Loading...
BCC Minutes 01/10/1995 RREGULAR MEETING OF JANUARY 10, 1995, OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COHMISSIONERS LET IT BE REHEHBERED, that the Board of County Commissioners in and for the County of Collier, and also acting as the Board of Zoning Appeals and as the governing board(s) of such special districts as have been created according to law and having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:05 a.m. In REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRWOMAN: VICE-CHAIRMAN: Bettye J. Hatthews John C. Norris Timothy Constantine Pam Hac'Kie Timothy Hancock ALSO PRESENT: Neil Dorrill, County Hanager Ken Cuyler, County Attorney CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: Call to order the Tuesday, January 10 meeting of the Board of County Commissioners. Mr. Dotrill, if you would lead us in an invocation and a pledge. MR. DORRILL: Heavenly Father, we give thanks this morning for the beautiful weather that we have enjoyed over the last several days. Father, we give thanks for the wonder and beauty of our community, Collier County. As always, Father, our prayer this morning is that your hand would guide the deliberations and important business decisions that are made by this county commission. Father, we'd ask that you watch over our commander in chief and our various federal and state officials. We give thanks for the many people of Collier County who choose to participate in the government here, and we'd ask that you bless our time together. And we pray these things in Your Son's holy name. Amen. (The pledge of allegiance was said.) Item #2 APPROVAL OF AGENDA AND CONSENT AGENDA - APPROVED WITH CHANGES CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: Okay. Do we have any changes to our agenda? Mr. Dotrill, we have a short list. MR. DORRILL: Yes, ma'am. Good morning, Madam Chairman, Commissioners. I have just two changes this morning, actually three. The first is I'd like to move item 16-E-1 to 8-E-1 under the regular agenda. That's a recommendation to award this year's annual bid for auctioneer services. 16-E-1 will become 8-E-1. I have a request to continue a public hearing which is 12-C-1 -- it's petition AB-94-19 -- for one week until the meeting of the 17th. The last item for purposes of the record this morning is the presentation concerning the Gordon River bridge and the contract modification for CH2H Hill who's the design engineer. It's shown on our agenda after item 15. But that item has been specifically advertised by the city to be an actual joint meeting with the county commission. My suggestion is that for purposes of the record that we show that as item 10-H-l, that being a presentation concerning eliminating corridor alignments in conjunction with the city. There had been a special request that that be at or as close to 11 a.m. this morning as possible. I have a staff communications item that I'll bring up at the conclusion of today, Madam Chairman. And that's all that I have. CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: Okay. Thank you. Mr. Cuyler? MR. CUYLER: Just a couple items, Madam Chairman. MR. DORRILL: Mr. Cuyler has just indicated that 16-A-3 is a companion item to 12-C-1. That will also need to be continued for one week. 16-A-3. CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: Okay. That's all? MR. CUYLER: Madam Chairman, I have a couple items. Under county attorney's report, section 9, an addition of 9-B. I'd like to add a brief discussion of PSC jurisdiction as it relates to multiple county facilities and perhaps get some direction from the board one way or another regarding intervention in a case that is going to be pending. And I have two items that I'll just note for your information. I know that I don't need to add staff communications at this point. But there's an item that's come up on the Lely guard house, a courtesy copy of a complaint that's supposed to be filed today. And I want to discuss that under staff communications and also mention the First Assembly case under staff communications. CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: I'm sorry. What's the last one? MR. CUYLER: The First Assembly case I'll mention under staff communications. CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: Okay. MR. CUYLER: And that's all I have. CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: Okay. Thank you. Commissioner Norris? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Nothing further. CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hancock? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: No additions. CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hac'Kie? COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: None. CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: I'm going to have to spoil it. I have one. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: You always do. CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: Actually I have two. I'd like to add to the agenda under board of county commission which would be 10-I I guess -- MR. DORRILL: Yes, ma'am. CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: I had conversation yesterday with the Greater Naples Civic Association on their visioning program. And while I offered to participate in that a number of months ago, they have indicated they would like to have an alternate because there are some -- some meetings that I may not be able to attend. So amongst ourselves, I wanted to have a volunteer alternate. And then item 16-H-2 on the consent agenda, I would like to move it to the regular agenda. MR. DORRILL: 16-H-2 will become 8-H-3. CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: Yeah. This is the purchase of the Pitney Bowes Spectrum equipment for the department of -- of revenue. 8-H-107 Is that what it is? COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Three. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: H-3. MR. DORRILL: It will be H-3. CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: And that's all I have. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Commissioner Matthews, is -- the visioning alternate member, is that any different from item 10-G? CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: Yes, it is. It's different from the Marco Island visioning -- COHMISSIONER NORRIS: This is -- I don't believe that is the Marco Island visioning on 10-G. CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: Oh. Let me -- it was my understanding it was not on the agenda, and I didn't go back to check again. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: 10-G we have discussion regarding appointment of board member to the Community Vision Steering Committee? CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: Okay. Yes, that's exactly it. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: That's the same thing? CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: Yeah, and they're looking for an alternate also. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: COMMISSIONER NORRIS: CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: COMHISSIONER NORRIS: CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. Okay. So we don't need -- We don't need 10-I. -- 10-I then? You're absolutely right. Okay. In that case I'll make a motion that we approve the agenda and consent agenda with changes as noted. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second. Any discussion? I'll call the question. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? There being none, motion passes four to zero, Commissioner Constantine being absent. Item #3 MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF NOVEMBER 15, AND NOVEMBER 22, 1994 AND STRATEGIC PLANNING MEETING OF NOVEMBER 29, 1994 - APPROVED AS PRESENTED Approval of the minutes? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I'll make a motion that we approve the minutes of the regular meeting of November 15, 1994; November 22, 1994; and the strategic planning meeting of November 29, 1994. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second that. CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second. Is there discussion? There being none, I'll call the question. All those in favor please say aye. Opposed? There being no opposition, motion passes four to zero, Commissioner Constantine absent. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Kind of like saying that, don't we? Item #4A1 PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING JANUARY 15, 1995, - JANUARY 21, 1995 AS PURPLE MARTIN WEEK - ADOPTED CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: Proclamations. Purple Martin Week. Commissioner Norris. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Thank you, Madam Chairman. Is George Moore here? There you are, okay. Would you come forward and stand here where the audience could see you, please, and I'll read this proclamation? Whereas, in a very short time thousands of our very beautiful feathered friends, the purple martins, will return from their winter home in Brazil; and whereas, these birds will be searching for suitable housing to enable them to nest and rear their young; and whereas, the Florida legislature has designated Collier County the purple martin capital of Florida -- CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: Woops. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: -- and whereas, the Conservancy Purple Martin Society is desirous of urging the public to erect proper housing for these very valuable winged creatures by placing said houses on their property; and whereas, during the period of January 15 to the 21st, 1995, the Conservancy Purple Martin Society will endeavor to alert the public to how valuable these birds are in helping to diminish the insect and mosquito population. Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that the week of January 15 through the 21st, 1995, be designated as Purple Martin Week. Done and ordered this 10th day of January, 1995, by the Board of County Commissioners, Collier County, Florida. George, congratulations. MR. MOORE: Thank you very much. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: If you have a couple of words to say, you're certainly welcome to -- to step over and use our podium. MR. MOORE: Thank you very much. CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: Oh, you're quite welcome. Thank you, Commissioner Norris. Service awards, Commissioner -- oh, I'm sorry. MR. MOORE: In the name of the Conservancy Purple Martin Society, we'd like very much to thank you for the proclamation. And I think it very appropriate that on Saturday two of our members in different positions, one in Bonita Springs and one in Moorehead Manor, have spotted the scouts from Brazil, and that will certainly be if not the first in the nation within the first five. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Good. Thank you, George. CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: Thank you. Item #4B EMPLOYEE SERVICE AWARDS - PRESENTED Commissioner Hancock, service awards. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Certainly. It gives me pleasure this morning to hand out five service awards to county staff members. The first is a certificate and pin for 15 years service in the road and bridge department to Mr. Larry Brown. Larry, are you here? He worked so hard he couldn't even make it here today. So we -- we thank Mr. Brown for his service. I have a ten-year service award for ten years in capital projects, Thomas Donegan. Thank you, Mr. Donegan. MR. DONEGAN: Thank you. Thank you. CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: Thank you. MALE VOICE: Tom works hard too. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Tom's just better at scheduling. That's all. CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: His work is in-house. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: That's true. He has a shorter trip to make. I have two others. One is a five-year service award for five years' service in emergency services, Miss Denise Clarke. Thank you so much. MS. CLARKE: Thanks. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Congratulations, Denise. MS. CLARKE: Thanks. CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: Congratulations. MS. CLARKE: Thank you. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: And our last service award for five years also in transportation services -- I'm sorry, development compliance is Mr. Robert Stringer. Thank you, Mr. Stringer. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Thank you. CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: Thank you. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thanks. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thank you. CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: I guess he's not here, is he, Mr. Fabiano? MS. FILSON: Yeah. He called, and he couldn't make it. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Also unable to make it today is Steven Fabiano, five years in transportation services. We'd like to thank him also. CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: Thank you, Commissioner Hancock. Item #4C1 JODI MORELOCK, PUBLIC SERVICES DIVISION, RECOGNIZED AS EMPLOYEE OF THE YEAR FOR 1994 Now we move on to presentations, and it's -- it's my honor and distinct privilege to present to an employee of Collier County our employee of the year award. And it's quite an honor that employees of Collier County bestow upon one of their own, and we merely present it. But it's still an honor for me to be able to do that. That person this year has been chosen, and it is Jodi Morelock. If she'll come forward, I'd appreciate it. We're going to make you stand here for a little while. Jodi began her employment with Collier County in 1978, and she came to us as a CETA employee and moved on to social services and eventually moved on to animal control. She has been nominated the good neighbor on the Gulf in the past. Great -- great thing to be. She joined animal control in 1982 as a kennel worker. And she has since moved from there to animal control director, and that occurred in August of '94. She's consistently achieved excellent or superior performance appraisals. Very good. She's been involved in many animal control department programs such as promotion of animal care and control and the responsible pet ownership program. She's also made monthly appearances promoting animal care on WINK TV. She's helped develop the rabies vaccination and animal licensing program with local veterinarians to service outlying areas. She works very closely with animals providing care, promoting adoptions, and locating the owners of our lost loved pets. In her off-duty time -- do you have any? -- Jodi -- Jodi organizes and works with volunteer services and additional animal organization work. She's dedicated to the goals of the animal control department and willingly takes on new assignments to achieve these goals. She's received letters from grateful members of the public attesting to her dedication and devotion. Jodi, we want to thank you. To do that, we have a plaque that says Collier County Employee of the Year, 1994, Jodi Morelock, in recognition of your outstanding ability and superior performance. We also have for you a letter suitable for framing and a check suitable for cashing in the amount of $250. Hay you enjoy it and use it wisely. Thank you, Jodi. Item #4C2 HARK NOBLES, UTILITY SERVICES DIVISION, RECOGNIZED AS EMPLOYEE OF THE MONTH FOR JANUARY, 1995 Next we have another presentation, the employee of the month for January '95. Commissioner Hac'Kie. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Thank you. Is Mark Nobles here? If you'd come up, please. I would say face the music but face the cameras. Congratulations. This is a -- a wonderful, wonderful story of -- of some recent achievements and some long-term dedication to Collier County. Mark began his employment with the county as a maintenance mechanic in utilities, then the water department. He's twice been promoted since 1987. He's currently a senior utility technician. And there is a very interesting and exciting, in my mind, story that occurred just last month when Mark indicated and proved again his dedication to his job. The county's north water treatment plant was threatened by sand intrusion, and Mark volunteered to head an effort to locate the sand which had threatened the two and a half million dollar membranes. Mark worked several 24-hour straight shifts as several segments of the cleaning operation required continuous attention. He and other department crew members worked over 700 hours to track, identify, and eventually eliminate this problem. In addition to -- to being willing to serve for several 24-hour shifts, this did prevent the county from having to hire outside consultants and was a significant contribution in addition to his regular contribution to the county. Mark is well respected for his outstanding work performance and work ethics by his supervisors, colleagues, and by staff and other departments. I'm pleased to present the Collier County employee of the month. Official recognition and appreciation is tendered to Mark Nobles for exceptional performance January 1995. And fortunately there is also a check suitable for cashing. Congratulations. Item #5 BUDGET AMENDMENT 95-126 - ADOPTED CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: Mr. Smykowski. I did it right this week. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: In one week she got it. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Let's hear it for Commissioner Matthews getting Mr. Smykowski's name right. MR. SHYKOWSKI: For the record, Michael Smykowski, acting budget director. There is only one budget amendment that requires your approval this morning on the budget amendment report. CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: Are there any questions? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Motion for approval. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Motion to approve. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second. CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: Motion and a second to approve. Any discussion? There being none, call the question. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? There being none, motion passes five-zero. MR. SHYKOWSKI: Thank you. CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: Thank you. Item #SD1 CURRENT CONTRACT FOR THE PURHCASE OF SODIUH HYPOCHLORITE AT THE COUNTY WATER TREATMENT PLANT (BID #94-2250) TERMINATED AND AWARDED TO ALLIED UNIVERSAL CORP IN THE AMOUNT OF $.49 PER GALLON FOR BALANCE OF CONTRACT Next on the agenda, we move on to our regular agenda, further into it. What happened to page 27 Here it is. Item 8-D-1 under utilities, recommendation to terminate the current contract award for the purchase of sodium hypochlorite. MR. CARNELL: Good morning, Madam Chairman. For the record, Steve Camell, purchasing director. The recommendation before you is to terminate the county's existing contract at the present time with Jones Chemical for the provision of sodium hypochlorite that is used as our water treatment process and to replace Jones with Allied Universal under that contract. Just a very brief history on this, Allied -- we went out to bid during the summer. And on September 20 the board awarded this contract to Jones Chemical who was the only bidder who submitted for that particular line item. Jones submitted a price of 52 cents a gallon. They have -- in the contract, because of the volatile nature of our chemical pricing, we do allow our contractors to seek price adjustments when they have incurred increases from their suppliers. Jones has requested an increase to take the contract from 52 to 62 cents a gallon. As a perfunctory thing, what we do in the purchasing department when we receive such requests is we go back to the market and just check and see if we can do better. And we found a source that will not only give us a price that's better than the increase but actually better than the current price which is Allied Universal. And Allied Universal is also offering to waive their right for price escalation for the balance of the contract period. So they're locked in at 49 cents. We're paying 52, looking at going to 62, so we would recommend -- and we've given Jones the opportunity to -- they've been advised of Allied's offer and -- and are not able to come off their request. They say they need it. So we've advised them that we were going to recommend termination to the board and switching of contractors to Allied Universal for the balance of the contract period. And we're here for -- CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: I just -- I just have one question on it. Is there a clause in the contract for cancellation on convenience? MR. CARNELL: Yes, ma'am. CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: There is, okay. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Madam Chairwoman, I'd, first of all, like to commend staff on their work. Mr. Camell, your department has resulted in savings potentially of eleven or twelve thousand dollars for the county. On behalf of county taxpayers, I'd like to thank you. And I'd also like to make a motion that we approve the recommendation to terminate the current contract and re-award per staff's recommendations. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I'll second. CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second. Is there any discussion on the motion? There being none, I'll call the question. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? There being none, motion passes five-zero. Thank you. Item #BE1 BID #94-2298 FOR A FULL-SERVICE AUCTIONEER AGREEMENT - AWARDED TO FIRST COAST AUCTION The next two items on our agenda affect the airport I believe. COMHISSIONER NORRIS: 16-E-1. CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: Yeah. Oh, oh, okay. The auctioneer. Item 6 -- 8-E-1 used to be 16-E-1. Staff has moved this from the consent agenda. MR. CARNELL: Again, a double dose of me, Madam Chairman, hopefully just as brief on this one. This is an item, recommendation to award bid 94-2298 for a full service auctioneer agreement. We have received two bids for this contract. And as you -- you can see from your executive summary, the bid offers were a virtual tie between the two bidders. We have done a reference check and background investigation on both of the firms and based on the information that we uncovered found some questionable information regarding Golden Gavel Auctioneer out of Tampa. I'm prepared to discuss that with the board if you so care to this morning. But what we've done in the process here, we had made a recommendation in December to award to First Coast Auctioneer out of Jacksonville. The Golden Gavel had submitted a protest to my office. We considered their protest and reviewed it. A copy of the protest from Golden Gavel and our response to the protest is in your back-up. This item was moved to the regular agenda because we were not clear as to whether Golden Gavel was going to appear today. It'd be my suggestion to you, Madam Chairman, that if a representative from Golden Gavel is here that we give them an opportunity to address the board at this point. Otherwise we're prepared to make our recommendation as it stands or answer questions of the board. CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: Is there someone -- one here today representing Golden Gavel Auctioneer of Tampa? Apparently not. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Motion to approve. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second. CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second to approve staff's recommendation to a -- award the bid to First Coast Auction. Is there any discussion on the item? There being none, I'll call the question. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? There being none, motion passes five-zero. Thank you. Item #8H3 COHPETITIVE BID PROCESS FOR THE DEPARTHENT OF REVENUE BILLING MACHINE WAIVED AND PURCHASE OF THE PITNEY BOWES SPECTRUM FOLDING/INSERTING SYSTEM AUTHORIZED WITH CONDITION Next item on the agenda is 8-H-l, and I've been notified that Mr. Drury's going to be a few minutes late. If it's all right with the board, we can proceed to 8-H-3 which was on the consent agenda. MR. DORRILL: 16-H-2. CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: 16-H-2. MR. YONKOSKY: Madam Chairman, Commissioners, good morning. For the record, my name is -- CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: If you -- if you don't mind, let me -- let me say why I moved this from the agenda. And then you can -- you can try to answer my concerns because I'd like to get this done quickly. My -- my reason for moving this from the consent agenda was that we had authorized the creation of the department of revenue, and the -- there were two steps that we next required. And that was to hire a -- a director for the department and put together an implementation plan. We don't have that implementation plan, but we're being asked to spend $20,000, and I -- I need to know why. MR. YONKOSKY: Commissioner, you are being asked to spend $20,000 -- my name -- for the record, my name is John Yonkosky. You are being asked to authorize the expenditure of $20,000. The reason for that is that on January 1 Pitney Bowes is going to or has already initiated a price increase of approximately 25,000 -- $2,500 for this piece of equipment. We -- Mr. Camell contacted them, and they agreed to hold their current price until two things happened: Until the board has approved the -- which is coming next week to them the job descriptions for the department of revenue and the -- that the board would allow this competitive bidding process to be waived in its normal activity. Two things have to take place. And the budget will not be there for the department of revenue until -- later on this month is when it's anticipated to come into existence. The board has already approved the budget amendments, but the formal -- the adoption of the resolution next week by the board will make the third step of the process for the department of revenue come into play. So the money will not be spent until the board has actually taken additional action in the future. But this locks in the price, the $2,500 savings, on this particular piece of equipment. CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: You mean they're -- Pitney Bowes has agreed to sell us this equipment at their 1994 price even though we're not going to pay them for it until some future date? MR. YONKOSKY: Well, they won't hold it forever. CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: Well, we -- you know, implementation plan I imagine would be 90, 120 days. MR. DORRILL: Less than that. CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: Less than that you -- you think? MR. DORRILL: Perhaps. The only other question that I would have is the initiating department that made the request here was actually the utilities finance department. And I know currently the majority of utility billing accounts are handled on postcards. Are they trying to anticipate a change to -- to acquire a machine that can do a variety of type billings? But I saw that as -- as opposed to you or some other member of the staff, it's the utilities finance department that's making that request and -- MR. YONKOSKY: In order to install the lock boxes which is part of the department of revenue concept, we're going to have to have a machine that will take and stuff bills, eight and a half by eleven bills, fold them, stuff them into the lock box -- or into an envelope, and then put a return address envelope in order to maximize the savings. Utilities use -- utilizes somewhere between 75 to 80 percent or will use of this particular machine. They also need a new printer which is scheduled to come to you within two weeks, a request for competitive bidding on that. A special assessments portion of the use of the lock box in the department of revenue will be coming to you probably within three weeks. They will use the -- this machine also. So whether or not you have a department of revenue, you still need the machine to take advantage of the savings from the -- CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: But -- but does the current software for the utility department have the capability to produce the bills that are to be folded and stuffed by this machine? I mean, I -- I -- I'm just wondering if we don't have the cart before the horse. I know it's not a lot of money. We're -- we're -- we're -- and -- and that we're going down a path that's going to take us to where we eventually want to go. I'm just a little bit concerned that we don't have everything in the basket at one time that we -- that we might need to really look at the total package. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Can -- is it -- is it possible to -- to authorize this expenditure contingent on our approval of this -- this plan that's coming back? CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: Uh-huh. I would think so. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Would that be -- COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'd be willing to make a motion that we do approve it based upon that contingency. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Would that be suitable to lock in the Pitney Bowes? MR. DORRILL: If it's not, then we'll bring that back to you. This -- this cart is partially before the horse, but I think your staff's doing good staff work in advising you of an opportunity that presents itself to acquire a machine that even hypothetically without a department of revenue your utility finance department still needs to be able to generate and stuff those bills. COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Uh-huh. CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: I understand that. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Yonkosky, you -- MR. YONKOSKY: Yes, sir. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: If I understood you correctly, you said that whether we go forward with the department of revenue or whether we do not that we will use this and need this piece of equipment in any case, either case. MR. YONKOSKY: That's correct. We will need the equipment. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: approve -- COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: Okay. Second. Okay. So the motion is to Is to approve -- -- upon the condition of the approval of the implementation plan, okay. That's the motion. That's the second, Mr. Norris? COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Wait a minute. Hold it. Hold it. Hold it. CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: It's contingent. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: That was my -- that was my motion. My motion was a contingent approval based on our approval. COMHISSIONER NORRIS: When will that approval come? MR. DORRILL: Well, I would like to think that -- that you'll see it in two -- probably three ways. You're going to see it in a proposed staffing chart and some changes in job descriptions that should be here within a week or two. MR. YONKOSKY: Next week. MR. DORRILL: Final budget will come shortly after that. The actual operational plan I would think would be back here within 30 or 60 days in -- in terms of what the intent of the program is. COMHISSIONER NORRIS: I'll withdraw my second because I believe I've asked the question directly that we need the piece of equipment whether we go forward with the department of revenue or not. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: I tend to agree with Commissioner Norris. If -- if we're going to have to have it and we're going to need it anyway and we can save -- although you said twenty-five hundred based on the second lowest bid, we're talking eight or nine hundred dollars here. If we can save it, heck, let's save it. CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: Well, I -- I'm not having any -- any real problem with the motion because Mr. Camell said that Pitney Bowes has agreed to hold the price at least for a period of time. I would assume that period of time is 90 to 120 days. MR. YONKOSKY: No, ma'am. The letter that's addressed to it, Pitney Bowes will hold it for a reasonable amount of time, and you might want to ask Mr. Camell. And he had some discussions with them. MR. CARNELL: They haven't been definitive about it. When -- prior to getting the letter from me, they were saying, we need a commitment prior to January 1 that you're going to buy this at some point in time. And we qualified the commitment in the letter. It was dependent on actions of the board. And then they came back and said, we'll work with you. And they haven't really given us a definitive time. I suspect 90 days will work and will not be a problem for them at all. I think where we got caught in it in part was an end-of-a-year promotion and end-of-a year salesman trying to get a -- CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: Uh-huh. That's what it sounds like to me also. With -- with that in mind and Mr. Dorrill's assurance that we're going to see this plan in 30 days or 45 days maximum, I -- I will second the motion. Okay. We have a motion and a second. I'll call the question. Those in favor say aye. Those opposed? Okay. The motion passes four to one. And let's hope we make the time frame. Thank you. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Let's make the time frame. Item #SH1 CHANGE ORDER NOS. 1-94-4 THRU 1-94-8; E-94-1 THRU E-94-4 AND E-94-6 WITH DUFRESNE-HENRY, INC. FOR THE DESIGN ENGINEERING AND PROJECT MANAGEMENT OF TEN STATE AIRPORT GRANT FUNDED PROJECTS AT IMMOKALEE REGIONAL AIRPORT AND EVERGLADES AIRPARK IN THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF $391,368 - APPROVED CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: Yes. Okay. We'll skip back to item 8-H-1. This is a recommendation by the Board of County Commissioners to execute ten work orders. Mr. Drury? MR. DRURY: Apologize for being late. I was down at the Marco Island -- CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: Is -- is this any different than anything we've heard before with the airport grants? MR. DRURY: That's -- not -- this is actually following through on what you've previously approved. CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: Okay. In the effort to save time, we've all heard this story before. I'd like to -- like to entertain a motion. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Madam Chairman, I'll make a motion we approve the item. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: I'll second the motion. CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second. Is there any discussion? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Drury on his presentation. CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: in favor please say aye. Those opposed? I'd just like to compliment Another great job. I'll call the question. Excellent. Efficiently done. I'll call the question. All those There being none, motion passes five-zero. Item #8H2 RESOLUTION 95-38 ACCEPTING A 50e HATCHING AIRPORT GRANT IN THE AMOUNT OF $50,000 FROM THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AVIATION DIVISION FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF WATER AND SEWER INFRASTRUCTURE AT EVERGLADES AIRPARK AND INCREASING THE BUDGET FOR THIS ITEM TO $100,000 Thank you, Hr. Drury. Do you want to try another presentation on 8-H-27 MR. DRURY: Yes. I'll -- CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: Does this follow the same guidelines? MR. DRURY: This follows the similar guidelines. There is a change -- CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: Okay. MR. DRURY: -- in this one in that the water -- the airport authority went forward and got a $50,000 grant from the Florida Department of Transportation for water and sewer at Everglades Air Park. When we had originally set the budget, we had anticipated activating a well and a septic system that was at the airport. Apparently that septic system and well do not meet the health standards for a public use building today. So we found ourselves short of dollars. We had budgeted $21,000. We went to the Florida Department of Transportation and asked them if they would help us with this problem. We came up with cost estimates of $100,000 to bring in potable water and sewer system to the airport to accommodate the new terminal building. We then asked them if they would help participate in that effort. They agreed to. Before you you have a $50,000 airport grant which is a 50 percent match which means we would need to increase our budget from 21,500 to $50,000 to leverage the $50,000 grant. What we are asking that be done today is that the board accept the $50,000 grant for the development of water and sewer infrastructure at Everglades Air Park and increase the budget for this project to $100,000 to reflect that $50,000 grant and an increase in the budget from 21 -- by $28,500 added to the 21,500 already budgeted for this project. We're asking that a transfer from reserves be authorized for that additional $28,500. In addition to accepting the grant, a resolution would need to be executed and approved by the board accepting that $50,000 grant for water and sewer. And I -- I can answer any questions regarding this request. CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: I have one question. Mr. Dorrill, on -- on the reserves, it's my understanding that we originally committed to this couple of million dollars on the board's behalf of funding through our line of credit or commercial paper program? Is -- are there adequate funds in the reserves without rating them, so to speak, to -- to cover this amendment? MR. DORRILL: I think so in terms of the -- we sort of went through that analysis during the budget preparation phase, and I think it is. In several weeks I'm going to come to the board and show you -- because of the Save Our Homes legislation that went into effect on January the 1st, I have become concerned that this board might have to raise the millage rates in 1995 and 1996 -- CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: I think that was the idea behind Save Our Homes. MR. DORRILL: -- and '96, '97. And so I've got the staff -- the budget staff has prepared a three-year expected cash flow analysis based on budget assumptions. And we got some help with the constitutional officers, and that's a little different question. But the answer to your question specifically for his projects for this year is yes, they're covered. CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: Commissioner Constantine, you had a question? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: How much would it cost to rebuild a septic system there? MR. DRURY: We -- we were looking at about $70,000 for the water and septic system as a project. We would have to do a mounded system down there because the soil is all muck. And we'd have to put in two pumping stations or grinder pumps, one for the security facility, the sheriff's dwelling, and one for the terminal building and two septic tanks and then pump to this mounded system. And it would be, I guess, a temporary system that -- that would -- would work. And the thought was go and get a grant and -- and put in a full line that would tie into the Everglades sewer plant that they're refurbishing at this time. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So for a small amount of money more, half of which is going to be covered by the FAA -- MR. DRURY: State aviation. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I knew that wasn't right -- then we'll end up with a permanent system. MR. DRURY: You'll have a permanent system that will take the ultimate capacity of that airport. CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: Do you have a permit yet to tie into the Everglades City -- MR. DRURY: No. CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: -- water -- waste water system? MR. DRURY: One of the things that we are going to do -- we've -- we've worked with Chuck Holke (phonetic) who's their consultant down there on these issues. And he has encouraged us to go this route as opposed to the septic system. CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: Uh-huh. MR. DRURY: And we don't see a -- a problem in that area. But until we get these dollars lined up and get the engineer on board and go out and start designing and engineering and -- and permitting, we have not got to that point. CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: One last question. Is this grant time sensitive because they've had a historically bad time getting the funding for their waste water treatment plant? MR. DRURY: This grant is not tied to their -- CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: Is this grant time sensitive? Do we need to expend the money by a certain deadline? MR. DRURY: We would have about two years to get this project done or we lose the grant. CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: I would hope that we can accomplish it in two years. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Hove the item. CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: I have a motion. Do I have a second? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: Okay. We have a motion and a second to approve the recommendation of staff. Is there any discussion on it? I'll call the question. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? There being none, motion passes five-zero. Thank you, Mr. Drury. MR. DRURY: And -- and for the record, I should say Tom Palmet, county attorney, has recommended -- I think we said it earlier -- that a resolution be exercised as part of this for the acceptance of that grant. Thank you. MR. CUYLER: There's a -- CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: We have one here. MR. CUYLER: -- resolution in your agenda package that was approved as part of that motion. Item #9A RESOLUTION 95-39 DENYING AN ENDORSEMENT OF A PROPOSED AMENDMENT BY A MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC TO COLLIER COUNTY SPECIAL ACT, CHATPER 67-1246, LAWS OF FLORIDA, RELATING TO PLANNING AND ZONING - ADOPTED. COUNTY ATTORNEY DIRECTED TO DEVELOP MAJORITY PLUS ONE VERBIAGE FOR A RECOHMENDATION TO THE LEGISLATIVE DELEGATION. CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: Okay. So we move on. Next item on the agenda is the county attorney's report and a proposed amendment to the special act. MR. CUYLER: Madam Chairman, this -- CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: 67-1246. MR. CUYLER: Excuse me. This is an amendment that, in fact, is being proposed by Mr. Anderson who's a local attorney and in this case is indicating that he's acting on his own behalf. It's something he has seen over the course of years, and he is going to make a recommendation to the legislative delegation. I've gotten a couple questions as to why this was on the county attorney's report if the county's attorney's not proposing this and that it didn't come forward based on our office's proposal. And the reason it's on there is we explained to Mr. Anderson that the legislative delegation was going to want to know what the board's position is with regard to changing legislation that affects the Board of County Commissioners. It was too late at that point to get a public petition. I indicated to him that I would put it on because I didn't really want to get called down in front of the legislative delegation and have them asking me questions about what the board's position on it was if I didn't know. So with that, I'll let Mr. Anderson actually make the presentation and discuss with you what his considerations are. CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: Good morning, Mr. Anderson. MR. ANDERSON: Good morning, Madam Chairman, Commissioners. I do come before you as a private citizen, as a member of the public sincerely interested in good government and as a former member of the county attorney's office who does have an appreciation for Collier County's unique four-fifths vote zoning change requirement. And I also come as a present member of your development services advisory committee which, incidently, has recommended approval of this proposed amendment to the special act. I do not come before you as an attorney representing any client. The amendment to Collier County special zoning and planning act is to address a glitch or a gap in the law that exists between the county's 28-year-old special act and modern day conflict of interest statutes which require or permit public officials in Florida under limited circumstances to abstain from voting on matters that come before them. The special act was adopted in 1967. And in 1974 the state constitution was amended to grant non-charter counties such as Collier home rule powers which permit the county to adopt ordinances that are not inconsistent with general or special law. Prior to that constitutional amendment, Collier County's authority to exercise zoning and planning powers depended on this special act. Today the special act is a source of supplemental authority to exercise those powers which are now also granted by the constitution and statutes that apply to all counties. Modern day conflict of interest statutes through various changes in the language over the years date from around 1972. At present, section 112.3143 of Florida Statutes generally requires a public official in Florida to abstain from voting whenever that official or a member of that officialws family or someone that that official has a business interest with would be financially affected by a matter pending before that official. In turn, section 286.012, Florida Statutes, requires public officials to vote and prohibits them from abstaining unless there is or appears to be the possibility of a statutory conflict of interest, the latter being more in the nature of a discretionary call to be made by the public official. In the future, new legislation or court decisions may require or encourage abstaining from voting under other specified circumstances. So the amendment I have drafted is not tied to a specific statute addressing abstentions but to any abstention required or permitted by law. The 27-word amendment to the special act would only apply to those zoning changes where one or more commissioners abstained from voting and would under those circumstances require a majority vote of approval rather than a unanimous vote as is presently required under those unusual circumstances. I believe the amendment is fair, reasonable, limited in applicability, and needed to square the requirements of an old special law with the requirements of current general law. Finally, I would ask you, is it fair, is it reasonable, is it logical to require a four-fifths vote when the fourth or fifth person is prohibited by law from casting a vote? Iwd be happy to try to answer any questions that you may have. CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Anderson. Commissioner Norris. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Cuyler, the special act references four-fifths vote? Is that what it does? MR. CUYLER: Correct. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Does that -- does that mean 80 percent of the county commission at any one given day, those that are voting? Or does that mean you have to have four positive votes? MR. CUYLER: My opinion is you have to have four positive votes. Thatws the way wewve always read it. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. It doesnlt specifically address that, though. Someone could make the argument that 80 percent of the sitting commission is -- is four-fifths. MR. CUYLER: They could, but I wouldnlt agree with them. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: But you wouldnlt give them much hope -- MR. CUYLER: I wouldnlt agree with them. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: -- for their successful outcome of that argument. Thatls my only question. CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: Commissioner Constantine. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Three out of four is only seventy-five percent, so Iim not sure what that argument would get them. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: It becomes unanimous but still-- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: 3.2 out of the 4. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I mean, you couldnlt vote on it with three members. CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: I have to sort of half agree then, huh? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just a couple of comments. The date, the time frame, in which these changes took place and the state act was put into place, if we stop and put into perspective where was Collier County in 1967 and 1974 and what was the activity level, it was certainly considerably smaller and considerably less than where we are today. The numbers are astounding when you look at them. The population and development rate in Collier County has changed dramatically in that time period. Mr. Anderson has said today and he said to me yesterday he's not representing any particular client. And I'm sure for this particular item that he's not. I've known Bruce a long time and known him to be nothing but credible. However, I'm sure it has occurred to Mr. Anderson that there is a particular company that his firm has represented that this would impact, a change would impact. And that's APAC. I refer to this suggestion as the APAC assistance amendment because this summer we had to -- we had four people participate. Commissioner Matthews had to opt out. And the argument at that time was whether it needed three votes or four votes. This seems to me to be an attempt to change it, and I'm sure there will be other instances. But it seems like a fairly transparent attempt to do an end run on APAC and be able to bring that back and perhaps get it through with four votes when they couldn't get it through with -- with -- I'm sorry, get it through with three votes when they couldn't get it through with four. One of the things we hear most consistently any time you talk about development is we don't want Collier County to end up looking like Fort Lauderdale. We don't want Collier County to look like Fort Myers. We don't want Collier County to look like Miami. Zoning amendments aren't supposed to be easy here. Collier County holds a different standard than other areas. That's true. But that's by design. We are trying to maintain that quality of life that has been lost in other metropolitan areas as they have grown. So to make it easier for developers, to make it easier for attorneys, to make it easier for those who would and will build is not something I'm interested in. Mr. Cuyler and I have spoken. And if there is some -- by some strange happening only three people can participate, Mr. Cuyler's indicated he has a question as to what the situation would be if you could only have three voters, whether you would need three people or what have you. But -- and maybe we need you to look at that and come back to us and tell us. And if that's going to cause a problem, maybe this board needs to address that. I'm not sure that something needs to be addressed by a private citizen, but I think that's certainly a point worth looking at. But as far as making it a simple majority of how many ever are voting as suggested by Mr. Anderson, three-fourths is bad enough, but a two-thirds is terrible. To think that you could change zoning in this county simply by having the approval of two of the commissioners is outrageous in my opinion. It's inappropriate. So I for one don't have a whole lot of interest in this other than to direct our staff to look at the unlikely possibility that two have to opt out, two commissioners have to opt out. CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: Commissioner Mac'Kie? COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: First of all -- several comments. One is we're not talking about today the two-thirds situation, and I -- I do absolutely agree with Commissioner Constantine that that's something our staff should evaluate so that we don't find ourselves in a position of having a temporary taking argued. If -- if it's impossible for somebody to have a piece of property rezoned, the property owner might argue that there is some sort of temporary taking. So I agree with you completely that we should look into the two-thirds. I think that we should, however, not confuse that -- wait. And let me say, a way to look into that, I would propose, is through the use of a hearing officer in that particular situation. But again, that's something that should come before the board. But what we're talking about today is the occasion where four -- there are only four commissioners available to vote and four is the required number for approval. I agree 100 percent that -- that we don't want to make it easy in Collier County to get a fezone approved. I would submit that in 1967 it was easy to get a fezone approved. We didn't have comprehensive plans. The record shows that fezones were approved willy-nilly in the sixties. The situation has changed significantly now. We have comprehensive plan that severely restricts our ability to make changes, to make zoning changes, and -- and the result is that a property owner -- and we'd like to call them all developers, but they are property owners, and sometimes they're developers in the business and sometimes they're people who this is their retirement, their piece of property they've bought to invest in -- can find it overwhelming. And -- and frankly, I find it unfair to have to get 100 percent, to get a unanimous vote of the county commission, that the restriction -- the special legislation was put in place at a time when that was the mechanism necessary to protect us from willy-nilly rezonings. But now we have other mechanisms in place that protect our county from becoming Fort Lauderdale and Hiami and -- and -- and Fort Myers, et cetera. I think that it would be possible for this proposal to be supported by this board with a specific caveat that it not -- that it only be applied to petitions filed subsequent to its effective date because I share your -- your concern about the end run for APAC. I wasn't on the board at that time, but that's an action the board took, and it shouldn't be -- there shouldn't be a way to do an end run. But I'm confident that we could adopt -- we could propose that the legislature specifically state that the -- the amendment would only be prospectively applicable and -- and not applicable to anything that hasn't been submitted prior to the effective date of the -- of the statute. And I don't know -- Mr. Anderson, you know, frankly don't think it's particularly relevant whether or not you think that's a good idea. I think you're in that odd position of -- of supporting something as an individual and having a client that one could argue might benefit. But there's a way to avoid that potential benefit to APAC or to anybody else who might want to raise this argument to say that it's prospectively enforceable only. I think that it's unfair to property owners and that we have an opportunity here, and I appreciate Mr. Anderson doing the research to find out what's the mechanism for solving what has been a problem for some time in Collier County. CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hancock. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Agreed. We have two questions here, and I actually have an answer to the first, I think. In a situation where two commissioners abstain or have to recuse themselves from a vote, if this board adopted a policy instead of four-fifths to say a majority plus one, when there are five commissioners, that requires four. When there's four commissioners, that requires four. When there's three, that requires three. When there's two, that requires two. So as far as getting around when we have three how do we interpret four-fifths, if we stated that -- restated it as majority plus one, that goes away. You can then -- if -- if three recuse themselves, you can then operate on a board with only two members. Majority plus one would be those two members. Now, that puts us again in a situation of any time there's at least one person that -- that abstains that we're dealing actually with 100 percent. You have to get 100 percent of the remaining. I'm one of the few people on this board that has sat on both sides of this issue. I've sat on the side as a consultant. I sit on the side now as someone who has no remaining interest in anything but -- but this board. It becomes an argument of whether or not the parochial interests of a single commissioner should dictate what this board does. And I'm not pointing any fingers in that, but we all know through five years of dealing with this board, sometimes there -- there's a vote made up here, and you just can't figure out why. And -- and -- and you have no idea why that particular commissioner voted the way they did. The protection for that is the -- the requirement that this board has to have findings on any issue. If a rezoning is refused, this board must adopt findings to substantiate the refusal of that fezone. Those findings are, therefore, contestable in a court of law. What we're doing here is we are saying that if we do have a commissioner at any given point that -- that exhibits a parochial interest and doesn't adopt substan -- substantial findings that we're going to court. That is typically what is happening. I think there was a -- a fezone on a snake farm up in -- up in North Naples that this board said this is a terrible idea. The residents hate it. We're voting against it. The findings were not substantial. I believe that was overturned, wasn't it, Mr. Cuyler? CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: No, we passed that. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: You passed it. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Because we did not have substantial findings, we couldn't vote against it. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. And I think APAC is in court right now if I'm not mistaken. So there is a recourse -- MR. CUYLER: Mr. Anderson represented the snake farm too. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: Eaton Place. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Were you the snake farm guy? I just received papers today on Eaton Place. Eaton Place. Okay. The question here is whether or not we adopt a policy that removes the parochial element of one commissioner in the case of - of someone abstaining having, quote, unquote, control over a fezone or whether or not we continue the practice of allowing the courts to decide whether or not -- when our findings are or are not substantial and competent. So I would offer, first, if -- if -- and I have heard the comment on this board, I can count to three. And I believe on this issue I'm counting to three. But -- but I would suggest that -- that in the interest of fairness that we look at revising the language to at a minimum a majority plus one so that should there be two abstentions this board can operate with three voting members without having to have a legal interpretation of that and so forth. That would be my recommendation on that. The other -- I think Commissioner Mac'Kie is open at looking at this. I certainly understand the complexities of both sides. And it's -- it's a question to me as to whether or not this board wants to -- to assume that there will never be a parochial interest of any commissioner in the case of an -- an abstention or whether or not we want to let our county attorney spend a lot of time in court on those issues. And I'll leave that question open for the discussion of the board. CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: Okay. If we -- before we start round two, if I can make my comments since you've all had one shot at it, I -- I don't really look at our four-fifths requirement as having to secure a positive four-fifths vote but in avoiding a negative two-fifths vote. And it seems to me on zoning issues that if you have 40 percent of the people eligible to cast that vote opposed to it, that's a significant number, and that -- that bothers me. What -- what I would like to throw on the table for this board to entertain and -- and I believe each of you, if you haven't already gotten it, will soon be getting the list of workshops that we talked about last Thursday. One of the items on there is -- is our land development code and its criteria. And it -- it seems to me that it would be a whole lot easier for this board in the future if we were to thoroughly examine the land development code and make sure that we are satisfied that that code and its criteria is going to take us where we want to go. We will have no difficulty developing findings for turning down any zoning issue that we for one don't want to see go forward. The other -- the other option that's available if we were to do this is to then look at the opportunity of a hearing officer. Once we have the land development code taking us in a direction that the citizens want to go, the hearing officer with an appeal process to this board would -- would be another method by which the hearing officer can only make their findings based on the criteria established in the code. And I -- I for one feel it's our job to establish the criteria so that we get what we want and we don't have this am -- ambiguity going on. But that's my comment. Mr. Constantine. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The -- we won't get into the hearing officer debate today. CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: No. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Thank you. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Couple of thoughts. I disagree with Commissioner Hancock that we need to try to control what goes to court and what doesn't. Frankly, we can't. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I -- I want to clarify. I don't believe I said we need to control that. I said it's a discussion of whether or not we choose one avenue or the second. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The -- just by way of a couple examples, Osprey Landing prior to when anyone currently on this board was on this board lost by two or maybe three people voted against that. It went to court -- I think Mr. Anderson was in on that one, too -- and was overturned. And that was not at the whim of one commissioner. There was an affordable housing project on Radio Road. Dave Rynders was the attorney. That was a three-two vote it lost on, and that was overturned; again, not the whim of one commissioner. So I think we're going to end up -- unfortunately, in today's world of attorneys, we're going to end up going to court regardless. But I think that court system is the check and balance that exists right now if there is a whim and -- and not substantial findings. Commissioner Mac'Kie, you're saying it's unfair to property owners, and I disagree. I think the vast majority of the requests for zoning changes come from developers and builders, not from individual single homeowners. They come in, but that's not the majority clearly. And it is very potentially unfair to the surrounding property owners if they only require three here. You are correct that there are other mechanisms used in concert with this to assure that we don't end up to be a Hiami or a Fort Lauderdale. But I don't think now's the time to begin dismantling those things. And that's what I see. This is a step toward dismantling and making it easier. The burden should be on the person who wants to change the zoning. Property rights is one thing, but property rights go with existing zoning. If you want to change that, the burden should be on you, the person who wants to change that. So zoning amendments, as Commissioner Hancock pointed out, cannot be denied just on -- on parochial interest. There has to be some substantial findings. And if they aren't there, then it's going to be, as has been proven -- are going to be overturned in court. CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: I think my -- my suggestion, though, is that we go through our land development code very carefully so that we have readily available what those findings are. And if a developer should choose to go into court, he's not going to get a lot of relief. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I would -- and I agree with that. I'm gonna -- I realize there may be more discussion. I'm going to make a motion that we -- CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: Well, we -- we did have more discussion, and I'm sure there's public comment on it. Are you finished with your comments? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I have a parting shot too. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just -- just a final thought I guess. I agree with Commissioner Hancock that one way to address the question very simply is to make it a majority plus one so that you know if some commissioners have to opt out, then you need the four if there are only four and you need the three if there are only three and in the highly unlikely event there's less than that, circus will erupt. But I think that's an excellent way of addressing this specific concern of Mr. Anderson's without dismantling the process we rightfully have in place now. CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: Commissioner Norris? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Yes. I think it might be useful to go back in history and find out what the -- remember what the impetus for the '67 special act was. This was shortly after the rezoning and the approval for Golden Gate Estates which was at the time and still remains the largest subdivision in the world was -- was placed over our valuable and very sensitive wetlands in the eastern part of our county, drained, dredged, and filled and drained all the -- the swamp land out there which we consider very -- very ecologically sensitive and valuable today and would like to reverse that. Unfortunately it's a little late for that. And the '67 act, of course, was -- was a response to that. We -- we are, Mr. Cuyler, I guess, the only county that does this or one of the very few at least that has this type of super majority for rezoning issues. But -- but I think it's appropriate for our county because we are different. We are very sensitive. We have a lot of -- of environmentally sensitive areas left in this -- this county. And we want to make sure that we protect them to the fullest extent possible. And I think at the same time that Commissioner Hancock's suggestion that if any amendment should be made to this act that the -- that just the substitution for the words majority plus one accomplishes the same thing that -- that we're doing now. But in the almost totally unforeseeable circumstance that two commissioners would -- would abstain on the same particular issue, then the county commission could continue to fulfill its responsibility and look at the issue and vote on it by having a majority -- with three commissioners that would be a majority. Two of them would be a majority plus one would be three. So the county commission could still function with two members abstaining. So that to me sounds like a reasonable solution, to just simply insert that language in place of the four-fifths majority. CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hancock. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'll make this quick. In all -- in all fairness, the one thing that I'd hoped to bring to this board was maybe both sides of the coin at times. I can't disagree with -- with Commissioner Constantine in that we need to be a little more strict on our rezoning approaches in this county. We need to be a little more, I guess, comprehensive. When we do have one member abstain, I know that makes it extremely difficult on the petitioner if there's any public conflict whatsoever on getting -- getting it passed. We currently have two items that are -- Eaton Place and I think APAC that are in a court system where both would have received or did receive a majority of the sitting commission both where we had one abstain and one where we had none. We had five sitting members for Eaton Place and four for APAC. Both of those are, I guess, in court now. If at some time we can show that there is a track record of this board where there's been either someone who's abstained or where no one has but a majority vote was held and did not succeed in the fezone, yet we go to court and keep getting overturned, then we may have the basis for looking at this request again. But I need to see that information. I need to see where this board has erred in not having sufficient findings in a pattern before I'm comfortable changing the way we currently do business. That -- that's the only impetus I see for making the -- that level of change. However, like I said, the point you brought out about if we're down to three members, how do we function, I think we can resolve that quickly. So I'll -- I'll put that out there as -- as my feeling, and -- and we'll go to public comment if there's no one else. CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: Commissioner Mac'Kie? COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I can count to three. CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: Okay. We have public comment, Mr. Dorrill. MR. ANDERSON: Could I offer a few comments and -- based on what I've heard this morning? Number one, let me emphasize that I am not interested in making zoning changes or rezoning easier. I'm interested in making them fair. If we make them too easy, then people won't need a lawyer. And God knows I don't want to do that. CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: Yes, Mr. Anderson. We understand. MR. ANDERSON: Number two, some of the instances that you have cited where the county has been reversed on -- on -- on your zoning decisions, some of which I've been involved with, did have all five commissioners voting. Third point, we fully expect the courts to decide the APAC issue and don't expect that it will come back before you. But in the event that you're concerned about your -- the merits of my proposal are colored in any way by concerns about what happened with APAC and if it came back before you, I'm perfectly prepared to offer an amendment to the special act that would preclude the possibility of this amendment applying to the APAC situation and any other matters that you've previously denied under these kinds of circumstances. Finally, I would -- based on, you know, the wide-ranging discussion I've heard this morning and a lot of good ideas that you might want to give some thought to outright repealing the special act because it's -- it's my view -- and I don't know whether Mr. Cuyler would agree or not -- but you -- you have the authority under your home rule powers to require a four-fifths vote approval independent of this special act. And if you were later to want to tinker with that or change the language in any way or provide for a hearing officer under certain circumstances, you may find -- will probably find that the special act ties your hands in that regard unnecessarily so. So you might want to consider instead of this -- this narrow amendment I proposed just an outright appeal of the special act because your land development code today already has in place a four-fifths vote requirement independent of this special act. CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: I -- I don't think I would support that. I believe the special act would make -- would require this board to be very deliberative in making such a change. I -- I -- I would think a change like that would be a drastic change in the way we do business. And, frankly, the special act can only be repealed in a certain time frame annually. And we would have to apply a great deal of thought to -- to what we're doing. So I'm -- I'm -- I myself am not in favor of -- of that. MR. CUYLER: Just for my part, that may be something some day we do. I've never talked to Mr. Anderson about repeal a special act. But that may be something some day we do come to you with. But we -- as you said, we need to give that a lot of thought and look at it very carefully over the course of months or a year to the next legislative session. CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: Mr. Dorrill, how many public speakers do we have? MR. DORRILL: Only one in Mr. Keller. CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: Okay. Mr. Keller. MR. KELLER: Okay. George Keller. I've been coming before this board for 14 years representing as many as 21 civic organizations. I do it free. I'm now before this board as a concerned citizen and also as a board of director of the Golden Gate Estates Civic Association and as their elected speaker to come before this board on any matters that might affect the people in the estates. As I see it right now, I -- I don't think I have to worry about it because I think I've got three commissioners that agree with me that don't fix something that isn't broken. You know, going back to the history of this -- this -- this stuff on provisional use, there was a -- there was a state statute put in many years ago that said if you wanted to put provisional use into an area, it had -- it had to be for the benefit and health and -- and -- and benefit for the citizens. In other words, you couldn't put a church next to a house or you couldn't put a fire station next to a -- in a -- in a community like Pine Ridge which we turned down. And you couldn't put even an asphalt plant in a commercial area which we turned down some time be -- right down in the commercial area right downtown which is downtown now or either out in -- in the commercial area out where 1-75 and 951 come together. So it has -- it doesn't affect all the time private people, private houses. It affects also the degrading property and commercial areas too. And we purposely put in the provisions for four -- four votes to prevent us getting into a proposition where we were messing up Collier County's zoning, period. So let's not dilute that, number one. Unfortunately I'm -- I'm -- it's sad to say that we have over the period of time had commissioners that in order to go and earn a living have represented people who have come before this board for a petition. And -- and according to our state statutes, you -- you can't do it. You can't vote on something where you've got an interest involved. But over the period of 14 years, it's been very, very rare, very, very rare where we had a circumstance like APAC where we had a problem and as -- as was stated. These -- these -- these solutions can be handled in court. They can sue you every time you make a -- make a zoning change. Somebody can sue you. CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: Mr. Keller, it's - it's obvious this board is not going to move forward with this. MR. KELLER: I -- I -- I agree with you, but what I would -- the only reason why I'm talking at all is to give you some background so that when it comes up again, please don't even consider it. Thank you. CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: Okay. Thank you. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Madam Chairman, if I could make a motion -- CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: Commissioner Constantine. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- that we deny the endorsement as requested by Mr. Anderson and/or Mr. Cuyler and -- but that we ask Mr. Cuyler to put together the, quote, majority plus one verbiage that Commissioner Hancock so eloquently outlined earlier. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I'll second. CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second on the floor. Is there discussion on the motion? MR. CUYLER: Madam Chairman, if Mr. Anderson wants to change his language to that, that may be the only way to get it in front of the legislative delegation because I think the time for submittal of bills is probably past. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let me amend my motion that this board will decide after you return with the verbiage whether or not we want to change the special act, not -- not leave that responsibility up to a private citizen. COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Second. CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: Motion and a second. Is there discussion on the motion? There being none, I'll call the question. All those in favor say aye. All those opposed? Motion passes four to one, Commissioner Mac'Kie being opposed. Item #9B PSC JURISDICTION - COUNTY ATTORNEY DIRECTED TO INTERVENE IN DISCUSSIONS Next item on the agenda is item 9-B, a discussion of the PSC jurisdictional -- MR. CUYLER: Madam Chairman, I -- I think the board has some information on this. I'm going to ask Mr. Palmet to give you, since this is an add-on, a very brief update as to where we are and then look to the board as to whether you want to give us some direction regarding intervention. CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: I have one question. Has the attorney from -- which county is it, Mr. Hancock? Fernando County? Has he contacted -- MR. CUYLER: We've -- we've spoken -- CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: -- us? MR. CUYLER: -- both to a Sarasota assistant county -- CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: He didn't me. MR. CUYLER: -- a Sarasota assistant county attorney that is in the forefront of this as well as -- MR. PALMER: Wayne Schneider and Mr. Michael Tomy up in Tallahassee. MR. CUYLER: Mr. Tomy's the gentleman, I believe, that gave a presentation. CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: Okay. He's the person that spoke with us, yes. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Schneider's the one that I gave your name and -- and phone number to to contact you. MR. CUYLER: Correct. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And I wanted you to be the point of contact since it seemed to be a legal matter instead of coming to us, then to you. That didn't make sense to me. MR. CUYLER: Right. I spoke to and Mr. Palmet spoke to him as well. MR. PALHER: Commissioners, in 1989 the Florida legislature amended a portion of the Florida Statutes as applicable to water and waste water utilities. That section is 367.171, subparagraph 7. And in that amendment they inserted language that stated that the Public Service Commission would have exclusive jurisdiction over all utilities that service traverses county boundaries. Mr. Tomy worked for State Attorney Butterworth at the time and drafted that particular language. And it was his intent and he thought the intent of the Florida legislature that that language meant actually the traversing of one county boundary into another county boundary of a physical utility facility. Over the years rulings are the Public Service Commission have expanded the scope of that language. And there is presently at this time and scheduled for three days of fact-finding hearings on the 23rd, 24th, and 25th of this month a case that has one of its major issues whether or not Southern States Utilities will be under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Public Service Commission for every one of its facilities in the state of Florida which would include the facilities in Marco Island. Now, depending on the outcome of that case, the result could be that if Collier County should ever opt out and, therefore, want to acquire rate-making jurisdiction over Southern States Utilities or Marco Island or any other utility in Collier County that has service in any other county in Florida without a physical interconnection, then that would preclude this board from ever having rate regulation jurisdiction over any such utilities. We have been invited -- the county has been invited to intervene in the case on the side of the proponents. There are four counties presently involved in the matter fighting the notion that the language would allow the Public Service Commission to have exclusive jurisdiction over these facilities including in this instance the Southern States Utilities facility and Marco Island which obviously has no physical interconnection with any other county. And the issue before us today is whether or not the board would want the county attorney's office to formally intervene in the proceedings. CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: Let me make a comment on -- on -- on the practicality of -- of what is being offered by -- by the PSC and SSU. SSU operates any number of water and waste water treatment plants around the state. And they are regulated by the PSC for rate changes and so forth. Currently under the old rules, the PSC would hear roughly 500 -- is that what they said? -- 500 rate cases in -- in any given period of time. And SSU might represent 20 percent of that 500. They would have to prepare for 500 individual rate cases. What -- what has been offered -- and I believe it was offered by the PSC; SSU didn't particularly ask for it -- but what they have offered is to give them a -- a standard rate that applies across the entire state which means some areas of the state will subsidize other areas. There -- there are some benefits to SSU for this obviously. They'll have to prepare only nine -- only one rate case instead of ninety-nine. The other benefit is for the PSC itself. It will only have to hear one rate case instead of one hundred. In addition to that, the PSC gets a four -- I think a four or four and a half percent franchise royalty. MR. PALMER: Yes. CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: So it obviously will have to do a whole lot less work for the money that it earns. Now, there is -- in a practical sense there -- there is a question that Marco Island, if this were to occur, will benefit from it happening because right now Marco Island's rates are higher than the standard rate that's being asked for at this time. But remembering that, the utility companies are guaranteed a twelve or twelve and a half percent profit on their investment plus the four and a half percent franchise royalty going to the PSC. It seems to me that all a utility would have to do is to visit some areas within the state, make some investments in some rather poorly operated utilities, and Marco Island would very quickly find itself on the other side or being a contributor to the rate structure. And the other thing that's at hand, if this passes and SSU is successful, Florida Cities will most certainly jump on. And I believe that the rate structure affecting Golden Gate is the reverse of the Marco Island rate structure. Their rates will go up. So -- we -- we have a situation that I think we need to -- to talk about. Commissioner Constantine. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The -- I'm very well familiar with this and the PSC and the issues because we've -- I've been on the front of fighting them against Florida Cities on -- a couple of times, fighting Florida Cities in front of the PSC a couple of times. You're right that this may be better for the company and may be easier for the PSC, but I think the loser here is the customer and the public at large from a couple of points. The companies have some specific criteria by which they can apply for rate increases which the most obvious is their capital expenditures. Right now in any given area, in any given location, you're going to have a limit on how frequently and how much capital needs there are. And as a result, be it here or be it any community, the need then to increase their rates related to that is limited somewhat; whereas, if you have a statewide pool, you have a never-ending pool of capital expenditures and increases. Also right now the way the law is written because you have to review each locale separately, you have to have public hearings at each locale separately. And I think the voice of the customer will be lost if they go statewide because you won't need to have a public hearing in Marco Island, Florida, or Golden Gate, Florida, when those companies push for an increase statewide. They'll do their business in Tallahassee, and people who are being affected by it will in effect never have a voice in the process. So I'd like to see us get on board. I'd like to see -- I don't know how much -- maybe you can tell me how much participation the Florida Association of Counties is going to have, but we should certainly encourage that. But I know there are other counties pursuing this, and I think we should jump on board. CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: Well, it's my understanding that the Florida Association of Counties intends to get involved in this. I'll -- I'll have a better feel for that after Thursday and Friday with the -- with the intergovernment summit that's taking place Thursday and Friday. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We'll have close to 50,000 residents affected by it so -- CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: Oh, yeah. We certainly will. I believe Mr. Cuyler has a comment. MR. CUYLER: Just one other point. I think at this point the other counties have asked us to join. Obviously at this stage of the proceeding things are pretty well set as far as issues. They -- they mainly want the PSC to understand and the hearing officer to understand that there are more than just a couple counties that are interested in this. CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: Yeah. It's my understanding that they're -- they're looking for us to file as an intervenor, not necessarily for us to participate or even to participate in it at this point financially but just to add the weight of another county joining in and being opposed to this. MR. CUYLER: Correct. We'll adopt their pleadings and the -- the issues that are set. Obviously if there's a ruling against the counties, it goes to court. Then under those circumstances there may be a different level of participation. But at this point they mainly just want us involved, and they are -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Madam Chairman -- CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: Excuse me. I -- I think Mr. Hancock -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Just quickly, the -- the -- so the FAC is interested in taking the solo lead with us in a tag-along position is my understanding. Secondly, there's an element of this that I think the public has a -- a reason to be very concerned about and that is if SSU basically becomes a blanket or any other entity becomes a blanket statewide, state set utility operator, what then happens is it begins to acquire what you may call less than acceptable sites that are very costly to operate knowing full well that the balance of sites within the state will compensate them or will adjust for the operation of that site. In other words, it becomes attractive to take the dogs and not just the well-run and well-operated sites, and we all end up paying for it. The bottom line is if we're successful in this, then we will maintain some level of county accountability and control and rate setting for our residents. If we don't, we've given control to the PSC completely and fully, and I don't think that's the interest or in the interest of anyone in Collier County. CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: Commissioner Mac'Kie? COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I just wanted to move that we direct the county attorney to intervene in this action in accordance with these discussions. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second. CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second. Is there any discussion on the motion? There being none, I'll call the question. All those in favor please signify by saying aye. Opposed? There being none, motion passes five-zero. This -- this is something that I think for the protection of the citizens of Collier County, both SSU rate payors and Florida City rate payors, that we need to -- to watch it very carefully. Finished with that one. Good. Item #10A RESOLUTION 95-40 APPOINTING BRADLEY CORNELL TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY TECHNICAL ADVISORY BOARD - ADOPTED Moving forward, we are into the Board of County Commissioners portion of the agenda. Is that 10:307 Oh, we'll probably finish this up before the city gets here. Item 10-A, appointment of a member to the Environmental Policy Technical Advisory Board. We have one opening and two applicants, and it's my understanding that one applicant is out of the area a majority of the year. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Madam Chairman, I would like to move that we appoint Mr. Brad Cornell -- COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Second. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- to attend. CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second. Any discussion on the motion? There being none, I'll call the questions. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? There being none, motion passes five-zero. Item #10B RESOLUTION 95-41 APPOINTING VIVIAN ST. LOUIS, DOUGLAS WILSON & ROBERT BENNETT TO THE BLACK AFFAIRS ADVISORY BOARD - ADOPTED COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Hadam Chairman, on 10-B there's three openings and three people. CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: Makes it simple, doesn't it? Is that a motion? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'd like to make a motion we appoint those three folks. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Second. CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: Motion and a second. Is there any discussion? There being none '- MS. FILSON: Can I -- can I make one comment? CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: Yes. MS. FILSON: On two of these because the terms expire in '95 we're requesting that they be appointed for the short term plus the total of another four-year term. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I think he moved staff recommendation. MS. FILSON: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: You're moving the recommended appointment, Mr. Constantine? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yes, I am. CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: And the second, is that the intention? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Yes. CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: There being a motion and a second, is there any discussion? Being none, I'll call the question. All those in favor please say aye. Opposed? There being none, motion passes five-zero. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Does that work for you, Gil? I see you look bewildered. MR. ERLICHHAN: Who are these people? CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: Vivian St. Louis until 1999, and for the short terms, Douglas Wilson and Robert Bennett. Item #10C RESOLUTION 95-42 APPOINTING ROBERT BENNETT, JR. AND VIVIAN LAGER TO THE CITIZENS ADVISORY TASK FORCE - ADOPTED Next item, appointment of members to the Citizen Advisory Task Force. We have three applicants and two members to be appointed to serve two-year terms. Do we have any recommendations? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Madam Chairman, it's my understanding that the Citizens Advisory Task Force has recommended Ms. Lager and Mr. Bennett. I don't have any problem with that recommendation whatsoever, but just for the -- the rest of the commissioners, I would like to point out, I met with Mr. Timothy Lynch. He was recently elected to the soil and water conservation district. He's eclipsed me. He now calls himself the youngest elected official in Collier County. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: They're just dropping like flies. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: But he has applied for another board which I think he'd be better suited for. But I do want to point him out as a strong applicant. And I'll make a motion that we approve Ms. Lager and Mr. Bennett -- COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Second. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- per the staff recommendations or per committee recommendations, excuse me. CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second to appoint Vivian Lager and Robert Bennett to the Citizens Advisory Task Force. Are there -- is there any discussion on the motion? There being none, I'll call the question. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? There being none, motion passes five-zero. Next item -- you have a question on the next one? Item #10D RESOLUTION 95-43 CONFIRMING THE APPOINTMENT OF MARY SCHULTHESS AND THE REAPPOINTMENT OF DOROTHY DEMICHELE TO THE ALCOHOL, DRUG ABUSE AND MENTAL HEALTH PLANNING COUNCIL - ADOPTED COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The next one. CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: Okay. Next item is appointment of members to the Alcohol, Drug Abuse and Mental Health Planning Council. We have a recommendation from the council to appoint Mary Schulthess. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Move approval. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Second. CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: We -- we have a motion and a second. Is there discussion on the item? COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah, I have a question. CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: Commissioner Constantine. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I don't have any problem with Miss Schulthess. However, do we know if there were any other applicants and -- it just seems odd to me that there's a recommendation put forth and we don't know if anyone else applied or who they were or -- MS. FILSON: This is the way they have always done it, historically sent me a letter for confirmation of their recommendation. And also they're also requesting a reappointment of Dorothy DeMichele also. No, they have not submitted other applications. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I guess if it's coming to the board for -- if it's required to come to the board for approval, we probably ought to know who else applied and what the process is and so on, and that's never been outlined when we hear it. You're right. We've always heard it this way. This case doesn't matter. I'm uncomfortable with that. In this case it doesn't matter. She's a great person and will do a wonderful job I'm sure. But in the big picture we ought to know when they advertised, how many -- how many applicants they got, and so on. MS. FILSON: Okay. CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: I have a question then. Is this an appointment or confirmation? MS. FILSON: It's the -- it's a confirmation of their recommendation. CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: Okay. A confirmation of their recommendation or a confirmation of their appointment? Are they appointing -- MS. FILSON: Of their recommendation. You make the final decision. CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: I think we do need to know more. Mr. Constantine -- oh, I'm sorry. I believe the motion only includes Mary Schulthess. Do you want to expand that? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: Dorothy DeMichele? COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: accordingly. Yes, to incorporate -- -- to include the reappointment of Yes, ma'am. Second? I'll amend the second CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: Okay. We have a motion and a second. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Does she have our direction as well? MS. FILSON: Yes, I'll contact -- CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: I think -- yes, she has our direction. I'll call the question. All those in favor of the motion please say aye. Opposed? There being none, motion passes five to zero. Item #10E RESOLUTION 95-44 APPOINTING PEDRO VAZQUEZ TO THE HISPANIC AFFAIRS ADVISORY BOARD - ADOPTED COHHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Madam Chairman, the next item, we need to fulfill one vacancy, and there is one applicant. I'll move staff recommendation. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: We have a winner. Second. CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: Motion and a second. Discussion? There being none, I'll call the question. All those in favor please say aye. Opposed? There being no opposition, motion passes five-zero. Item #10F EXTRA GAIN TIME FOR INMATE NOS. 87660 AND 86094 - APPROVED We are now to item -- it's gain time -- 10-F. We have a motion -- we have a need motion authorizing extra gain time on two inmates in the jail. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Question? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Madam Chairman, I'd like to -- CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: Just a second. Commissioner Constantine? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm just curious. On the second item, it's retail theft/resisting a merchant. Now, is that turning down a salesman? What exactly is resisting a merchant? THE BAILIFF: Resisting a merchant would be when they try to detain them, they don't want to be detained. CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: I would think that's human behavior. THE BAILIFF: I suspect so. CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: Do we have any other questions on the -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I was just going to -- we made a request of the sheriff's department to give us the additional information with these, and I'd like to thank them for doing so. It was a lot easier to read this time and -- and understand what we were doing. CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: It was. It was. The -- let me ask a question. We have one person here who's being recommended for five additional days of extra gain time who's driving on a suspended driver's license, and I -- I know in the past we have -- we have frowned on extra gain time for -- as applied to a person who -- who is serving time because they already violated one law. Why should -- why should we reward them for having violated the laws that do exist a second time? But any -- anyway, with that in mind, I would be glad to entertain a motion. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'll make a motion that we approve -- do we need three separate motions or one motion? CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: One motion or two? MR. CUYLER: We generally do these by one motion. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'll make a motion that we approve all three inmates for gain time as recommended by the sheriff's office. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: There's only two inmates here. CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: There's only two. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm sorry. In that case I'll -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Are you looking to get out early, Tim? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, I'm trying to buy time for myself. Thank you. CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: We have a motion. Do I have a second? There not being a second -- COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I'll second. CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second. Is there any discussion on the motion? I'll call the question. All those in favor please say aye. All those opposed? That motion passes three to two with Constantine and Matthews in the opposition. Item #10G RESOLUTION 95-45 REAPPOINTING COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS AND APPOINTING COMMISSIONER HANCOCK TO SERVE AS AN ALTERNATE ON THE COMHUNITY VISION STEERING COMMITTEE - ADOPTED Next item, we are going to have a discussion regarding the appointment of a board member to the Community Vision Steering Committee. This is for the golden -- I'm sorry, the Greater Naples Civic Association visioning process that is currently going on. What they are looking for are two -- actually two volunteers. They're looking for a regular member which I -- I volunteered to Brad Estes back in I guess it was October when they had their -- their first visioning meeting to participate in this. And if the board wishes, I -- I would be pleased to continue with that. But because there will be meetings, i.e., the first meeting, that I will not be able to attend, they're -- they're looking for an alternate to handle the board's input on -- on it when I'm not able to attend. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Madam Chairman, I happen to know a little bit about this planning thing. CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: Just a bit. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Just a little bit. If no one else has a strong feeling, I'll be more than happy to step in as an alternate. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Motion to approve Commissioner Matthews with Commissioner Hancock as the alternate. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Not that you were waiting for that, were you? COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second to approve Commissioner Matthews and Commissioner Hancock as the member and the alternate respectively. Is there any discussion on the motion? There being none, I'll call the question. All those in favor please say aye. All those opposed? There being none, motion passes four to zero with Commissioner Norris absent. Mr. Estes, what do you have to tell us? MR. ESTES: One -- one additional point. My name is Brad Estes, Greater Naples Civic Association. We'd also like to encourage the -- the staff to be involved and continue their involvement. Neil has been involved to some extent, and -- and that involvement will need to increase as we supposedly appoint our subcommittees or our task forces. So I'd like to mention that if I may and thank you very much and look forward to working with you. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Brad, thanks for taking the bull by the horns on this one. Item #12C2 RESOLUTION 95-46 RE PETITION AV 94-022, LOUIS H. HOEGSTED, VICE PRESIDENT, WCN COHMUNITIES, INC., REQUESTING VACATION OF A PORTION OF A DRAINAGE, ACCESS AND MAINTENANCE EASEMENT LOCATED ON TRACT GC4, PELICAN MARCH GOLF COURSE, PHASE ONE - ADOPTED CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: Okay. Why don't -- that almost concludes the morning agenda. We have yet the Gordon River bridge discussion that was scheduled for 11 a.m. with the city council. Why don't we take a recess until -- yeah. Does the board want to move it, or do -- or are they looking for a morning break at all? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let's just take a brief break when the city gets here. CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: Okay. Why don't we go ahead and take that brief five-minute break, and we'll let the court reporter change her paper and get ready for the rest of it. (A short break was held.) CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: Let's reconvene the board of county commission meeting. We're going to try to cover a couple of the afternoon agenda items until the -- COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Is it on? It is now. CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: I'm going to reconvene the board of county commission meeting. We're going to try to cover a couple of the afternoon issues until the -- the city council and mayor are totally present. Item -- are they all here now? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No, I just like the way that's worded. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Totally present. CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: Totally present -- well, physically present. All of them are. Item 12 -- 12 -- 12 -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: 12-C-2. CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: Where are we? 12-C-2, petition AB-94-022. Mr. Hoegsted and -- Mr. Archibald, you're going to give the staff presentation? MR. ARCHIBALD: Board members, for the record, my name is George Archibald. I represent the transportation division. Agenda item 2-C-3 -- 2-C-2 was continued. Agenda item 2-C-3 is a public hearing to consider vacation of petition AB94-022. CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: 12 -- 12-C-2 was continued? MR. ARCHIBALD: According -- MS. FILSON: 12-C-1 was continued. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: We have 12-C-1 as continued. MR. ARCHIBALD: I stand corrected. 12-C-2. CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: Okay. MR. ARCHIBALD: Again, petition AB94-022 is to vacate a drainage easement in the Pelican Marsh project. Specifically it involves vacating easements that are part of lots 37 through 41 in the Wood Duck trail plat, plat book 23, page 6,768. The vacation establishes just one criteria. It meets a requirement to make those lots a little more usable. Accordingly, the staff has prepared a resolution for the board to consider. We received letters of no objection. There's one letter remaining, CDD letter of acceptance. Accordingly, the staff is recommending that the board approve the resolution with the recording being subject to receipt of the letter of no objection from the development district itself. Any questions? COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Archibald, this is totally enclosed within the -- the PUD itself? MR. ARCHIBALD: Yes, it is. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: It doesn't affect anything externally at all? MR. ARCHIBALD: No, it does not. COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: Excuse me. Miss Filson, could you see if you could find the county manager? Okay. Any other -- other questions from the board regarding this? COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'd like to move approval if it's appropriate. CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: Well, wait. This is a public hearing. I don't know whether we have any speakers on the matter or not. MR. ARCHIBALD: The applicant is here, but no, I'm not aware of anyone -- CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: Mr. Hoegsted, do you have anything to offer? MR. CUYLER: Madam Chairman, there are no public speakers. CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: There are no public speakers? I guess Mr. Hoegsted is here only to answer questions should there be any. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: His representive's here. CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: His representative? MS. ALEXANDER: Hi. I'm Karen Alexander. I'm here on behalf of Lou Hoegsted with WC Communities. CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: And you're just here to answer questions should there be any? MS. ALEXANDER: Exactly. CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: We don't have any public comment? MR. CUYLER: No, ma'am. CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: I'll close the public hearing. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Move approval. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Second. CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second. Is there any discussion on the matter? There being none, call the question. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? There being none, motion passes five to zero. MS. ALEXANDER: Thank you. Item #12C3 ORDINANCE 95-1 CREATING THE MARCO ISLAND VISION PLANNING ADVISORY COHMITTEE AS AN ADVISORY BOARD TO THE BCC TO ASSIST IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE MARCO ISLAND MASTER PLAN - ADOPTED CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: Next item, item 12-C-3, an ordinance creating the Marco Island Vision Planning Advisory committee. MS. CACCHIONE: For the record -- CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: Ms. Cacchione. MS. CACCHIONE: -- my name is Barbara Cacchione with the long range planning staff. The item before you is to create a -- a committee of members from the community of Marco to represent them in the development of the Marco Island master plan. This ordinance here sets forth the procedures, the terms of office and how they would operate under that. Basically we've used subcommittees such as this in the development of the Golden Gate and Immokalee master plan. And we'd like to also set up one for Marco Island, and that's what this ordinance would do. CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: This is not any different than what we've discussed in the past? MS. CACCHIONE: This is very similar and, in fact, is the same type of citizens committee that we used in Golden Gate and Immokalee for the development of their master plans. CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: Are there questions from the board? Commissioner Hancock? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Quickly, the other committees that have worked on those master plans, once the master plan was complete and submitted, was the committee by resolution either dissolved or put on hold? Or is it still out there where Miss Filson has to track it and -- MS. CACCHIONE: We set the committees up for a time certain time period which reflected what we thought it would take to complete the master plan. In this case it's set up for a two-year period from the date of the resolution appointing the members which should be probably on February 14th agenda. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. And that committee is then dissolved at such time that the master plan is either adopted or goes away or whatever happens? MS. CACCHIONE: It will run two years from that date -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I don't want to make any presumptions here. MS. CACCHIONE: It will run two years from that date that we appoint the members -- that you appoint the members, and it will automatically go away if -- CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: If they need more time, they have to come to us to ask for it. MS. CACCHIONE: We have to officially do a resolution to extend it beyond that date. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. MS. CACCHIONE: If they were still needed. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Good enough. That answers my concern. CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: Are there other questions from the board? Mr. Cuyler, are there public speakers? MR. CUYLER: No public speakers. CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: Close the public hearing. I'd like to entertain a motion. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Motion to approve the item. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Second. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: Ah, a motion and a couple of seconds. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Fourth. CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: Any discussion? There being none, I'll call the question. favor say aye. All those opposed? There being none, motion passes five-zero. All those in Item #12C4 RESOLUTION 95-47 EVIDENCING APPROVAL OF THE STIPULATED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT WITH THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF COMHUNITY AFFAIRS TO RESOLVE CASE NO. 3494 GM - ADOPTED Next item, 12-C-4, resolution evidencing approval of the stipulated settlement agreement. MS. CACCHIONE: As part of the 1993 cycle of comp -- comprehensive plan amendments, DCA had an objection to one of the items. We felt that we resolved those issues as part of the objections report, but apparently we didn't resolve it to their satisfaction. They issued a notice of intent to find us not in compliance in June. We followed up by doing an exhibit to the stipulated settlement agreement in July. They forwarded it back to us in November. And we are now prepared to enter into this stipulated settlement agreement with the Department of Community Affairs if the board so chooses. This will resolve the outstanding issues on that one amendment to the density rating system regarding the transfer of development rights. We've both reviewed the language in terms of the Department of Community Affairs and our attorney's staff. And they feel comfortable with this language. And we're asking the board to approve a resolution to forward it to DCA to approve the stipulated settlement agreement. It will then be followed up by remedial amendments in February. CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: Commissioner Mac'Kie? COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Just for my information, the concept of prohibiting transfer into coastal management zones, the concept has previously been approved by the board and now we're just looking at the language? Or are we talking about the concept today? MS. CACCHIONE: The -- DCA's -- one of their objections was that they didn't want to increase density in the coastal management zone which is west of 41. We felt that we had prepared language which addressed that issue. It did not address it completely for DCA. So we're rewording some of that language. But the intent was discussed and sent to DCA previously. And yes, that was discussed by the board. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: Any other questions from the board? MR. CUYLER: The resolution's on page 8 of your agenda package. CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: Mr. Cuyler, are there any public speakers? MR. CUYLER: No, ma'am. CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: I'll close the public hearing. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Madam Chairman, I'll move the item. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second. CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second. Any discussion on the motion? I'll call the question. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? There being none, motion passes five-zero. Item #12C5 PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE 94-26 WHICH CREATED THE COLLIER COUNTY COUNCIL OF ECONOMIC ADVISORS BY INCREASING THE MEMBERSHIP - CONTINUED FOR ADVERTISING PURPOSES Next item, 12-C-5, recommendation Board of County Commissioners approve an ordinance. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Madam Chairman, we've had a discussion on this two or three times. We're just changing the membership from 9 to 12. MR. CUYLER: Commissioner Constantine, there's been a glitch in this. I got a call from the clerk's office, and they said that the advertisement was not put in the paper by the Naples Daily News. If you want to go forward today and Mr. Yonkosky can lay a basis for you to do this as an emergency, you know, it's up to you. CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: It's not an emergency. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I think the committee can operate as if it were 12 full members until officially it has done so. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Motion to continue the item -- CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: Until properly advertised. Is that what your motion is? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You are clairvoyant. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: I'm getting better at that. We have a motion and a second. I guess we don't really have a public hearing since it wasn't advertised; is that correct? MR. CUYLER: Yeah, you don't have a public hearing. We will automatically readvertise it. I think John's run into some problems, but I will leave that to John and the board. He's been having some problems. MR. YONKOSKY: Just in a matter of providing some information to the -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Speak up. CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: Speak into the microphone, please. MR. YONKOSKY: Just to provide as a matter of information to the commissioners, some of the members of the council feel awkward in that they cannot make any decisions, whereas all of the members of the council can -- can vote on it as it currently stands. That's the reason that they requested you amend the ordinance and allow them all to be voting members of the -- of the council. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We've previously discussed it. Nobody's had any objection. I guess we just need to get it advertised. CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: Yeah, I think the problem is that it wasn't properly advertised. I don't think that we can really call this an emergency, and we're -- we're kind of caught. So I think we need to get the advertising done and get it back on the agenda. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Are we assured a two-week turnaround? MR. CUYLER: No. CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: No. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Oh, okay. MR. CUYLER: It will -- COHHISSIONER HAC'KIE: Could we encourage the council perhaps to go ahead and take actions that they would later ratify once they're all voting members? MR. YONKOSKY: I will ask them to do that, Commissioner. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: It's certainly legally effective, so I hate for them to be stalled because of the advertising problem. CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: That -- that sounds like a good way to handle it. Ask them to act as if they're a 12 -- 12-member board with full voting and then when they get that, ratify what they've done; okay? We have a motion and a second to continue this item. Any discussion? I'll call the question. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? There being none, motion passes five-zero. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's the last one. Item #13B1 RESOLUTION 95-48 RE PETITION CU-93-17 CULLEN Z. WALKER OF BILBLE CHURCH OF NAPLES REQUESTING EXTENSION OF CONDITIONAL USE "1" OF THE ESTATES ZONING DISTRICT FOR CHURCHES AND OTHER RELATED FACILITIES FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF IHMOKALEE ROAD WEST OF OAKS BOULEVARD - ADOPTED CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: Okay. Well, yeah, let's -- wait a minute. Let's move on and do the last item. Is Mayor Huenzer here yet? Oh, okay. We're going to do the last item because it should be a real -- a real fast one also. Item 13-B-l, petition CU-93-17. MR. ARNOLD: Good morning. For the record, Wayne Arnold of your planning services staff. This is a petition for CU-93-17 for extension of their conditional use. Staff has recommended approval of that conditional use extension. And in summary, the group has been approved for final site development plan which does allow them to -- construction. They've not technically received their building permit which is the one-year period of time in which we stipulate the approval. They're requesting the first of a potential three one-year extensions. CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: Okay. Commissioner? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Quick question. Have we had any letters or phone calls from adjoining property owners for or against this petition? MR. ARNOLD: No, we have not. CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: Any other questions from the board? Registered speakers, Mr. Dotrill? MR. DORRILL: There are none. CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: I'll close the public hearing. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Madam Chairman, move -- move the item. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second. CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second to move the item. I'll call -- is there any discussion? There being none, I'll call the question. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? There being none, motion passes five-zero. Item #10H PRESENTATION RE GORDON RIVER BRIDGE - SELECTION CRITERIA ACCEPTED BY THE COUNTY AND THE CITY. SCHEDULE FOR REFERENDUM ON THE SALES TAX FOR A SPECIAL ELECTION - APPROVED. BUDGET AMENDMENT IN THE ESTIMATED AMOUNT OF $130,000 - APPROVED And all the city council is here now. Why don't we take a -- a five-minute recess, and we'll reconvene in a city-county meeting. (A short break was held.) CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: We reconvene the county commission meeting of January 10, 1995. We are now joined -- sound. Are we on now? We reconvene the county commission meeting of January 10, 1995. We are now joined by the city council, and we will be having a city-county meeting. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I'd like to welcome the city council up to our chambers for what has to be at least the fifteen thousandth meeting on the Gordon River bridge. COUNCILMAN VAN ARSDALE: So nice to be here. MAYOR HUENZER: In the past year you mean. You're not counting the previous -- COHMISSIONER NORRIS: That's just for this past year. MAYOR HUENZER: Not the previous year. CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: Yeah, we do seem to go over this time and time again. It's my understanding our purpose today is to remove from the CH2H Hill contract two of the alignments and that's our only purpose; is that true? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So moved. MR. PERRY: No, there are additional actions we will be asking both the county commission -- I'm sorry. For the record, my name is Jeff Perry, coordinator for the Metropolitan Planning Organization. Madam Chairman and -- and Mr. Mayor and -- MAYOR HUENZER: Excuse me. Since he indicated there could be some possible actions to be taken, under our charter I need to have a roll call so I can use it later and use it for a vote so for the record -- MR. WOODRUFF: I'll make that roll call now if that's acceptable to you, Miss Matthews. CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: That's quite -- quite fine. MR WOODRUFF: Mayor Huenzer? MAYOR HUENZER: Yes. MR WOODRUFF: Mr. Sullivan? COUNCILMAN SULLIVAN: Here. MR WOODRUFF: Mr. Van Arsdale? COUNCILMAN VAN ARSDALE: Here. MR WOODRUFF: Mr. Tarrant? COUNCILMAN TARRANT: Here. MR WOODRUFF: Mr. Pennington? COUNCILMAN PENNINGTON: Here. MR WOODRUFF: Ms. Prolman? COUNCILWOMAN PROLHAN: Here. MR WOODRUFF: The record should reflect Mr. Korest is not present. MAYOR HUENZER: Thank you. Sorry for the interruption but it saves later. CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: That's quite all right. You just help me run this meeting, and we'll get through this just fine. Mr. Perry. MR. PERRY: Again, thank you. Your purpose today in -- in meeting together in joint session in one -- in which you will be asked to take a few votes, I'd very quickly like to go over the list of things that we're going to be asking you to do today. Following me will be Mr. Ryan Fortestel who is the project manager from CH2H Hill. He will give you a very brief update on their work in the project including the remaining -- schedule of the remaining work to be done which factors into the later decision on the special election. Following Mr. Fortestel there will be a discussion by -- a presentation by Mr. Dick Gatti, the city's engineering manager, in which he will be asking you to consider the dropping of two of the five alternatives which CH2H Hill has been reviewing thus far. And he'll go through the reasons and purpose for dropping those two alternatives. Following that he will discuss with you the objectives and the criteria that have been put together to evaluate the remaining three alternatives. And both city council and county commission will be asked to -- to confirm those criteria. Following that I'll come back, and I'll talk with you, display and -- and present to you the official schedule for your special election based on the guidance that you provided to us on -- on December 6. And finally we'll be asking you to approve the budget amendments that will be necessary to finance the special election. And with that I'll -- I'll ask Mr. Fortestel to give a very brief update of the project and the work that he'll be doing from here on out. CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: Let me interrupt here. Mayor Huenzer, we -- I presume we will be taking separate motions from the city and the county and separate voting? MAYOR HUENZER: Yeah. MR. PERRY: In front of you, Madam Chairman, there is an executive summary package. We will be asking both the county commission and the city council to take actions on the first two items that Mr. Gatti will be talking about on dropping the alternatives and the criteria. We will then be asking the county commission to take action on the schedule since they are the -- the body that has to approve that schedule and authorize the ordinance at some later date and then to confirm the budget amendment process as well. CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: Okay. Thank you. MR. FORRESTEL: Good morning. For the record, my name is Ryan Fortestel. I'm the project manager with CH2H Hill. And I want to give you just a very, very brief overview as to -- as to what we've done on the project to date and also look at the schedule as to when are we going to be completed with the project. I'm putting up boards that are the same for each side to look at. We started out with our project in July of 1994 and began with data collection phase of the project, and I want to quickly review some of the highlights of that data collection phase. First, relative to the bridge clearance, we found out from the Coast Guard that we need to maintain 11 feet of clearance which is the same that is being provided by FDOT on the U.S. 41 bridges that are currently being -- or will be reconstructed. Also with the airport runway obstruction data, that refers to the process that the Naples Airport is undergoing now in trying to update their master plan. The -- the update to the master plan can have an impact and very well may have an impact on the design of -- of the alternatives. And we are coordinating with the airport to make sure that they know what we're doing and vice versa. Relative to the environmental data, a couple of things of interest. First we did a -- a detailed search for threatened and endangered specious, and there are none. That was confirmed by a field meeting last month with a representative from the Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission. And she confirmed there are no T and E species. Also we looked at potential contaminated sites, and we found one. It's at the Evans Oil site on the northwest corner of Airport-Pulling Road and Seventh Avenue. We do not know nor does anyone else know at this point as to the extent of the contamination. We also looked at socioeconomic data. A complete archeological study was completed, and there are no archeological sites within the corridor boundaries. We also -- a historical site review was also conducted, and there were two buildings that were found that may be of sig -- of historical significance. The first is a bungalow along North Avenue, and evidently that is -- may have only -- may only be of local significance. And the second is a barn on the Renfroe Landscaping site at the corner of Seventh Avenue and Goodlette-Frank Road. But as we understand it, that barn is scheduled for demolition in the near term. Subsequent to the data collection phase, we -- we had a public meeting, information meeting, on October 26. And at that meeting -- or the purpose of that meeting was to simply present the data that we had collected and to solicit input. The majority of the comments that we received were in favor of the project. There were some comments made relative to commercial -- impacts to commercial businesses, impacts to residents, and also comments along the lines of how the airport fits into this and potential impacts to -- to the airport. We've had quite a bit of agency coordination to date. We have met with South Florida Water Management District. They have no initial negative reaction to the project and, in fact, thought that alignment number 3 looked pretty good given the -- the minimal amount -- or the least amount of environmental impact that was being done. Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission, as I indicated, indicated there are no T and E species along the corridor which -- which eliminates a large hurdle. We have -- we have talked with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. They have not provided any comment as of yet. And we have talked with the Coast Guard, and -- and I've already referenced the ll-foot clearance. After -- or -- after the public meeting, we went through a corridor analysis phase that Mr. Gatti will be commenting on here shortly. We also have developed a -- a detailed selection process to come up with a preferred alternative. And Mr. Gatti will also be discussing that in a few minutes. Lastly that I want to discuss is the schedule. We currently are in the alternative analysis phase which will be concluded in -- in March. In April we will develop a draft preliminary report with a value engineering session being conducted. And then the final report will be issued in May of 1995. And with that, I'll turn it over to Mr. Gatti. MR. GATTI: Thank you, Ryan. As Ryan indicated -- is this on? Good. As Ryan indicated, the project is going along well. And your technical review committee which is made up of myself, George Archibald, and Jeff Perry -- and as we receive this ongoing information from the consultant, several issues became apparent. One was that we were -- we had enough information in hand to start making some decisions. One of those decisions, which we'll talk a little bit about, is the elimination of several of the corridors, and I'll talk a little bit further on that. The other thing that became apparent is that the remaining three corridors weren't going to be anywhere near as easy to design on -- to decide on because it was obviously a lot of -- not conflicting but different objectives, and it sort of depends on -- on what we wanted to accomplish. I'll go back to recommending removal of alternate one. Alternate one, as you -- as you may know, is the alignment that's the southernmost from the airport. And it follows North Road, and it enters in at First Avenue. In looking at that, the good news is that it is a little bit cheaper than the -- than the other routes just looking at the alignment within the airport boundaries. The major negative factor is -- is this intersection. If you can picture westbound traffic, we either have to totally reimprove First Avenue between Goodlette and -- and 41, or there has to be a jog created going up to Central Street. That would involve two very complicated intersections. And picture yourself here having to make that transition from -- westbound from here going across this very short length and then making a westbound at Central. It would create a very difficult traffic maneuver, two very difficult intersections. And when you take everything into account, it far offsets the costs that are involved. So on the basis of that, we're recommending that that alternative be eliminated. The second alternative is alternative five. And as we discussed this, this was kind of a no brainer also. Alternative five is the one that's the most northern of the routes. It involves a -- a -- the major amount of -- of displacement of residents in the Goodlette Arms, so it has the largest amount of property cost. It also has the largest amount of environmental remediation which -- which means it has the lowest probability of -- of permitting, and it's also by far the most expensive. It's in the range of between 24 to 27 or 28 million. So we're recommending that that be eliminated. I guess it would be appropriate to discuss that at this point and take action if -- COUNCILMAN PENNINGTON: Madam Chairman -- CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: Yes. MR. WOODRUFF: If I could, let me make one explanatory mark. Richard Woodruff, city manager. One of the reasons why we are coming to you to eliminate those two is because the contract with CH2H Hill which the city entered into specifically lays out a work program that both the city and the county commission concurred in. The staffs felt that it was beyond our authority to eliminate these two routes even though we believe that you will concur in them. But that needs to be your decision as the elected officials. As is pointed out in the back-up material, if you eliminate them now, you will save roughly $8,500 per route you eliminate in monies that would otherwise have been expended if the contract went forward as previously directed. So that's the reason why it's before you. CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: Councilman Pennington was asking first. COUNCILMAN PENNINGTON: If I may on behalf of city council, I -- I certainly am in accord with deleting one and five. Additionally I would like us to consider eliminating option three. In my view option three provides a totally unacceptable situation as it comes into Seventh Avenue North and would result in significant traffic impact on a -- a residential community. So I would like us at this time while we're talking about these to consider elimination of that one. I have discussed this briefly with city manager. He felt there was more technical concerns on the one and five, that perhaps three was a political concern. I -- I would suggest that there is certainly an environmental impact, the environmental impact being upon the people that reside on Seventh Avenue and within the Lake Park area. I think we must be very sensitive to the human element of our environment too. So, therefore, I would move on the part of the city that we eliminate options one, three, and five. CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: Commissioner Norris? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Gatti, when you were in your discussion on alignment number one, you didn't mention something that -- that has come up in the past. And that's whether the FAA is going to allow any usage of that southern alignment at all. MR. GATTI: Yes, sir. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It's number one. Excuse me. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Number one or number two. CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: One or two. MR. GATTI: Let me point to the -- so that it's -- that it's -- we're talking the most southerly route. The question of what happens with the airport, the potential extension of this runway, we can work with that in either alignment, either two or one. The -- the -- there's not a lot of difference in the two except where they -- they come into contact with Goodlette Road. So either two or one serves that purpose. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: But you're saying that -- that the FAA or the -- any of the air -- air -- aviation official organizations would not object to us using that scenario. Is that what you're saying? MR. GATTI: Let me put it a little differently. Based on the information that we have at hand -- and we do not have the comprehensive plan for the airport, and I think you were at the meeting when they made the presentation in the city council. One of their thoughts -- and nothing's in -- nothing's fixed -- is that there is a potential of the extension of this runway. There's two questions here. This property is owned by the city and leased to the airport. This property here, my understanding is, was purchased by the airport with FAA money. So there is definitely a question on -- on how we can use that. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. All right. That's the other thing. Now, from my perspective on the southern alignment, either one or two, there's also two -- two additional problems. The northern-most alignment down Transfer Road would allow us to go substantially east in the future down Enterprise Avenue and eventually hook up with the future Livingston Road which then this becomes a very important artery. The southern alignment has nowhere to go because you're -- you're going directly into a residential area on the east. And it just doesn't hook up to anything, and -- and it's just a very short segment with a bridge. So to me it seems like for that reason alone we could eliminate one and two. But there's an additional problem on top of that with both southern alignments, and that is that -- that you are impacting a residential neighborhood to the south of the airport which is not the case on the north side. That's commercial up there. So there's various problems associated with both of the southern alignments. Now, number five I think we all agree to the north that that should be eliminated strictly from the cost and the impact to the citizens on that one. Number three, as Councilman Pennington has brought out, is not one that I could support personally because that's funneling traffic directly into Seventh Avenue North and, once again, severely impacting a residential neighborhood. So from my perspective, I have taken to heart what the EDC has proposed all along, and that is to just focus on number four and see if we can't get number four. So when -- when it comes time to make a motion, I intend for the county commission -- my motion to be to eliminate routes or options one, two, three, and five. CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hancock? COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: I -- HR. GATTI: It may be -- excuse me. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Go ahead, Hr. Gatti, if you had something to add to Mr. Norris. HR. GATTI: It may be appropriate for me to get into the next phase of my discussion with you. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Let me go ahead -- and I think there's one pertinent element that I -- I would like to add. I concur fully on one and two. If we can't go eastward, I have no interest in this project. I have no interest unless it presents a -- a down-the-road east-west alternative that goes beyond Airport Road. If it doesn't, all we're doing is just getting across the river. And 16 to 20 million dollars to get across the river without it going anywhere else I personally have a problem with. So options one and two have -- offer no attractiveness to me. I would like Councilman Pennington to consider that option three is a possibility if you use a full traffic diverter. If you use a full traffic diverter that does not allow traffic from the road to continue on to Seventh Avenue North, it accomplishes the same thing as four. And there may be some benefit construction-wise, dollar-wise, environmentally to that option. I have no interest in -- in letting traffic go from this road on to Seventh Avenue North as in crossing 41. But that can be accomplished with a traffic diverter without eliminating the option all together. COUNCILMAN PENNINGTON: If I may -- CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: We've tried traffic diverters on Pine Ridge. COUNCILMAN PENNINGTON: If I may, we have a similar situation where we've diverted coming out of the Coastland Hall into Tenth Street which affects that same particular area. And there's a lot of dissatisfaction with that from many sides. So I think it would be much clearer. We also have had concerns from the -- the business community that is in The Commons of that coming through there. I see another problem. We have the Collier Athletic Club. And I haven't seen this addressed, but there would have to be some means of them getting access to and from this road that would come across there. I think that would be a significant cost to provide some kind of an interchange. It appears to me the whole thing would be much cleaner to go directly through as is proposed with option four. And in view of Commissioner Norris's comments, it appears I see other support for that on the commission side. I would be happy to change my initial motion for the part of the city to also concentrate solely on option four and to eliminate the others. I think that for most of us up here and certainly for the community at large we've had from the Bridge Club so named a total desire to -- for us to focus on option four. I think that we can conserve time and money by doing that and recognizing there are some mitigation costs for option four that may be a little bit higher than a couple of the others. But I think from the community standpoint, this is the one that's most acceptable by the community, and I think that is paramount. So, therefore, that is my motion when we get around to acting on that then. CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: Commissioner Mac'Kie? COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I had a speech, but Mr. Pennington just made it, so I endorse everything he just said and want to support his proposal when it comes forward. CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: Councilman Van Arsdale? COUNCILMAN VAN ARSDALE: I guess the only thing that I think that we're failing to address is kind of the functionality of these crossings and -- and -- I think the driving force between -- for this extra bridge is to ease congestion on the existing Gordon River bridges. And during this entire discussion nobody really has explained to me how this north crossing is going to have a significant impact on easing traffic to east -- to the eastern part of Collier County, whereas I think that it's -- certainly from a layperson's standpoint, it's much more evident that the southern crossing does much more to alleviate Gordon River bridge traffic than -- than a northern crossing. I mean, the northern crossing is only I think less than a mile south of Golden Gate Parkway which right now is a very, you know, easy-to-use road. It doesn't seem to have -- I mean, it has some traffic problems but not much. So there is a difference between these two crossings, and I think we need to factor that in there. And, Dick, one of the things that I had, I think I said -- a year ago I said, why don't we pick our favorite bridge? And the response was that if we, you know, don't send five alternatives up to Tallahassee that they'll come back and make us choose some alternatives. What's -- what's changed in that regard? MR. GATTI: Well, the idea is to justify the alternatives that you select and do it through a process, if you will. I would -- I would suggest that in contacting the Corps of Engineers as an example, we had to prove to them that this was a real project before they would even consider it. The point is, they're looking at -- at -- at -- at the big picture, and they're asking us justification for whatever actions we take, particularly as -- as it relates to the environmental factors. MR. WOODRUFF: Mr. Van Arsdale, let me -- let me also address that. I think if you go back, we did not say that you have to submit five options. What we intended to say is you must submit multiple options. Now, I can certainly concur with comments that both commissioners and council members have said about some of the other options. And I will tell you that if you were to ask me today what is my recommended route, I would be prepared to tell you. The concern that we as a staff have, though, is if you narrow it down to only one route today, you are running the risk of the DEP saying, sorry, you didn't show us an analysis. You simply submitted one. That's the risk that we run. And if we run that risk and are successful, that's fine. If we run that risk and they come back and say, sorry, we reject your report because you didn't look at at least a second option, that's the reason why we feel very comfortable in telling you one and five, they should come on out. We feel uncomfortable recommending to you that anything in the way of two, three, or four be further modified. We recognize that there -- everything that you all said -- no need to beat around the bush. Number four has the most logic in most people's mind. The one negative about number four is it does not relieve as much traffic congestion on U.S. 41. But obviously it has the ability to create the long-term east-west connection that the overall community and circulation is going to need. But we as a staff would have to tell you today be very cautious about cutting it down below three. Definitely be cautious about cutting it down to only one because we don't think you can get it permitted by only submitting one thing to the state. I apologize for interrupting you, but I think it's important. COUNCILMAN VAN ARSDALE: Let me just follow up from the standpoint of should we then prioritize our choices? Would that be beneficial to the state? And maybe you can, Dick, address my concerns on -- in other words, I agree with long-term -- and I agree with probably a greater long-term use for route number four. But I'm concerned that we aren't addressing the issues of the Gordon River bridge. We're once again just kind of putting it in the back burner for another 30 or 40 years. And how are we going to address the -- right now -- it's a mess now. It's been a mess for the last 20 years. It will be a mess for the next 20 years if we don't address it. And this northern crossing doesn't do it, at least as I see it, so I'd like you to explain. MR. GATTI: Let me suggest something. Our purpose here today in -- in -- the next phase of the conversation is to direct the consultant where we want them to go with this. And it's kind of interesting to listen to this discussion because as Jeff Perry and I and the consultant and George Archibald sat through, we went through this same -- through this same cycle for about a day. And as a result of that, we suggested that we need a criteria that's going to be used to evaluate the remaining alternatives because it is a difficult decision. And what we're suggesting -- and if I may, we set up a series of objectives that we wanted to accomplish. And we started out with 12, and we boiled it down to 9, and then we further boiled it down to 4. And our main concern is traffic circulation in the area. And under that is the connection to Goodlette-Frank, the -- let me put this up so you can see it. That doesn't read so well -- but the connection to U.S. 41, the connection to Livingston, the long-term benefit to the -- reducing traffic on U.S. 41 and the short-term benefit of during the construction period. The same thing with the engineering costs and construction costs. We went through a whole series of criteria under each of those which includes the environmental mitigation, the right-of-way costs, the cost-benefit ratio, the amount of dollars per car served, and the cost to provide the connection to U.S. 41 and the connection to Livingston because that's all part of this project. We then looked at the permeability factors, the impacts to the waste land, the threatened and endangered species, storm water treatment, which is going to be a major factor in this bridge, and contamination and schedule delays caused by potential permitting. And that goes to Dr. Woodruff's point. If we just go up there with one alternative, we're liable to be playing around with this thing for a year or two trying to get it passed. And the last thing that again we looked at was the land use impacts, the existing residences to be displaced, residents directly impacted, the number of households that are fronting on the -- on the roadway, residents directly -- indirectly impacted, the effects on the commercial businesses, both downtown and in the outlying area, and the effects at the airport and the land development. This sort of sets a road map for the -- for the consultant. If we've got everything in here that we want, it sets a road map for the consultant to give us the pros and cons of all three of these remaining alignments. Yes, sir. COUNCILMAN PENNINGTON: As I look at the schedule and as -- as I understand the process -- and I may be in error, so please correct me if I am -- but that after we go through from here down to -- down to about March '95 per the schedule and it has select preferred alignment, I'm assuming that that is our selection at that time; is that correct? MR. GATTI: Yes, sir. COUNCILMAN PENNINGTON: And that is prior to permitting. MR. GATTI: Except that we are working with the permitting agencies as we evolve this project. But that -- that -- that preempts final permitting, yes, sir. COUNCILMAN PENNINGTON: So it would appear to me that we could still make this choice at this time and you could still provide whatever data to the agencies. Now we're just in the midst of the process with the Corps as far as the university is concerned at this time, and the Corps has expressed some concerns, maybe they should have been involved earlier and such. However, they certainly have been impressed by the public input and that is what's the public's desire as to where this goes. It's my view that we say this is where we want it to those agencies. It's up to them to tell us that we can't do it if, in fact, we can't. And I can't see that they can come back to us and tell us we cannot do so unless there is some extraordinary kind of thing. And we've already been told as far as the kind of wildlife that is found in these areas, there's nothing there that's going to preclude us from any of these crossings. It appears to me there's sufficient data in hand at this time that we can make an educated determination as to where we want this to go even though all the finite details may not have been presented to us at this time but that we could provide direction at this time as to where we want the consultant to proceed which would not preclude him from getting perhaps some peripheral data on the others but that the concentration should be this is where the community wants it, and we should proceed in -- in that regard. And that should be the emphasis as we go forward to the permitting agencies. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Perry, do you share the concerns of trying to permit one single choice? MR. PERRY: Absolutely. The -- the -- the difficulty we have -- that we face at this point is sending them a preconceived decision that this is -- this is the -- and this is, I believe, one of the councilmen -- perhaps Mr. Van Arsdale was commenting on a comment I made at city council one day that we -- we -- we can't send the message that this is where we want the bridge. Now our consultant is going to go out and justify that particular location. We have to -- we have to show the permitting agencies that we have evaluated all of the reasonable alternatives. And our opinion is that one and five are no longer reasonable for very good reasons but that two, three, and four are, in fact, reasonable. And I can -- if given the time, I think we can draw some very compelling arguments that the Central Avenue connection, while it doesn't go east, it does go west. And it goes west with an excellent facility all the way to U.S. 41 right through the downtown redevelopment area which I understand comments were -- were -- were put out the other evening that that may, in fact, be a positive to the redevelopment area. So I think it might be premature until you have gone through this evaluation criteria and seen all of the alternatives with all of these different factors considered and then consider your public input because I hear a lot of public from East Naples and the northwest side of this particular project area that do not support a particular northern alternative. They said it doesn't benefit them or it, in fact, impacts them, that they would, in fact, support a southern alignment. So I'm not sure that you have heard all of the testimony that you are likely to hear when you hold a public workshop or a public hearing with the two bodies sitting together making the final decision. Our opinion is that the reasonable list of alternatives is two, three, and four. And, in fact, as -- as Mr. -- Commissioner Hancock has pointed out, if you want to control traffic on -- on Seventh Avenue, the best place to put the connection is at Seventh Avenue because once you offset the intersection, you have lost control of the traffic that will divert south on Goodlette Road and then enter on to and from Seventh Avenue. The best place to put it is to intersect Seventh Avenue and with traffic diverters prohibit the through movements. So -- and while it may be more costly, the permitting agencies have indicated that it's the least environmentally sensitive and they like that alternative. Now, all of this has to be boiled down together and presented to you. And, quite frankly, we're not in a position -- having not gone through the selection process, we're not prepared to give you all of those pros and cons. But I think with a little bit of time we can draw some fairly compelling arguments that all of these routes are reasonable and have good and bad points about them and that once you get all of that information and hear from the public, give all of the public an opportunity, then you'll be in a position to make whatever decisions you choose to make. And I think that's where we want to head you so that you can do that in a timely fashion so that we can meet our schedule for -- for a special election should the decision be made collectively and everybody -- we're -- at this point, quite frankly, we might be ending up with a project that -- that we cannot permit within the timeline that we need to permit because we may have to do a tremendous amount of justification to the permitting agencies if we don't show that we have gone through a -- a bona fide selection process. CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hancock. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Perry, I agree fully. As someone who not only worked on DOT projects, I also attended a number of DOT seminars and learned how they review their projects. Many times the only way to get a project approved is to show state and federal agencies that the other options are not viable. If you don't show that, your project is -- is destined to fail. And typically that's the review process. Show us how it won't work in other ways. And then we'll see what we can do about getting you permitted the way you like to do it. So I agree fully that if we natrowed it to one option and pursue that, we're -- we're going to put ourselves in a position that is not compatible with the way in which state agencies and federal agencies review traffic and transportation-related projects. So it may be in our best interest, as Commissioner Mac'Kie has stated, to -- to state or vote a -- a priority. But I think we need to pursue the three alternatives. This particular discussion should be related solely to that. And in the interest of time, I would hope that we can move on with whatever necessary public input we have to take at this point regarding these -- these alignments and take a vote on this so we can move on to whatever other issues may be involved today. COUNCILMAN TARRANT: Madam Chairman, could I make an observation, please? CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: Certainly, Councilman Tarrant. COUNCILMAN TARRANT: With all due respect to the collective wisdom of this group, what I hear taking place here basically is that the city of Naples -- it's being debated whether the city of Naples is going to get a double or a triple heart bypass operation at the expense of all the taxpayers of Collier County. And I think what should be under debate is not the operation but whether the operation is necessary in the first place. This project is being loaded on the gurney and rolled into the operating room in a very premature manner. The traffic studies do not support this project at this time. And our own staff at the city and county will verify that fact. So what we're doing in essence is taking ahold of a state project and taking it under our wing and going to the taxpayers and saying, we only have 350 million dollars a year in our budget at the county. We only have 40 some million dollars in our budget at city. That's not enough. We're tapped out. Our credit card is trash. We're coming to you with hat in hand to the voters in a begging -- with a begging bowl going around to raise money to build this bridge which has already been paid for by the taxpayers once. This is double taxation. This is unnecessary. This is totally unnecessary. It's premature, and it's unnecessary, and it's unfair. And I would like to add one thing which is to me quite irrelevant in a sense. But if you're going to pull out two prospective routes, let's remember that when this contract was given to this consultant for three hundred and sixty some thousand dollars, it was assumed that the consulting engineers would spend the necessary time to do the research and the indepth study of each one of these routes. So in my book, when my mother sent me to the store to get groceries, she expected me to come back with the right change. And I think each one of these routes is worth at least $70,000. So if you're going to pull out two routes, that would come out to around $140,000. I mean, you can't just simply remove these projects and then marginalize, min -- minimize, and basically erase the -- the arithmetic. That's just for starters. Thank you. CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Tarrant. I -- I'm not quite sure how we want to proceed. Do we want to address each question and take a separate vote and separate public input on it? Or what do we want to do? How do we want to do this? MAYOR HUENZER: I think we're to the point that I think we've heard enough to -- I think we're ready to accept a motion. At least I thought I heard that to go ahead -- CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: We need the public input, though, before we do that. MAYOR HUENZER: Yeah, but I think we can have a motion on the floor before or after the public. CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: Why -- why don't we take the public input. And we're going to confine the public input right now specifically to the alignment. Mr. Dotrill, is there anyone wishing to talk to the alignment? COUNCILMAN TARRANT: Madam Chairman, excuse me, but as one city council representative representing the taxpayers in the city of Naples, I very much object to limiting the public speakers to that specific issue. I think that is very unfair. CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: We are only taking information and a possible motion at this point on the alignment. There will be other public comment on the other three issues as we move along. We've thoroughly discussed the alignment. I'd like to take public input on the discussion of the alignment. We'll -- we'll address a motion after that point in time. And we'll move to the next item. There -- we have four items here that we need to address this afternoon. Mr. Dotrill, is there public input on the alignment? MR. DORRILL: I have only one public speaker, and we'll need to ascertain as to what the desire is. Mr. Lee? MR. LEE: For the record, my name is Arthur Lee. And I'm here at the request of the board of directors of the Park Shore Neighborhood Association. They met in an emergency meeting last night after reading in the paper that there would be this meeting. And they were very, very much distressed at the elimination of two of the five alternatives because the remaining ones are the ones that impact most directly the -- their association. The neighborhood starts at Sixth Avenue North, goes up to Fleischmann, goes from Tenth Street over to Goodlette. So these three routes slam right into that, and they feel that there has not been -- I'll go back one step. This was -- this meeting today was not officially advertised. It was not in the agenda, the published agenda, for today's meeting. And that got some of their hair up a little bit because they felt on anything of this import that there should be a chance for a full public discussion. That's the reason I believe that I'm the only one who put a chit in to talk to you. Their concern is because although this is an older neighborhood, it's one that -- that is very, very viable. You have an active neighborhood association that is seeing to it that people are keeping up their lawns. There is a tremendous lot of improvement, house improvement, and so on going on. It is a well-balanced neighborhood socially. You have a few old crocks like myself, but you have a whale of a lot of people in there with youngsters attracted to one of the better schools in the -- in the city. So -- and like a good part of Naples, sidewalks are sort of here and there. As a result, the streets are pretty well cluttered with skateboards, roller skates, and just children on bicycles and playing. So there's a good deal of concern with at this point squeezing your alternatives down to the three that slam right into them. I'll add one other thing, and I'll leave. And that is, this is not one of the neighborhood -- one of the city's or community's most wealthy neighborhoods. These are for the most part modest dwellings. And the equity in those homes for the most part represents every single dollar that these people have saved up, and there is bound to be a great financial impact on this district. Their values are going down. They're afraid of it. They're very worried. And they at least would like to have the maximum amount of spread in this discussion. I'll answer any questions. CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: Are there any questions? MAYOR HUENZER: Comment. I believe that the meeting were advertised. I know the city had published the advertisement of our joint meeting, and I looked in the newspaper, and the Collier County commission agenda had it advertised. So it was in the newspaper as formal advertising from both city and county. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Can I respond to that? CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: That's -- that's my understanding too. MAYOR HUENZER: I read it with my own eyes, so I know it was in there. MR. LEE: I have it here, sir. MR. WOODRUFF: I think the confusion may be the fact that because this is a joint meeting it required a separate advertisement for this portion of the meeting rather than the regular county commission agenda. I may be in error on that. MAYOR HUENZER: The regular county commission agenda also had it set up there. COUNCILMAN PENNINGTON: But on -- on the same page as the county agenda -- on the same page in Sunday's newspaper was the notice of this meeting. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll tell you what. I tend to agree with Mr. Lee that it wasn't properly noticed. And even if it meets the legal requirements, it would end over the weekend. Back in December the county manager mentioned to the county commission that the city was interested in having this meeting. At that time we didn't know what the purpose of it was. And we said unless we know what that is, we'd just as soon not schedule anything until we know what we're scheduling. And we never heard -- until last Thursday or whenever we got our agenda, none of us, to the best of my knowledge, were told that there would be this meeting or what it was in reference to. So Mr. Lee is absolutely right. I mean, the first I knew of it was Thursday when I was given the executive summary. MAYOR MUENZER: Well, it was also later put in the paper, though. It wasn't in this one, but it was also later published. COUNCILMAN TARRANT: Well, Mrs. -- Miss Chairman, if the meeting is not legally advertised, the meeting should not be held, and I would move that the meeting be adjourned. MAYOR HUENZER: They were published. MR. LEE: Seconded. COUNCILMAN TARRANT: I heard a second? CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: No, you heard a second from -- from the audience, sir. We do not have a second from either the council or the board at this point on that motion. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We may have met the legal criteria, but I think we -- if neighborhoods have only three or four days to respond, that probably doesn't meet the spirit of what we try to do when we have permanent impacts. CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: I'd like to get it clarified from Mr. Cuyler whether we have a legally advertised meeting. MR. CUYLER: In my opinion you do. This is a -- an item on your regular agenda. As a matter of fact, we took a look at the agenda before it went in the newspaper, and I called the manager's office, and I believe there's a parentheses that was added at the end of the item because it said discussion, and I wanted to make it clear that the board might be voting on these. If I'm not mistaken, the manager's office contacted the paper, and they added a little squib to that that said the Board of County Commissioners may be asked by staff to actually take action on these items. You can take all of the action that's being proposed by staff without the city council being here. I mean, the fact that it's a joint meeting is just for the convenience of everyone. And the city council has advertised it separately. But there's not even a need that the city councilmen be here for you to take the action that's proposed by staff. It's part of your regular agenda. CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: That's what I would think. Mr. Mayor, you have a motion on the floor. Do you want to do anything with that? MAYOR HUENZER: If we have anyone from council that wishes to second. COUNCILMAN TARRANT: It's too bad the public doesn't have an attorney here to give an opinion to protect their interest. MAYOR HUENZER: We have two attorneys. I think we have our city and the county attorney. MR. WOODRUFF: Mr. Mayor, for the record, I believe the motion you're referring to is Mr. Pennington's motion? CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: No, Mr. Tarrant's motion that we adjourn on the basis that the meeting is not -- not properly advertised. You do not have a second, so we -- we will move forward? Commissioner Mac'Kie? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I -- I just want to reiterate. I think the community needs some -- something more concrete about what it is we're proposing for a bridge than these five nebulous alternatives, and there will be more public hearings than we all want to sit through. There will be ample opportunity for public comment. And nobody here is suggesting that there should be any limitation on public comment. All we're talking about today is the possibility of eliminating some routes to save some tax money on -- on consulting fees. And -- and -- and the final decision, unfortunately as impatient as I am, can't be made today. So I -- I think the community needs some direction from these two bodies about what we're talking about with the Gordon River bridge instead of just the possible alternatives. I'm going to -- I'm going to hope that we will not only eliminate two routes but that we will rank the remaining three. CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: Is there any other comment? I'd like to entertain a motion. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Yes. I'll make a motion. I'm convinced by the argument of Mr. Perry that we need to bring in more than one alternative in the permitting process. Reluctantly I'll do that. And my motion will be to select options four, three, and two in that order of importance and to forward those -- to have the consultant continue to work on those and -- and to engage in the permitting process. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: COUNCILMAN TARRANT: please, Miss Chairman? CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: COUNCILMAN TARRANT: I'll second that motion. Could I -- could I ask a question, Yes. Has the county commission formally voted to send this to the voters in the form of a mail-out referendum for a sales tax for a specific amount of money over a specific period of time? Has that been voted on by the county commission? CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: Mr. Tarrant, we -- we have addressed the issue of whether to have a referendum regarding the collection of a sales tax over a period of time to fund this project. That has at this point in my mind very little to do with alignments four, three, or two being -- being moved forward on. COUNCILMAN TARRANT: The reason I ask, Madam Chairman, is because if as a result of this meeting you're planning to at some point forward to the state for their approval these selected routes, then in essence what you're doing is carrying the project forward very decisively and very firmly without perhaps having formally voted for exactly how you're going to finance this project. And I -- I never heard of -- of such a thing preceding the determination of the financing formula. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, Mr. Tarrant, if we don't pick an alignment, we don't know what the financing is. And so, therefore, we couldn't make those final decisions on the referendum. We have to do these things in the logical order that they have to be done. CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: This is a chicken and the egg process. We do need to move forward. Excuse me. Mr. Constantine had something to say. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm just gonna -- MAYOR HUENZER: You have a motion. Do you have a second? COHHISSIONER HAC'KIE: Uh-huh. COHHISSIONER HANCOCK: Yes, there was a second on the motion. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Councilman Tarrant, I was just going to say we have approved a ballot. However, the form of the question on that ballot will depend on the answers we get back from the studies on these alignments. So we have to know what the potential alignment is and what the potential cost of that is before we can ask the public to vote on it. So I think we're doing this in the proper order. I understand your concern. CHAIRWONLAN MATTHEWS: something to say? COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: question. CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: But I think the order is being adhered to. Commissioner Hac'Kie, you had No. I just wanted to call the I -- I have a motion and a second on the floor. Is there further discussion? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: One question. Commissioner Norris, you put a particular order on those. I assume those are subject to change if we get a report back that for some reason -- COHMISSIONER NORRIS: That's simply a preference for today's discussion. CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: Preferential treatment only. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Would you restate that -- the order, please? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Four, three, two. CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: Alignment four, alignment three, and alignment two in descending order. MR. PERRY: I just wondered who the second was. CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: Okay. We have a motion and a second. There being no further discussion, I'll call the question. All those in favor please say aye. All those opposed? There being none, motion -- COUNCILMAN TARRANT: I am opposed. CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: -- passes for the -- COUNCILMAN TARRANT: Oh, it's not our turn. I beg your pardon. CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: Motion passes for the county on a vote of five-zero. Thank you. COUNCILMAN PENNINGTON: Madam Chairman, if I may make a motion -- MAYOR HUENZER: Ready to accept a motion from the city now on this. Mr. Pennington? COUNCILMAN PENNINGTON: I would revise my original motion that was made some time ago to echo that of Commissioner Norris that -- for the elimination of options one and five and to rank in order of preference four, three, and two. MAYOR HUENZER: Motion of Mr. Pennington. Do I have a second from council? COUNCILMAN SULLIVAN: Second. MAYOR HUENZER: Second from Mr. Sullivan. We take a roll call, so all those in favor indicate -- I'll just go through -- MR. WOODRUFF: I'll give the roll -- I'll give the roll call for you, sir. Mr. Sullivan? COUNCILMAN SULLIVAN: Yes. HR. WOODRUFF: Hr. Van Arsdale? COUNCILMAN VAN ARSDALE: Just with a quick qualification that I hope to look at the prioritization of the route selection. I don't support the order that was stated. But in general on the issue I'll vote yes. MR. WOODRUFF: Mr. Tarrant? COUNCILMAN TARRANT: I would like to preface my -- my vote by just making the comment which will come as no surprise that I object very strenuously to the -- to the manner in which these proceedings are being conducted and going forward. And just to take a look back -- and it never hurts to look back into history a little bit -- it's interesting to note that Marco Polo -- and that's going back a little ways -- that opened up the Silk Road to Hangchou, China -- that's some time ago -- he thought he had realized his life's dream when he accomplished that remarkable feat. Some years later writing in his journal he made the observation that he was -- he was terribly, terribly distressed and sorry that he had ever made that effort and had ever opened up that road because as it worked out, it ended up to be, in his words, a thoroughfare for speculators, brigands, and cut throats. Now we list ourselves in Collier County as the number one crime center on the FBI list. I think this bridge is going to have a lot to do with introducing criminal elements into the city of Naples at a new location. Thank you. I'll vote no. MR. WOODRUFF: Mrs. Prolman? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I don't mean to interrupt the vote, but coincidently, Marco Polo was in on the first discussions on the Gordon River bridge. COUNCILMAN TARRANT: Right. That's a first. MR. WOODRUFF: Mrs. Prolman? COUNCILMAN VAN ARSDALE: I forgot about that. COUNCILWOMAN PROLHAN: I -- I -- I don't agree with the priorities. I agree with the essence of the vote, but I don't agree with the prioritizing, but I'll vote yes for eliminating the first -- for eliminating the routes one and five. MR. WOODRUFF: Mr. Pennington? COUNCILMAN PENNINGTON: Yes. MR. WOODRUFF: Mayor Huenzer? HAYOR HUENZER: Yes. And I want to comment. I don't know of any ranking or rating or anything that's been released that puts us number one on the crime list. I'm not aware of that, Mr. Tarrant. COUNCILMAN TARRANT: I'll dig it out for you, Mayor. HAYOR HUENZER: Thank you. I'm not aware of it. CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: Thank you. You have the results of your motion. Let's move onto the next item. HAYOR HUENZER: Five-one. CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: Okay. The question now is that the county commission and city council confirm the project objectives and selection criteria that will be used for evaluating the three remaining alignments. MR. PERRY: Madam Chairman, Mr. Mayor, Mr. Gatti went through the list of the different criteria that we'll be using to present this information and to compare the different alternatives and the -- COHHISSIONER NORRIS: That's what you're asking, for us to approve that list? MR. PERRY: We're asking for you to confirm these. If there's anything that we've missed that you think we would like to add to this list, we'd be more than happy to do that. We tried to cover as much as we possibly could. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Hiss Chairman, I'll make a motion to approve this list. CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: We have public comment. Do we have public comment on the -- on the criteria? COUNCILMAN VAN ARSDALE: Can I ask a question, technical question, of Jeff? Are these to be prioritized? Are these -- how are you going to weight the criteria? You're not, are you? MR. PERRY: There will be a weighting of these particular criteria so that you can evaluate one alternative against the other. COUNCILMAN VAN ARSDALE: Does that come out late? In other words, I think that's very important that you don't -- you know, you treat some of them more importantly than others. MR. PERRY: That's not part of your -- your action today. If you would like to see that weighting when it's developed and -- and give some approval to it, we can certainly provide it to you at a later date. COUNCILMAN VAN ARSDALE: I would like to see it. CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: I think we'd like to see it too, yeah. MR. WOODRUFF: One thing we have found among the staff is that we believe that there will be -- as the elected officials, you will probably look at the weighting of the criteria differently than we would. And let me explain that comment. Whereas we as a staff may look at permitability as the most important thing, you may believe that cost is the most important thing or you may believe that the overall land use impact is the most important thing while we think the overall circulation is the most important thing. So the reason why this is brought to you today without any weighting is that the staff members could agree on what the critical elements were, but we could not agree on what the weighting was, nor could we predict what we thought your feeling on the weighting was. CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: I think the public comment as we go along and -- and this issue comes to the forefront that we will be having to convince each other as to what the weighting is -- is going to be. MR. WOODRUFF: We agree. CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: There's public comment, Mr. Dotrill? MR. DORRILL: Ms. Barsh. CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: Ms. Barsh. MS. BARSH: Good morning. My name is Frances Barsh. I'm a resident of Collier County, a voter, and also a member of TAG. I believe that City Councilman Tarrant brought up a very valid point. If at this time -- and I believe that as interpreted by Commissioner Hac'Kie, the point is made that there are some routes that are being eliminated, alternatives eliminated, two, in fact. This, we believe, should be reflected in the cost of the consultant. Therefore, the consultant's work now with the elimination of two alternatives is -- is significantly diminished. And, therefore, the cost should be adjusted, and there should be an additional vote taken to adjust the cost. As commission -- City Councilman Tarrant indicated that this would be approximately $140,000 when one figures out the -- the contract cost for the five alternatives. CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: But, Miss Barsh, significant effort has already gone into alignments one and five, and we are now eliminating any further effort on those. So there has been expenditure on those alignments. MS. BARSH: Then what is the percentage of expenditure on it? CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: Well, we -- we are told that approximately $8,500 per alignment will be saved, $17,000. MR. WOODRUFF: We're in the final phases of working with the consultant on bringing you back the report. And the chairman is correct when she says that there has been significant effort by the consultant on each of the five options. And that's why as we got further down the road and looked at the work that they had -- that had occurred on each option, we said that it was a waste of taxpayers' money to continue with one and five. Part of that -- let me give you one example. Part of the work on item number five had to do with calculating all of the physical properties that would need to be purchased, finding their values and so forth. That's the type of information that was gathered on number five that helped us realize as a staff that we did not want to expend any more money there. MS. BARSH: However, if there is a significant -- as you -- as is indicated, a significant amount of work is -- has been done, then I believe that that should be evaluated and the percentage of that work and time should be paid but the balance no. It seems to me that at this point that there only be $2,000 that has not been expended on these two alternatives is -- is unbelievable. CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: 8,500, $17,000 total for the -- for the two of them. MS. BARSH: Or 17,000 from 140,000. CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: A lot -- a lot of effort has gone into it. MS. BARSH: So most of the work has been already done -- CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: I presume. MS. BARSH: -- for all the alternatives? MR. WOODRUFF: First of all, let me guarantee you -- MS. BARSH: So, therefore, there's no more work to be done or very little work to be done? COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: About $17,000 worth -- COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: 17,000. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: -- for those two alternatives. CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: About $8,500 per alignment. MS. BARSH: As compared to $140,000 for the two routes. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: To finalize those two alternatives -- to finalize those two alternatives, the work remaining is at a total cost of $17,000. We have two choices: We can allow them to continue with those two unnecessary alternatives and waste $17,000, or we can stop them where they are and save the $17,000. Now, if you're asking have I seen the exact dollar breakdown and man hour breakdown of that, the answer is no. And I would assume in order to arrive at those numbers -- in order to pay it out, we're going to take a look at those. MR. WOODRUFF: Correct. MS. BARSH: Yes. Well, then this is a request to take a look at -- firmly at those numbers -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Certainly. MS. BARSH: -- because it seems that the difference between 140,000 and 17,000 being a balance that would be a credit to the county for not pursuing these -- these studies is really inadequate, and I believe that there isn't that much money that has been or time has been expended. $140,000 -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Ms. Barsh, your $140,000 is somewhat contrived. The process by which you do an environmental study is that you do an entire environmental study of an area. You then determine impact of specific alternatives in that area. Whether you study eight impacts, two impacts, or thirty impacts, the base environmental study is one of the most consuming elements of any due diligence where environmental impacts are going to occur. I understand that because I've done it. So, you know, taking $140,000 out of the air and assuming that every day is an equal percentage of that dollar amount simply is not the way things work. COUNCILMAN TARRANT: Mr. Hancock, the area that you referred to included all five locations. CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: I -- I guess, Hiss Barsh, the bottom line is that '- MS. BARSH: So there is a percentage at all five locations of which now there will be 40 percent eliminated because if it's 5 locations, you're eliminating 2. It's 40 percent. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Hay I just ask what's the process? Somebody's going to sign a check before the consultant is paid. I assume that it is the responsibility of the managers or -- or Mr. Dotrill, I assume, or is it -- is it you, Mr. Woodruff, who will -- will analyze the appropriateness of the bill before we pay it? MS. BARSH: Before you pay it. This is our request. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And I would -- and I would trust that Dr. Woodruff could do that adequately and charge him to do that. COUNCILMAN PENNINGTON: Well, plus if I may, this is, I believe, a time and materials type of contract, is it not? We pay for what we get. It's not a fixed price contract; is that correct? MR. WOODRUFF: I won't answer that because I don't have that personal knowledge. Dick, do you or Jeff -- can you answer that? MR. GATTI: Yes, I can. It's a lump sum contract, and we reviewed the -- it's a lump sum contract. COUNCILMAN PENNINGTON: Okay. So it is -- it's a fixed price contract. MR. GATTI: Yes, sir. MR. DORRILL: And in answer to Commissioner Hac'Kie's question, the actual contract administration is being done by the city. We are a party to that. There is a cost-sharing mechanism where we're using impact fees thus far, but the city is contract administrator in terms of the day-to-day coordination with the consultant. MR. WOODRUFF: And I can assure you we will review this further to ensure that any reduction, whether $17,000 or some higher figure, that would be reported back to you. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thank you. MS. BARSH: Well, that is our request, that this be carefully looked at and that the total deduction be taken. Thank you. CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: I believe we would -- we would more than likely accomplish that. That's -- that's our -- that is our duty with the public dollar. MR. DORRILL: I believe the final speaker is Mr. Erlichman. Mr. Erlichman? MR. ERLICHMAN: Good afternoon. My name is Gilbert Erlichman. I reside in East Naples, and I'm a member of TAG. Continuing is this discussion of consultants. The commissioners know my feelings about consultants from my past appearances here. I was looking at this chart that was on the floor concerning the pro -- the project which started in July of '94. And this is the beginning of January, end of December, which is five months. And the contract or the project has five more months to go because according to the headings on the -- on the project, May is supposed to be the final report. And in the interim between now and May there's supposed to be some -- just a minute. Oh, it's down here. Excuse me. If you can see this -- MR. WOODRUFF: I'll hold it for you, sir. MR. ERLICHMAN: -- we're right over here at alignment analysis, right, say, at the start of alignment analysis. The corridor selection was supposed to be done back between October and November. We're deciding -- you're deciding now on the corridor selection. So, in other words, according to this chart, the consultants and the commission and the councilmen are at least three months behind -- two months behind the projected schedule. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Fran, that -- if you look at before November '94, it says select corridors -- CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: This is Gil, not Fran. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm sorry. Gil, it says select corridors for alignment analysis. In other words, select the five corridors for analysis. That was done. We are now doing the analysis of those five, so we are not behind three months. We did exactly what that board dictates -- or the consultant did. Excuse me. MR. ERLICHMAN: Well, my definition of corridor selection means to select one corridor. Your -- your definition is according to the -- the -- CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: We had two corridors selected. MR. ERLICHMAN: -- the statements below that. Okay. Let's say we're at the point then that the corridor selection has been done, but we're still five months behind the final report which is supposed to be at -- submitted in May. Thank you. How can -- how can -- how can you -- how can we stand here or sit here and say that only seven -- what is it? -- $8,700 per -- per corridor has been -- is due back to the taxpayers? I don't understand that. I mean, if we're talking about proportioning seventy thousand dollars per corridor, of three hundred fifty or three hundred sixty thousand dollars, mathematically it seems unfair and unjust to only return eighty-seven hundred dollars or eight thousand dollars for the two corridors that are not going to be considered back to the taxpayers. I cannot understand how almost 80 -- 80 or 85 percent of the money has been expended when 5 months remains to the end of the -- the project report. Please explain that to me. CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: Because the early part of the project is labor intensive as compared to the latter part. MR. ERLICHMAN: What's labor intensive mean? This is a lump sum that we paid to the consultants. It's not time and labor. MR. WOODRUFF: Let me also address the fact that when you look at what is still ahead, it doesn't matter whether you're dealing with one route or five routes or twenty routes. It's the same effort to finalize the report. The conduct of a public hearing -- and we're paying Mr. Fortestel for being here today. We'll be paying Mr. Fortestel to hold the public meetings that were approved by the city council and the county commission when they first set up the schedule. Those expenditures stay exactly the same whether you're dealing with three routes left or five routes. When you look at the legal advertisements, when you look at the actual preparation of the document, for all practical purposes, you cannot -- as Mr. Hancock said earlier, you cannot divide this into fifths when you make the statement that you can take one-fifth of the cost out. I can tell you that if this project began six months ago with only three routes, you would have been at almost the identical consultant contract as you would have with five routes. Why is that? CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: That's exactly right. MR. WOODRUFF: One of the reasons that is is because when you do the environmental work and you do all the geotechnical work, those -- these routes are so close together. Now, certainly if one of the routes had been down at Gordon's Pass and another route had been up at Doctor's Pass, yes, you could assign some very different numbers for every route. But as we all know, routes one and two are one block apart. Routes three, four, and five are for all practical purposes one block apart each. So by eliminating something, have you really reduced the work load? The answer there is no. CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: Huh-uh. COUNCILMAN TARRANT: Dr. Woodruff, I totally respect your comments, and you're -- you're right to a degree I think. But in essence, you come back to the same thing that when the consultant originally made their estimate and the contract was set at roughly $360,000, it was based on a geographical footprint that included these five potential locations for the bridge. If it had included a footprint twice that size with 10 potential locations, I am sure that the consultant would not be doing the job for $360,000. So there is a proportionate entity in this -- in this thing. And I'm not saying that it follows exactly that it would be precisely one-fifth. But certainly the figure mentioned is a ferryland figure. Thank you. MAYOR HUENZER: Richard, you also mentioned things to be done, yet the proportionate -- we still have engineers that are going to have to go and deal with Tallahassee and the other permitting agencies which is going to cost the same whether they're there and going to Tallahassee and representing us, whether we're in three routes or five. So those costs are still fixed as much as some of the other. MR. WOODRUFF: Let me just say that I want to assure the council, the commission, and the public that we will go back -- I'll encourage Mr. Dotrill and his staff to do this with us -- to look at every penny to determine if we can increase that beyond the number which the consultant originally gave us. CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: Thank you. MR. ERLICHHAN: Oh, that can -- in other words, the consultant gave us that number. To me it's -- it's actually a pittance, and it's an insult to -- to anyone who -- who realizes the -- the work and effort that you're talking about in the five corridors versus the work and effort that's remaining for the three corridors. And that's all I have to say. Thank you. CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: Okay. Thank you. COUNCILMAN TARRANT: I'm going to -- I'm going to ask also in this -- in this matter that any figures that are generated to substantiate these arithma -- this arithmetic or payback is certified as being actual work that was done. In other words, I don't want to find out that a bunch of engineers and consultants are sitting around generating figures to fit the occasion. I mean, they've got to be figures, time -- time sheets and figures and actual work that has been performed and certified. Thank you. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Madam Chairman, we have a motion on the floor. CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: Yes, we do. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm comfortable -- Mr. Woodruff and Mr. Dotrill are both very intelligent people and can do the job and find out, and maybe we'll get more than 17,000 back. But I'm relatively sure that they'll do their best effort to make sure that happens. And in the mean time, we have a particular question in front of us, and I'd love to call the question. CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: I'll call the question. I guess there being no further discussion, all those in -- all those in favor of the motion which is to accept the selection criteria please say aye. All those opposed? There being no -- COUNCILMAN TARRANT: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: There being no opposition in the county -- COUNCILMAN TARRANT: I'm not used to this set-up here obviously. CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: -- motion will pass five-zero. MAYOR HUENZER: Do I have a motion from the city on the same identical motion? COUNCILMAN PENNINGTON: So moved. MAYOR HUENZER: Pennington. Do I have a second? COUNCILMAN VAN ARSDALE: Second. MAYOR HUENZER: Mr. Van Arsdale. Please poll the council. MR. WOODRUFF: Poll the council. Is Mr. Sullivan sitting behind you? Okay. Mr. Van Arsdale? COUNCILMAN VAN ARSDALE: Yes. HR WOODRUFF: Hr. Tarrant? COUNCILMAN TARRANT: No. MR WOODRUFF: Mr. Pennington? COUNCILMAN PENNINGTON: Yes. MR WOODRUFF: Mrs. Prolman? COUNCILWOMAN PROLHAN: Yes. HR WOODRUFF: MAYOR HUENZER: HR WOODRUFF: MAYOR HUENZER: MR WOODRUFF: vote on this? COUNCILMAN SULLIVAN: My vote is yes. MR. WOODRUFF: So the vote is five to one. Hayor Huenzer? Yes. The motion passes -- Hr. Sullivan's here. Mr. Sullivan, would you care to cast a Motion passes. CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: Next item. MR. PERRY: Madam Chairman, Mr. Mayor, the next decision we're asking the county commission to make today is to confirm the schedule for the special election for the referendum on the local government infrastructure surtax, also called the -- commonly called the sales -- one cent local option sales tax. At the December 6 meeting the Board of County Commissioners directed staff to prepare a schedule for a September election which would allow for -- if approved by the voters would allow for the collection to occur in December, December 1 to be specific. The schedule has been provided to you in addition to the legal memorandum from staff concerning the pre-election requirements. I'll very quickly for the audience -- purposes of the audience go over the dates. We're talking about the decision to advertise an ordinance by the Board of County Commissioners would have to be made on Hay 9. That would be following, of course, the conclusion of the CH2H Hill work. The public hearing on that surtax ordinance would be June 27. The county staff would be going through the pre-election requirements with the justice department preclearing the election concluding on or about September 1. The election of the mail-out ballot would be September 26. If approved by the voters, the earliest that it would be collected would be December 1. And as an example, if it were a seven-month period, December 1 through June 30, that would be the seven-month period. And depending on the ballot question, it could be less than that or more than that as long as it ends on a calendar quarter. So the schedule -- this is the schedule that you had requested for a September election. CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: I have one question, Mr. Perry. There -- there is some discussion that Commissioner Hancock brought up the last time that we addressed this, and that was that the -- the prices or the costs that were shown to us did not include the -- the approach roads and mechanisms and so forth to access the bridge; is that correct? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Commissioner Matthews, that was the -- I was referring to an extension -- say if we're assuming alignment four, the eastward extension to Livingston Road, that was the element that I was -- that I asked Mr. Perry. And he confirmed that it was not included. It did not apply to the actual approaches as a physical part of the bridge. CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: Okay. So we're -- we're talking about a totally usable bridge then for these dollars. MR. PERRY: Yes, ma'am. CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: I just wanted to make sure. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Included with approach ramp, signage, and everything. MR. PERRY: This includes the bridge and its approaches from -- to connect Airport Road with Goodlette Road but, depending on the alignment, does not include any further westward or eastward improvements other than the intersection. CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: Is there -- is there further discussion from the board? COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Just a clarification. What you're asking for us to do is just to approve the -- the schedule -- to confirm the schedule that you put in front of us on -- on bringing the matter up? MR. PERRY: That's correct. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: We're not -- we're not adopting the ordinance. We're not deciding on the referendum. I just want to make it clear. We're just adopting the schedule. MR. PERRY: We're just showing you the schedule that you asked us to put together and to tell you that if CH2H Hill completes their work on schedule, the decision on the preferred alternative will be made. The costs associated with that alternative will be nailed down because all of the decisions will be made. And at that point the board on Hay 9 would be in a position to structure the ballot question in the way that it sees fit. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And this is all contingent upon CH2H Hill. MR. PERRY: Or not to go along with it if it decided not to go along with it. COUNCILMAN TARRANT: Madam Chairman, I'd like to have the transcript of this meeting reflect the fact that -- that I've had a conversation with the superintendent of elections. And she told me clearly and emphatically that she is not comfortable with the timing of this matter, feels that it's inappropriate. But, of course, almost no one probably would -- would have the audacity to go and ask the superintendent of elections her opinion, but that's her opinion. CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: She was here and spoke with us when we addressed this issue the last time. And at that point she was having no difficulty with the timing whatsoever. MR. PERRY: Madam Chairman -- COUNCILMAN TARRANT: Very good. MR. PERRY: -- this memo that the county attorney's office prepared was submitted to Mary Morgan. I talked with her on Wednesday or Thursday of last week, and she says she has no problem with this schedule. She was concerned originally and I think what the councilman is talking about is her original concerns about a summer election because of vacations and things like that. CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: Yeah. MR. PERRY: But she has agreed that this schedule is one that she can -- CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: Yeah. It was she who convinced us that we needed to look more toward the end of August and September. MR. PERRY: That's correct. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Motion to approve. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'd like to move approval of the item. CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: Wait a minute. Do we have speakers? MR. DORRILL: You have two. Mr. Goodlette? While he's coming forward, Mr. Perry, your executive summary indicates, though, there's an immediate need for some cost and the associated budget amendment. So my understanding is that Ms. Morgan will need to have some costs before you would actually adopt an ordinance. MR. PERRY: That's correct. I was going to hit that one after we got beyond the schedule, but that's exactly correct. There's a decision on money that needs to be made. CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: That's -- number four is the decision on money. MR. DORRILL: Mr. Goodlette, and then we'll have Mr. Corkran if you'd stand by, please. MR. GOODLETTE: Madam Chairman, Mr. Mayor, members of the commission, the council, I'm pleased to have an opportunity just to merely urge you to confirm and to approve the schedule for the special election of the referendum. First of all, I'd be remiss -- since you've had a couple of comments to the contrary, I would like to applaud members of this commission and members of the city council for taking the action that they've previously taken and hopefully approving this and confirming the schedule for the referendum. I think it's vitally important for those of us who've had a vital, a keen interest in the subject of the second Gordon River bridge for some period of time. I think this is a -- these are important steps that you're taking. I also would like to compliment your staff for bringing this to you in the form in which it's being brought to you today. First of all, it shows that they are -- they are indeed exhausting their effort in the vein in which you directed them on December the 6th when we last were here discussing this subject. And more importantly, it keeps all of those in the public aware of what's going on. And I think it's important that we underscore when these occasions arise when your staff comes back, you're not trying to hide the ball from anyone. No formal action, as Commissioner Hac'Kie has pointed out, is taken. But this is merely an effort to keep the people who are interested in this subject, whether they're in favor of it or against it, informed as to what you're doing. And I compliment you for that. I think you -- all too often we -- we -- we criticize you for not keeping us informed. And in this instance, it's quite the contrary. And whether you agree or disagree with the action that has been taken, I think it's important that we underscore the fact that we -- we -- we are made aware. I think the elimination of the two routes is a prudent decision. I think the prioritization is a prudent decision. Whether those three priorities are the ones that everybody favors or not is really -- is less important in my -- in our judgment than the issues you're about today. Again, I'm here, Dudley Goodlette, on behalf of the Bridge Club. I urge you to confirm and approve the schedule for the special election. It will -- by the time that Hay the 9th arrives, you will have received the consultant's final report. You will have the numbers. You will have the alignment, and we can move forward. And again, I compliment you on the action that you've taken. CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: Thank you. Mr. Corkran? MR. CORKRAN: For the record, I'm Sewell Corkran. I live in Olde Naples. I'm a resident and a taxpayer. I have no problem that an alternate bridge is going to be needed. And I'm not an engineer, and I would go along with any site that's selected, and I think you're going about it in the proper manner with these consultants. The issue that I want to raise is the timing, and I'm assuming that if you go ahead with the referendum that you're prepared to go immediately forward with the timing for the alternate bridge. And those two things are connected. The point I want to make is -- is this: I have a study made by, I assume, the county staff. I got it from the county. I spent yesterday going over what you call the road trip counts that are recorded by Mr. Archibald's office. And I examined every single segment to see what the capacity was, what the volume on the road was, and what the situation is. Their figures will tell you that if you go ahead with the bridge on U.S. 41, which I consider the number one priority, it will have a capacity of 90,000 trips. And your county staff has figures that will show you that without any bridge anyplace anywhere that that 90,000 capacity will last until the year 2006. And if you wanted to, you could change your level of service standard from D to E, and it would last until 2008. The point I want to make is that it's imperative to go ahead with the regular bridges on U.S. 41 and after 2000 later on -- and circumstances can change -- you can go ahead and build the alternate bridge. I mean, that bridge has gotta come. The question is the timing. Now, people don't go and check the statistics. Airport Road from the intersection of Radio Road up to Golden Gate Parkway is about as deficient as you can get. And the statistics for the third quarter which I examined yesterday were well above the deficiency. And the -- when the first quarter comes -- that was the fourth quarter I looked at. When the first quarter of '95 comes, it's going to be a hell of a lot worse. And if you're going to build something off of Airport Road in two-way traffic, you're going head on into Airport Road. There are things to be done before this alternate bridge is made. You cannot relieve Airport Road in that area without Livingston. You absolutely can't do it. And you're jeopardizing Golden Gate Parkway. In my opinion your priority is -- number one is the bridges on U.S. 41. Number two is to -- is Livingston Road. And number three is the interchange at Golden Gate Parkway. You can't pluck a bridge out of the air and set it down in a vacuum. You have to fix the circumstances, the surroundings. And you can't talk about it unless you get down and you examine what the capacity of the roads is, what the volume is on the roads, what the volume trends are on the roads. I mean, you gotta look ahead. The bridges on U.S. 41 at 90,000 without any alternate bridge will carry you up to 2006. I'm all for a bridge. If I live that long, I see three bridges in the area we're talking about. They're gonna come. But fix Airport. Do some of these things first. CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: Thank you. I have a question for Mr. Archibald. We've been through the bridge story quite a bit, but in -- in -- in attempting to answer some -- some of Mr. Corkran's comments that he brought up, building this bridge, particularly on the north route, extending it through to Livingston Road with the completion of Livingston Road from Enterprise I guess up to and beyond Golden Gate Boulevard, is -- is that going to improve the traffic network around that area? MR. ARCHIBALD: Yes, most definitely. To ride on that idea, Livingston has been recognized already as an important link. And not only is it under design right now, but construction dollars have been set aside in 1998 for that link between Radio Road and Golden Gate Parkway. So there is already the interconnection of roadways planned. CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: So you're -- you're envisioning the -- with the time schedule that we're on the completion of this bridge and the extending of the road from Airport Road to the completion of Livingston Road and then by providing another north-south link. MR. ARCHIBALD: Yes. CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: All in roughly the same time frame. MR. ARCHIBALD: No. I think what we'll see -- and again, we're concentrating on the corridor between Airport Road and Goodlette-Frank. That's the link that we're trying to undertake in this discussion here. As another matter, the county is also undertaking the link of Livingston between Radio and Golden Gate Parkway. Beyond that time frame, beyond our five-year time frame, most likely in the year 2005 to 2010, we're going to be going back and looking at improving the link between Airport and Livingston. We've gone ahead and already done things to preserve that alignment. So the alignment's there. We will during that time frame be able to make improvements. Those improvements may end up being three laning, but we don't perceive four laning at this point in time. CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: So -- MR. ARCHIBALD: But ultimately that will be a connected corridor if, in fact, we determine through this process and follow through with the northern alignment number four or number three. CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: Help me then. We're talking about or at least I'm -- in my mind I'm envisioning the new bridges if they're built to handle thirty to thirty-five thousand vehicles a day. And what you're telling me then, at least for a two-year period, we're going to simply dump that traffic on Airport Road, and that's it? MR. ARCHIBALD: When that traffic gets to Airport Road, it will have three directions to travel: north, south, and it can continue to the east. CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: To the east to where? MR. ARCHIBALD: To serve the industrial park until such time as Livingston comes on board in the late nineteen hundreds, again, 1998, '99. CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: So -- so we are for all intent and purpose dumping this traffic on Airport Road with a minor relief in -- in -- into the industrial park for a period of about two years. MR. ARCHIBALD: Yes. And again, keep in mind that we have many roadways. A good example of one that somewhat terminates is Davis Boulevard at Airport Road. The reason we have so many turning movements there is, in fact, the turning movements north and southbound exceed the through movements. So although we may have a four-way intersection like we could have at Airport and Enterprise, the turning movements are occurring because that's where people need to go for one reason or another. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: If I may, Commissioner Matthews, I -- I disagree with the concept of dumping on to Airport Road for the simple reason that those trips are either right now currently using Golden Gate Parkway or Tamiami Trail to access Airport Road for -- for north-south use. CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: So you're saying the trips are there anyway. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm saying the trips are there. By a third avenue, what you're doing, you are going to increase some trips immediately around the -- the intersection point. But my understanding is that you're also going to be pulling some off Golden Gate Parkway and some off of U.S. 41, so it's not like we're taking a whole brand new number that came from nowhere and dropping it at an intersection. Some of that will occur, but I think for the most part there's going to be more of an averaging in that area. So your -- your point's well taken, but I -- I definitely wouldn't look at it as a whole brand new number. CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: Well, I've been -- I've been moving or thinking of this project in moving forward with the -- with the extension, with the east-west extension, to Livingston Road and Livingston Road providing a major -- another major north-south corridor for traffic. And I -- I guess I'm -- I'm feeling that perhaps we need to be looking at moving that project forward from '98 and '99 because I -- I -- I think I tend to agree that we're going to be looking at a lot more traffic and a lot more congested area because that's what? It's six lanes now, and it's not likely to get more lanes on it, so I'm -- I'm -- I'm seeing a problem. COUNCILMAN TARRANT: I think, Madam Chairman, as I heard what -- what Mr. Corkran was saying, one of the things that he was saying very clearly -- and I haven't heard anyone challenge his information -- is that based on the studies that have been made that are right here in the county records, the traffic counts do not support the construction of this bridge at this time. So in -- no matter how you feel about it, I don't think anyone can disagree that it's premature. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Miss Chairman, I -- I think the issue in front of us here is the scheduling for the special election. I think we've sort of gotten far afield here. CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: That's true. That is the issue and do -- frankly, unless there's additional public comment -- is there? MR. DORRILL: No, ma'am. CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: to entertain a motion. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: motion -- CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: COHMISSIONER NORRIS: COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: There is none? I would be willing I think I already did make a We have a motion? -- to approve the schedule. Second. And we have a second. Assuming there's no further discussion, I'll call the question. All those in favor please say aye. Opposed? Motion carries four to zero, Commissioner Constantine being absent. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: And since we have now confirmed the schedule we do need to -- CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: Well, excuse me. The city needs to address that issue. MR. WOODRUFF: There is no action. CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: Oh, I'm sorry. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: This is county only. But now that we've approved the referendum to go forward with the schedule, we do need to approve the budget amendments, so I'll make that motion that we approve that. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: Okay. We have a motion on the floor. Do we have any further public comment? MR. DORRILL: No, ma'am. CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: Okay. I will call the question if there's no further discussion. All those in favor please say aye. All those opposed? There being none, motion carries four-zero. Mr. Constantine is absent. I believe that concludes the portion of this meeting that is joint with the city; is that true? MAYOR HUENZER: Yeah, we have nothing left. CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: We have nothing left either. The Board of County Commissioners will move on now to staff communications if we want to take a few minutes to rearrange the office. We should be finished in ten minutes. Item #15C 800 HHZ WORKSHOP WITH FIRE DISTRICTS - HEETING TO BE HELD (A short break was held.) CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: Okay. Let's move forward with staff communications. First item was a plan on the 800 megahertz workshop with the fire districts. MR. DORRILL: I have -- I have two items. They'll take 30 seconds apiece, I assure you. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's the kind we like. MR. DORRILL: Staff -- staff has met with each independent fire district and the other affected entities on 800 megahertz. We will have a final joint what I'll call staff workshop on January the 17th to develop sort of three alternatives for the county commission. The fire districts have expressed a desire to meet sort of jointly or as part of one of your meetings sometime after the 17th in order for you to make a decision. And then we will bring the final legal instruments back to determine the permanent financing at the board meeting of February the 7th which is consistent with your original direct -- whatever actual contracts or resolutions that would need to be entered into will be done at your first meeting in February. We -- I'll pick a date and share that with the chairman after we've had this consolidated workshop with all the -- that may be a poor choice of words -- the joint workshops with all the independent fire districts. CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: Poor choice of words. Item #15D STRATEGIC PLANNING MEETING TO BE REGULAR WORKSHOP AND HELD AT THE MUSEUM ON JANUARY 31, 1995 HR. DORRILL: I also wanted to inquire, with the fifth Tuesday in January being what would have been a strategic planning and now a workshop if the board is still desirous of having those off site at the downtown library? And if so, do you want me to coordinate some topic areas with the chairman as to what the workshop session would be for the 31st? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah. I think what we said is you had some ideas in particular and then just run them so we know ahead of time what we're doing. CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: Yeah. I gave Mr. Dotrill the -- the listing yesterday of -- I don't know -- 20 or 25 different workshop topics that we might want to look at with a priority bar on the other side to gather from each of you what you consider priority items. And, of course, those that get the lowest scores, so to speak, we'll do that. MR. DORRILL: We can make some suggestions then and share those with you. I think we'll take one or two areas and not try and encumber you beyond that. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Maybe next Tuesday as a group we can agree to whatever it is you propose. MR. DORRILL: Okay. And I presume that the library setting is fine for the purposes, or would you prefer to meet here? COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: This is easy. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: I liked the museum personally. It's on county grounds, and it's a nice new facility, and it will maybe expose more people to -- to the museum area and what's over there. I'd like to see us use the museum. CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: It's a good size room, yeah. Acoustics in that room, though, are not real good right now. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: True. CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: Are we going to make some adjustments there? MR. DORRILL: I don't know that there's much that we -- we can do for the time being over there. The budget amendment -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: If that's a concern, the library is fine. I would just like to see us use that facility more and get more people over there to take a look at it. CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: I'm -- I'm not opposed to -- to, you know, trying to use it. And we'll decide what the acoustics are, if they work or they don't. COMHISSIONER NORRIS: I'll tell you from my perspective. Just make sure that I'm informed in enough time to get wherever I'm going. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Tell me where it is and leave me alone. CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: I thought I was well informed. I mean, you were told 9 and I was told 9:30. I mean -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I don't care where it is. Anything's good with me. CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: Why don't -- why don't we stay with that, with the museum then for the first couple and see how it goes. MR. DORRILL: Very well. I'm finished. Item #15B FIRST ASSEMBLY OF GOD CHURCH - MEMO FORTHCOMING FROM COUNTY ATTORNEY CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: Mr. Cuyler, we were going to talk about -- a little bit about the Lely guard house? MR. CUYLER: Correct. First of all, just as a note, I'll send you a memo on the First Assembly case just to tell you how that turned out and update you a little bit. And I think initially it predated all the commissioners, so maybe I'll give you a little background on that too. Item #15A LELY GUARDHOUSE - HOMEOWNERS/MASTERS ASSOCIATION FILED SUIT AND COUNTY ATTORNEY TO KEEP BOARD UP TO DATE The Lely guard house, I just wanted to mention the board asked me to tell you this week whether we could proceed with a court case as well as the Code Enforcement Board proceeding. And as things usually go, we've got a lawsuit this week. It's either being filed -- I believe it's being filed today. We got a courtesy copy yesterday. The homeowners' association, slash, masters' association has filed a suit for injunction, and there's a count in there to enjoin us from any administrative hearing which would be the Code Enforcement Board hearing. The answer to the question you asked me is that we don't see anything that precludes us from going forward with the Code Enforcement Board. That will obviously become a judicial determination as a result of this lawsuit. But we need some time to evaluate that, look at the counts, and see where we're going to go. But I wanted to let you know that we've gotten a copy of the complaint, and I assume it's going to get filed today. CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: I -- I -- I have to say that subsequent to our discussion last Tuesday regarding this I had occasion to read a memo from our public services administrator that I -- I must say outraged me, and I'm -- I'm sure you have a copy of that now as well as the letter he was referring to in his letter. And after having read that letter -- and I don't want to expound on it too much because we're -- we're in a court case, it would -- it would not bother me if we proceeded with an injunction against them to get that guard house gone. MR. CUYLER: I'm -- I'm -- we're going to have to figure out what we're going to do, whether we're going to proceed on their case which I don't think we're going to do, whether we're going to go forward with code enforcement, whether we're going to file our own case, how we're going to approach it. But I did want to let you know that that's out there. CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: Mr. Constantine. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: If they are successful in getting an injunction to prohibit us from having administrative remedy while their case is ongoing, is it possible for us then to get an injunction to keep that gate open while their case is ongoing? MR. CUYLER: That is something that we would put into the proceedings, yes. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: As is currently the position, we can proceed with code enforcement in February determining if there is a violation or not. But once this case is filed, code enforcement then cannot occur? Is that my understanding? MR. CUYLER: They're going to try -- I'm sure as part of their strategy, they're going to try to keep the Code Enforcement Board administrative county proceeding from happening at all. We still have to sit down with staff and make sure that staff has the case to go forward on this and exactly how they want to approach it, what we want them to do. But that side, as far as the plaintiffs in this lawsuit, are going to try to keep you from doing anything on the county Code Enforcement Board. COHHISSIONER HANCOCK: But we're scheduled to move ahead, and we're doing so; is that what I understand? CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: We're moving ahead, but they're seeking -- they are seeking an injunction to prohibit us from moving ahead. Should they be successful in that, may -- can he seek an injunction to keep that armature up while the proceedings continue? MR. CUYLER: We would have to -- we would have to either include that as part of our argument or file a separate lawsuit. And again, how we do all that we haven't decided yet. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And I know you need to study that. But that was my question exactly, and my preference would be not to simply make that part of the argument. Why I use the word injunction is if we're going to have an ongoing thing in the court of law, that, I suspect, will go on for several months on end. And I would just as soon as a separate action, if we get to that point, request an injunction to keep those gates open while that's going on, just -- just the same as they're saying we can't have an administrative hearing because that case is going on. And I would think that we should ask that they be required to keep that gate open while that is going on as well rather than make that simply part of the hearing itself. CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: You'll get back to us with -- MR. CUYLER: Yes, ma'am. CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: Okay. MR. DORRILL: We'll unchain Dave Bryant and take the muzzle off of him. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Scary thought. CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: I didn't know -- I didn't know -- I didn't know he was muzzled. MR. CUYLER: No, he's not. CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: I didn't think he was. MR. CUYLER: He's eternally unmuzzled. CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: Another -- I -- I guess that concludes the issues from the county manager and the county attorney. Is there anything from the board? Communications? COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Not for me. CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: Commissioner Constantine? Going in a different order this time. Item #14 BCC COMMUNICATIONS - UPDATE ON MARCO ISLAND AIRPORT COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Hixing it up just to confuse everybody. Question, I wonder if you could just update us where we stand on the Marco Island Airport. CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: Yeah. We're -- we're standing in pretty good stead I think. We have pretty much agreed on all of the components of the trade regarding the Fakahatchee Strand and the Jane Scenic Drive and the -- the 99-year lease and the permitting and so forth like that. We're down to the last agreement which is the airport itself. And the last time we talked, I believe I informed you that the mangroves surrounding the airport were not a part of the deed that the DEP is transferring to us. And I have since been in contact with the DEP asking for easements and so forth to give us -- us the permission to go upon the land that I presume that they own so that we -- we can trim the mangroves if we need to. I've also asked them to allow us to remove the mangroves and replace with the salt water marsh which will make the maintenance in the future considerably less onerous. I discovered in the process of doing that they were -- they're interested in giving us a management agreement for that land which is -- is equally fine. But we discovered in the process that we're not sure who owns the land. So that's where we are right now. I'm supposed to talk with Mr. Kirby Green this afternoon, and we will be discussing who owns the land and what we need to do based on who does own it. So that's where that sits. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Great. CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: Any other comments? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: (Commissioner Norris shook head.) CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hancock? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: None. Item #14 BCC COMMUNICATIONS - ITEM FOR DISCUSSION REGARDING LANDFILL PRIVATIZATION TO BE HELD JANUARY 17, 1995 CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: I -- I had one I wanted to bring up. And this was dealing with the memo that Commissioner Constantine gave us at the workshop last year on -- last week, I'm sorry. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Seems like a year. CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: -- on the landfill privatization schedule, and I've -- and I've read the memo, and I've also looked at the alternative methodologies that have been brought forward to us. And I think we have three, is that correct, three bids? MR. DORRILL: You have two compost and one clean mrf. CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: It seems to me that regardless of what we do and regardless of whether we select any one of those three or whether we refuse them all and go off in another direction, we're not going to do anything with that particular notion of alternative methods and bring it on line for at least two, maybe three years because we've got a lot of investigation and a lot of expenditure. And -- and we're going to have to thoroughly look at all of them and with -- with no problems I hope. I -- I would like to bring the landfill privatization issue forward next week so that we can -- can finalize that and get it moving in whatever direction it's going to go. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, again, if -- if I can reiterate the purpose of the memo, I don't think it's fair to the two new commissioners nor to the public, for that matter, to have their very first public hearing on this be a review, this is where we are, now make a decision. And I don't think that's appropriate. I also asked on that memo for a Wednesday night hearing which was embraced a week ago, five days ago. And so I don't think that to change that back again now is benefiting us or benefiting the public. And the question wasn't solely for the alternative uses. That was part of it. And I think it may be two or three years before it's on line, but I think we'll know a direction we're headed with alternatives. And those will have an impact on the amount of volume which has an impact on the contract if we choose to privatize so -- COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, just to the extent -- first of all, to the extent that -- that the memo was based in giving new commissioners opportunity to get caught up, I appreciate that. And I have actually afforded myself of that opportunity on my own in an interest of -- in the interest of trying to avoid making all of you sit through it again. And I -- I have done enough research and -- and review on it that I -- I feel like that I personally don't need that particular review. More importantly perhaps on the interest of -- I mean on the issue of -- of the alternative technologies and how that might or might not affect the need -- the decision on privatization and optimization, seems to me there are two issues: One is privatization. The other is how long are we going to be at that landfill. Talking about privatizing the landfill doesn't decide the question of how long we're going to be there, of optimization, especially as the contract is proposed which I got a copy of yesterday and looked at it. It has this very clear ten-year out that allows us not to have to make the decision on how long we're going to be here. So I -- my perception is that Commissioner Constantine's primary concern is how long are we going to be at that landfill, not who's going to operate it. And as to the issue of who's going to operate it, I'm ready to go forward and make some decisions. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, I'll correct your perception because I'm concerned about both of those as are members of the public. Again, I guess I'm very disappointed to hear a turnaround five days after this was so enthusiastically endorsed. And you in particular, Commissioner Mac'Kie, complained twice during our little workshop last week prior to me ever bringing this up about having issues come to us that we've never -- that we are expected to make a final decision on that we never have had a public word on with the two new members of the board. And when I mentioned this, you were very enthusiastic, great, I'd like that opportunity. So I know I saw Mr. Goodlette and Mr. Varnadoe in here the last couple of days in the offices, and I'm sure they've had an opportunity to talk with some of the board. And maybe that's why there's a change of heart. But we're making a decision that's going to have an impact for 25 years. It's going to have an impact for millions of dollars. It's going to have all the things that I listed last week. And to suddenly turn around now and say, again, particularly under staff or under BCC communications, no, we don't want to do that after all, it's a disservice to the public. And the Wednesday night hearing was a key part of that. We had 400 people turn out, so it's obviously of great interest to the community. And to have it on a Tuesday afternoon in a -- on what's going to impact a working class neighborhood, they're not going to be able to be here. So you are effectively cutting the public out of the process. If that's what your preference is, then -- and the majority of the board's is, there's nothing I can do about that. But it seems to me it would make more sense to have the two new members of the board be able to have an update, be able to ask questions, be able to bring some things forward. And as is often the case, we need to go back somewhere and answer those. And there's -- I'm not sure what the rush is. If we wait an extra couple of weeks to get the answers to all those things, after two years, I don't understand the absolute necessity to have it the 17th. CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: Well, I don't see the privatization of the landfill issue as making a decision to stay at the landfill for 25 years. It's my understanding Commissioner Mac'Kie talked of a ten-year out. It's my understanding that that out could be as few as five years. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yes. CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: And it would be my -- it would be my concern to at the same time that we address the privatization issue, whatever direction we go in -- and I don't particularly care at this point whether we continue to operate it ourselves or whether we -- we privatize it. I'm -- I'm interested in -- in -- in operating it efficiently and operating it at the lowest possible dollar for the rate payors. But the other thing I'm interested in is giving our environmental services department its marching orders to go and secure, find us another site. Let's get it bought. Let's get it permitted. Let's get cells lined, and let's get moving. Even -- even two more weeks keeps the public in a turmoil as to where we're going. Commissioner Mac'Kie, you have some more. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Just -- well, just a lot of remarks came to mind, Commissioner Constantine, based on what you were saying. But fundamentally I need for you to know that my objection has been to moving forward without adequate information. I have taken it upon myself with regard to privatization to get adequate information. I -- my -- my goal is efficiency. And I don't want us to delay where we can be efficient. And I -- and I have the goal of separating privatization from optimization. I hope that we can -- privatization is a -- is a goal of mine. It's something I want to see us doing a whole lot more of. To the extent that we mix the two issues together, privatization with how long are we going to be there, I think it muddies the waters on the privatization issue. I'm suggesting we go forward on privatization, and later we'll discuss the optimization. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, I'm hearing both sides of the argument now because Commissioner Matthews is saying we want to move fast as quickly as we can with giving them direction on finding another site and setting a schedule. And at the same time, you're saying the two aren't interlinked and we can do that later. COHHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, we're different people. We have different opinions. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No, but Commissioner Matthews actually argued both sides of that coin too. The -- I hear inconsistent arguments here. Yes, we want to move forward but with the water issues. You were so insistent on having all the information on all the water issues at one time. And now it is inconsistent to me to suggest that suddenly we don't need all the issues at one time for this issue. Again, why it needs to move forward absolutely the 17th is beyond me. The -- two, you can say they're not -- the two are linked. The contract as to who will be operating that landfill and whether it's volume based or whether it's a calendar base or whatever the terms of that contract are are directly linked to how long we're going to be there. If -- if we as a board decide two weeks after the fact that we only want to be there seven years -- I don't think that's going to happen. But if that's what we decide, we don't have that option anymore because we will have signed a contract that says a certain volume or ten years or how ever it's worded. I haven't seen the latest draft. But as of a couple of days ago, it was based on a volume solely. If that volume happens to come up at five years and we don't have another site, we don't have another opportunity, the way that contract was written, to come back and say, no, we want to move now. So we're stuck there for the length. If that volume doesn't come up until 15 years, then we're stuck there for 15 years. The way that contract written right now most certainly is linked to the length of that site. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I -- CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: That's not going to change between now and three weeks from now. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: My goal -- my -- CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: Unless we -- we give Mr. Dorrill direction to have another termination point put in there. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Let me clarify that -- CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: But we can't -- we need to do that in a meeting concept. If we're not happy with a volume situation, we need -- yes, ma'am. Hold on a second. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I know. I'm talking to Tim. CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: We -- we -- we need to direct our staff -- if we're not happy with what that volume is, we need to get it in the public forum so we can say we're not happy with whatever that is. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And wouldn't it make sense then to follow, as proposed in last Thursday's calendar that was unanimously acclaimed at the time, to have that contract brought forward and reviewed and then sent away to staff to make those nuts and bolts corrections before we make a final vote? To me that makes such simple sense that you would do that and put it in its form and ask staff to put it in the final form instead of trying to cram that all into one meeting. CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: You're on. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: The honeymoon's over. This commission is arguing. Commissioner Constantine, the reason that -- that what you brought up last Thursday was so attractive to me at our workshop was that I was unaware there was an RFP for alternative methods out there. I was unaware that we had received information on it. And that's because I had not looked at that level. What I have done in the mean time is take a look at that information, and I have a tough time comparing or saying that a $17 a ton or $19 a ton privatization issue is remotely related to a 40 or $50 a ton alternative resource type -- you know, type of an approach. If I'd looked at any of those three and felt that they had enough merit that was worth looking into and -- and worth delaying any decision on privatization, I would surely be backing it today. The truth is of the three RFPs we've received, there isn't anything in them that I find attractive to the taxpayer of this county for the simple reason that the benefit and the cost is an -- is an extreme ratio beyond what we've looked at. So I'm back to the question of what is our responsibility at the current landfill, how do we best complete the operation there, and how do we get moving with finding a new site? That's my personal agenda. And I'm not sure -- you know, I have met with residents of Golden Gate. I'm not in a vacuum. People come see the rest of us, too, even though we don't -- they understand we vote on these issues. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Did I suggest otherwise, Commissioner Hancock? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Pardon me? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Did I suggest otherwise? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: You suggested a lot of things and -- and a couple of them -- one, in fact, that someone had been swayed and wasn't speaking their mind but someone else's I found offensive. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Agreed. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: And -- and, you know, I don't appreciate that. But that's aside. The real question I'm dealing with is how best to operate the existing landfill, what the term life should be in all fairness to the residents out there. And that's -- that's the issue I want to get at. The best way to do that is to move ahead either in that decision process, and the one recommendation you've made is another Wednesday evening meeting where we get a lot of public input. I can never say that public input is bad. I would never do that. But the results of the last one were so overwhelmingly obvious to anyone who picked up the paper the next day. Is that necessary, or would it change my approach? I think my approach is to protect those residents equally as yours is. So, you know, whether we do it next week or two weeks, you're right. It's not going to kill me one way or the other. But I need sufficient reason to move something off the agenda or to delay it, and the RFPs that were submitted does not -- do not give me sufficient reason for alternative resource. And if there's another reason out there, I'd be more than happy to listen to it. But -- but right now I just -- I don't see -- see the sufficient reason there. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The -- again, I'll ask the board for a Wednesday night hearing for it. I think the maximum public input on a decision that is going to affect a community for -- one way or another for 25 years or more to come is to our benefit and is to the public's benefit. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Have we traditionally had two public hearings, two evening public hearings, on issues? CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: It would be the third one. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: It would be the third even public hearing? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, I'll correct that. First of all, the second one was a workshop because we -- CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: The first one was a workshop also. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Because we had wanted to try to get this put to bed before the new commissioners come on. But this -- I don't know what we've traditionally done, but I don't think traditionally we've had an issue that dragged out for two years and had two new faces on the board making a decision. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I don't think you're going to be surprised -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Can I put in my two cents' worth -- CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: Sure you can. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: -- in at some point in time, or is this just going to be -- CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: Sure you can. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: A little battle? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: We've been through two workshops already? CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: (Chairwoman Matthews nodded head.) COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Do you envision this next one being limited to only new information, or is this going to be recapitulation of what we've done in the past? My position on this is -- should be by now very well known as -- to the public as the public's position is very well known to me. For me to sit through another five- or six-hour hearing on this, I don't know that I'm real enthused about that. I mean, if that's what we're going to do, that's fine. Let's go do it. But it's not -- in my opinion to me it's not going to serve any useful purpose unless we're going to limit it to new information or something like that. But I don't really know what you have in -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I have no objection to that. I just -- I recall when we had our nighttime hearing in September of '93 that we had -- I don't know -- 28, 29 speakers. But the vast majority of those were very -- it wasn't the mere emotional not-in-my-backyard argument. CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: It was well organized. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: They had very well organized, very well reasoned out, laid out thoughts and statements, and I would think -- I'd have no objection to your suggestion of having that limited to new information or what have you because I think they have the ability -- certainly have the ability to do that. That was done in the past. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, the other thing is that we have a sometimes policy of not having public input during a workshop. Is this one of those type workshops? Is that what you envision? Or is this specifically for public input? I -- I really don't know what you have in mind, Tim. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I don't see the Wednesday night as a workshop. I see it as a Wednesday night public hearing to make the final decision. But I just think if we're going to make that final decision regardless of whether it's the 17th or 18th or February 5, then we should have the maximum public input. CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: That may set a -- that may set a precedent that this board may not want -- want to do. Traditionally our evening meetings in which we take votes have dealt with ordinances. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Cuyler, will this set any legal precedent? MR. CUYLER: Not legally. And I'll tell you what I always tell you, that usually precedent is what you agree for it to be except in some limited circumstances that I tell you about. It won't set a legal precedent, no. CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: I'm not -- you know, I don't think it would set a legal precedent -- precedent. But I'm certainly thinking about issues dealing with, oh, my gosh, any number of -- of issues where when it comes time to decide what to do with the Lely waste water treatment plant the citizens who live around there are going to press for an evening meeting as well. And they're going to say, well, you did it for Golden Gate. And then, you know, we'll say, gosh, we did. I guess we need to do it for you. And we're going to wind up finding ourselves in a multitude of evening meetings as the needs and wishes of the citizens of this county become more complicated and more complex and more expensive. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And is that a bad thing to meet the needs and wishes of the citizens of Collier County? CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: Definitely not. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I have a suggestion. Rather than -- rather than continue this discussion, why doesn't somebody make a motion on whether we're going to do this or not and let's go to lunch. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll make a motion that we hold a Wednesday night public hearing to make the final decision on the landfill item calendar date that's at the convenience of the rest of the commission. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Can you be more specific about landfill item? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The privatization issue in particular. I'd like to bring the time frame forward with that. It makes sense to me to have the two together. But I don't know any reason why we can't do the two together. CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: Would we be confining that evening meeting to only discussion of the privatization contract itself and not the merits of should we be there or shouldn't we be there? I think we've -- we've been through that. We've assured the public that we're -- number one, we're not going to expand. We've tried to assure the public that we don't want to be there any longer than necessary. I -- I would like to try to confine that meeting to the merits of this contract. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And perhaps set, as you've suggested, some sort of calendar for our staff to move forward with land purchase and those sort of things. CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: Commissioner Mac'Kie? COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Just that -- I'm troubled by this because I had thought that the motivation of this undertaking was to help me and maybe Commissioner Hancock catch up with actions that you guys had taken over the past. I'm telling you that I have caught myself up. Another motivation was to look at alternative technologies and the effect it would have on the privatization issue. Since our last meeting, I have looked into the responses to those RFPs. And that in my mind is not -- doesn't cause us to need to postpone this item any further. If the motivation, in fact, is to have an evening meeting, I watched it on TV. I saw it. I am adequately informed of what the public opinion is. I feel adequately informed. I think that we're setting ourselves up to make a lot of people mad who spend a lot of time, come down here, want to get to have their say. And we're going to send them away, no, huh-uh, you're not talking about one of the contract terms. So let's not fool ourselves. If we're going to repeat the previous Wednesday evening hearing, then let's go into it knowing that's what we're going to do. But it troubles to me to learn or I am -- I'm getting the feeling that the motivation behind this was to have a Wednesday evening hearing instead of to help inform the new commissioners because I'm saying that informing the new commissioners, as to me, that's unnecessary. And looking at alternative technologies, I'm satisfied that that doesn't affect the issue. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, I don't have a copy of my written proposal I gave you last Thursday in front of me. However, there were three parts to it clearly written out and a suggested calendar clearly written out. The first part was to assist the two new commissioners in coming up to date. The second part was the alternative, and the third part was a Wednesday night hearing for the purpose of best providing the public an opportunity for input. And all three of those were clearly written on that. And no one had any objection last Thursday, so I'm not suggesting anything new. CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: We have a motion on the floor. Is there a second? First off, we're in communications, and I guess we can't have motions but anyway -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Cuyler, can we have motions in communications if we would like to? We certainly have in the last two years. MR. CUYLER: You've -- you've done it before. It's one of your policies. As Commissioner Hac'Kie brought up at the Thursday meeting, it's one of your policies. You can do what you want. CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: Well, we have a motion on the floor then. Is there a second? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I'll second it just to keep it alive. CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: There being a motion on the floor, any further discussion? All those in favor of the motion please vote aye. All those opposed? Motion fails three to two. Is it my understanding then we are going to be looking at this issue next Tuesday? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Commissioner Matthews, would it be possible -- and it's past board policy that makes me ask this -- to put this at a time certain so that we can try and achieve as much public input as possible without wasting people's entire days if they choose to come down and talk about this? CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: I think it's an excellent idea. In fact, I'd like to carry it one step further so that we -- we address the needs of -- of the citizens in Golden Gate Estates. How big is the agenda next Tuesday? Is it rather short? MR. DORRILL: It's a non-public or land use type hearing. I haven't seen the index. I don't -- I'm not aware of that many items that we have. I could take a look at what's already been received. CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: Because in the -- in the -- for the sake of not only giving the citizens in Golden Gate a time certain but to give them a time certain in such a manner that they can get in a fair day's work, I'd either want to hold this first thing in the morning so that we can address it -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll make a motion we set the time certain at 6 p.m. CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: We have a motion on the floor. Is there a second? It seems to have failed for lack of a second. I'd like to entertain a motion that we hear this item at 9:30 Tuesday morning. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Would that motion include making it the first item of business? CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: First item of business after the presentations and service awards. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second that motion. CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: You are looking like that's not good. MR. DORRILL: Just because of the nature of the -- the community, it might be better for those people who are interested and genuinely want to be here to get up and go to work in the morning and then take the afternoon off. And if they knew you were going to do this at one o'clock -- because otherwise if you start at 9:30 and then you drag past their lunch hour -- CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: They've lost the whole day then. MR. DORRILL: Or they're going to have to get up and leave. CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: COHMISSIONER NORRIS: CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: COHMISSIONER NORRIS: just set these times? CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: I gotcha. All right. I'll withdraw my second. I'll withdraw the motion. Okay. Better. Can't the -- can't the chairman We can set time certains, and let's -- let's look at 1 p.m.? Is that okay? COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It's good for me. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: One p.m. would satisfy me. CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: So if we finish the morning agenda early, we -- we will recess and reconvene. MR. DORRILL: Just one point of public disclosure. Given the length of the contract and the fact that some of the final language has not been complete, what you will see in your agenda that goes to the printer is about a three-page summary or memorandum and an executive summary that will be on that. If we can get a little assistance from Mr. Cuyler's office, the complete verbatim contract will be available I would think for anyone who would be interested in having it by Friday. So it -- it won't be reproduced as part of the full agenda, but it would be available for anyone who's interested by Friday. CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: Can we -- based on the -- on some of the comments that came today, if there is only a single five-year out or reasonable five-year out in that contract that we begin to look at some alternatives now because I think we've heard enough that we don't want to be there for 25 years or we may not want to be there that long. We may not even want to be there ten years. I -- I -- I'm hearing and assuming that we don't want to be there any longer than it's going to take -- take Mr. -- Mr. Lorenz to find property, buy it, permit it, and get a cell line going. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: That -- although that -- that may be a correct assumption, I think that that is part of the discussion that would be required next week. MR. DORRILL: I was going to say there are probably five items just like that where you may not be happy after you hear the public testimony as to the contract term that is agreed upon. And there are about five major issues that are just like that. And you may change and send us in a totally different direction as a result of the public hearing and presentation. CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: I think what's what -- what I'd like to see. I'd like to see this thing finally get public comment on it instead of, I hear this, I hear that. I'm hearing a lot of rumors. And -- and I really want to get it on the table so we can look at it. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: We may not make a decision next week. CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: We may not. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: We may get public input and decide that -- that what we want can't be achieved. MR. DORRILL: My understanding is that you're going to try, and we need to come prepared to hammer out language if necessary during the public meeting. CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: Okay. COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Miss Filson, can we be -- MR. DORRILL: I understand. CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: Is there anything else that we need to discuss today? I think we're finished. We're adjourned. Commissioner Norris moved, seconded by Commissioner Mac'Kie and carried 4/0 (Commissioner Constantine absent) that the following items under the Consent Agenda be approved and/or adopted: Item #16A1 ACCEPTANCE OF REPLACEMENT MAINTENANCE SECURITY FOR THE INFRASTRUCTURE WITHIN "HORR'S ISLAND A/K/A KEY MARCO See Pages Item #16A2 ACCEPTANCE OF WATER FACILITIES FOR AMSOUTH A/K/A CITIZENS NATIONAL BANK Item #16A3 - Continued to 1/17/95 Item #16A4 ACCEPTANCE OF WATER FACILITIES FOR SAPPHIRE LAKES, UNIT 2, PHASE I Item #16C1 RESOLUTION 95-32, CREATING THE COLLIER COUNTY SESQUICENTENNIAL COMHITTEE AND AUTHORIZING A $1,000 BUDGET AMENDMENT PROVIDING FUNDING TO ALLOW FOR POSTAGE AND PRINTING COSTS See Pages Item #16C2 RECOGNITION OF PRIVATE CONTRIBUTIONS FOR THE CORNERSTONE SETTING AT GOLDEN GATE COHMUNITY CENTER AND THE GRAND OPENING OF PELICAN BAY COHMUNITY PARK Item #16C3 AUTHORIZATION TO PURCHASE VARIOUS PARKS MAINTENANCE EQUIPMENT UTILIZING ANNUAL STATE CONTRACTS, BIDS/COMPETITIVE QUOTATIONS Item #16El - Moved to Item #BE1 Item #16E2 RESOLUTION 95-33, AUTHORIZING THE CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COHMISSIONERS TO EXECUTE DEEDS AND AGREEMENTS FOR DEED TO RIGHT OF INTERMENT FOR THE PURCHASE OF BURIAL LOTS AT LAKE TRAFFORD MEMORIAL GARDENS CEMETERY, FOR THE CURRENT CHAIRHAN'S TENURE ONLY See Pages Item #16E3 RESOLUTION 95-34, AUTHORIZING THE CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COHMISSIONERS TO EXECUTE LIMITED USE LICENSE AGREEMENTS, FOR THE CURRENT CHAIRHAN'S TENURE ONLY See Pages Item #16E4 RESOLUTION 95-35, AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF PURCHASE AGREEMENTS FOR THE G.A.C. LAND SALES TRUST CONVEYED TO COLLIER COUNTY BY AVATAR PROPERTIES INC. (AGREEMENT DATED NOVEMBER 15, 1983), BY THE CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD, FOR THE CURRENT CHAIRHAN'S TENURE ONLY See Pages Item #16H1 THREE YEAR AIRCRAFT HANGAR LEASE WITH RONALD F. COOK, MEMBER OF SUNSTATE ROTOR CLUB AT IHMOKALEE REGIONAL AIRPORT - ANNUAL RENT OF $1,051 PLUS CPI INCREASES See Pages Item #16H2 - Moved to #8H3 Item #16H3 AUTHORIZING THE FUNDING SOURCE FOR THE WORK ORDER LAW-1 - FINAL PAYMENT TO LAW ENGINEERING IN THE AMOUNT OF $16,686 Item #16H4 CHANGE IN FUNDING SOURCE APPROVED FOR OWNERSHIP AND EASEMENT SEARCH REPORTS FOR THE LIVINGSTON ROAD CORRIDOR Item #16J MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE - FILED AND/OR REFERRED The following miscellaneous correspondence as presented by the Board of County Commissioners has been directed to the various departments as indicated: Item #16L1 RESOLUTION 95-36 APPROVING THE SATISFACTION OF LIENS FOR CERTAIN RESIDENTIAL ACCOUNTS WHEREIN THE COUNTY HAS RECEIVED PAYMENT AND SAID LIENS ARE SATISFIED IN FULL FOR THE 1991 SOLID WASTE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL SERVICES SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS - ADOPTED See Pages Item #16L2 CONTRACT WITH THE CITY OF NAPLES FOR TOURIST DEVELOPMENT FUNDING FOR DOCTOR'S PASS DREDGING PROJECT - IN THE AMOUNT OF $115,000 See Pages Item #16L3 RESOLUTION 95-37 APPROVING THE SATISFACTION OF LIENS FOR CERTAIN RESIDENTIAL ACCOUNTS WHEREIN THE COUNTY HAS RECEIVED PAYMENT AND SAID LIENS ARE SATISFIED IN FULL FOR THE 1992 SOLID WASTE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL SERVICES SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS - ADOPTED See Pages There being no further business for the Good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by Order of the Chair at 1:40 p.m. BOARD OF COUNTY COHMISSIONERS BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS CONTROL ATTEST: DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK BETTYE MATTHEWS, CHAIRWOMAN These minutes approved by the Board on as presented or as corrected TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF DONOVAN COURT REPORTING BY: Shelly Semmler