR. BARTON: Commissioner, I would encourage you to make the phone call, because if you do, you'll save me $20,000. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: With that, unless there's any more discussion, all those in favor of the motion state aye. Anyone opposed -- All those opposed? Motion carries 3-2 with COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And Commissioner Matthews opposed. Let's take an eight-minute break, and we'll come back and hear the final item for the morning agenda. (A short break was held.) Item #8H5 PROPOSED CHANGES IN COMMISSION DISTRICT LINES TO MORE EQUALLY BALANCE THE POPULATION IN EACH DISTRICT - STAFF DIRECTED TO PURSUE CHANGES WITH PUBLIC HEARINGS TO BE HELD BY 4/15/95 CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: The next item is 8H(5), to present proposed changes in Commission district lines to more equally balance the population in each district. MS. EDWARDS: Good afternoon. For the record, my name is Jennifer Edwards. Once every ten years after the census, the Commission is required to adjust the district boundaries to keep them as nearly equal in proportion to the population as possible. This was done in 1991, and since that time your Metropolitan Planning staff has been tracking the population growth by means of building permit activity, and it has become apparent that the district needs redrawing again. The map on the wall is a reflection or presentation of the suggested changes, but you also have a map in your package and that is on page four. The roman numerals on this map identify your districts, and the hash marks and area numbers identify the changes and the resulting change in population. Do you want me to go through each of these changes individually, or are you familiar with them? CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: I think each member of the board is familiar. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I think we're all familiar with them. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: I don't know that we need to do unless -- If you want to for purposes of the record, you're welcome to. But this map, for the public, also is the same map we have up here on the wall; correct? MS. EDWARDS: (Nodded head.) The recommendation by staff is that you direct staff to go forward with making these changes. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Just so that we know the process, when we say "direct staff to move forward to make changes," we're not voting on these particular changes today. These will have to go through a series of public hearings around the county and ultimately come back to us a final time; is that correct? MS. EDWARDS: There is a process and the county attorney is going to address that. MR. CUYLER: Just real briefly, Mr. Chairman, after today's presentation we will go back, look at the proposal in terms of the supervisor of elections, make sure the minority considerations are within legal parameters, a resolution and advertised public hearing will be upon your direction scheduled for approximately early June. As a matter of fact, it needs to be June 6 or earlier. Thereafter, if the Board approves the resolution at the public hearing, we will preclear with the Department of Justice the resolution and the district considerations. Supervisor of election has asked that we have things in place like 10-1 of '95 even though we're not looking, I believe, until September of '96 for it to be in place. That's the time frame. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Ms. Edwards, would it be possible to do the public hearings around the county in time to have this back sometime prior to June? In June we usually have two land development code hearings, at least four budget hearings as well as our regular Tuesday hearings. It ends up being a pretty cumbersome month. So is there a way to get this back by late April, early to mid May? MS. EDWARDS: We'll work towards that. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: But, again, I just want to emphasize, this is kind of a starting point. We may or may not end up with this exact map when it comes back to us. The idea is this is our starting point. We'll go to the public to the various points around the county for input and then ultimately have this or some similar map come back to us for a final vote; correct? MR. CUYLER: Correct. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Questions or do we have a couple of folks from the public on this item? MR. DORRILL: We have one. Mr. Kerrigan. MR. KERRIGAN: My name is Bill Kerrigan. I live in Poinciana Village, and I'm here also on behalf of Poinciana Village Civic Association Board of Directors. I wish the paper had been a little more clear as to what you were going to do today. I wouldn't have wasted all my time. But I would just like to say that we think there's something wrong when we voted for our county commissioner and then it's going to be changed and we're going to have a county commissioner -- and this is no -- we realize you're here with a clean slate. But we have somebody that we haven't voted for four years. At least give us two years to have a county commissioner. I mean, I know that one man/one vote is important, but, you know, some people knowing who their county commissioner is too. And I don't think -- I think it would have been better if this had been done in, say, December of '93 a year ago so we would have been able to participate in this one. Has the exodus from the northern part of the country been so great, you know, in one year that we had to change it? I mean -- and I'd also like to question whether or not maybe -- I know Mr. Constantine wants me to bring this up, is whether Pelican Bay would be better off going into the district with district four. One concern we have is that with district four being dominated by the City Council, that's where most of the residents look for their government, is that the unincorporated areas are political backwater. Mare Putsatel (phonetic) has made that point during the annexation debates. Even as late as -- early as two weeks ago on Carl Loveday's show, he said look at the west side of the trail, look at the east side of the trail, the City does a better job, you should annex. And, I mean, if we're under their county commissioner, we're already under their water and sewer district, we're sowing those seeds again. Five years ago the Board of County Commissioners didn't want us to. So I think sometimes there's a law of unintended consequences. So, you know, we would like to stay in district two if at all possible. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Pam and I are -- or Miss Mac'Kie and I are about to make the same comment. I've gotten a lot of phone calls similar to yours that -- and, again, I'm sure that no one means any mal-intent -- MR. KERRIGAN: No. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- To Miss Mac'Kie. It's simply that whether you -- people voted for me, against me, or didn't vote at all, they got used to the idea they were stuck with me, and now they are going to get somebody they didn't even have a voice in, and I think that's a valid complaint. So my questions are going to be related more to -- probably directed more at Miss Morgan during the public hearing process, and that's a time in which the folks that are in the affected areas should come forward and express their feelings just as you have today that if there's a way in which to phase the changes so that those people who were involved in an election don't turn around and get someone that they didn't have a voice in. Again, I think it's just a psychological slap in a sense that, yes, go through the electorial process but, by the way, just kidding. You don't have them. You have this person. MR. KERRIGAN: Couldn't there even -- the way we're doing it now, isn't it possible somebody may never vote for county commissioner for six years? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: No. MR. KERRIGAN: There's no possible way? But, I mean, like, if you were in -- voted for you two years ago and then goes into Mrs. Hac'Kie's district and they wait four more years. It sounds like sex. I'm talking about Commissioner Norris because parts of East Naples are going to go under district four, and they may have voted for Mr. Norris two years ago. Then they go in now. They're going to wait another four years. It almost sounds like we're being disenfranchised. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Again, today, as I understand it, we're not going to make a resolution to this effect, but I echo your concerns because they've been ringing in my ears since -- especially since the paper produced it, and I was getting a lot of phone calls on a Sunday about this and that's fine. But, anyway, I echo those concerns, and I'll be at the public hearings also. MR. DORRILL: I can tell you the rationale. In addition to trying to get some population equity, those areas up to Airport Road are in the city's water and sewer franchise service area, and in order to try to provide some rationale for those areas that would be incorporated into the district that is predominantly the city district, it was to have the -- that commissioner also represent the city's water and sewer franchise area that's been in place since I think 1975. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Agreed. I have no difficulty with that except that the districts have little names like North Naples and, you know, or in the case of Commissioner Matthews everything else but I mean -- MR. KERRIGAN: But I don't think what the county manager says is actually incongruous with trying to make sure that when you elect a commissioner that -- like I said, why couldn't this have been done in '93 of December so that we would have had a choice in the county commissioner that represents the water and sewer franchise? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I agree, Mr. Kerrigan. I think we'll try to hammer these out during the public hearing process, but I appreciate your comments and I agree. MR. KERRIGAN: Thank you. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Just a couple of thoughts along those lines. I understand the psychological slap as Commissioner Hancock called it; however, just because the lines move in no way mean particular commissioners can't serve any area. I don't restrict my activities strictly to what falls in the district three boundaries. I may even try to assist people from all over the county, and I know Commissioner Matthews and Commissioner Norris have done the same thing. On this map there is one particular area with which I have been very active which is just south of the airport. You have the Rock Creek Campground and you have the condominiums in there. And, as a matter of fact, they're not excited -- again, nothing personal with you, but they're not excited as being part of the, quote, city commissioner's area because it was the City that wanted to put affordable housing in that area, and they want to make sure they're represented adequately, and they border the city via roads nowhere. You have to go outside the city limits to get into the city if you're in a car there. Regardless of the fact that this may change that, I will still work hand in hand with those people. So even if the map changes -- and I understand and agree with some of your concerns -- that in no way means that we suddenly cannot work with those areas. As to Commissioner Hancock's comment that each area has its own name, I don't know that that's true. I have North Naples, Golden Gate, and East Naples. So I don't know that a name description is any reason for us to try to line up the things because -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: That was a statement more to the effect of you don't want to go -- you know, you want to try and concentrate the district if we're going to go by district as, you know, condensed as possible without all these little arms that reach out and grab a home. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I'm dying for a chance to talk. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Hac'Kie. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: First of all, I agree with the comment about the timing on this thing. People just got through choosing a commissioner from their district and now all a sudden they get told, like you said, Tim, just kidding, you know, you didn't really get to pick your commissioner. But while I agree with that, there are a couple of other points that I have to make, and that is I don't care if somebody else said about anything outside of the city limits being the political backwater of my district. I disagree. I will tell you, I am very proud to be the representative of the City on this Commission, but I have a huge district. I had a huge district when I decided to run, geographically a very large district. I drove it and tried to drive as many of the streets as I could and did drive at least the perimeter, a good deal of it, to try to understand that it is a much bigger district than just the City of Naples. Frankly, I think it's one of the more challenging districts in the county as it existed on the day I decided to run much less now or, you know, much less after this change because I think you'll find we have the richest and the poorest of Collier County in this district, and I am quite aware of my responsibility to represent all of district four not just the City in district four. So I want to assure you of that. And, frankly, to make a real strong point, I very strongly object to anybody saying that the balance of district four is the political backwater or whatever the phrase was. The other thing -- and I'm confident this is not the appropriate time to bring it up but I think that -- COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: But you'll do it anyway. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Right. But I think that this brings to mind the need for two at-large commissioners and I think -- CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: You were right. It's not the appropriate time. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Thank you for playing, Miss Mac'Kie. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: The discussion is going to have to take place at some point when it's appropriate. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: What we need right now is a motion on this. What I'd like to see is that we give staff the direction to move forward with the process. I'd like to try to set a time line that we have those public hearings for two purposes. One, June is not going to be a good time to have a final hearing on this. But, more importantly, in season when the majority of the people are here is the most appropriate time to have these hearings. So if we can have those in January, February, March and try to bring it back for final forum by April or early May, I would think that would work best. MS. EDWARDS: We'll structure a schedule and give you that information and go forward with it. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: But I would like to see that made part of the motion. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'd be more than happy to make that motion that we direct staff to proceed with the public input portion of the redistricting of the county for the Commission purposes and also that we have a deadline of April 15 in which this comes back before the board for final adoption. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Second. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: There's a motion. There's a second by Commissioner Matthews. Is there further discussion on that motion? Seeing none, all those in favor of the motion, please state aye. Anyone opposed? Motion carries by unanimous acclaim. Thank you, Bill. Item #10A RESOLUTION 94-831 APPOINTING/RE-APPOINTING SABINA MUSCI AND SYDNEY HELLINGER TO THE LIBRARY ADVISORY BOARD - ADOPTED Item 10A, appointment of members to the Library Advisory Board. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Miss Filson, we have two vacancies and two recommendations, do we not? MS. FILSON: Yeah. The -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: If so, I will move for staff's recommendation. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: There's a motion and a second. Discussion? Seeing none, all those in favor of the motion state aye. Anyone opposed? Motion carries 5-0. Item #10C RECOHMENDATION TO DECLARE SEAT VACANT ON EPTAB - SEAT DECLARED VACANT AND VACANCY TO BE ADVERTISED 10C, recommendation to declare seat vacant on EPTAB. Miss Filson, this is the item we discussed at the end of last week's meeting? MS. FILSON: Yes, sir, it is. Mr. Baxter has requested an extended leave as a member of EPTAB. He was appointed on June 18, 1994, and he has not attended one meeting, and he is requesting an extended leave until February of 1995. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a motion to declare the seat vacant and readvertise. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: There's a motion and a second. I'll just say this. He has a daughter who is very ill, and that's the reason he has not been in attendance, and by no means is this an effort to put him down in any way. I understand his priorities right now, and hopefully when all is well he will reapply and we can get him back on the board. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I would like to very much invite him to reapply when things settle down in his life. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: With that, all those in favor of the motion, please state aye. Anyone opposed? Motion carries 5-0. PUBLIC COMMENT HR. DORRILL: Hr. Chairman, you have some people here with public comment today. I just wanted to advise you of that. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Before we get on to the afternoon agenda? MR. DORRILL: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Public comment. Let's go through, and you have up to five minutes to speak on virtually anything you want. MR. DORRILL: I believe the people are all here on the same subject. The first one I have is Mr. Ryan. MR. RYAN: Are there just two others on there? MR. DORRILL: I have a total of four. They all appear to be electrical contractors or subcontractors. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Is this -- Let me ask you a question quickly. Is this in any way in reference to the journeymen item? MR. RYAN: Yes. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: That is not part of the items that will be on today's agenda and will possibly come back. Mr. Cuyler, maybe you can help me as to -- That was pulled. MR. CUYLER: That is noted on your agenda as our item number six, 12C(6), and that's going to be readvertised and brought back in probably the next 45 days. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: There was some concern I know in the industry with that coming forward now. So that has been put off for the time being. So if that was in particular, we can make a point to notify the appropriate people as that time comes, but it was not appropriate to bring that forward now. You can still talk about it if you like but just so you know we're not going to take it up today. MR. RYAN: I've sat here all day. I've rerehersed my speech. It starts out "Good morning." I'm Timothy Ryan, and I'm a member of the Apprenticeship Committee for the Electrical Contractors in Naples. Our major concern was that we saw that it was pulled off and we have been -- I have been told that it was pulled off of the agenda because there was some pressure that this would be too expensive for our industry to absorb. The item we're talking about is a requirement to have licensed journeymen, electricians, or other building trades perform the work out in the field. I'm a licensed master electrician. I have to have that license in order to contract work in this county. However, if any one of you were to call me to send a serviceman to your house to repair a breaker or repair a wire that was broken, the man I send to do that work, the person I send to do that work is not required to have any training or qualifications at all. So without this ordinance in place, that's the way it will continue. Our concern on the Apprenticeship Committee is for the safety of the consumer in that if you call to have an electrician to wire your house, that actually an electrician will come to do the job and that will be a requirement. Without that requirement, we are left with untrained and unqualified people performing these technical trades. So that was our point in bringing it up because we were a little nervous. The naive part of me says that it just needed to be rewritten and it would be brought back up again, but the skeptical part of me thinks that somebody was going to try to bury it and it would come up again in another 20 years. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: No. No. I happen to share your concern on this particular item that someone can appear and do work in my house with no license and no training and so on and so I share that. And, as a matter of fact, I was the one who had asked that our developmental services and so on look into this and make this an agenda item. So I assure you it will reappear within that 45-day frame. MR. CUYLER: Let me clarify something before I get slammed on this. The ordinance is coming back within 45 days. I know the issue is going to be discussed within 45 days. I do not know that that specific item that I believe he's referring to in terms of wording the ordinance is coming back or not. I don't know. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: The issue may or may not be worded in the ordinance at that time; however, I can assure you it will be part of the discussion at that time. MR. RYAN: I have a copy of the new ordinance that was going to be brought in January, and that item is completely deleted from it. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Okay. MR. RYAN: So that was our concern, that we didn't want it to get lost. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: If you and some of the others would like to get together between now and then, perhaps if it is not anticipated that that will be part of January's presentation, I'll be happy to put together a proposed addendum to the ordinance so that we can have that part of the discussion in January if you like. MR. RYAN: Okay. We'll get a committee together and set an appointment with you. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Okay. MR. RYAN: Okay. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Thanks. Were the other three folks in reference to that same item we had? MR. RYAN: I know -- I'm sorry. I know Mr. McCarthey had to leave and Marvin Nusz had to leave. MR. DORRILL: I've got two slips for Mr. McCarthey. So there's no one else then. MR. RYAN: Okay. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Thanks, Tim. Let's see. That will take us on to the afternoon agenda. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Only three and a half hours behind. Item #12B1 ORDINANCE 94-62, RE PETITION R-94-4, DAVID S. WILKISON OF WILKISON & ASSOCIATES, INC., REPRESENTING CLEVELAND A. BLOCKER REQUESTING A REZONE FROM "GENERAL COHMERCIAL DISTRICT (C-4)" TO "MOBILE HOME DISTRICT (HH)" FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SEVENTH STREET AND SECOND AVENUE, LOTS 26-32, BLOCK A, JOYCE PARK IN SECTION 4, TOWNSHIP 47 SOUTH, RANGE 29 EAST, CONSISTING OF 1.20+ ACRES - ADOPTED SUBJECT TO STIPULATIONS CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: We have two items under 12C. All of those except one I guess are related, and we can hear most of those. So I don't think the afternoon agenda is quite as bad as it looks. 12B(1), petition R-94-4, Mr. Wilkison. Mr. Saadeh, how are you? MR. SAADEH: Very good, Commissioner. How are you? CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Excellent. Thank you. MR. SAADEH: Good afternoon, Commissioners. For the record, Sam Saadeh from Current Planning for petition R-94-4. The petitioner is requesting to fezone the subject property from general commercial C-4 to mobile home HH to allow for the creation of seven mobile home lots to be used for rental purposes. Existing on the property is a mobile home and a single-family residence. Surrounding the property to the north and east are RHF-6 zoning with existing single-family homes; to the south undeveloped C-4 zoning; and to the west, developed mobile homes zoning with an existing mobile home rental park. This proposed petition is an expansion to the mobile home park to the west and under the same ownership. The Collier County Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval subject to the stipulations of the reviewing staff. No one spoke in favor or opposition of the proposed petition at the public hearing. Staff's recommendation is to approve petition R-94-4 subject to staff's stipulations. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Questions for our staff on this item? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Saadeh -- MR. SAADEH: Yes, sir. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: -- this looks very similar to one that we've seen before. Is this the same one or a similar one that we've -- MR. SAADEH: Probably similar. This is the first time this comes in front of you, Commissioner Norris. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: This is a piece of property that's already adjoining a mobile home park and they just want to extend the park? MR. SAADEH: That is correct. It's currently zoned C-4. They want to extend the park to be mobile homes. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: It's actually coming from C-4 so it's a decrease in intensity in effect? MR. SAADEH: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Do you have something? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Just a quick question. Did you receive any letters for or against this petition? MR. SAADEH: No. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Thank you. MR. SAADEH: Thank you. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Does the petitioner wish to make a presentation, or are you here strictly to answer questions? MR. WILKISON: David Wilkison, Wilkison and Associates, representing petitioner. I'm strictly here to answer any questions. We agree with all the stipulations from staff. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: We'll close the public hearing. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Motion to approve. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Second. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: There's a motion and a second. All those in favor of that motion, if you'd be so kind as to state the word aye. Anyone opposed? Motion carries 5-0. MR. SAADEH: Thank you. Item #12B2 ORDINANCE 94-63 RE PETITION PUD-94-7, HR. ALAN D. REYNOLDS OF WILSON, MILLER, BARTON 7 PEEK, REPRESENTING OWEN H. WARD, REQUESTING A REZONE FROM "A" TO "PUD" FOR PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF IHMOKALEE ROAD ONE-HALF MILE WEST OF C.R. 951 IN SECTIONN 27,, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST - ADOPTED CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Thank you. 12B(2). Commissioner Hancock. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Again, Mr. Cuyler, we have an item here that is subject of correspondence I sent you last week regarding petitions brought forth by my previous employer, Wilson, Miller, Barton and Peek. Again, based on our conversations, I want to iterate for the record my only involvement in this particular project under or during my employment with Wilson, Miller was that I attended a preapplication conference with county staff, outlined the project for them. That was the extent of my involvement on the project. I have no financial element or involvement in this project or with Wilson, Miller whatsoever. Based on that information, it's my understanding I do not have a conflict of interest in voting on this. Would that be correct, sir? MR. CUYLER: That's absolutely correct. And, again, the law doesn't provide for you just if you wish to, to not vote. You are required to vote if you do not have a conflict under the statute, and you do not have a conflict under the statute in my opinion. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Thank you. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Thank you. This will be petition PUD-94-7. Mr. Alan Reynolds of Wilson, Miller. MR. BELLOWS: Good afternoon, Commissioners. For the record, Ray Bellows of the Current Planning staff presenting petition PUD-94-7. Mr. Alan Reynolds of Wilson, Miller, Barton and Peek is requesting to fezone the subject site from agriculture to planned unit development. It's to be known as the Laurelwood PUD. The petitioner proposes to develop 465-residential-unit development that allows for single- and multi-family dwellings. The property is located on the south side of Immokalee Road, and it's about a half mile west of County Road 951. The subject property is designated urban residential subdistrict on the Future Land Use Element which permits residential uses and a variety of dwelling types. It also has a base density of four units per acre. In addition, the project is located within the density band as shown on the future land use map there, the Immokalee/951 intersection; therefore, it's subject to a density bonus increase of three units per acre for a total of seven. However, since no interconnection to the adjacent property is provided, one dwelling unit is subtracted, recommended by the board that it be subtracted. Since the project is coming in at six units per acre, it's therefore complies -- or is consistent with the Growth Management Plan. The surrounding land uses include vacant agricultural lands to the north, south, and west, and to the east is the Richland PUD which is approved for 650 dwellings and has a density of five units per acre. The Woodlands PUD to the northwest is approved for 1,400 units and has a density of three units per acre while the Dove Pointe PUD to the west has been approved for 700 units and a density of 2.7 units per acre. The compatibility analysis indicates that the Laurelwood project is similar to the Richland PUD in intensity. And, furthermore, it has more restrictive development standards in regards to setbacks and lot area for both single- and multi-family dwellings as compared to the Richland PUD. The proposed petition will generate approximately 3,000 trips which exceeds 5 percent of the level service design volume of Immokalee Road, but it will not affect the level of service of the road. It will continue to operate at acceptable standards. The petition has been reviewed by all county staff. They have determined that no level of service standards have been affected. The Collier County Planning Commission has reviewed and unanimously approved the petition. If you have any questions, I'll be glad to answer them. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Questions for staff on this item? COHHISSIONER HANCOCK: I have two. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Hancock. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: One, the project access along Immokalee Road, was it designed to line up with a pre-existing access on the north side? Is it arbitrary? Is there a reason it's closer to the property line? MR. BELLOWS: This one? MR. HANCOCK: Yes. MR. BELLOWS: Yes. It's across from Rose Boulevard. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: From Rose Boulevard. Okay. The second question -- I'm going to beat Commissioner Matthews to the punch. Does this show us where a single-family and multi-family are supposed to go? MR. BELLOWS: No. This is a conceptual master plan that shows residential tracts but does not go into further detail. That's usually addressed during preliminary -- subdivision plats. I discussed this issue with the applicant, and they felt that they would present the plan as is. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Thank you. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Mr. Reynolds, do you have a presentation, or are you primarily here to answer questions or both perhaps? MR. REYNOLDS: I'm really here to answer questions if you have any specific ones about the project. I could give you a presentation or I could forgo it if you feel you've been given adequate information. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Let's see how the questioning goes from our panel of experts. Commissioner Matthews. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: On the conceptual map, with all that space dedicated to, I guess, lakes or ponds or retention ponds, what type of housing are we likely to see in those different areas? MR. BELLOWS: Residential. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I mean, you're not -- We have nothing presented here to say whether they're going to be two-story condos, three-story condos, single-family dwellings, quads or duplexes. MR. BELLOWS: Not in any particular case. The table in the PUD document, table one outline various proposals for residences that could be developed, but until they come up with a master subdivision plat we don't know. MR. REYNOLDS: Commissioner Matthews, if I could -- COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Do we have a presentation on this? MR. REYNOLDS: I'd be happy to give you a presentation on that if you'd like. COHMISSIONE MATTHEWS: Okay. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Again, for the record, you are you -- MR. REYNOLDS: I am Alan Reynolds. I am the agent representing Mr. Ward on this petition. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Thank you. MR. REYNOLDS: Can you see this okay or shall I move it over here? This piece of property is planned, in my opinion as a planner, as an ideal location for what I would consider to be well-planned, high-quality, moderate-density residential community. The specific question about the residential uses -- and this is the PUD plan that's just been colored to iljustrate uses. Consistent with the way virtually all PUD's have been planned in this county, what we do is identify the residential development pods, the lakes, the buffers, the recreational open space, and the main spine road, and then the residential pod set up a series of development standards that at the time of preliminary subdivision plat we have to come back in and present to the County staff. But how we come up with a PUD plan like this I think is important to understand the product mixing because to get to this point, what we do is plan a few iljustrative plans, and what this does is take the product types that we think are appropriate on the site, lay them out in the manner that is compatible with each other and looking at how to shape the lakes, how to amenitize property. And as you can see, in this type of a project, what we try to do is achieve a mix of units. In this case we have single-family predominantly in the southern half of the project. We have multi-family product in the northern half of the project. Specifically the question about the height of the units, we've planned this to keep the heights at the same level as the single-family districts in Collier County which is 35 feet which is the lowest height limitation that you allow so we would anticipate these to be predominantly two-story multi-family. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I should know this from reading my packet, but that 35-foot height limit is a condition of your PUD or is a height limitation or -- MR. REYNOLDS: It's a height limitation and a standard that's built into the PUD. So I think this helps make the bubble plan look, I think, a little more clear. We do these kinds of tests because obviously every piece of property has a different configuration and a different carrying capacity based on environmental set-asides and other kinds of things. In this piece of property, we happen to have 78 acres that were relatively unencumbered. There were no environmental constraints, so we had to create some interest using the lake and the buffer and the green space, and I think we've accomplished that. I hope that responds to your question. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Yes, it does. I was concerned about what the height limitation would be. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Hancock. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Reynolds, if you would, the density band that this property utilizes, does it extend beyond the property to the west at all or does it actually lie within the property? MR. REYNOLDS: The density bands in Collier County genetically extend, I believe, a mile radial from the center of the intersection. Our property is approximately half a mile. So the density band extends out beyond. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: The parcel to the west will have the ability to come in and request -- MR. BELLOWS: That's correct. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- Utilization of that density band? MR. REYNOLDS: Yes. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. And what about the property to the south? Is it also within part -- and I'm looking at this for future compatibility with the adjoining properties. In other words, that they can come in and request the same density, then we -- you know, we obviously have a very -- MR. REYNOLDS: The property to the south is also within the density band, to the southeast is the middle school so -- which is within the density band but is obviously -- MR. BELLOWS: The boundary of the density band approximately comes up to the Dove Pointe boundary line here. So if it extends downward, it would incorporate the vacant lands. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. If this project is approved as is, it's not being afforded any density that its adjoining neighbors are not afforded? MR. BELLOWS: That's correct. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Do we have any speakers on this item, Ms. Edwards? MS. EDWARDS: No, we don't. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Acting manager. I just hope that's reflected in your paycheck this week. Commissioner Hac'Kie. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: public hearing. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: motion. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: and we'll -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: All those in favor of the motion state aye. carries 5-0. I'd be happy to move approval -- Hang on. I need to close the That's what I meant. And then we'll entertain a And then I'd move to -- We'll close the public hearing Move approval. There's a motion and a second. Anyone opposed? Motion Items #12C1 - #12C5 RECOHMENDATION TO ADOPT THE "STANDARD GAS CODE, 1994 EDITION"; "STANDARD MECHANICAL CODE, 1994 EDITION"; "NATIONAL ELECTRICAL CODE, 1993 EDITION"; "STANDARD PLUMBING CODE, 1994 EDITION"; AND THE "STANDARD BUILDING CODE, 1991 EDITION" - CONTINUED 12C(1), (2), (3), (4), and (5) are related. We can take those together. Mr. Cuyler tells me it would be his preference that we have five separate motions. He and I have different preferences there; however, we'll go with his. Just one quick question before you go into too much detail. Hopefully you won't go into that much anyway, but I notice each of these is the 1994 edition with the exception of the National Electrical Code. I would think with the speed of electricity we'd be ahead of 1993. MR. BADKE: My name is Ken Badke with Community Development Permitting and Inspections Department. The electrical code actually is way ahead of everybody. We had '93 before they came up with the '92 and '91. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Good answer. MR. CUYLER: Mr. Chairman, I'd also point out that the '91 construction code is not changing either because the State either -- to our knowledge, hasn't issued the later code if I'm not mistaken so the '91 remains the same. And before Mr. Badke starts, I just want to say a general statement. That is, we're not really adopting a new construction code. We're adopting some new parts of it, '91 construction staying the same. As you said, some of the different aspects are being adopted as part but it's not entirely new. MR. BADKE: I'm here basically to ask your indulgence to adopt a new building code, mechanical code, gas code, plumbing code, and electrical code for Collier County. The building code right now is comprised of two codes, 92-70 and 93-62. 93-62 came into play in January, and that was mandated by state statute to have a hurricane code. We felt that it was a little bit -- it's going to be a little bit better for the taxpayers of Collier County to have one code that would deal with the structural building of any kind of a building. At the same time, we thought that it would be a good idea to take out the plumbing, mechanical, and gas ordinances or codes from that ordinance and, therefore, create new codes for the plumbing, mechanical, and gas. The plumbing code has been changed by state statute to reflect the 1994. The rest are still under '91. We expect the state to endorse those codes soon. That's the other reason for making the plumbing, mechanical, and gas codes separate codes so that we can change them as necessary and not have to bother the whole scope of the thing. The National Electric Code is always something that's been a separate item. It's not been written by the SBCCI, and that is right now presently -- state statute provides for the 1990. The '93 provides a lot more stringent requirements, and that's why we're asking to do that at this time. If you have any questions, I'll be happy to answer them. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: You know, I would never complain about staff being proactive; however, I am curious I guess if the State has yet to approve four of these or three of these -- four of these? -- Why we're going ahead and approving them before the State. MR. BADKE: Primarily because they are more stringent than what the state minimums are right now, and it's an opportune time to do this since we are removing them from the building code. Also, we do expect the State to be doing this soon. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: But if the State does not or if the State makes some changes, then won't it require us to come back and revisit this again? MR. CUYLER: If our code is more stringent than the State's code, it will not require you to do that. If they make it more liberal, then -- CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Do we necessarily want to be more stringent than the State? And maybe we do. But do we want to be more stringent or -- part of your explanation, I thought, was to have a uniform code with the State, and now we're not sure. We think we will, but we're not sure if we will or not. MR. BADKE: We have to abide by the state statute as a minimum building code, and that's what we're doing with these ordinances. Having the more uniform is to have the two -- the building code and the Collier County's hurricane code as to one ordinance instead of two. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Mac'Kie. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Are there representatives of the industry here that want to speak to that issue and let us know what they think? And I also wonder if Development Services Advisory Committee was involved in the discussions. MR. BADKE: Yes, ma'am. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And they supported this recommendation? MR. BADKE: Yes, ma'am. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Ms. Edwards, do we have speakers? MS. EDWARDS: We have three registered speakers. The first one is Pat Cornelison. MR. CUYLER: Staff, just for your information, as part of their process, I assume in this case like all other cases has dealt with the development industry throughout this process. MR. BADKE: That's correct. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Matthews. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I have one question before we hear from the public. Any of these changes to the standard codes, are they going to increase the construction costs of a house or an apartment building or anything? MR. BADKE: I would say that in some of these codes, yes, they will. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Significantly or is it minor things? MR. BADKE: It's hard to say. In some of the aspects of the electrical code, it could be significant. And, again, it's real difficult to say. It all depends upon how they're going to do things. There are ways they can do -- make the changes but still not have to go through the significant costs. In the hurricane codes, there's not a whole lot we can do about those. Those are -- We have to have that. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I understand that. MR. BADKE: The plumbing and mechanical and gas codes, no, I don't believe there's going to be significant cost increases. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Which was the one you said the State has already approved? MR. BADKE: Plumbing. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Plumbing. Thank you. MR. CORNELISON: I'm Pat Cornelison. I'm with the Preparedness Committee of CBIA and also with the Board of Directors of Southwest Florida Trust Manufacturers Association. Just speaking on behalf of the hurricane code, there's been hundreds of hours input behind this hurricane code between CBIA, Emergency Management, and the Community Development Division helping us working together to make this a good code for Collier County. It's been based on seven years of hurricane investigations where we through our Hurricane Task Force went to places of major hurricanes, Gilbert, Hugo, Alecia, Andrew, and the latest testing by the American Plywood Associates asked why buildings have failed. This code is a good code. It's been done in conjunction, the building industry working together with government. And what is important about adopting this code is this will actually reduce our construction cost. This hurricane code was first adopted last year, and even though it was good, there was some fine-tuning that needed to be done. An example, on an average gable-end wall on a wood-frame home, this code would be $100 less to do that wall, but it will actually do the exact same thing. So based on the input of industry, the problems that were found, that's why this code was put together, and the reason it wasn't needed in conjunction with the standard building code is the hurricane code and the standard building code is just a series of formulas that have to be worked out. In my own company, I design roof systems. We have over $100,000 worth of computers to do roof systems with, but out in the field you don't have that. You have a guy who's qualified to build who has a background in building codes, but he doesn't have all these computers to work out the numbers in the field. So that's why this was, to give guidelines on how to build a home, pictures of the right way to do it, how to do it correctly with everybody working on the same playing field and no surprises. I urge you to adopt this code for the betterment of Collier County. Thank you. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Thank you. MS. EDWARDS: The final speaker is Doug Nelson. MR. NELSON: Doug Nelson speaking on behalf of the Collier Building Industry Association. We could answer all your questions, you know, Commissioner Mac'Kie, your question relating to cost and all that, but Pat said the key thing. It's been workshopped hundreds of hours. The industry and just about everybody that we could find stands behind what we're asking to be adopted today. So really without any further ado, I would urge you to adopt what you see and we have beat this thing to death. One point -- the one thing that's not in there that you're not going over today is -- was yanked, as I understand, because of the journeymen's code. That's one thing that there was not unanimous agreement on, and I just urge you to make a little note to be aware of special interests, things that impact the building code that may not necessarily fix the problem that they are trying to fix which is a legitimate problem, but the correction which we'll talk about obviously the next time the journeymen things comes ahead of you. But as far as the codes that are in front of you, the adoptions, we urge you to pass them as they stand. Thank you. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Ms. Edwards, any other speakers? MS. EDWARDS: No, sir. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: We'll close the public hearing. I just want to make one comment, and this is in no way to undervalue or not to appreciate all the work that's gone into this not only from our staff but particularly from the industry. But right now we charge ballpark 6,000 bucks a household before we ever put up the first piece of wood or concrete. The hurricane requirements as passed last year adds 1,500 to 4,000 bucks depending on what you -- what kind of house you've got, but you can easily be in $10,000 before you've done anything on your home, before you have laid one thing. I have a concern that the State has not approved, with the exception of the plumbing code, these yet. And while I appreciate the effort, we want to be as safe as we can if -- I don't -- I'm not sure right now I want to be more stringent than the State. If the State comes back and does a series of public hearings on these and says, gosh, we need to cut out X, Y, Z and it's already here in Collier County, we're expensive enough to build and maintain a home as it is, and I don't want to have something over and above. I realize the chances are the State will pass this as is, but my preference would be to wait until they have before adopting it here. I would think that would be a better way of doing it and I -- but I'd be willing to go ahead with the plumbing code because that has already been approved by the State. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Mac'Kie. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Is there someone who can tell us how this came to be on today's agenda since, in fact, the circumstances are as you've described them? Why are we here today instead of later when the State's done their business? MR. BADKE: Number one, the State has adopted the 1994's SBCCI plumbing code. That right now is in ordinance 92-70. So we would have to change that ordinance. So to -- in order to amend that ordinance, we felt it was a good idea at the same time then to make one building code instead of having two ordinances that we presently have which are 92-70 and 93-62. And we also want -- are trying to stay abreast of things in our neighboring counties to try to be under the same type of codes that they are also. We were anticipating, like I said, the -- the building code is '91. The State still is '91. We haven't changed that portion. All we're doing there for the building code is just making two -- one ordinance out of two. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Are our codes -- other than the plumbing code that the State has -- let's set that one aside for a second. The others, are we -- are Lee County and Charlotte or other counties, have they adopted the newer versions or are they still on the previously approved State versions? MR. BADKE: To my knowledge, they're in the process of doing that. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Of adopting the new ones? MR. BADKE: Yes, ma'am. As a matter of fact, there are some counties -- I think there's like about ten or twelve counties that have already adopted the 1993 National Electric Code. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: The other thing that caught my attention because I certainly have the same concern that you have. It's a very valid one, 10,000 bucks before you've laid one brick. But what I heard one of the experts or, you know, one of the people in the field say is that this, in fact, would lower costs of a home construction. MR. CUYLER: Mr. Chairman, if this is -- I don't want to interrupt your discussion, but if there's not going to be support for this today, what I might suggest to you is to -- since one of these ordinances is being readvertised and coming back to you, you may want to direct that they be readvertised and come back to you and give staff an opportunity to check out some of the issues you're raising and to get with you in the meantime, perhaps provide you some documents or some memos or whatever backing up why they would like to see this adopted. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: I don't know that we got a specific answer to when will the State be considering these other codes. MR. BADKE: We've been hearing for some time that the State is going to adopt the 1994 standard building code soon. We expected that to have happened in December, possibly now in January. Perhaps Pat has some information on that. MR. CORNELISON: I wanted to -- We'll discuss your point first. I'm also in the State of Florida Residential Building Industry Task Force which is made up of people from around the state, the DCA, and building officials. One of the reasons for the delay on the State level is there's a possibility of the State coming up with its own construction standards related to nothing to do with electricity or plumbing or that type of thing, but that's what's caused the delay. The statewide task force is looking at coming up with their own building code because the national level is proposing moving us into a higher wind speed which the State of Florida feels is not really necessary. And as far as the other issues you were saying about putting these aside for now, if you're going to put the electric and plumbing aside, I have no comments on that, but this is important for the building industry. This will actually cut our cost by giving us a better product. If you build a house right now out of wood frame that's got a high-pitched roof eight twelve, by the present code that's in place, you cannot build it. You have to modify the way your house is done. These methods here have been tested. They're the best input from industry. Right now you want to put in a window that is anything but a simple square window, you have to come up with engineering. Go to an engineer. They'll charge you 50 to $75 a piece for it, and they'll just run you a copy and seal it. Those are in here now. This is a benefit, this hurricane code to the building industry, and I really urge you, no matter what you do with the other ordinances, to adopt this. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Again, having just -- and thank you. Having just passed our hurricane code seven months ago? COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Uh-huh. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: -- not too long ago and there may well be some cost-saving measures in there, but I suspect there may well be a few things that cost more in there too and -- COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Which added four or $5,000 to the price of the house. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Yeah. So I'm just -- I'm not comfortable doing that. If the State has approved the plumbing code, I'm more than willing to go ahead with that. If the State has all these others under consideration right now, it would be my preference that we wait and see whether it's December or January. We don't know when it's going to be apparently so -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Chairman, if I could make a motion, I believe I would like to make a motion to continue these items to such a time as the State adopts their codes and our staff performs an analysis, that do we have a level in those codes that goes beyond the State; and, if so, is it going to cost the homeowner more funds. That's my concern. If we're going to have a more stringent standard, that's fine, but I don't want to price people out of homes. My wife and I bought and renovated because it was cheaper than building. So I will make a motion that we put this off and direct staff to bring out those differences between the State code and ours and what the fiscal impact to the future homeowner will be. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Your motion is -- and I need some help from Mr. Cuyler here. Do we need to do this -- My question is, we needed a separate motion to continue for each of these items? MR. CUYLER: If you were just going to continue them and you were going to continue them all and there will have to be a readvertisement so we won't be continuing for the five weeks, you can do that in one motion. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: And does that include the standard plumbing code which apparently the State has approved or do you want to go ahead and -- MR. CUYLER: I would suggest only because I'm not sure how these all work together. We sort of pulled them out into separate ordinances. I would suggest you not do just one of them, and then if we need to bring that one back, we'll bring that one back. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: continue the -- hold off -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Okay. Your motion then is to The motion is inclusive. -- Until further notice? Yes. Is there a second for the motion? I'll second the motion on the floor. Further discussion? I saw a head shaking down here. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm going to vote against the motion just -- I think the industries here, they've done years and years and hours and hours of research. I don't think we're going to get more information that's particularly useful. I'm willing to rely on their -- when we come with joint recommendations from the governors and the governees which is what we have here -- we've got staff who watch the construction industry. We've got the construction industry watched by the staff, and they're recommending the same thing, and they're telling us that they need it and that, you know, the community will be well-served by it. I'm ready to go forward with it. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I don't disagree, Commissioner Mac'Kie, and if I -- if we could pull and separate, I would be more than happy to do that. What my concern is is the one that Commissioner Constantine and Matthews brought up, is that we don't know what elements of these codes you're going to cost the home buyer more money down the road, and I would at least like to know what those are, how we're impacting our citizens before I vote to do it, and that's my concern. And I don't by any means want to say that the work that CBIA and the building industry has done should be thrown away. I just don't have the information that says you Joe Homeowner, if you want to build a house, this is going to impact you this way, and I don't think you can reiterate those concisely for me. So that's where my motion comes from. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Just to follow up on that, I just want to be sure that we don't have the answers to those questions in the room today. Do we have the answers? Do we have that information from our staff or from the industry? Those are very valid questions, and they should be addressed. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: I think they're pretty detailed questions, and I'm not sure that we're going to have -- I mean, even if we had a copy of all the codes in the room, I'm not sure we can break it down specifically to answer the question of how much it's going to cost in what household situations. Commissioner Matthews. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I share Commissioner Mac'Kie's concern, but I also understand the need to make certain that we're not moving in a direction that in the end will be -- have a standard other than what the State's minimum standard is. I would like to ask Commissioner Hancock if he would consider amending his motion that if any of the standards are stand-alone such as Mr. Cuyler said he thinks they may be inter-twined and prefers that one motion continue all of them, but if any of them are stand-alone that our staff examine that, and those that are stand-alone and are approved or such as the hurricane code that we need to do something about it to decrease costs, decrease complicated things, that our staff do that and bring it back to us. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Perhaps within the five-week period so that we don't have the added expense if that's possible. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Could be. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. So if I understand your request for amendment, it's that I amend my motion that if we should find out that any of these are stand-alone and they do match adopted State standards or do not create a burden -- an additional financial burden -- COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Undue burden. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- on the homeowner, that they can come back themselves and be adopted? COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Yes. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Can we do that, Mr. Attorney? MR. CUYLER: I tell you what, I guess the way is, is staff will have to analyze what you've said here today, and if they find it appropriate to readvertise them and bring it back, they will do that as soon as they can do it. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm more than happy to amend my motion to include that. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: I'll amend -- COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Okay. So if we do have a stand-alone -- The second I think is Mr. Norris. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: The second was me. I'll amend the second. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I'll amend. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: I beat you to it, but I don't care. Apparently whoever seconded didn't amend -- amends their second. Any further discussion? All those in favor of the motion then, please state aye. Anyone opposed? COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Aye. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Motion carries 4-1. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: In the minority. And just for purposes of the record, that was continuing item 12C(1), (2), (3), (4), and (5.) Item #12C6 - Withdrawn Item #12C7 RESOLUTION 94-832, SETTING FORTH THE INTENT TO USE THE UNIFORM HETHOD OF COLLECTING THE SPECIAL ASSESSMENT FOR COLLECTION OF NON-AD VALOREH ASSESSMENTS WITHIN THE PELICAN BAY MUNICIPAL SERVICES TAXING AND BENEFIT UNIT FOR RIGHT-OF-WAY MAINTENANCE, WATER MANAGEMENT OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE BEAUTIFICATION OF RECREATIONAL FACILITIES AND MEDIAN AREAS, MAINTENANCE OF CONSERVATION OR PRESERVE AREAS - ADOPTED 12C(7), recommendation the BCC adopts a resolution setting forth the intent to use the uniform method of collecting a special -- cha, cha, cha, cha, cha. MR. WARD: Thank you, Commissioners. Jim Ward for your record, Pelican Bay Services Division. All the resolution does is allow us to utilize the services of the property appraiser and tax collector to collect the non-ad valorem assessments for maintenance purposes within Pelican Bay each year. It doesn't bind the County to the use of those two offices nor does it set tax rates or budget levels. It just allows us to utilize those services in accordance with state law this coming year. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Questions from the board? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: One. What's the present method? MR. WARD: This. We are -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: This is present -- we are readopting? MR. WARD: Yes. The County Attorney's Office has advised us that each year you must adopt this resolution. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: this item? MS. EDWARDS: No, sir. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: I see. Do we have any public speakers on Move to approve. Motion for approval. There's a motion by Commissioner Matthews, a second by Commissioner Mac'Kie. Is there any further discussion? Seeing none, all those in favor of the motion please state aye. Anybody opposed? MR. WARD: Thank you. ITEM #13A1 RESOLUTION 94-833, RE PETITION CU-94-16, HELVIN OLLHAN REPRESENTING WESLEY UNITED METHODIST CHURCH REQUESTING CONDITIONAL USE "2" OF THE "RSF-4" ZONING DISTRICT FOR CHURCHES AND OTHER PLACES OF WORSHIP FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 320 SOUTH BARFIELD DRIVE, CONSISTING OF 6.05+ ACRES - ADOPTED CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Thanks, Jim. Which takes us down to 13A(1), petition CU-94-16. Mr. Saadeh, welcome back. MR. SAADEH: Thank you. Again, for the record, Sam Saadeh, Planning Services, for petition CU-94-16. Commissioners, this is an expansion to an existing church. They're adding 80 seats to an already existing 350-seat church. All reviewing agencies have recommended approval, and staff recommends approval subject to staff's stipulations. The Planning Commission have reviewed and unanimously approved this petition. Staff did receive, however, one letter of objection. No public speakers were present at the Planning Commission meeting. I'll answer any questions. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Matthews. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: What was the basis for the objection that you received? MR. SAADEH: They referred to the church as a commercial enterprise and that's going to devalue their property. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Thank you. MR. SAADEH: You're welcome. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Saadeh, this is an existing church -- MR. SAADEH: Yes, sir. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: -- that's been there for many, many years. MR. SAADEH: Yes, sir. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: -- and we're not expanding the property boundaries? MR. SAADEH: No. Just the uses and the accessory uses. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: All right. Any public speakers on this? MS. EDWARDS: No, sir. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: We'll close the public hearing. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Motion to approve. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Second. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: There's a motion from Commissioner Norris, a second from Commissioner Matthews. Any further discussion? Seeing none, all those in favor of the motion please state aye. Anyone opposed? Motion carries 5-0. MR. SAADEH: Thank you. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Thank you, Mr. Saadeh. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thank you, Sam. Item #14 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' COMMUNICATION CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Brings us on to item 14, BCC communications. Commissioner Norris, anything? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: No. Nothing today. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: couple of things. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Commissioner Mac'Kie? Nothing today. You had something. No. You had something. If she says no, don't push her. Oh, yes. I do. Oh, I had a Commissioner Matthews, be cognizant of the clock next time. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I know. I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Hopefully she'll be brief. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Hac'Kie, what do you have? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, there are a couple of things. One is I'd like to get some advice from someone on staff about what is the appropriate method for bringing up single member to at-large commissioners. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: There is none, but thank you for asking. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thank you for asking. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Mr. Dorrill will -- if you get with him, I assume you're meeting with him regularly. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Sure. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: If you get with him, he will -- COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Brief you. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: -- brief you, and if you then feel it needs to be on the agenda, each one of us has the ability to put an item on the agenda. I would highly recommend you do that. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: And each one of us has the ability to continue it too. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: I would highly recommend you do that with enough advance notice so it does get all the advertisements because someone tends to scream about every add-on we do so -- but -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But through the manager is the appropriate -- CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Yeah. And at your discretion. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And the other thing is just consternation with the flow of the agenda and my desire to look for some way to allow people who sit here for hours to -- maybe people -- maybe we decide the order of issues based on the number of registered speakers. I don't know. What's the appropriate forum for addressing that issue? CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: We've experimented with this, and I know prior to when Bettye and John and I were on the board, they experimented with this, and frankly there is no way to know because there are some days when you think an item will not last at all and it goes for two hours. There are some items that you think will be very involved and, you know, don't go. What we've tried to do this year is -- prior to us being on the board, I know it was a habit to that day a lot of time-exacts would be named. Two problems with that. One, it's very difficult to keep time-exacts. Last week was a case in point. We had an 11:30 that didn't start until 1:00, and so that becomes frustrating for those people who come expecting it to begin at 11:30 because they hear that word "exact." The second is for that person who is here and has sat here for three hours and their item is the next one except there was a time-exact so they get kicked back for two hours. It's very frustrating, and frankly it appears, as cumbersome as this is, to have it in some semblance of order and keep it in that order, at least people know when to expect. And if they see something running long, they know they have time. They don't think -- One of the problems I know I had when I would appear before the board prior to being on the board was when things suddenly get switched around during the meeting. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: It's frustrating. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Often you'd feel like you had to sit here all time because you didn't know if they'd move your item around, and at least way there's some order to it. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I just -- I will look into it further, see if I can -- CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Please do. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- Have any more recommendations. I think the City Council does a better job of controlling their agenda and people knowing when they're going to be speaking in front of the City Council. So maybe I can do some investigating on that. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: One of the items -- and I think this will just come as the two of you get used to doing this, but the last couple of weeks what we've intended to do or what it appeared we have done is discussed items a lot without ever working -- not "ever," but without working directly toward a motion. And if we can try to make sure the discussion is headed toward any motion, we may vote that motion down, but at least we're headed toward a direction instead of simply discussion and I think -- and neither one of you are too shy, so I don't think we'll have any problem with that but -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: -- none of us should be afraid to throw a motion out there at some given time, but I think that may have slowed us down the last couple of weeks a little bit. We've been yappy. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: The manager has a couple of issues. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Yeah. I do too actually. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I have one comment to make about what Commissioner MAc'Kie said about the City being more efficient with the agenda, but if all we had to talk about out here in the country was Muscovy ducks, we could do that in an efficient manner too. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Watch it boys. Watch it boys. There's a lot of important business. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: All those in TV land, you can address your letters to Commissioner John Norris. COMHISSIONE NORRIS: Just kidding. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thank you for the "just kidding" because there are people watching, you know, City Council people watching who we make a lot of speeches about how we want to work together. So look directly in the camera and tell them you're just kidding. COMHISSIONER NORRIS: All in good fun. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. MR. DORRILL: My idea to copyright the Collier County landfill as the highest geographical point on the west coast of Florida is not a good idea to post guards? CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Hancock, anything? COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: One quick comment. After last night's playoff clinching victory, go Dolphins! That's all I have. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Wasn't that fun? CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Thanks for sharing that with us. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Sure. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: I have two items. One, you -- the three folks who were with us then may recall at the last City/County joint meeting, we discussed this, and we had discussed it at least two occasions prior to that. The artificial reef program and both -- it's the program that would include the debris from the school that's being rebuilt. The City has agreed to let their dock be used to have a staging area to go onto the barge. The County has agreed by vote at that City/County meeting to fund that through our artificial reef program that already exists, and we don't seem to be getting any action from the school board, and I wondered if the board would mind if we gave direction to Mr. Dorrill and, in turn, you can bring a report back to us in a week to find out if there is a holdup from the school board and, if so, what it is because it's paid for and it's done, and I would think it's easier to truck things a half a mile away than it is to the landfill and it's -- frankly, it's going to save them some money so -- COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: I would offer myself to help in that discussion with the school board. MR. DORRILL: With that in mind, whomever the new chairman is going to be, the -- we've sort of missed the most recent opportunity to head the joint City/County school meeting. I'm not sure whose turn it was to host, but we missed our cycle, and so we have taken the initiative to schedule in-house the next meeting, and we're trying to do that the second Thursday in January which would be the 12th, and that's at this point is the only item that I have on the agenda is reconciling the demolition schedule Gulf View Middle School to take advantage of the offer that we from the City to use the Naples landing at no cost to coincide with our artificial reef program and grant. It's a real chicken and egg deal but that's -- CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Could you at least make some initial contact now and perhaps report back if there is some obvious problem with that in the next week? MR. DORRILL: I'd be happy to. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Matthews. COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: I have a question. Mr. Dorrill, you said the 12th, the City/County. MR. DORRILL: City/County Schools not to be -- COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: But isn't January 12 the Lee -- CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Just with the chair and the mayor and the -- and everybody. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I know but in the morning -- MR. DORRILL: Yeah. I think you're right. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: We'll be up at Lee. MR. DORRILL: I may have my dates messed up. That's our next joint meeting with Lee County. MS. FILSON: Yes, sir. That's correct. MR. DORRILL: But I can tell you that we're trying to organize a meeting for City/County schools because we talked about that at my staff meeting yesterday afternoon. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: you have something else -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: I had one other item as -- Did Yes. -- on that item? No. Not on that item. I had one other item as well. I've just concluded or I am about to conclude my service as chair of the TDC. One of the things that have been frustrating is under the category C funds, we have roughly $1.3 million set aside that either things that have applied do not qualify for or we have not had big programs apply. Most of the programs that apply are fairly small in scope such as swamp buggy or the bowlers I think bring in five or 600 bed nights and so on, but still they only look for a small dollar amount. This past meeting we had, it was -- well, let me go back. The meeting prior to that -- two meetings ago, the hotel industry came to us with a proposal to change the way which we could expend that to change the alignment of the monies that were voted on a couple of years back, and TDC decided it probably wasn't appropriate two years after the fact. People distrust government enough as it is and to go in and change the percentages wouldn't be appropriate. Last month there was a proposal -- several proposals put forward, the vast majority of which were not qualified. We had an art show in Immokalee January 22 that was to benefit some children's programs and was going to bring school children in which was a great program; however, it didn't have anything to do with TDC funds, and it was in season. We had a tennis tournament that wanted to use $100,000 for prize money which is ineligible and so on. Marco Island is having a 30th anniversary celebration this coming year, and they had a series of 17 events. Only 11 of those fell in the shoulder season and of those -- I don't know how many -- six or seven of those were local events, children's back-to-school festival and things that are not TDC-related, and it became -- it has become apparent to me that we may need to take another look at how we do category C funds, and I have a couple of ideas running around in my head with that and how we might do some things with different thresholds to encourage larger events to bring in people because the small events are nice, but if we have going to have the TDC funds allocated toward trying to bring people here in the off season, it appears we need to do more to encourage its use in larger events, and I have a couple of concepts running around and I just wanted to throw that out for your sake now, and Iwm going to do a little homework -- and Mr. Cuyler is helping me -- on some alternatives to that. But if any of you have any ideas along that, put your thinking caps on and I hope to bring that back in the next two or three weeks at least conceptually. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I hope you do, Mr. Chairman, because I think itws pretty obvious that wewre not getting very good utilization out of that portion of the funds. And if wewre not going to get utilization out of them, we should, as you say, change the criteria and put those dollars to work someplace where they will do some good. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: And itws a building fund, not necessarily building the building. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Mac'Kie, did you have one other item? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I did. Just to confirm with Mr. Dotrill that I have told a lot of people that we're going to have a -- sort of a water workshop on next Tuesday's agenda. Have I oversold that? Are we going to have some presentations from staff on what is the status of our water management planning? MR. DORRILL: The original direction that I thought that I had dealt with two different staff issues that the staff expected for two differences concerns water tense, effluent master plans, and the current status of the agreements that we have with golf courses, the whole issue about tense, effluent storage. That's what I was intending. If we're going to take it beyond that to include water management issues, particular drainage issues, my advice to you would be that you could probably spend all day listening to a variety of older communities and subdivisions. The whole drainage issue will just totally swamp the water tense and effluent issue. At this point, the two staff issues deal with north and south county water tense storage and alternative storage in contract arrangements that we have. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: So -- MR. DORRILL: But it's intended to be a workshop that would start at the conclusion of the regular meeting, and I've asked the staff to keep the regular meeting as short as possible. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: The issue, however, instead of water generally, would be effluent tense? MR. DORRILL: Unless y'all want to give me some direction today to broaden that. The two staff issues that have been continued now on two different occasions deal with effluent and tense and storage. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Keeping in mind, next week is Christmas week. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Just -- I'm happy to stay with that as next week's agenda. I want to be clear that I want to see us go forward with a broader scope of presentation to the board if next week is not the right time. MR. DORRILL: Give me your definition then so that I'll understand it. But when you say "water issues," that means a whole host of things. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: You know, exactly what -- exactly what one of the speakers today -- I think it was Tom Taylor said that we are finally beginning to see that water, waste water, and tense water are interconnected. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: And storm water. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And storm water. I'm sorry. And that we need to have a presentation from our staff on what is the -- what's the beginning. We need to workshop a long-range budget, water budget, very general, very generic. And I understand that that's not a -- it's going to be another one of those puzzles where we have to look at a lot of pieces. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: That might be appropriate to set up an individual workshop on. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Yeah. It seems to me that we're headed toward looking at water resources in total. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's my goal. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: And to look at our potable resources, our tense resources, storm water, the whole thing. MR. DORRILL: Perhaps you and I can discuss that a little further because I've already in my particular system put the first week after the holidays the discussion with Miss Boyd to try and develop an agenda for this February or March huge workshop with the governing board, and I guess we need to have a role to play, and we need to identify some issues that we think are pertinent to this County before we invite them over here. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: You had -- I'm sorry. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No. Just that that's exactly what I'd like to do. Before we meet with the basin and the district, that we are intelligent enough to do some good. MR. DORRILL: I'll discuss -- COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Scary enough. MR. DORRILL: -- that further. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Let's be careful how you word that. Mr. Dotrill, you had two items. Item #15 STAFF COHMUNICATIONS HR. DORRILL: I did. The first one is one that's come to us from two different areas. This is for informational purposes. The snack bar facilities that here at the Government Center have been here for the better part of about 30 years, and in researching that, I will tell you that I was always under the impression that there was state law that required that those be done in conjunction with the Division of Blind Services. That is true for State office facilities. It is not true with the County level, but the County Commission has sort of had a moral contract, if you will, with a local blind concessionaire to run, own and operate the snack bar here for almost 30 years. We've had only three concessionaires in that time, and the current concessionaire has been here 12 years. His capital and his ability to raise capital to expand that are fairly limited. The long story short, the snack bar is the same size as it was 30 years ago, and we've recently had an expression from two different vendors, one who is a local operator who desires to have sort of a push-cart operation similar to the ones you see in the mall that could be in the courthouse for people who are here on court on busy court days. We've also had an expression of interest from the local owners of the HcDonalds franchise to enter into a joint venture relationship with our blind concessionaire to expand and invest their own capital to enlarge the snack bar that is here. If the Board doesn't have an objection, I would suggest that we at least request qualifications from anyone who may be interested but along those two different lines and recognize, if you're willing, that whatever we do, the Division of Blind Services and whoever our concessionaire are need to play a role or be a managing partner as part of that because of the relationship we've had. The food service issue here is kind of inadequate at the time and could be improved, but our current operator has kind of limited means to do that. But unless you're interested, I'm not going to pursue it at all, but we're getting some outside interest expressed to us and I need to get some feedback. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: A couple of comments. You and I spoke about this earlier in the week, and I had someone express an interest similar to the HcDonalds one or the potential for a joint venture. Your comments at the end are the only way I guess in which I'm -- want to look at that. I want to make sure we take care of the vendor we have there now. If there is a possibility of having a joint venture where he can continue in some capacity and having that expand, I suspect we have a few more employees utilizing that than we did in 1961. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Three or four. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: But -- So there's certainly a need to expand, but I want to make sure that he is in no way pushed out of that picture. He's done a great job with what is there. I just think the demand is greater now. I'm not as comfortable with a separate entity such as a push-cart wondering around elsewhere because that then becomes competition with him as opposed to a joint venture term with him. MR. DORRILL: Okay. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I echo that as long as, again, the products are not competing with his. MR. DORRILL: Or that he is a managing partner as part of the joint venture that where he may have other employees who may not be blind but he's still entitled and would be under contract. The other thing we found is that there has never been an agreement between the Board of County Commissioners and the concessionaire that we have, and I think it would behoove us to at least formalize that. I'm not looking for any concession revenue back to the County, but I would like to provide a little nicer facility than what is there. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: You had one other item? MR. DORRILL: I have one other item, and that was to remind the board that we will be entering into the next joint meeting with the Lee County Commission, and thus far the only item that we have is to explore at the request of the chairman our interest in participating in the West Coast Inland Navigational District which is a special district created by the legislature. Lee County is part of that. In fact, we're the only county on the west coast south of Tampa Bay that does not participate -- CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Let me just interrupt there. I'm not overly excited at joining that, and I don't want you to mislead anyone by saying at my request. I do, however, think we owe these folks the courtesy of speaking with them. MR. DORRILL: And my note here is to ask in advance that Lee County staff prepare an item, an agenda item, for that meeting to share with us the benefits or the extent to which Lee County participates in that special district, and also to ask the County Commission if you have any agenda items for that meeting, if you would share those with my office, say, by Friday of next week. We need to CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Foreign trade zone. MR. DORRILL: I'm sorry? CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Foreign trade zone. MR. DORRILL: That's all that I have. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Does the Lee County Commission have much to do with the foreign trade zone? CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: They are the Port Authority It's the same. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I know they are the Port Authority. I just wonder if they can switch hats like that in the middle of a meeting. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: This is a workshop so there's -- we don't take formal action, unless you want to set up a separate meeting with the Port Authority. Mr. Cuyler, anything? MR. CUYLER: Eleven shopping days until Christmas. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Great. Thank you very much. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No! CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Mr. Brian, how are you? Thanks for joining us today. MR. BRIAN: It's always a pleasure. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: It's a pleasure to see you. Miss Filson, may we be excused? MS. FILSON: You may. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: We're out of here. ***** Commissioner Matthews moved, seconded by Commissioner Hancock and carried unanimously, that the following items under the Consent Agenda be approved and/or adopted ***** Item #16A1 RESOLUTION 94-827 GRANTING FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE SOUTHPOINTE YACHT CLUB See Pages Item #16A2 WATER AND SEWER FACILITIES ACCEPTANCE FOR SOUTHAMPTON, UNIT ONE, PHASE I - WITH STIPULATIONS See Pages Item #16A3 RESOLUTION 94-828 APPROVING FOR RECORDING THE FINAL PLAT OF LAKE LUCERNE AND GRANTING PRELIMINARY ACCEPTANCE OF THE ROADWAY, DRAINAGE, WATER AND SEWER IMPROVEMENTS - WITH PERFORMANCE BOND AND CONSTRUCTION MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT See Pages Item #16A4 RESOLUTION 94-829 APPROVING LIEN RESOLUTION FOR COMPLIANCE SERVICES CASE NO. 40801-097; OWNER OF RECORD - GERHAIRE DISTRIBUTORS, INC. See Pages Item #16A5 APPROVAL FOR RECORDING THE FINAL PLAT OF LE CLUB AT IMPERIAL, LTD. See Pages Item #16C1 - Deleted Item #16C2 BUDGET AMENDMENT TRANSFERRING FUNDS FROM FUND 368 RESERVES TO VINEYARDS COHMUNITY PARK IN THE AMOUNT OF $35,000 Item #16C3 INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT WITH THE COLLIER COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD CONCERNING PINECREST ELEMENTARY SCHOOL See Pages Item #16C4 BID #94-2296 FOR OLDER AMERICANS' ACT FUNDED HOMEMAKING - AWARDED TO HEALTH FORCE See Pages Item #16C5 CONTRACT AMENDHENT INCREASING CLIENT SERVICE FUNDING WITH INTERIH HEALTHCARE Item #16C6 See Pages CONTINUATION CONTRACT FOR 1995 OLDER AMERICANS' GRANT FUNDING See Pages Item #16D1 CLAIMS OF LIEN FOR THE ENFORCEMENT OF THE NOTICE TO CONNECT TO COLLIER COUNTY SEWER FACILITIES AND NOTICE OF IMPACT FEE STATEMENT FOR THE EAST AND SOUTH NAPLES SANITARY SEWER PROJECT See Pages Item #16D2 CANCELLATION OF CLAIM OF LIEN FOR MABEL AND VICTOR ALBRECHT See Pages Item #16D3 SATISFACTIONS OF CLAIM OF LIENS FOR BONTA FARMS, INC., AND LARRY E. VIA See Pages Item #16E4 RESOLUTION 94-830, AUTHORIZING RED RIBBON WEEK EXPENDITURES AS A VALID PUBLIC PURPOSE See Pages Item #16F1 ADDENDUH TO COOPERATIVE AGREEHENT BETWEEN THE STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE AND CONSUMER SERVICES, DIVISION OF FORESTRY AND THE COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COHMISSIONERS See Pages Item #16F2 ACQUISITION OF THE CITY OF EVERGLADES SHARE OF A JOINTLY OWNED WARD LAFRANCE FIRE TRUCK Item #16H1 SECOND SUBHITTAL TO CORRECT TYPO; EXPENDITURE OF A $290 REGISTRATION FEE THAT HAS BEEN PREVIOUSLY BUDGETED FOR EACH AIRPORT AUTHORITY MEMBER TO ATTEND A NATIONAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY BOARD MEMBERS "WORKSHOP" SPONSORED BY THE AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF AIRPORT EXECUTIVES ON MARCO ISLAND, DECEMBER 11-13, 1994 Item #16H2 CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT RE BID #94-2281 FOR THE GOODLAND BRIDGE FENDER SYSTEM REPLACEMENT - AWARDED TO MARCO MARINE CONSTRUCTION, INC. IN THE AMOUNT OF $432,880 Item #16H3 DESIGN CHANGES FOR UTILITIES RELOCATION ASSOCIATED WITH BONITA BEACH ROAD WIDENING, A JOINT COLLIER COUNTY - LEE COUNTY PROJECT Item #16H4 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH HOLE, HONTES & ASSOCIATES, INC. FOR UPGRADES TO ELECTRICAL AND PUMP EQUIPMENT AT THE RAW WATER BOOSTER STATION - EMERGENCY DECLARED; CCNA PROCESS WAIVED See Pages Item #16J MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE - FILED AND/OR REFERRED The following miscellaneous correspondence presented to the Board of County Commissioners was filed and/or referred to the various departments: Item #16J1 CERTIFICATES FOR CORRECTION TO THE TAX ROLLS AS PRESENTED BY THE PROPERTY APPRAISER'S OFFICE 1993 TANGIBLE PERSONAL PROPERTY NO. DATE 179 11/18/94 1994 REAL PROPERTY 71-75 11/22-11/28/94 78-79 12/01/94 1994 TANGIBLE PERSONAL PROPERTY el 11/09/94 87-91 11/16-11/21/94 Item #16J2 SATISFACTIONS OF LIEN FOR SERVICES OF THE PUBLIC DEFENDER See Pages Item #16L1 SATISFACTION OF LIEN FOR PUBLIC NUISANCE ABATEMENT There being no further business for the Good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by Order of the Chair at 4:25 p.m. BOARD OF COUNTY COHMISSIONERS BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS CONTROL TIHOTHY J. CONSTANTINE, CHAIRMAN ATTEST: DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK These minutes approved by the Board on as presented or as corrected TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF DONOVAN COURT REPORTING BY: Sharon Sullivan, CSR, RPR Christine E. Whitfield, RPR