Loading...
BCC Minutes 03/21/1995 R REGULAR MEETING OF MARCH 21, 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 ALSO PRESENT: present: CHAIRPERSON: VICE-CHAIRMAN: Bettye J. Hatthews John C. Norris Timothy J. Constantine Pamela S. Hac'Kie Timothy L. Hancock W. Neil Dotrill, County Hanager Kenneth B. Cuyler, County Attorney Item #2 & #2A AGENDA AND CONSENT AGENDA - APPROVED WITH CHANGES CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Call to order the board of county commission meeting for Tuesday, March 21. Mr. Dotrill, will you lead us in an invocation and pledge? MR. DORRILL: Heavenly Father, we give thanks this morning. We give thanks for the wonder and glory of your grace that is bestowed on our community. We give thanks for the people of Collier County and the enjoyment that they have here either in retirement years or starting a family or running and owning a business. Father, we give thanks for the wonder of this community and special thanks for the dedication of our elected officials who meet and -- and make the very important business deliberations for Collier County. And we would ask you bless our time here together today. We pray these things in Your Son's holy name. Amen. (The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Dorrill, we have some changes to the agenda? MR. DORRILL: Yes, ma'am, we have a number of changes this morning. We have several add-on items. The first one is 8-A-4 which is a request to replace a line of credit with another line of credit. We need the board's approval of that for miscellaneous subdivision infrastructure at Leawood Lakes, 8-A-4. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Is this the letter we have before us this morning? MR. DORRILL: Yes, ma'am. I had asked that the copy of the letter from Cummings and Lockwood be attached so that you would understand the nature of their request. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. MR. DORRILL: You also have another draft letter as part of your agenda change list this morning as it pertains to the critical wildlife area on Marco Island. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. MR. DORRILL: The next add-on item will be 10-B under the Board of County Commissioners as it pertains to a citizens advisory committee for the Florida Cities utilities expansion in Golden Gate. Item 10-C is a discussion regarding an appointment to the Housing Finance Authority also under the county commission. Item 10-D is a discussion of TDC funds for OCPH projects. I have two requests for items to be continued. The first one is -- Item 8-A-1 is requested to be continued for three weeks until the meeting of April the 18th. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: This has undergone a number of continuances. What -- what's happening there? FEMALE VOICE: His wife is ill I think. MR. DORRILL: Indicated the petitioner is -- is ill this morning, has apparently called my office and asked for the request or either called our staff and asked for the request -- for the request as a result of an illness. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. MR. DORRILL: And to withdraw and continue -- we don't have a date -- item 8-B-1 as it pertains to a two-party agreement for the developer of Marco Shores and an excavation site that was required to be used for surcharge material for the four laning of 951, that southern portion. That's at staff's request. We'll need to reschedule that at a future time. That's all that I have this morning. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Cuyler, do you have anything to add? MR. CUYLER: No, ma'am, no other changes. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Commissioner Norris? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Other than -- nothing other than the communications item that's listed on here. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Commissioner Hancock? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Nothing formally except that I've been asked by Mr. Neil to put into the record and if there are no objections that the board recognize the efforts of the DEP staff, to officially thank them for the contribution in obtaining the permits for Clam Pass. If there's no objection, I'd like to officially enter that into the record so that Mr. Neil can draft a letter to them saying just that. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: That and I had -- I had read that, too, this morning and had written Miss Filson a note to draft a letter to the directors of the Fort Myers office and to copy Mrs. Weatherall with it thanking them for their -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Rather than add an item, I just thought I'd do that and get it over with. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Good. Commissioner Mac'Kie? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Nothing, thank you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Constantine. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just one thing. On item 10-B, the discussion regarding Florida Cities water, did each of you get the back-up material with that, not the one Mr. Cuyler has? I had distributed just a copy of the -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Minutes. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- minutes -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Minutes. Yes, got that. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- of last year's meeting. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Got that. MR. CUYLER: I've got the resolutions. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: And I have nothing to add either, so I would like a motion for the agenda and the consent agenda. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So moved. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a -- to approve the agenda and the consent agenda. All those in favor please say aye. Motion passes five-zero. Item #3 MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 28, 1995 REGULAR MEETING - APPROVED AS PRESENTED Motion for the minutes? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Madam Chairman, motion to approve the minutes of February 28, 1995. COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Second. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Motion and a second to approve the minutes of February 28, 1995. All those in favor please say aye. Opposed? There being none, motion passes five-zero. Item #4B EMPLOYEE SERVICE AWARDS - PRESENTED Next on our agenda are service awards. And we have three to today. The first one is a ten-year pin. And is Richard Humberger here from EMS? Is he on a call? We appreciate that, and we'll make sure that he gets this. Pamela Moore, five years of service in the library. Here's your pin and your certificate. And congratulations. Do you want to -- MS. MOORE: I've never done this before. I recognize you from the library. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Relax. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Hopefully we'll see you again in five years. MS. MOORE: Hope so. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Is Lee Heck from parks and recreation here? No? He's not here? We'll see to it that he gets a pin and -- or she gets the pin and certificate. Item #8A4 SUBSTITUTE LETTER OF CREDIT FOR INFRASTRUCTURE FOR LEAWOOD LAKES - APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS Next item on the agenda, we'll move into the county manager's report. Item 8-A-2, an emergency ordinance amending ordinance 93-19. Mr. Dotrill? MR. DORRILL: I don't see anyone here from community development yet. If we can maybe skip down and do the transportation item, Mr. Archibald just stepped into the hallway. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: 8-H -- we'll skip over that one for a few moments and move on to 8-H-3. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: 8-A-37 CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: 8-A-3, a resolution relating to the state housing initiative partnership. MR. CUYLER: That's going to be the same presenter. I think it's Mr. Mihalic. MR. DORRILL: We can move onto the one transportation item. Mr. Archibald is here, and we can do his, and I'll see where the community development staff is. COMHISSIONER NORRIS: That was continued. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: That was continued. This agenda's moving so quickly. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Public services? COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: All right, Tom. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I don't know if -- do we have -- have we moved too fast for the public on this one? MR. DORRILL: No, because we must have 20 people registered to speak on this item. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. COMHISSIONER NORRIS: There's 8-A-4, Leawood Lakes add-on. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: That's true. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Let's do that. 8-A-4. MR. DORRILL: We can do that one. And that and the letter that is there indicates that the developer at Leawood Lakes wishes to amend his letter of credit. He's changing banks. We -- this is a routine kind of item. We do not have a problem with it. We will not allow the exchange until such time that the proper legal form and sufficiency review has been made, but we need the board's concurrence with the ability to revise the letter of credit for Leawood Lakes. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: This would normally be on the consent agenda if it wasn't coming -- MR. DORRILL: Yes, ma'am. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: -- the way it is? MR. CUYLER: There's one condition we wanted to make sure was on the record too. Miss Ashton? MS. ASHTON: For the record, Heidi Ashton, assistant county attorney. The letter of credit that you have been submitted is a draft, and we are requesting that the condition be placed that a final letter of credit be received before the existing letter of credit is released. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: COHMISSIONER NORRIS: COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: a final letter of credit. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Is there a motion? Motion to approve. Second. And that motion is contingent on That's correct. Okay. A motion by Commissioner Norris, a second by Commissioner Hancock to approve the request for a substitute letter of credit. All those in favor please say aye. Opposed? There being none, motion passes five-zero. Item #8A2 EHERGENCY DECLARED. ORDINANCE 95-13 RELATING TO THE STATE HOUSING INITIATIVE PARTNERSHIP PROGAM (SHIP) IN ORDER TO MODIFY THE MAXIMUM AWARD SCHEDULE PROVIDED FOR IN THE COUNTY'S LOCAL HOUSING ASSISTANCE PLAN - ADOPTED WITH CHANGES Next item on the agenda -- MR. DORRILL: I do see that Mr. Hihalic has now graced us with his presence. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. We will go back to the beginning and start over then. Item -- MR. HIHALIC: Good morning -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: -- 8-A-2. MR. HIHALIC: Good morning, Commissioners. I'm sorry I came in late. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Hihalic. MR. HIHALIC: You're quick -- quick this morning. We have two items here, 8-A-2 and 8-A-3, which are companion items. And I'm Greg Hihalic, director of housing and urban improvement for the record. Basically in item 8-A-2, this is an emergency ordinance that is amending ordinance 93-19 relating to the state housing initiative's partnership program. And what we're doing is we're modifying the maximum award schedule, how much we can loan as an incentive to particular projects and strategies within the SHIP program. And what we're asking for is that within the rehabilitation emergency repair strategy, we're asking to raise the maximum award from 7,500 to $15,000. We're finding that the houses need much more than the original $7,500 in work that we had estimated. We're also having a difficult time securing contractors for a job that's $7,500. We are estimating that the average rehabilitation job will be approximately $10,000 and will proportionately reduce the number of houses that we expect to do. As we get more experience in this, we may even have to come back again, but right now I think $15,000 is a reasonable maximum award. The reason we're asking for this emergency ordinance is so it can get underway with the houses we have presently scheduled that require more than $7,500 worth of rehabilitation. MR. CUYLER: Madam Chairman, with regard to an emergency ordinance, you need to take two votes. The first vote is you need to waive your -- your regular advertisement requirements and declare your emergency by at least a four-fifths vote. And then you take a vote on whether you want to approve the ordinance or not. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I have one question, Mr. Cuyler. There's no difficulty in treating this with a -- with a retroactive clause meaning that the monies we've already received from the SHIP program we can retroactively spend those in amounts greater than the original plan? MR. CUYLER: There should be no problem with that. MR. HIHALIC: That's why we're amending the housing assistance plan. We have not rehabilitated these houses yet. If we had rehabilitated them and had to go back, we would have a problem. But we are proactively dealing with this. Let me make one other statement. There is a standard section 3 we'd like to amend this emergency ordinance. The county attorney's office has asked us to add another section which is a general section on includance -- inclusion in the code of laws and ordinances that they are now adding to all of their ordinances. And we will give Miss Filson an amended ordinance to -- for your signature. MR. CUYLER: So your first motion would be a motion to declare an emergency and waive the advertising -- normal advertising requirements. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Thank you. Commissioner Constantine? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Mihalic -- MR. MIHALIC: Yes. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- I think you alluded to this in your explanation. But what precipitated this request? Was there a trigger? MR. MIHALIC: Yes, it was precipitated by us going out and starting to get applications for the rehabilitation program and finding out that $7,500 was not a satisfactory limit. And before I could use the SHIP funds in an amount larger than this, we have to make these changes. I think that's the precipitating factor. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I'd like a motion declaring an emergency on -- excuse me, Mr. Norris. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Mihalic, how -- how can you tell us that this is an emergency, that we have to waive all of our normal procedures? I mean, what constitutes the emergency here? MR. MIHALIC: The -- the emergency is to get the rehabilitation program using SHIP funds underway as well as changing the ordinance so we don't have to modify these maximum award limits by ordinance anymore. It was really an error in the way that we set it up originally. And I believe the expediency of the expenditure of the money is going to be helping the applicants is the emergency. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: What would be the time frame to get this accomplished if we didn't declare an emergency? MR. MIHALIC: I'd like the county attorney's office to help me with that. It'd be at least 30 days from the -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: And 30 days is going to make enough of a difference where the -- where we need to go ahead and amend our procedures here or waive our procedures? MR. MIHALIC: Yes. Mrs. Arnold just reminds me that we have -- we're under a time pressure to expend some of the SHIP money by -- by June of '95, and that also adds to the criticalness of the time period. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I'll make a motion that we waive our normal procedures and declare an emergency in this instance. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second to declare an emergency and waive the normal procedures. Is there any discussion on the motion? There being none, I'll call the question. All those in favor please say aye. Opposed? There being none, motion passes five to zero. Now we need a motion to amend the ordinance -- MR. MIHALIC: Yes. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: -- as Mr. Mihalic has outlined for us. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: So moved. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion by -- by Commissioner Norris, a second by Commissioner Hancock to approve the amendments to ordinance 93-19. Is there any further discussion? Being none, I'll call the question. All in favor please say aye. Opposed? There being none, motion passes five to zero. MR. HIHALIC: Thank you. Item #8A3 RESOLUTION 95-233 RELATING TO THE STATE HOUSING INITIATIVES PARTNERSHIP (SHIP) PROGRAM RE-ESTABLISHING THE MAXIMUM AWARD SCHEDULE PROVIDED FOR IN THE COUNTY'S HOUSING ASSISTANCE PLAN - ADOPTED CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Next item. HR. HIHALIC: Item number 8-A-3, Commissioners, that's a companion item. This now raises the amount that we have within the housing assistance program strategy for rehabilitation and emergency assistance from 7,500 to $15,000 maximum. It also raises the overall maximum award schedule for the SHIP program from 7,500 to $15,000. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Isn't this on the same thing we just did? MR. HIHALIC: Well, now we're amending the housing assistance plan itself, a resolution to amend that. And let me say that in your documents there's an extra signature page. Page 5 should be removed. And you should sign page 4, and page 5 should be amended. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. MR. HIHALIC: But yes, we're dealing with the same issue, Commissioners. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Well, I won't get into the procedure of why we're doing this. But anyway, do we have a motion? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: So moved. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion by Commissioner Hancock. Is there a second? COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Second by Commissioner Hac'Kie. Is there any further discussion on the motion? There being none, I'll call the question. All in favor please say aye. MR. HIHALIC: Thank you for your patience, Commissioners. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Opposed? There being none, motion passes five-zero. Item #8C1 STAFF TO ACCEPT MR. SUGMAN'S OFFER OF $500,000 AND THE COUNTY TO COMMIT $500,000 FROM REGIONAL PARK IMPACT FEES FOR LAKE AVALON AND STAFF TO NEGOTIATE WITH PROPERTY OWNER RE DELAY OF ACCELERATION OF OPTION AND REDUCTION OF PURCHASE PRICE AND COME BACK TO THE BOARD Next item on the agenda, we already did 8-A-4. We are at 8 -- 8-C-17 Is that where we are? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Madam Chairman -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yes. Commissioner Hac'Kie. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- I have to abstain from participating in this discussion. I have a client who has a financial interest in Lake Avalon, so I'm going to observe quietly and wish that I could talk but abstain from. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. We're going to move on with 8-C-1. Mr. Olliff, are you ready? MR. OLLIFF: Yes, ma'am. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: As you smile. MR. DORRILL: And, Miss -- Miss Matthews, just in looking over these, there must be maybe 25 but I'll say that half of them indicated they would like to have their name read in support but they do not wish to speak. And so we may be able to move through these a little more quickly. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Also in -- in relation to this project, there's a lot of discussion as -- as to the current -- the funds that we currently have, whether they are an either/or, available for this project or some other project. Mr. Cuyler, I'd like you to address when Mr. Olliff finishes what you had explained to the TDC council that changes to our laws are not retroactive, they're prospective, meaning we cannot use funds already collected for projects that are not already approved in our ordinance and plan. So if you'll address that when it's finished. Mr. Olliff. MR. OLLIFF: Good morning. For the record, I'm Tom Olliff, and I'm your public services administrator. This item is a follow-up to board direction on this same piece of property. And if board will recall, the item originally was proposed by local interested parties that included the East Naples Civic Association, the Gulf Coast Skimmers who are currently users of the property, and a local botanical garden society. In response to the item that was presented before, the board directed staff to go back and have two appraisals done on the property, to negotiate a purchase price with the property owner, and at least preliminary discussions with the two groups that are interested in using the property to determine if it's -- some sort of leasing or concession agreements could be worked out and finally to try and look at some funding alternatives and bring all of that information back to the county commission. And I think that's what this executive summary tries to do for you. If I can real quickly, I'll point you to the aerial. The aerial is a picture of the Lake Avalon property. To look at the top right-hand corner, that's U.S. 41 that runs across that corner of the property there. MR. DORRILL: Mr. Olliff, why don't you just walk over there and use the handheld and then give us a little better description of the boundaries as well. MR. OLLIFF: I don't know whether you can -- I don't know whether you can see from -- from where you sit, but this line here delineates the property boundary. And it jags here towards the -- towards your bottom left, abuts what is residential property all the way around this area and U.S. 41 along this location. To just give you some local landmarks, the Ted Sheds location is here, and there is a commercial office building at this location. Outer Drive enters the property off of U.S. 41. The proposed and very preliminary site plan that's attached to your executive summary indicates that this area would be the area where the -- the county infrastructure for this type of a project would normally be located, a restroom facility, parking lots. The garden areas would -- would commence from about here and run all the way pretty much this half of the exterior of that lake. The Gulf Coast Skimmers are currently using this portion of the property and will continue under our proposed plan to continue to use that piece of property. There would be picnic areas and perhaps fishing, canoeing, boating facilities, how ever extensive the board decided to have recreation on the site. The lake itself is approximately 60 acres in size. Actually I think it's about 55 acres when they -- when they look at the previously prepared PUD documents. The lake was previously a fill pit used to build and construct U.S. 41. It is currently our understanding spring fed and has an average depth of about 35 feet which for this area is a deep lake. We had our own environmental staff go out and do an assessment of the property. Most of the property had previously been cleared. What's grown back is in large part a lot of exotic plants in the way of either Australian pines and some melaleuca. According to our own ordinances, the environmentalists indicate that we would have to remove most of that exotic material, and I think we've tried to give a -- an estimate for what it would cost to try and remove that material. And it's roughly a hundred to a hundred and fifty thousand dollars. And I'm told that's done with something called a hydro-axe, but I'm not sure exactly how that's done. In addition, they recommended that if the county were to actually purchase the property, then it would become the sanctioning body that would allow swimming and/or a ski show, that a -- a survey of the bottom ought to be performed to make sure that we know what's there in that lake. However, all the water quality samples that we've done -- and they have been done on a regular basis on this body of water -- have indicated nothing unusual to date. Of the two assessments that were done, there was one issue that was raised, and I want to make sure the board knew that it was covered as part of the assessments or appraisals that was done, and that was the side slopes of the actual lake. County code required a four-to-one slope on those lake banks. Those slopes were dug so long ago that they don't meet that four-to-one side slope ratio. But the appraisals that were done actually discounted the property value to account for that. The two appraisals which were noted in your executive summary came in remarkably close for two independent appraisals. There was only about 1.74 percent difference in the price between the two of them. So that's -- that gives us a fair level of confidence in the market value that was done for them. They averaged just over 2.1 million dollars between the two of them. Your real property staff and -- and park staff negotiated with the property owner who agreed to sell the property for less than that average appraised value of $2,100,000 even though that property was, I believe, marketed for about 3.1 million dollars. And again, that price is based on its current zoning. And just to refresh the board's memory, it was zoned for about 357 multi-family residential units I believe that surrounded that entire lake site. We did have some preliminary discussions but did not do a lot in terms of actually negotiating finalized type agreements with either the Skimmers or the botanical garden society. But we have actually drafted lease agreements and concession agreements. But rather than sit down and try and negotiate and make this a more complicated issue than it already is, we -- we left that on the back burner. And I think suffice it to say that we tried to outline some of the general conditions that we thought from a county perspective we would want to see in those kind of agreements. But those agreements are nowhere near finalized, but I believe for this purpose we wanted to indicate to you that we thought they could be done and that both parties would be at least as far as we can tell agreeable to the kinds of things that the county would want to see. From a growth management standpoint, any and all improvements on the site would be counted towards our growth management inventory. It would be counted as a regional park-type site primarily because regional parks are defined not only by their size but by their drawing capacity. And if this is a unique and a -- and an only type of a park like our pool facility is, we would expect it to draw from county-wide. So if it has a county-wide type draw, then we would define it as a regional park. And it doesn't meet what was originally the intention of a regional park of this nature. It was a much larger type facility. But I think because of the nature of it being so unique, it would -- it would fit the definition. Because of that -- and I think we get down to -- the most important issue that the board's going to want to consider today is the fiscal impact. And I tried -- in the fiscal impact statement tried to try and show at least what all of the funding sources that are available for this project are. There are three that we can come up with and a possible fourth in the way of the Florida Trust and Grant Program. But that is a complete unknown. And rather than try and base a decision on that, I just wanted to at least tell you that that was a possible option that was out there. Ad valorem tax is another option that clearly at first discussion the board had indicated that wasn't an option, so we didn't pursue that any further in the executive summary. And that left us with two: Tourist development tax and the regional park impact fee. It's probably easier to deal with regional park impact fee first. And, in fact, for both I've -- I've prepared a little handout that I just thought would be helpful. The handout that -- that Sue will give you, I'll -- I'll probably need to walk you through from the top to the bottom, but I tried, because there are so many issues involved in both the tourist tax and the regional park impact fees, to prepare something that I could walk you through step by step and give you a current snapshot of exactly what's available and what's committed in both of those funding sources. The easier of the two perhaps to look at is that regional park impact fee at the bottom. And if you'll look at that, just in -- in real simple terms, the -- the total available regional park impact fees are $841,000 currently. Of that, in your current budget, those are the projects that we have previously come to you with and -- and received approval for in this fiscal year to come out of that fund. Some of those are either already done, and some of those are underway. So most of those projects are -- are committed to. The -- the point being in regional park impact fees is there is not a pool of money available in order to be able to go out and with cash buy this property. Should you make a decision to use regional park impact fees, it would require some sort of financing. If I can take you to the top, the tourist tax in this particular scenario tries to show you at least initially what was the prior collected tax. And this was the originally imposed tourist development tax -- COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Olliff, I don't want to interrupt, but I'm going to. MR. OLLIFF: Go right ahead. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Anything we've already collected -- and maybe we need Mr. Cuyler's help here. But anything we've already collected isn't available by law anyway. MR. OLLIFF: Correct. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So regardless of what events and so on are budgeted, there are zero dollars -- TDC dollars right now available for this. MR. OLLIFF: Right. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Even if we change the law today, there are zero dollars available. MR. OLLIFF: Absolutely. What I'm trying to show is that there's -- at least lately there's been some discussion at least at our level about the impact of Ms. Daniels' event and whether or not with that event there would be any possibility of any funds being left for a Lake Avalon-type purchase. So what we're trying to show you is that with that -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let me go back and repeat my point. If that event never existed, there still would be zero dollars available if we changed the law. You can't change the law retroactively. MR. OLLIFF: I agree. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So Ms. Daniels' event has no impact. MR. OLLIFF: It has an impact on future dollars. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Only on what's -- if we were to change today from what's collected from this point forward. MR. OLLIFF: Right. What I'm trying to point out here is that there are some -- almost two million dollars in available previously collected monies for that event so that future commitments are not as great, and there is some flexibility for this type of project. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I think that -- that was the point that was made in the TDC council discussion when the TDC approved this was that in rough calculations as of today when all the money collected is into the coffers, there's about two -- two million dollars right now. And that money is not available for this project. MR. OLLIFF: Correct. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. MR. OLLIFF: What would have to happen for the tourist tax to become available for this particular project would be an ordinance amendment that would add a nature center, botanical garden-type use to the local ordinance spending plan. That would require a supermajority vote of the county commission. This item was presented to the Tourist Development Council a week ago at their March 13 meeting. It received a unanimous vote not to recommend any revisions to that ordinance or use of those funds for this project. What I tried to indicate here is even with all the commitments, with revenue in hand, with future expected collections over the remainder of this year, there is about $187,000 of uncommitted money. And I do need to indicate on that 1 through 4, those aren't final decisions. Some of those were just -- any request that we happened to know that was out there that had been submitted in writing to us we included on this list. But there is still at the end of the year $187,000 of uncommitted money available. And I think in the executive summary in the fiscal impact statement we tried to prepare for you a debt service schedule, sort of a worst case debt service schedule, that showed several different interest rates over several different years. And in round numbers I think the debt service necessary to fund the full purchase price of the property would be about $250,000 annually. In addition, I think there's a commercial paper program should the board decide to do that. There are some more -- it is a little more difficult when you look at a commercial paper program. The commercial paper program is one that can only be used in three-year increments and would have to then be rolled over in each subsequent three-year period. There is -- what you end up with in -- in essence is a floating interest rate depending on the market. And today the interest rate is very good. For a commercial paper program, it's 4.8 percent. The total overhead costs are significantly less than issuing a bond as well. What we tried to show here -- the number we used in the bond, the financing rates that we showed you -- 3.1 million dollars is our principal in this particular case. That number would become 2.9 if you decided to go with the commercial paper program, and you could reduce the debt service down to about -- $237,000 is our calculation if you used that particular program. All in all in sum, I think that the property is -- is a very large and nice piece of green space in the middle of an urban area. It is a unique site because it does have a lake that is large, clear, deep, and spring fed. It has a lot of community support. There is a lot of good things about this project. Like most of the projects I stand here and -- and explain to you the down side is that the funding is -- is awfully short on our side and our ability to be able to fund it. In either case borrowing is going to be necessary. At 2.1 million dollars, it's going to take funding from either one of these sources over a long term period of time. And just so the board knows, we don't have the ability to mix these funds. We have to choose either/or funding source and stay with that one for the course and the term of that -- that property purchase. With that, I'm here to answer any questions. I think we've tried to respond to all the questions that the board had in the previous time this item was up. And I think there is plenty of public speakers, so I won't say any more. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Before we get to questions from the board, Mr. Cuyler, I don't know whether we've adequately covered the retroactivity of using these funds already or not. But if we need to add more, please do. MR. CUYLER: The previously collected funds -- there's really two segments. The previously collected funds under the prior ordinance -- the current ordinance specifically sets out that those will be used for the same uses as in the plan. So you clearly have to use those. With regard to the retroactive use, I have taken the position -- you will not find a sentence in the statute to this effect. But I have taken the position that if you have a tourist tax plan and you are collecting monies under those plans, then you need to spend the tourist taxes for those monies. If prospectively in the future you wish to amend that plan, collect new monies, and spend it for those uses, then that's perfectly appropriate. But I would advise you not to because I think it leaves you open to a challenge if you turn around one day and amend your plan and use those monies you've already collected for another purpose. The only exception I could see to that is if a use became non-existent. If, for example, you had museums as a listed -- listed use, you decided you were never going to build a museum in Collier County, then under some emergency circumstances like that, I might see some deviation but nothing I've seen so far. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: So it's -- it's -- by your recommendation then, I'm assuming that later in this agenda we'll be discussing amending the -- the plan and the ordinance that we would have to set up a new fund number in order to use those funds for whatever the new ordinance calls for. MR. CUYLER: Correct. And I -- as a matter of fact, when I was on the phone, I was double-checking to make sure that that did not cause us a problem, and it does not. You can do that, and that is what I would suggest that you do. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Thank you. Commissioner Norris, do you have something that you want to add into this? I'm assuming that you do. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, I -- I certainly have been a long-time supporter of this, but I think we need to hear from the public before we go farther. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Are there other questions to staff? Commissioner Constantine. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Olliff, third paragraph here talks about the hydro-axe removing the Brazilian pepper, Australian pines, hundred to a hundred and fifty thousand dollars. That would be paid by whom? MR. OLLIFF: Under this scenario we've included it in the county cost, but we haven't actually negotiated that out. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And those costs would be paid for under one of these scenarios that we've talked about? MR. OLLIFF: Right. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Okay. The next paragraph down, environmental survey of the lake bottom, $5,000, that would be paid by whom? MR. OLLIFF: Currently that's shown as part of our initial development costs, county due initial development costs. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And that would be part of the funding you discussed as well? MR. OLLIFF: Yes. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Third page, growth management and fiscal impact, development costs of the garden, estimated between five hundred thousand and a million dollars, that million dollars would be paid by whom? MR. OLLIFF: The botanical garden society. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Okay. The impact fee -- regional park impact fee revenues, if we commit to those for the next 20 years -- let me make sure I read this right -- annual debt service payment would require approximately 40 to 50 percent of the current regional park impact fees. So for the next 20 years, half of the money collected from regional park impact fees would go toward this project? MR. OLLIFF: Yes, sir. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's all for now. I just wanted to understand those. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hancock? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Let me pick up on that -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hancock if you don't mind. Thank you. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Olliff, I'm going to ask a couple questions to get me in the balipark since I haven't been here from the start of this discussion. When we were originally planning a regional park other than it being county-wide access and used by the county, what were we looking for? Can you give me an idea of what the regional park concept was intended to produce? MR. OLLIFF: The easiest way is to point to an example. I think Lakes Park in south Fort Myers is -- is what was originally contemplated. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. That answers that question. Secondly, what other sites or -- or types of projects have been targeted as potential regional parks? Anything to date? MR. OLLIFF: None because as the years have progressed, the board has sort of made a decision that the other option in terms of regional parks is beach-front facilities. And we have generally targeted beach parking improvements for the majority of our regional park impact fees. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Third question is at a purchase price of, let's say, the 2.1 million, that comes out to 17,500 an acre. Is that in line, high, or low compared to cost of acquisition we have for just regular county parks? How does that fall in the -- the scheme of things? MR. OLLIFF: That's a tough question because we've got parks in Pelican Bay and we've got parks in the eastern part of Golden Gate Estates and in Immokalee. The property value will range significantly. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Let's take the estates one for example that recently went through. MR. OLLIFF: The last property that we purchased in the estates, the purchase price there was between twelve and fourteen thousand dollars an acre. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. And I guess that's it for questions for me right now. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Norris. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Just picking up on the regional park concept discussion, we don't technically have a -- a regional park like what we originally envisioned. MR. OLLIFF: No, sir. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: So we're spending our regional park impact fees on, like you said, beach parking lots -- MR. OLLIFF: Yes, sir. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: -- and that sort of thing. But technically we have not been using that for a regional park. What -- the discussion that we had last week concerning beach parking fees indicated that -- that one of the options at least would bring in as much or more revenue than the regional impact fee is -- is projected to bring in. So -- so perhaps that's -- that's an option that -- that wasn't listed in your back-up material that we could use those beach parking fees for -- as Commissioner Matthews has suggested, to improve beach parking lots and, therefore, wouldn't need the regional park impact fees for that purpose any longer. Did you consider that when you -- MR. OLLIFF: We've not only considered that, but I know people are going to think I'm -- I'm just doing nothing but targeting tourist development tax money. But Lee County uses primarily all of -- or their entire beach maintenance program as well as a program to purchase additional beach parking fees is paid for out of the tourist development tax. That's another option as well, but we've considered both of those. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: All right. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I -- I have one comment, and that is -- is on this concept of a regional park. Mr. Olliff, don't we have a 56-acre parcel of land out across from Orange Tree that's earmarked as a regional park but waiting development for what I'm not sure? MR. OLLIFF: We do. If you'll recall, it's -- it's -- it's a unique -- most of the things I do up here are unique. But -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We know. MR. OLLIFF: In that particular site because we couldn't find the land in the estates planning community for a singular location for a 35-acre traditional community park, we split the community park. And we put half of it on one side of Immokalee Road. And the plan for the 56-acre parcel that we own is to build the other half of the community park in the front end and then a regional-type park in the back, the same type of a concept, lakes, picnic tables, passive recreation uses. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: But that's going to be a regional-type park for the use or for the designed use of the entire county -- MR. OLLIFF: Correct. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: -- and not just Golden Gate Estates. Okay. MR. OLLIFF: Yes, ma'am. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Another question on that. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hancock. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Would we have to dig the lakes? MR. OLLIFF: (Mr. Olliff nodded head.) COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. And those lakes would basically be static. There's not -- I mean, I understand this lake is spring fed. Big difference in water quality potentials there. Big difference in usability year-round, water levels, all those kinds of things, again, just trying to get an -- an idea of scale between the two. MR. OLLIFF: And -- and -- and in terms of scale, the portion of that property that we would try and do -- and pass as recreational or that regional concept is about 40 acres of what was left, the 15 acres from the 56 acres. In this particular site, it's 120-acre total site, so it's about 3 times as large. And you're talking just in terms of comparison if you want. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: The reason I ask about spring fed is growing up in the Tampa area, we had a place called Lithia Springs. It was out in the boonies. And you'd drive from all over the county to get there. And it was about the size of three swimming pools attached to each other, and there was a spring at the bottom. But for some reason, I mean, we just drove from all over to get there. And it wasn't nearly as big as this. So I -- I tend to look at that as a big bonus on this property. MR. OLLIFF: One of the interesting things about it being spring fed is it stays almost a constant temperature year-round which is -- is nice during the winter time, especially if you're skiing in it. But it -- but it also affects the water quality a lot. It keeps that -- that lake clear and pure. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We've confirmed that this lake is spring fed? MR. OLLIFF: Confirmed, no. That's the indications that I've got from -- the people who live and work that lake tell me it is. I have not confirmed that. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I -- I want to go back to the 56-acre park. And -- and I don't want to beat on this because that park's been there or the planning of it has been there for quite some time. And -- and that land was donated in the GAC settlement agreement? MR. OLLIFF: Yes. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: And as to the digging of the lakes, I thought we were considering some leasing contracts for development of those lakes to take the aggregate out and create the lakes at someone else's expense. MR. OLLIFF: We have. In fact, we've -- we've gone as far as to have the soil borings done to find out how much fill, where the cap rock is. The concept was that hopefully we would not become a county fill operation but at least be able to move the fill off site and either bid it out for a local private contractor to do that for us and in return for either fill and cash to the county, so that hopefully we could take that money in turn and do the development of the park. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah. I mean, I guess my -- my point is is that we've got this piece of land sitting out there that we need to eventually develop, and -- and there's some options that we can do with it that aren't really going to cost a great deal of money that we can -- we've got the resources on site to get it done so -- MR. OLLIFF: That's the -- always the nice thing about passive recreation. The cost of development is so significantly lower and is maintenance than a traditional community high intensity kind of a park. In this particular park, we're talking about 120 acres with a county development cost of $500,000. That today is the cost of a single two-scale baseball field. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. MR. OLLIFF: So that puts that kind of in perspective for you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Are we ready for the public comment? Mr. Dotrill. MR. DORRILL: Given the number of speakers, we'll call two at a time and ask that the first one come and that the second one stand by, please. And if you do not wish to speak, if you'd just indicate that, that would help us. The first speaker is Donna Fiala, and she will be followed by John Gutsoy. MS. FIALA: Oh, I have a mint in my mouth. I'm Donna Fiala, president of East Naples Civic Association. Thank you for having me here today. I just wanted to say that as far as East Naples Civic Association goes, one of the things that we found and we believe in is this is something for the whole county to use, for the tourists to use, for all ages to use. We feel that if you use regional impact fees to buy this and once you've put the original $500,000 into it -- my heart's beating so fast -- after that the botanical society is going to do all the planting, and forever after they're going to maintain it. I think it's the wisest investment the county could ever make to -- to initially purchase this property and then never have to ask the taxpayers for a dime. I think that that would be the best choice you could ever make. Also it -- it -- it answers some of the new ways of looking at things. Partnerships, public-private partnerships. We'd be working with the botanical society. We'd be working with the county, and we'd be working with the Gulf Coast Skimmers. We'd also help some of the kids in the area. And there's a ripple effect, and this is speaking just personally from East Naples Civic Association. It is going to improve the area a lot. That area is kind of like on a slide right now. It will also help to improve the image of East Naples, possibly even improve our property values. But most of all, it's going to help a lot of people no matter what age, whether you -- whether you want to include school kids, college kids, elderly people, tourists, everybody. And I just -- I beg you to give us this park. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. MR. DORRILL: Mr. Gutsoy. MR. GURSOY: I'm John Gutsoy, president -- MR. DORRILL: And then we'll have Mr. or Ms. -- I believe it's Giraldo. Mr. Gutsoy. MR. GURSOY: Yes, thank you. John Gutsoy, president, founder of the Gulf Coast Skimmers Waterski Show. And basically, ladies and gentlemen of the commission, the Skimmers have already paved the way to make this a beautiful regional park. What was once 120-acre nucleus of crime, we've cleaned it up. And we've proven that it can be a fabulous attraction. In the last 19 months, we've attracted over 20,000 visitors through our gates there. Thirteen percent is coming from the Fort Myers, Estero, Bonita area. So right there it has a regional impact. Lake Avalon, when you look at that aerial photograph, what a great address. If that photo could be expanded, it would show you that it's less than a mile by the way the bird flies to Port Royal. It's less than half a mile away from Windstar and four blocks away from Sable Bay. But the one challenge that neighborhood does have is I call it the critical triangle neighborhood of the roads that mark it, Bayshore, 41, and Thomasson. And the neighborhood that's in there is going through some unique changes. And with all due respects to the Naples Manor -- and they've done a great job in lifting themselves up -- this neighborhood is teetering to falling into that category, and this would be a core project to help give that neighborhood a booster shot. Believe me, the residents that live in that area, they want change. They just don't know quite how to go about doing it because they're just swamped with working every day, working parents, working single parents trying to raise families. They don't know -- have the necessary resources maybe or the time get together like we do as community leaders to help them. So we need to pull that together and think about this as being a core project. 372 condominiums in that area. I personally live in that neighborhood. I can tell you that would mean close to 600 cars, 900 more people. The impact on the youth as far as in that area not having to place to go and skip a rock, ride a bicycle, fish would just absolutely be a real tough challenge. I think putting that many people into that triangle is really going to cause some challenges in the future. And speaking with Lieutenant Riley, he explained to me what happens when you put people into tight situations like that domestically when they don't have the space or elbow room to get along with each other. And that area could become a real strong challenge. This garden would be a botanical garden. I'm going to look to our -- up the state to Cypress Gardens here for a moment even though that is a different type of garden, a show garden. But they've written the history. This is their 50th year. They're celebrating their golden anniversary of waterskiing, athletic agility, and a garden being put together. They attract over half a million visitors a year, and it's been a great place. However, their address is becoming the wrong address slowly. With the implementation -- the finishing of 1-75, 1-95, and 1-4, Winter Haven no longer is the center of the state. And their attendance is going down dramatically. In fact, Anheuser-Busch is going to be selling the property simply because they can't justify the stockholders to hold onto it anymore. And Naples has a fabulous address, and I don't see it becoming extinct at any time in regards to what development happens. And this garden could be a fabulous attraction for the visitors and residents. As far as TDC dollars go, you know, future dollars -- I want to make that one clear, future dollars, not retroactive dollars -- well, times change. Needs change. Let's look at our school system. When I was at Lely back in '81, we didn't have computers in our school system. Today we do. The times change. So maybe the language that was voted back in 1991 needs to be -- you know, take a peek at it and see if it still makes sense for our current needs and growth. There is apparently provisions in the state language. Maybe that might make sense to adopt that in some way. I can tell you I was a national sales manager for The Ritz-Carlton for four years booking conventions and two years with the Marriott down on Marco Island. And as a national sales manager, when I would travel to Washington, D.C., Atlanta, Chicago, Detroit to book major conventions that come down here to spend money, people would say, John, Naples, Marco Island, I think I've heard of it. But what's there to do there? We'd share with them there was Wooten's, Tin City, and Jungle Larry's. As the years went on, we were able to say Teddy Bear Museum, Philharmonic, and Collier Automobile Museum. Of course, some of those players have changed now. But still when you're trying to book a major convention and you're sitting in front of a board, somebody like yourself of a major corporation and you can show a portfolio of items of what there is to do in Collier County, they're going to weigh that as far as what there's available in California at Laguna, Pasadena, Boca Raton on the other coast, Orlando. And they make their decisions on what's there available to do before and after the convention and also while they're there for their spouses. So let's just let history repeat itself. We've seen the beautiful relationship that Cypress Gardens has had in regard to what it's offered its community as a show garden. Of course, this would be more of a botanical garden. And look at the history of what Selby Gardens has done up in Sarasota with over 100,000 visitors a year coming through their gates and then also Fairchild Gardens in Miami. No doubt, valuable real estate is slipping through our fingers the longer we wait on this project. But more importantly, the precious time that could be spent with the youth of Collier County in that neighborhood is vanishing, and we need the help of the commissioners and the county and, of course, the private sector before it's too late. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Just a moment before you get started. Ladies and gentlemen, I'm going to ask you to hold the applause down because we would like to get through this process to listen to what everyone has to say and not have it carry on much -- much longer than it needs to. And the applause is taking 30 to 45 seconds each time. If you would hold that and -- and just hold the thought, we're all interested in hearing the positives of this. MR. DORRILL: This is Mr. Giraldo, and then we'll have -- Melissa Nese and Christie Miller will follow Mr. Giraldo. Go ahead. MR. GIRALDO: I'm Johann Giraldo. I'm 15 years old. I go to St. Ann's School. And I'm also part of the Gulf Coast Skimmer Waterski Show team. I'd like to tell you some history on a park. In 1857 Frederick Omst (phonetic) and Calvert Votts (phonetic) had a dream to preserve over 100 acres of land in the middle of a large city. The people of the city thought they were crazy because the land could have been used for buildings. However, the dream became a reality. Today on this park there are playgrounds, recreational centers, and a lagoon for boating. Walking paths weave the way through beautiful botanical gardens and bird sanctuaries. One of the main points of interest in the park are the outdoor concerts and theatrical productions that are held during the warm summer days. Today this visionary park has a Fifth Avenue address in New York City and is one of the most widely visited places in New York state. This place is known as Central Park. Ladies and gentle -- ladies and gentlemen of the commission, I tell you this story today to take you back in history and to show you that we need the same vision about Lake Avalon. Naples is growing fast. And some of the land we need to preserve as a park for the people to go and spend time together and get back to traditional family values. Having a park would benefit everyone regardless of age or income level. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. MR. DORRILL: Melissa and Christie. This is what's known as a tag team. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Where is the tag? MR. DORRILL: Coming. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Go ahead. MS. NESE: Hi. My name is Melissa Nese. I'm 13 years old, and I go -- and I attend Pine Ridge Middle School. I came here from New York with no self esteem and no friends. We didn't -- we don't need more condos and gates that separates the community. With the Gulf Coast Skimmers, people of all ages come together and enjoy in the same thing. The pyramid is the last act of the show. It is a symbol that by working together it makes us stronger. And if someone is about to fall, someone is always there to help you back up. On MArch 19, on Sunday, we had an example of this. I was in the pyramid, and I almost fell off the dock. John Gutsoy and Todd Fiala helped me up. If the Gulf Coast Skimmers, Collier County, and botanical gardens all work together, we can be like the pyramid. I'm very proud to be a Gulf Coast Skimmer. We need this lake, not more condos. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. MR. DORRILL: And Miss Miller. MR. GURSOY: She's grown since last time but still not enough. Talk right in there. MS. MILLER: Hi. I'm Christie Miller. I'm in 4th grade at Golden Terrace Elementary. I'm one of the Gulf Coast Skimmers. I'm the youngest one in the ski show. The Gulf Coast Skimmers are not just about skiing. It is about people working together to keep kids off the street. Kids in the neighborhood need that because lots of them are doing stuff like drugs and stuff, and they are not getting into anything. They're getting bored, and that's why they're getting into gangs because they get bored during -- after school and before school and during the weekend. And the ski club, if we could get the lake, would help them -- they could hang out there instead of on the streets, and they could stay there instead of staying at home and being bored. Thanks. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. MR. DORRILL: T. C. Hicks. And following MAster Hicks we'll have Kem Gutsoy. MR. GURSOY: Say your name. MR. HICKS: T. C. MR. GURSOY: Okay. T. C. Hicks. He's our -- one of our newest skiers that has started skiing in the show and lives in the neighborhood. And, T. C., what did you get a chance to do this weekend? MR. HICKS: Ski in the show. MR. GURSOY: Right. Okay. And what else did you learn this weekend in the Kids of the Hood program? Two skis. MR. HICKS: Two skis. MR. GURSOY: Right. Went on two skis. And what do you look forward to learning? MR. HICKS: One ski? MR. GURSOY: Going on one ski, right. And after one ski, whatws next? MR. HICKS: Barefoot. MR. GURSOY: Right. Thatls no skis. So -- and you did a great job, and congratulations. And just -- he wanted to address the council today to let you know what he had learned this weekend and being part of the program after several months that he finally got to ski in his first show. Thanks, T. C. Anything you want to say? MR. HICKS: When Iim going to do barefoot? MR. GURSOY: When are you going to do barefoot? Next weekend. Thank you. MR. DORRILL: Mr. Gutsoy and then Brandon DelGenio. MR. GURSOY: Hello. My namels Kem Gutsoy. I just want to make a real quick statement about the botanical gardens and the Gulf Coast Skimmers for Lake Avalon. On the issue -- youlye seen Collier County where therels always been divisions between the seniors and the youth. This is an opportunity for both groups to come together and work together and actually accomplish something I think as an image of proving that both generations will be able to work together to create something thatls positive for an entire community. This is the project that can do it for us. And I think that type of recognition is just as important as everything else. Thatls all I wanted to have to say. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. MR. DORRILL: Following Master DelGenio, then weill have Gene Cox. MR. DELGENIO: Hi. My name Brandon DelGenio. I am 12 years old. I go to Shadowlawn Elementary. I am ADD student, and a lot -- and this program has helped me to build up my self esteem. My grades have went -- my grades have went up, and a lot of people that have low self esteem will benefit from this program. We have a lot of people lined up that would like to join the program. And a lot of our dreams will be -- we wonlt -- a lot of our dreams will be dropped like with our skiing dreams and stuff like that. If we do -- if this program is lost, Iim sure we will have people -- other people behind us helping us finding another home, a permanent home. And I would really like you to help us with this to buy this lake. Thank you. Thatls all I have to say. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. MR. DORRILL: Mr. Cox and then Mr. Keller. MR. COX: Good morning, Commissioners. My name is Gene Cox from North Naples. A botanical garden in Naples will be a great opportunity for all including our children to see and learn about the many varieties of plants that can be grown and enjoyed in southwest Florida. The gardens will offer an added attraction to the Naples area that will bring many years of enjoyment to tourists and residents alike. International tourists are especially interested in botanical gardens. As an example of what we can expect, Selby Gardens in the Sarasota area has attracted an average of 90,000 visitors annually for the past 5 years. And more than 50 percent of those were from out of town. Naples has the potential to become a great city, and we -- and we are at a critical time in the -- in the development. Will we be just another Florida city, or will we be a great city offering not only beautiful weather and beaches but a diversified and challenging variety of experiences for our citizens and visitors? We have a chance to save green space instead of paving it over. The botanical garden can play an important part in this evolution of our city and into a great -- of our city and into a great one. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. MR. DORRILL: Mr. Keller and then Dr. Read. MR. KELLER: George Keller, concerned citizen, also spokesman for the Collier -- for the Golden Gate Estates Civic Association. And the reason why they may be involved in this is because we're going to take taxes that are collected not only in this area but all over Collier County to pay for this eventually. And as you know, the Golden Gate area is probably the second or the first largest expansion area in Collier County. And over the next 20 years we'll probably collect more impact fees in Golden Gate Estates than anybody else in this Collier County. And so, therefore, we should have a right and say in how we want to spend the money, number one. Number two, this project seems to be a very nice project. It's the same type of project that I would want to get into if I wanted to go and buy myself a Metcedes when I could afford a Ford. And it's the same kind of project that we don't have the money right now to do. And so why should we be considering spending money that we don't even have? I can't spend money that I don't have. The government can't spend money it doesn't have. The federal government is now faced with a problem that we're almost bankrupt, and we're trying to -- very hard to cut expenses. We have to go and live within our budget whether we're county, whether we're the state, or we're in nationally. We can all have desires. But let's get the money up. Now, there's a lot of people here that are interested in this thing. And when the Philharmonic wanted to go and get involved, they went and put out -- put out letters. And they got people that were interested in these things to contribute. So if these people are willing to go and buy this thing, fine. I -- I -- it's a wonderful thing. But I can't see right now budgeting county money that we don't have for something that is -- in the future we have a lot of other programs through our parks departments that have to be met. And there's no way in the world that we can go and put this into the budget unless it's going to come for some future date. So let's not build these people's hopes up that they're going to have this thing sometime within the next couple of years. It's not possible financially, and that's the answer to it pure and simple. Thank you. MR. DORRILL: Dr. Read. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Who's following Dr. Read, Mr. Dotrill? MR. DORRILL: We're going to have a series of people who want to be acknowledged but who do not wish to speak. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Thank you. DR. READ: For the record, I'm Dr. Read, Robert Read, from the -- I'm retired from the Smithsonian. I didn't come down here to take on a two-year project working for nothing. This seemed such a good project when people came to me that I decided that it was worth devoting my time to. I am the chairman of the board for the Botanical Garden which is an IRS-recognized 501-C-3 organization. It's a not-for-profit corporation registered in the state of Florida. Now, as chairman of the Botanical Garden, I wish to express an appreciation for what the county's trying to do and for what the staff has done to apprise us of the various aspects of the project as relates to the establishment of a botanical garden at Lake Avalon. We truly believe that our project is not just for a handful of gardeners or for waterski enthusiasts. It's really much more important than that. It is the preservation of a recreational site unlike any other in the county. It's an educational site for young and old and in between. Furthermore, as a world class botanical garden, it will be a tourist attraction for all seasons for all persons for years to come. There are two other things I want to add: One is if you do -- even if you dig a lake on a 56-acre property, your lake is going to be a lot less than half the size of this lake. Show this to the commission. This is a -- you have a little picture of this. This is a picture of the -- an idea of what the garden would like. But nothing can give you an idea of what the garden would be unless you're familiar with botanical gardens and can go out to the site -- and I believe most of you have been to the site -- to see how beautiful it is. I have -- we've been collecting names at the -- at the ski show, some of our volunteers, and we have a couple hundred names here of people that are showing an interest. We have 150 members -- over 150 members now that have paid a membership to support the garden. And we have promises of money to help develop the garden once the land is purchased. You appreciate that as long as the county is negotiating and the -- and the property is not acquired yet, we have a little more trouble raising funds. But once the ground is acquired under any circumstances, we'll have a lot easier time raising money. Also even if you decide not to go with the botanical garden society, you would be missing a chance of a lifetime to not purchase this piece of property. It is a -- it would make a recreational park to beat all recreational parks. But we are volunteering to develop it for you. So I think you should go ahead and do it. Thank you very much. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. Mr. Read -- excuse me, Dr. Read. DR. READ: Yes. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a question for you. Commissioner Constantine? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: One question. How much money has the Botanical Gardens raised privately to date? DR. READ: We have right now $150,000 and a promise of more to come. This is strictly for development money. In other words, once we have the land -- we have $150,000 to start off with the development. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Our executive summary indicates it may be a million dollars to develop that. How will you go about -- DR. READ: Well, it won't be developed overnight. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: How will you go about raising the remainder 850,0007 DR. READ: This won't be raised overnight, as I said. It would be done in phases. And we're even willing to take on the -- the project with volunteers and with people that are in the business volunteering to help us clear the exotics from the property in phases so that over a five-year period, we'll eventually have the -- the exotics removed and the paths and trails in and a lot of plants developing. It will take five years for even the flowering trees to begin to reach a stage of showing. Once we get started -- we already have people who say, well, we're waiting to give you money but we need to, you know, know where the land's going. They're not going to put money in our account until we actually have a -- a garden to start with. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: There is no specific plan right now, though, for how to raise that money? DR. READ: Well, I have a specific plan. I'm giving talks to various civic associations, and there is some potential for more money. In fact, we have a promise of $300,000 in addition to it, and I think we have a speaker who will speak to that today. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I -- I have a question, Dr. Read. You're saying that you're having difficulty not so much getting commitments from people but actually getting the funds because the land is not yet purchased or the commitment to buy the land has not yet been done. I've heard a lot of comment in the public that the botanical society and members of it are a very philanthropic group. And I'm wondering if you were to shift your gears from development to land purchase how easy it would be to get the pledges to buy this land. DR. READ: Well, as Tom said, there's complications -- a lot of complications here. One is if we put all our money into purchasing the land, it may be five years before we get started developing it even if we have promises of it. And we do have some promises. Also depending on how much the county puts into it, then we know how much money we have to raise. That's what people want to know is how much money are we going to need. So I don't see a problem in the future especially since this isn't the Philharmonic. They were given the land I believe. Correct me if I'm wrong on that. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: By a private developer, not by the county. DR. READ: Yeah. So they were -- they have the land, and she said, we're going to build this building on it. And they had to have that building built quickly because it was something that you had to get done very quickly in order to start showing what's happening. Botanical Garden will start right off. We'll have recreation on the lakes. We'll have tours of the sections of the garden you can get into right away. We'll be able to then show people what's happening. And no garden starts overnight. Even Fairchild Garden which is 50 years old now is really just now beginning to get a -- an endowment fund together. But it grows slowly, and we hope to get benefactors for various aspects of the garden to develop it. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: And then I guess one -- one final question that I have -- and this is a question that I had asked I believe of Mrs. Harris a couple weeks ago -- on this drawing that someone has gone to a great deal of -- of effort to put together -- DR. READ: The drawing my wife just had? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah, this -- DR. READ: Yes. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: This drawing of -- of the -- DR. READ: It's an artist's rendition of the layout of the roads and the gardens. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Where do you see the Gulf Coast Skimmers performing in this drawing? DR. READ: There's a stadium area. The little circles down in the lower right-hand corner there, that's the stadium which would support the -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Lower right-hand corner. Are you talking about an amphitheater? DR. READ: The amphitheater, yeah. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Sir, you have to be on the record when you're speaking. DR. READ: The amphitheater area would be here and the Gulf Coast Skimmers use this area and the water here. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Uh-huh. DR. READ: They -- they -- we -- we project that someone hopefully would come up with some money to build a permanent amphitheater and a floating stage so that this area would be used not only for waterski shows which would be once a week but would also be available for evening concerts. This is something that we've had in Washington, D.C., and a lot of other cities. And they used the floating stage there until the airplanes were so bad that you couldn't hear anything. But they had Marine band concerts, and they had various theatrical groups come. High school groups could do that. You could have high school graduation ceremonies here in the amphitheater and that sort of thing. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I understand. DR. READ: But it's a multi-use stadium. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: How -- how far away is the nearest home? DR. READ: I'm sorry? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: How far away is the nearest home to this -- this lake? DR. READ: The nearest home? Well, as you can see, the nearest homes are right along this street here, right along Outer Drive. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I think we'd -- just in hearing what you say, I think we'd run into problems with the noise ordinance real fast. DR. READ: Well, I'm not talking jazz concerts. Most of the people -- in fact, everyone we know along the road is very anxious. They would rather have a botanical garden in with a -- with a concert one night a week. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: We could spend -- we could spend hours on the site plan, but that's -- that's really not what we're here about today. The -- I think this is a -- fine work done by your folks, but I don't think we're here to discuss the merits of a particular site plan today. That's probably going well beyond where we are. DR. READ: Yeah. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Constantine. DR. READ: Are there any other questions? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just one final question on the site. You mentioned your hope would be for a permanent amphitheater. Any idea how much that would cost? DR. READ: For which? COHHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The -- DR. READ: Oh, the amphitheater? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah. DR. READ: Well, I figured the amphitheater could cost anything from a hundred thousand to maybe -- to three or four hundred thousand depending on whether it's a -- a stadium-type amphitheater or whether it's built-in berm amphitheater like a Greek amphitheater which would be my ideal. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Is there a -- are there funds that have been dedicated to that to the best of your knowledge? And if not, is there a plan how that money would be raised? DR. READ: Well, we will have to involve probably fund raisers to do that sort of thing. And I have several people that have contacted me already regarding fund raising. Some of them are experienced fund raisers, and they've offered their services free. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No specific plan in mind right now. DR. READ: No specific plan right now, no. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Any further questions of Dr. Read? Thank you, Dr. Read. DR. READ: Thank you. MR. DORRILL: I think what we'll do for those who want to show their support but who do not wish to speak, if you could just raise your hand when I call your name, when I call your name. If you do wish to speak, then I'll need you to stand up and then start moving and come to the -- to the podium. Mrs. Palmet. MRS. PALHER: I do not wish to speak, but I am all for it. MR. DORRILL: Thank you. Hiss Ashbrook or Alsbrook. Thank you. Ms. Humphreys. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. MR. DORRILL: Ms. Hatera. Mr. Broberg. Ms. Pagliuca. Thank you. Mr. and Ms. Hawkins. Ms. Burnham. Ms. Crowe. MS. CROWE: I did wish to say something. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: You need to come forward. MR. DORRILL: If you'll just come on up then. MS. CROWE: I'll be just as nervous as the children. One thing -- I don't know if there was a -- meant to be a comparison between -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Excuse me. Could you identify your name and '- MS. CROWE: Oh, okay. My name's Janice Crowe. And do I need to tell where I'm from, address, anything, telephone number? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: No, just who you are. MS. CROWE: No, thank you. I don't know if there was meant to be a comparison between the area that we're seeking and the area that's over by Orange Tree? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: No, there wasn't meant to be a comparison. The point that I was trying to make was that there was a '- MS. CROWE: Land available there? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Well, no. There was an indication that we don't have any regional park plans at this time, and I just wanted to make sure it was on the record that we do. MS. CROWE: Okay. And in the fact that that would be a nice area for a regional park, I understand that. But the reason that wewve -- wewve looked at land all over from my understanding. And the area that wewre seeking to find to -- to have you spend your money on is ideal in the fact that the frost zone is not there. From my understanding, anything past Airport Road can have more of a frost problem than anything west of Airport Road. So this would be more of an ideal location than something that would be out by Orange Tree would be -- which would be east of Airport Road. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: It would be more ideal for -- for a botanical garden. MS. CROWE: For any type of -- for a botanical garden, yes. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Not necessarily for a park. MS. CROWE: Thatws true. Thatws true. So evidently wewre just asking that some of the parkws money would go towards a botanical garden. So -- so thatws not a good point then, huh? I just thought that that was a good point in the fact that the botanical garden, you know, would need to be in an area where it would be frost free. And we would have more of a land that would be conducive to raising all types of plants, so that was my point. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We -- we understand that I think from the very beginning. The concept was that this lake is south of 41 and west of Airport and relatively warm weather all the time. MS. CROWE: Right, right. Thatls why it would be ideal. Okay. So thatls -- thatls what I needed to say. Thank you for listening. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. MR. DORRILL: Mr. and Ms. Stalf. Thank you. Ms. Johnson. Mr. Hinkle. Ms. Jones. A VOICE: She had to leave. MR. DORRILL: Thank you. Ms. Read. Mr. Kratt. Ms. Harris. MS. HARRIS: Iid -- Iid like to defer in case I want to speak later. May I? MR. DORRILL: Thatls at the discretion of the chair. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We donlt normally do that. If you have -- if you have to -- if you have something to say, weld like you to say it, whatever you have to say now in the order of -- of things that come forward to us. MS. HARRIS: There are plans for fund -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Youill have to be on the record, malam. MS. HARRIS: Zola Harris. There are strategies for fund raising, and I wanted to make that clear. There is a bank account at U.S. Trust that is designated for the botanical capital funds. There are funds being put in there. Therels strategic meetings on the 27th, so we are really waiting for the county to determine what it wishes to do for this fine area. And then we are ready to go forward with our part. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. MR. DORRILL: Mr. Alsbrook. A VOICE: He had to leave. MR. DORRILL: Mr. Petersen. Mr. Sugden. MR. SUGDEN: Madam Chairman, members of the commission, my name is Herb Sugden. I am a citizen. I have been for 20 years in Naples. I have a proposal for you. But first I must say that Mrs. Sugden and I have felt that when we were fortunate enough to be in community like Naples that we had a duty to assist the community and help the community in whatever way we could. We have tithed during the period that we have been in Naples, and we have contributed to many worthwhile causes. Now, my proposal to this commission, for your consideration, as you're debating about the problems connected with your budget and so forth, I would like to have you consider one other thing. Mrs. Sugden and I will contribute a half a million dollars to the Collier commission in order to pay our dues for the wonderful experience of having lived for 20 years in Naples, for having 5 of my children and grandchildren and married children living here and providing the opportunity that this city and this community has given to us. I thank you very much for giving me the privilege to talk to you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: If we could -- if we could just find another half a dozen or so very, very generous citizens, this problem would be solved. Mr. Dorrill. MR. DORRILL: Ms. Cox. Thank you. Mr. Eifert? MR. EIFERT: Commissioners, my name is Dave Eifert. I'm president of the firefighters of Collier County and an East Naples firefighter. I am also a state certified Florida nurseryman, and I've got the toughest act I've ever had to follow in my entire life. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: You don't have another check for a half a million, do you, sir? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Another quarter. MR. EIFERT: All I can tell you is to share an experience with you as the primary convoy who went across to assist Metro Dade after Hurricane Andrew. I saw Fairchild Gardens after Hurricane Andrew had gone through it, and I saw it before it. What is lost is lost forever. What we have here is a primary opportunity to rebuild the Garden of Eden. And if we pass that up, we will have left no legacy behind. I want you to think about it because with the stroke of a pen, you can change the nature of this entire county. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. MR. DORRILL: Ms. Phelps. Thank you. And Ms. Fiala again. That was a trick. Mr. Fiala following Ms. Phelps. MS. PHELPS: I'm Kaitlin Phelps, and I'm 13. Many people who -- many people enjoy to use this area. I've seen people climbing over the logs that protect the area, and people will appreciate this park. It benefits kids as well. The Skimmers have a program called Kids in the Hood, and it helps all the kids in the community. It keeps them out of trouble. They have people to fall back on, and this program will help the community as well. I ski with the Skimmers, and this -- this program is great. I feel this is a worthwhile cause. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. MR. DORRILL: Mr. Fiala. MR. FIALA: I just wanted to say thanks. That was -- that was awfully nice of the donation. Try this again. Got a little nervous when I got up there. I'm the director of Kids in the Hood. I try to get all the kids out there and teach them how to waterski, teach them respect, credibility, accountability, teach them stay in school, say no to drugs, essentials in life to get through life. If this falls through and we don't get this lake, we're going to throw the kids back on the street. I hear there's gangs going around now, I mean, in Naples. That's crazy. If we can get them kids into Kids in the Hood, get them into the Gulf Coast Skimmers, it will show them that they can live for something. They can do something. They could bring up their self esteem, show them they are worth something. All I ask is I hope you don't pass up this chance of a lifetime. It would be better than Cypress Gardens for the Gulf Coast Skimmers. We can bring schools, kids on field trips to come look at the gardens that, I mean, we can get no other place, you know. I mean, from elementary school to, you know, people in wheelchairs come out and see our gardens. We can have people coming out, you know, even scuba diving and scuba diving lessons or something. It'd be a great thing if you just go with this. I guess that's it. Thank you. MR. DORRILL: Thank you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. MR. DORRILL: Mrs. Phelps. Thank you. Ms. Atkinson. MS. ATKINSON: How do you do? I'm Jeanette Atkinson. I live on Isles of Capri. A botanical garden means many things to many people. For the scientists and the horticulturists, it is literally a living laboratory. The gentleman mentioned Fairchild Gardens. I lived in Miami when Andrew hit. Even in all the destruction, a great deal was salvaged. There was a tremendous outpouring of volunteer work from people in the community, from people in the international horticultural community. They did an incredible amount of scientific study even as they had to clean up things that were destroyed. And the garden has actually recovered greatly in those few years. For the less scientifically inclined, it simply becomes a beautiful place to live and learn and see. Many botanical gardens don't have any facilities for recreation. I think the proposed Lake Avalon site is very unique, that it combines a botanical interest with a recreational purpose. People who never might go to a botanical garden are going to be exposed to a horticultural side of life they might never even be aware of. Having lived in two communities with active botanical gardens, I can say as the facilities develop, the meeting -- it becomes very sought after as a meeting place. People want to have their meetings or conventions there. It becomes a symbol of the community. This would be a very valuable addition to Collier County. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. MR. DORRILL: Ms. Schliesser. Thank you. Mr. Jassy. MR. JASSY: Good morning. My name is John Jassy. I'm a resident of Naples. As county commissioners, your concern is for the entire county. And we have a situation here where I believe this morning's paper showed the closing of Hyde Park Market in town square. People here have talked about the gangs. People have talked about the deteriorations of the neighborhood and things like that. And right now we have an opportunity not just to have something for the kids which, of course, is a very wonderful and important thing which will change lives, change -- probably save lives and so on for the people that are here, to offer something for people to come visit and so on and so forth. But you've got an opportunity with this gentleman's wonderful gift -- I'm in the real estate business. I'll talk in real estate. For 13 -- now you're down to the point of $13,000 an acre. You can buy the equivalent of what is Central Park that was here before. And all of us have been to New York. And you know with all of what's going on in New York, it's the best part of the city. And it has generated huge dollars around it. It has generated restaurants. It's generated stores. It's generated all sorts of things. And after the hundred years or two hundred years or whatever it is since Central Park was there, that's preserved to be the best part of the city. You've got a part of the city that's ready to go down the tubes. And, I mean, you know, people don't like to hear that, but it's true. And you have right now for really -- for less money that has been considered for much less serious things an opportunity to save lives, to save a neighborhood, and to create something that in 5 years and in 10 years and 15 years and 100 years people look at and say, this is the best buy that ever happened in Collier County and maybe the most pivotable (sic) purchase that ever happened in Collier County. For a really reasonable amount of money here compared to other things that go on in the county with these other people's help, you can really change the county. You know, you saw -- I was in Fort Myers for eight years before I came here, and you saw downtown go down the tubes. They've been trying to turn it around, and it's -- it's been a very, very difficult situation. It may or may not ever happen. Downtown Naples here started to go down the tubes. The stores started to close. The restaurants pulled out. Everybody was gone. They took an aggressive stance. They've made their changes. And right now there's 15 or 17 or 18, whatever it is, restaurants on Fifth Avenue. The stores are starting to come back. Things are happening again. You've got the same thing, same situation, Lake Avalon. Either you can save it, that part of town, or you can let it go. And I think this could be the most important decision that the county makes all year, and I think it will affect the kids, it will affect the neighborhood. And by doing that, it's going to affect all of Naples. And I just hope you all do the right thing here. Thank you very much. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. MR. DORRILL: Mr. Street. Following Mr. Street we'll have Mr. Owens. MR. STREET: Hi. I'm Jeff Street. I live in Golden Gate. And I'm a business owner here in Naples. I'd like to -- just by comparison, the swimming pool we have in Golden Gate -- these figures are very rough and just what I've heard over the radio -- I think that it costs $500,000 a year to maintain our swimming pool in Golden Gate, and I'm not saying there's anything wrong with that. It's a great facility, and I'm glad we have it. And I understand we also bring in about $100,000 a year in revenues by way of when people pay to go use the facility. So that leaves about $400,000 a year that we pay every year to keep this facility going. Comparing that to the Lake Avalon project, what are we asking? Is it somewhere around two hundred or two hundred and twenty five thousand? MR. OLLIFF: MR. STREET: MR. OLLIFF: MR. STREET: project -- Five. Five hundred thousand a year? Operating costs? If we take out a loan to buy this CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: It's two fifty. MR. STREET: About two hundred? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Two fifty. MR. STREET: Two fifty? And that's not forever and ever and ever. That's something that gets paid off. And the cost of the Kids in the Hood program, the cost of the boats, I mean, Mercury is donating for free two brand new motors to us. We -- we're getting a Hydrodine which is probably a -- you know, I don't know. It's a twenty or thirty thousand dollar boat. I think we're paying what? 8,000 for it, something like that. I mean, the kind of involvement that's already happened, people donating time, money, this is what George Bush talked about when he was talking about the thousand points of light. This is it. I mean, it's happening right now. And people like me and these kids are seeing this. They're working with entrepreneurs, and they're getting a real sense of values that they may not get at home. They're getting attention. I mean, that's one of the things, you know, parents in this community work so hard. And they have to -- a lot of them have -- when I first opened my business, I was working 80 hours a week, and I couldn't complain about it because I'd say, oh, I work 80 hours a week. I -- what a tough life I have. And half my customers are people who have two jobs. You know, how are they supposed to spend time with their kids and give them quality time and look them in the eye when they're talking to them and really give them that time? And they get that from this program. Thank you very much. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. MR. DORRILL: Mr. Owens and then Ms. Gallagher if you would just raise your hand, please, ma'am. She wants to be recognized but does not want to speak. Mr. Owens. MR. OWENS: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen of the commission. I'm Tim Owens. I'm a local businessman in East Naples. I'm also vice president of the East Naples Civic Association and a member of the Gulf Coast Skimmers. I plead for your foresight as county leaders to find a way to finance this project. Financing is not a dirty word. I'd like to know how many people in this room have bought their homes without financing. If we wait until the money's in our hip pocket, the opportunity of this lake is going to more than likely be gone. By financing our homes, we're -- we have to show fiscal responsibility to the banks. And by employing that fiscal responsibility and making our mortgage every year, we improve our lifestyles. We improve our family's lives. And it's the American dream. And again, I just ask you as our -- our wonderful county leaders to find that fiscal responsibility to be able to go out and borrow the money so that we can improve not just East Naples but the regional area for many, many, many years to come. Thank you. MR. DORRILL: Mr. Lynch. Mrs. Lynch. And Mr. and Mrs. Nese or Nese. And, Madam Chairman, that concludes your speakers. We had 45. That's as quick as we've ever gone through 45 speakers. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: That is quick. We started about 20 minutes ago. That's not too bad. If -- what -- I think what I would like to do, we're beyond our normal break time. And before we deliberate on this much longer, I think I'd like to -- to take a break, and then we can come back with fresh minds and discuss what wewre going to do with this. So with that in mind, why donwt we take a break until ten minutes of. Thank you. (A short break was held.) CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I want to reconvene the board of county commission meeting for March the 21st. Can we ask the citizens to please quiet down? We want to get started again. Mr. Dotrill tells me we have one additional speaker. MR. DORRILL: We had -- we had one change of heart, and it will be Ms. Stalf, S-t-a-l-f. MS. STALF: Hi. My name is Betty Stalf. Iwve been a visitor to Florida for 30 years. My husband made residence this year, and wewre so excited about living here. I think one thing wewve all overlooked today is the quality of management we have in this botanical garden. Bob Read is highly known in the botanical area of the nation. He is an author. And if any of you talked with him, you know hews a very unassuming person and not in this for personal fame of any kind, nor is he in it for the money. And I just would like you to know that Iim impressed, and I want to be a part of this. Thanks so much. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. With that, I believe, Commissioner Constantine, you said you had a couple of questions for staff. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Couple of questions for Mr. Olliff. You indicated and it says in our executive summary that the TDC voted unanimously against changing the way the law is written. I assume there was some discussion or comment. Perhaps you can share with us what their reasoning and rationale for that was. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: There was very little discussion. MR. OLLIFF: There actually wasnlt a whole lot, but the discussions ran from -- ranged from several different issues. Some -- some were in relationship to what the voters originally voted for which was primarily beach improvements and advertising for off-season or shoulder-season tourism and a commitment on their part to try and maintain that. There was an indication or some questions raised or asked to me about whether or not Lake Avalon or any of the subsequent two items which were also part of that same TDC agenda item, the museum and/or the pier, individually would cause tourists to come to Collier County. And I think honestly the answer to that is probably not. I mean, people arenlt going to come to Collier County specifically for the county museum or specifically for the waterski show. The argument we were trying to make to them was that there is a combination of things that people can do, and that may create extra bed nights. I may go to Denver and go to the mint. I donlt go to Denver for the mint. But when I am there, I will probably go to that mint. And so we were trying to say that there are several community amenities, Lake Avalon being one of those types. Those were primarily the two arguments that we heard. And there wasnlt any general consensus from the TDC that said specifically this is why welre recommending denial. But there was just a motion made, and it passed unanimously. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And on the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board, they supported the project but not the use of regional park impact fees. What was the discussion that went with that? MR. OLLIFF: I wasn't at that meeting. I'll get Steve Brinkman to answer that for you. MR. BRINKMAN: Yes. The -- the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board felt that the project was very, very worthy. They felt that Lake Avalon and all the amenities that were involved with that were very good, but they felt that as far as a funding mechanism because we were very limited with the amount of regional park impact fees that the county had and the number of projects that we may be undertaking in the next five to ten years that the TDC funds or some other option other than impact fees were the best option. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I guess not the TDC portion of what you said, but I find myself in a similar position as the parks and recreation board. I think -- I certainly support the project that we've heard today, so many different things. I mean, it would be nice for a park in general. It would be nice to have a botanical garden. It'd be great for the kids, good for the neighborhood. There's no doubt it would be a nice addition to the county. But the question is how do you pay for it. And my concern comes if we're talking about half of all regional impact fees for the next 20 years if we go that route. And that's -- actually when you tally up, we've said we're talking about two million dollars or a million and a half dollars now. But when you tally that up, we're talking 5 million dollars once you've done that $250,000 times 20 years. So we're -- I'm not sure I can commit us for the next 20 years for this one project. TDC ordinance, why I asked that question is my hesitation there -- and I've talked with a number of the people interested in the project about this -- is any time government puts something on the ballot, the first thing you hear -- for any type of tax including the tourist tax, the first thing you hear is, well, they'll change it down the road anyway or if it has a sunset, they'll take that off. Nobody trusts government. And for -- to keep the integrity of that ballot item, I think it's important we not change the TDC funding the way it is now because we can change it and -- and it's not a reflection on this project. But if we change it this once, then it will change again in two years and two years after that. And ten years from now it won't resemble anything like what the public approved in 1992. And I think any time we ask for a tax, this follows a good example. I didn't -- I'm not in favor of it personally but the sales tax for the Gordon River bridge. I like the bridge and I like the sales tax, but the question is will they really lift that sales tax after nine months or -- or will there be some change. And while we can write it legally so we can't do that, there's -- can't continue it, there's always a question in the public's mind as to whether or not we will alter it somehow after the fact. And so that's my concern on changing the TDC funds is the public voted on it -- voted for it in a specific way, and I hesitate to change what the public voted for. Someone mentioned -- it might even be in the executive summary. I think, Tom, you mentioned the examples of capital expenditures that are being spent elsewhere or can legally be spent by state statute with tourist tax. And one of the examples was a baseball stadium. Obviously this isn't a baseball stadium. But when we talk about capital expenditures and that's the example, that was the one cent that the public turned down a couple of years back. So I hesitate to change the TDC dollars. The other alternative, of course, is ad valorem, and -- and we're already in a bind where we're going to need to cut some of what we're spending ad valorem taxes on right now. So I don't think we can take an additional two million dollar hit. I'm kind of frustrated. I just got done saying on Carl Loveday yesterday talking about a separate issue, talking about the landfill and siting that, that I get tired of hearing naysayers. I always figure there is a way to do anything if you put your mind to it. And I'll tell you what, I've put my mind to this, and I haven't come up with what that way is yet. But I'd like to see this become a reality, but I don't see those three sources as being the -- the right source. I have a -- my biggest concern with bonding or financing in some way is on beach renourishment we have said we want to pay as we go. We want to keep that as best we can with the monies we have. And we may have to have a carryover of a year or two, but we want to pay as we go. We don't want to finance that out. On our road system, when we had our big discussion whether or not to have a gas tax couple of years back, that was we wanted to be able to pay as we went as close as possible and borrow as little as possible. So I think fiscal common sense says we have to keep that same policy here. And we're hard pressed if -- for things like roads that everyone uses every single day and we have to have. If we're not borrowing for more than a year or two on that or trying our best not to borrow there, we're hard pressed to say for a park purpose we're going to borrow for 20 years. It seems incongruous for me. What I have said, I said -- I've talked with Donna and with John and with several of the people involved. What I would like to do -- I said this on the radio yesterday -- is I think the county needs to play the role of putting this project over the top rather than being the first player. We've got a half million dollar pledge today. I understand there was at least 150,000 prior to that. I'd like to see the county in a place where if you come back and say we've raised -- and I'm picking this number at random, so don't necessarily pick this as a goal -- but we've raised 1.7 million, and we need a couple hundred thousand more, 300,000 more, to make this a reality. I think that makes it much easier for us to address rather than saying, we need two million dollars, and then we're going to start raising funds. From my perspective we're backwards a little bit there. I think we need to make sure -- and I have no doubt that there will be public support for this financially. But I think we need to make sure that that's there and have some pledges out there for a substantial amount of that before the county pledges taxpayer dollars or impact fee dollars toward that. And -- and that's just where I'm at at this point in the conversation I guess. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. Commissioner Norris. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Thank you, Miss Chairman. We've certainly discussed this issue long enough. I think it's probably time to start coming to a closure on this. Let me ask before I go too much farther if Mr. Read would get back up here for a second. Dr. Read, in the past you have committed to me privately that the botanical society may contribute part of the money to the purchase price of this park; is that correct? DR. READ: Well, we -- when we -- see, we never -- we intended originally to build a botanical garden on our own. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Uh-huh. DR. READ: Then when the county showed an interest in it, we thought it would be -- and because this property is bigger than anything we envisioned originally, we -- but we are -- we have no money to pledge at the moment. And one point in regard to what was just said, raising funds takes time, and time is of the essence right now. And that's why we're pushing in this direction because on the 1st of May the price goes up another half a million dollars. Given another six months, we probably would be able to raise enough money to buy it ourselves. We will raise everything we can to put the -- to buy the garden, but we only have one month to do it in now. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. You have also made a commitment that -- that you would take care of the bulk of the maintenance including parts of the -- the county's operation. DR. READ: Yes, we would take care of all the planting, clean-up, maintenance, clearing. If -- if it's -- if the agreements are worked out properly and we do it in a phase system as I've discussed with the environmental division of your -- of the government, doing it in phases, we could open up the first phase with volunteer help and little expenditure very quickly and then go on from there to phase 2 and phase 3. And in four or five years we'd have it. But we would -- we plan to put all the money into that so that the -- once the land is purchased the county shouldn't have to spend anything. COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. That's -- that's the commitment I wanted to hear. DR. READ: We're not asking for the county. COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Thank you. DR. READ: Although Cook County in Chicago actually has three mills on their -- on their tax so that they're supported by taxes, too, even though they gave the land as well. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Three mills. DR. READ: We're not asking for that. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Thank you. COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Thank you, Dr. Read. Dr. Read brought out one of the points that had not been discussed today, and that is the May 1 deadline on the option where the option takes a jump for $500,000 more. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: May I ask a question, Commissioner Norris? Has -- has anyone approached the property owner about delaying the acceleration of the -- of the option clauses? MR. OLLIFF: No, we haven't. Initially when we just started to discuss the property with the current option holder, we did touch base with the property owner who indicated that we ought to just go ahead and work with the option holder and that the agreement would stand as is during that negotiation. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Uh-huh. MR. OLLIFF: And I think -- certainly there's an option to go back and see if that can be extended. But as of this point, we're working under the constraints of that existing option. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: It just seems to me we've -- we've just had Dr. Read tell us that, yeah, the botanical society may be able to raise the money but they need time. And if -- if we could prevail upon the property owner to delay the acceleration of the option prices that, you know, we might be able to generate that time. We have a -- a park here that I think we're all saying is good for the public. But our -- our purse is broke. And, you know, we need to find a way to creatively bring this thing forward. I'm sorry for interrupting. I just wanted to ask that. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. That's okay. The -- one of the things I've struggled with over the last several months about the ownership of this park is that, yeah, it would be nice if the private sector came forward and bought this park and operated it. On the other hand, though, one of the benefits of county ownership would be the permanent control of the property. No matter how well intentioned the botanical society is at this point, you don't know what will happen 20 years from now. The same people obviously will not be here operating it. Well, I don't know. Dr. Read might be here, but it's not likely. And under private ownership, the pressure to sell and relocate and do something else with the property is always there. So the benefit of county ownership is certainly one that's -- that's fairly important. And we've -- we've discussed all of the good points and -- and the financing problems and everything on this project long enough. It's not just an East Naples issue. This -- this -- this park would benefit everyone in our county; plus it would be a -- a somewhat draw like -- like Mr. Olliff mentioned the mint in Denver. It's an ancillary draw. It's not your main draw, but it's part of the package. So it will benefit everyone in the county. It will be a long-term good use for that property. And one of the most important things to me is that if we're ever going to do something like this in the urban area, this is the -- the only location that fits the -- the criteria. There is no other big, large, vacant piece of property in the urban area with a big spring fed lake in it. It's just not here. This is the only One. So what I'd like to do, I'd like to -- for all of us to use the foresight today to secure this property for the benefit of all of us for the future. It's not really a question of whether or not we can afford this project because we do have regional impact fees that we can commit to this project for the future. But it's really a question of whether we can afford to not do this thing. That's -- that's my concern. And so I'm going to make a motion that we take Mr. Sugden up on his offer to participate in the purchase of this and that the county go ahead along with that commitment of $500,000 and purchase this property designating regional park impact fees as the funding mechanism. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Before I call for a second, Commissioner Hancock had some comments. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Some things have been -- been talked about today. And -- and I -- I guess I need to clear this up. We're sitting here with $841,000 in regional park impact fees. That's the carryover plus anticipated revenues for '95. I understand that. I look at the list of expenditures under regional park impact fees, and those that I truly see as being focused on a regional park are very few in number. I see a shade structure at the Golden Gate pool. I see money going to the Immokalee rec. center and pool, again, both worthwhile projects but not regional parks. You know, I see 55,000 to reserves and reimbursements. The bottom line is the total budgeted projects comes to 841,000 which is exactly what we anticipate having. I feel like in essence we are finding a way to spend regional park monies on items other than regional parks. So to sit here today and say that we do not have the money in regional park impact fees I think is incorrect. The money is there. The money is allocated to other things that are not in essence regional parks. I don't know -- thank you, Mr. Keller, but it's my floor. I don't know if -- if I'm ready to support a blanket approach to purchasing the property based on the 2.1 million dollar assessment for a couple of reasons: One is that there's an option on the property as I read the staff report of 1.5 million dollars. So someone stands to make $600,000 difference between the option price and the assessment. I think we can take a harder look at -- at that. There may be -- and again, there's a lot of talk going around. There may be an ability to get that below 1.5 million dollars. We haven't done the arm twisting because this board has not made a commitment to pursue that diligently. If we have Mr. Sugden's offer of half a million dollars and we get it below 1.5 million dollars or at 1.5 million dollars, now we're talking about a whole new ballgame. We're talking about allocating 50 percent of anticipated revenues in the regional park system not for 20 years but for 10 or fewer years. The scope of the project becomes much more doable, much more acceptable. So I would like to see -- I have a feeling if I support your motion and second it, you and I will be the only votes on that side. I may be wrong. But I would like to see the approach being this board committing a certain set number of years of regional park impact fees to put a dollar amount on it, to add to Mr. Sugden's offer, and to then negotiate with the property owner to achieve whether it be a lease option, whether it be something creative so we're not going out and paying an assessed value of 2.1 million right off the start. I would just like to see a more creative approach to bring the cost of this whole project down and -- and within something that we're all comfortable with. But make no mistake. I want to pursue the project. But I'm just not sure that that blanket motion is the best way to go. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Question for you, Commissioner Hancock. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yes. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: If we take some of those funds from regional impact, park regional -- regional park impact fees, is that in lieu of projects such as those budgeted for fiscal year '95 or in addition to? You say future years. Are we then not going to have money to do those? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm not talking -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We don't need to get into a debate over -- I think some of the things such as Mr. Olliff already indicated, the pool is a region -- makes that a regional park because it's the only one in the urban area, but that's neither here nor there. Are we doing those in lieu of or are we doing those in addition to or just doing different budgeting or -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: My choice would be take another look at the fiscal year '95 projects and to either scale back some or eliminate some to make both options possible, that we do some but not all of those and make a balance of the funds available for Lake Sugden. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: You've renamed it. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, Lake Butt was not real attractive. I like Lake Sugden a lot better. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Well, I -- I think I'm going to add my two cents in this because I -- I think we can do some creative things with this. I -- I support Lake Avalon, the project, the Skimmers, the whole thing. My support stops, though, when my pocketbook is empty, and that creates the problem. I think what I would like to -- to see is something similar to what Commissioner Hancock is suggestion -- suggesting. I'd like to see us go to the property owner to delay the acceleration of the option fees. I'd like to see us negotiate with the property owner to reduce the price from 1.5. I'd like to see us negotiate with the option holder to reduce his price of one -- of $600,000 to begin to look at what his sunk costs are which I understand are not more than a couple hundred thousand dollars and see if we can't work a negotiated contribution to the botanical society which is a 501-C-3 which would then become a deductible contribution on somebody's tax return. And I have no idea whose but somebody's which, of course, could be subject to refunds or reductions in income taxes to the tune of either 28 to 40 percent. And then I would like us also to take the time that hopefully the property owner would give us by delaying the acceleration of the option fees to find some more citizens in Collier County similar to Mr. Sugden who can help us with the philanthropic effort on this. Commissioner Norris? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Let me -- let me try to incorporate that all into an amended motion. I think I can do that. And I think from what I've heard perhaps you board members can support it and we can go forward today. Let me amend my motion to say that -- that the county will enter into a purchase agreement limiting the county's share of the purchase price to $1,250,000 and taking Mr. Sugden's offer of 500 and through any combination of private sector donations or negotiations with the property or option holder if we can make the deal work at -- at that level of commitment that we go forward. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Where -- where are you suggesting the one million two come from? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Once again, the regional park impact fees. I think it's the only appropriate source. I understand everyone's concerns with budgeting and all, but let's don't let our -- our -- our concern for our ad valorem problems cloud our decision making on other things that are necessary. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah. I don't want to miss an opportunity to take advantage of -- of a situation that I -- that I firmly agree in future years will be a great -- great benefit. We just need to find a way to creatively bring it -- bring it through. Commissioner Constantine. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Please don't interpret my concern for lack of support for the project. I do support the park wholeheartedly. However, I think if you do that, Commissioner Norris, if we move forward with your motion as suggested, we take away the incentive for other private parties to contribute other than the small amount that may be necessary -- if we negotiate as Commissioner Matthews suggested, the price below the current 2.1, we would be asking -- let me try one more time. If we negotiated down from 2.1 and we contribute 1.25 and there's the private contribution of 500,000, we're asking for little or nothing in the way of other public contribution. I think our first action should be to try to collect -- our very first action should be to try to collect as much as we can privately before committing any public dollars. As I said, if we can come back with a number and it takes some money from the county to put it over the top, I think that's a more realistic picture. But for the very first step for us to do is say, okay, we're going to spend X number of dollars, particularly as many as you've suggested, I think is an error. I think we can raise more privately. And I think we need to make that our first step in the process. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hancock. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I had initially written that we pledge at least 500,000 towards the park because I think that's a reasonable and doable number. It then gives us a one million dollar kitty to approach the property owner with, and it becomes a serious offer. It becomes a starting point of negotiation. There's a disparity between five hundred thousand and one and a quarter million. And what my hope is is whether it's 500,000 or -- the most I can be comfortable with now would be 750,000 is it puts the -- the use of regional park fees in a reasonable time frame. It also lets the property owner know that we are serious about negotiating on this piece of property. In addition, as Commissioner Constantine just mentioned it, it doesn't take it all the way. In other words, it does put the pressure back on many of you here supporting this project to go out, to knock on doors, to call on businesses, to pledge your allegiance to those people that are going to -- to become a part of this project. And it puts a part of it back in the community's lap, not that you haven't carried the football far enough already. But that's the angle I'm taking. And I guess I just would like to know if you're amenable or acceptable to something along those lines. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Are you saying that you would second the motion if the number was 750,000 from the -- for the county's portion? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I would second it, yes. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a couple more questions coming for staff. Commissioner Constantine. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Olliff, I need you to help me with some quick math as the best of your ability here. Maybe you can help with the math as well. $500,000 according to how much would we collect -- do we collect in impact fees each year, we anticipate over that 544,000 in regional park revenues in '95? Is that what this says? MR. OLLIFF: Five hundred's a good number. I think that 544 includes interest earned and some -- some previous -- other -- other revenues, but 500's probably a good number to use. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So with a half a million dollars, we've got a couple options we can spread that out over two or three years, or we could simply make that our one regional park project for one year. MR. OLLIFF: Correct. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That I'm much more comfortable with. As I said, if we have to bridge a gap for a couple of years, I can do that. If we talk about financing for 20 years, I'm not so comfortable doing that. And I'll tell you where I get this number. I didn't pick a number at random. Commissioner Norris, with our anticipated revenues annually for regional park impact fees being $544,000, I'm comfortable saying yes to a year's worth of that, half a million or five forty-four if you want to use that whole thing. Seven fifty I guess I just -- it's another leap. You cut into another year. But if we can in effect dedicate one full year, I'm willing to do that. And I think that does what I'm looking for and what Commissioner Hancock enunciated. And that's -- we've set a precedent that we're serious about this. That combines with the private for over a million. If we can play an active role in negotiating the price down, then I think that leaves roughly a third, little more than a third, but roughly a third to be raised then amongst the remaining private sector. So I think that's a fair thing for everybody there. If you'll -- if you'll amend that -- what I'm saying is if you'll amend that to 500 or 544, I can support that motion. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, I appreciate that, Commissioner Constantine. I'm not sure that that's a serious -- will be looked upon as a serious commitment from the county at that level. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You don't think a half million dollars is a serious commitment? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Oh, no. Oh, no. On a two million dollar project -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I think he knew your answer. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Excuse me, excuse me. We're discussing how we're going to approach this. Please continue, Commissioner Norris. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, once again, I think it's important for the county to be the major player in this thing for the reason I said earlier. You know, if it's left to the private sector, there's always a chance that you'll have some other use in the future. I think it's very important for the county to be heavily involved in this and -- and for it to be under county ownership. And that doesn't mean we couldn't arrange that even under the -- the level of funding that you're suggesting. I don't think that's a serious enough commitment. I -- I have made -- I think I amended my motion or I will amend my motion to -- to put the level at 750,000 which would be a year and a half of -- of impact fees, and I think I heard that we would have a second at that rate. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm not comfortable with that. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. That's fine. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And for what it's worth but I do think regardless of our participation it should be structured so that it falls under the county park system because you're absolutely right. Twenty years from now we don't know who will be here or what's going on. So I think it needs to fall under the county regardless of whether we contribute 200,000 or 2,000,000. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hancock. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I agree with that except that at five -- at the level of $500,000, it might as well come under Mr. Sugden because he will have contributed as much as the county. By committing $750,000, I think we've put the county in a position to expect just that reasonably, to expect to have control over the park reasonably because of the financial commitment of regional park impact fees. At the 500,000 level we're taking Mr. Sugden's money for granted now and calling it ours by saying only a third has to be raised. A third was raised today. I'm -- I'm very comfortable with -- well, no, I'm not very comfortable, but I'm amenable to the 750,000 because it does put the county in the driver's seat in my opinion, and it is substantial enough that we already have one and a quarter million to go back to the property owner, and I'm just -- I feel like a higher degree of success can come out of this project with that commitment. And I'm not so sure with the 500,000 we're going to be able to achieve any success. And that's my concern. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I guess with that logic, the -- I mean, Mr. Sugden's money is private money. And if you're lumping that in with all the other private money, we would still be a minority player in this. So I'm hearing both sides of an argument there. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Whatever it takes to get the job done. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The -- I guess -- well, enough said. I'm not comfortable going above 500,000 or one year's commitment. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Dorrill, since this project is time sensitive and -- and it doesn't -- doesn't matter what we vote on today, whether we vote seven hundred and fifty or twelve hundred and fifty thousand dollars to this, if the property owner is not amenable to delaying the acceleration of the option, the whole thing will go down the tubes. My question is this: If we were to vote to dedicate $750,000 to this project, is there a presumption and are we correct in presuming that -- that there's adequate fees in the reserves to advance this money to regional impact fees and recapture it next year? MR. DORRILL: I -- I think that there is, but I would want to have that verified through our first quarter. We're through the first quarter in this fiscal year, and I'd want to ask the budget staff to -- to run the regional park impact fees before I can tell you with any total assurance. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Certainly. Certainly if we -- MR. DORRILL: I can tell you that construction is up and we're seeing the level of multi-family and commercial projects in particular that help construction be up. And so I'm reasonably safe in saying that our -- our budget number for impact fees is a good one this year. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. So it -- but it's reasonable to assume that if we were to dedicate the $750,000 out of regional impact fees of which we're only anticipating collecting a half a million dollars or a little above that in all of 1995 that certainly the general fund reserves are going to have to advance a significant portion of this in a rather untimely manner. MR. DORRILL: Or through some short-term type financing. The commercial paper program is the one that's been recommended to you. And then we'd repay it back as -- as time would permit. MR. OLLIFF: And we've faced the same kind of thing. We've looked at interfund borrowing inside the county, but actually the commercial paper program rate is better than it is that we would have to pay back the solid waste fund, for example, if we were to use that. So it's actually the cheapest option we have. In addition, I've got Hike Smykowski -- and I don't know whether it's going to make a difference in terms -- difference in terms of your actual motion. But what I don't have here is I don't have the actual collections year to date versus what we budgeted. And that may make a difference. If collections here to date are running extremely high, if we budgeted 841 in the revenue side and we're 10 percent, 15 percent above that year to date, that may make a difference to you. But I've got that -- trying to find that out. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What kind of a difference will it make if they're running low this year? MR. OLLIFF: It will make a very big difference as well. Then it will make a project-related difference. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Madam Chairman, I'm going to second the motion on the floor made by Commissioner Norris to commit $750,000 of regional park impact fees to the Lake Sugden project. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Norris, did you actually amend your motion? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Yes. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I had not heard. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Yes. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Do you have an anticipated payback time for that? COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: I would look to Mr. Olliff to help me out on that. The problem is obviously when we commit more than one year's funds, there is going to be a borrowing either from unrestricted reserves, general fund reserves, or short-term bond issue. You know, I would look for some assistance in that, but I would like to obviously keep it less than five years. I don't see any reason to go beyond that. MR. OLLIFF: I'd like to have an opportunity just -- just because the commercial paper program is three years, I'd like to be able to look at what was being put on the table for regional park impact fees in the upcoming capital budget. If there are some projects that I think the commission has talked about before -- and I just -- I honestly don't know standing here what's in next's year's capital budget as yet -- bring back to you some options. But, you know, with 750, it could be done over the course of this and the next fiscal year, or it could be stretched out as long as -- as three years under the commercial paper program. And I'd like to say -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'd like to stipulate it at three years then. MR. OLLIFF: Somewhere between one and a half and three years is what we would recommend to you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let me just make sure I understand the motion. Seven fifty from regional park impact fees to be budgeted over no more than three years, and we'll play an active role in negotiating the price down as best we can and/or extending the May 3 or whatever the date is -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Any combination of efforts that gets us to the purchase -- the final purchase of the property. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And that it will become a county park. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Yes, that -- that's always anticipated that it is a county-owned park. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: If that is the amended motion, I will gladly amend the second. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. We have a -- we have a motion and a second. If there's no further discussion, I think I'm going to call the question. I'm going to say I don't think I can support the motion, and that's because I think that -- I truly believe that we can do some more work on bringing the parties together on this and finding creative ways to get it financed without digging into the county coffers to do it. I -- I am amenable to a half a million dollars. I just don't want to lock into a number because an up-to number, I can assure you that we'll use every single cent of it no matter what negotiation we're going to work up. Anyway, if there's no further discussion, I'm going to call the question. All those in favor please say aye. Opposed? We have a two-two, one abstention. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Norris, let me try -- I'll say the exact same motion you just had with a $500,000 figure on it. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Do we hear 650? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We need an auctioneer. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We need an auctioneer I guess. MR. KELLER: Are you going to put a price tag on it? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Keller -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Keller, this is our discussion. Thank you. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Keller out of the debate today. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We -- we have a -- we have a motion on the floor that is precisely the same motion changing the dollar figure from $750,000 to $500,000. Is there a second to that motion? I will second the motion to get it on the floor. Is there further discussion? There being -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I guess I want to -- I want to ask Commissioner Norris if he's amenable to that. It appears to me to be that or nothing. I'd rather walk out of here with -- with something that we can work with. I'm not -- in my opinion, it's not sufficient to really get the ball rolling effectively. But I'd like to know your thoughts on it. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, I share the same concerns already voiced that I don't think that's a serious commitment from the county to -- to look at a 2 million dollar project and offer $500,000 and expect the rest of the money to come from the private sector in 30 days. I just don't think that's realistic. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's not what the motion says. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Just -- just a moment. Commissioner Norris, would you -- would you finish your thought? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Excuse me? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Would you finish your thought? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: That's enough. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I -- I want to interject here that -- that my -- my feeling on this $500,000 is not an end-all do-all. I want to put an amount of money into the pot because I think that Collier County should indeed share in this, and I -- and I don't want the project to go away. But I do want to find a way to extend our ability to -- to deal with the situation so that the prices and the value of this project does not accelerate MAy 1. We -- we don't know -- no one has ventured those questions yet. That's what we need to do. And if it means that our staff will be back to us in another 30 days, the end of April, to say, jeez, we've tried our best and the property owner will -- is going to accelerate the option price, then, you know, we have to deal with it again then. But I'm -- I just want to get the citizens involved, and I think there's an easy way to do it. Commissioner Constantine. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Norris, regardless of how much the county puts into this, whether it's a dollar or your original 1.25, we need to try to negotiate the price down, and we need to try to negotiate the date of the price acceleration. It doesn't matter how much we commit. We're going to have to do those. I think a half million dollars plus a half million dollars is a million dollars. That is a substantial commitment that there is some seriousness about this. I think it would be a mistake at this point to say no. And I understand your frustration having been on that -- underfunded, shall we say, on issues that I thought were of import. I understand your frustration, but don't let that frustration let the whole thing die. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: If one of us doesn't support it, it goes away today. And for that reason alone, I'm going to support the motion. I -- I do not want to see this end today. Let's at least move ahead with it. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: All right. And -- and -- well, I'm going to call the question very quickly. Mr. Olliff, though, you have direction that if -- if by the end of April before the Hay 1 acceleration date, if we are not successful in finding either a delay of the acceleration or -- or some combination of things that can bring this thing to -- to be that you will be back to us. MR. OLLIFF: I think what I'm hearing is that -- that we go out and we work the best possible deal that we can and we bring it back to you before the option increases or with an extension, whichever the case may be. And -- and if we're still at a gap, then we just bring it to you and tell you what that is. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No. What you're hearing is that the county will put up to one half million dollars, that being represented by one year's regional park impact fees. There has been some private commitment to that. We'd like to play an active role in negotiating that down and in negotiating an extension of that Hay 3 date. But the gap needs to be filled by the private sector, not coming back to us and asking, okay, we need now 750,000 more. Five hundred is the upper limit. MR. OLLIFF: Do you not want me to come back if the gap isn't met? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I would prefer that you do, yes. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You can come back, but the -- I mean, the purpose of this is to set an upper limit for the county contribution and set a goal for the private fund raisers. The question several of them raised was we need to know what we have to do and how much we have to raise. And that's -- I think we're answering that question. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I don't want to put more money into it, but I don't want the project to die either. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah. If we die for lack of $25,000 or something at the other end, that would be a shame. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: That's why I want it to come back. If -- COHHISSIONER HANCOCK: I don't -- and again, I agree. I don't share those sentiments fully, so yes, I want it to come back so we can see if there is a spread, what the spread is. Then we make a value judgment at that time or at least I will individually. You may have already made that judgment. But at that point I would like to see it and not -- not to start a debate with you again on -- on another issue. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I have -- I have a little concern then, and I'm going to debate with myself for the next 30 seconds whether or not to withdraw the motion because what I -- my motion contemplates a cap of one year's impact fees. Now, if it comes back and we're $25,000 off, that's one thing. But I don't want to come back and have this debate again a month from now whether or not to include another two or three hundred thousand dollars. I -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Well, I think you just said yourself, though, that if we don't include direction for staff to bring it back prior to the Hay 3 acceleration date on the option and -- and he brings it back and says, gee, it's only 25 or $50,000 off and we vote to increase our contribution by that amount based on the motion that you say you've made where you want an absolute cap, Mr. Olliff's direction is regardless if -- if he's $5,000 off, it's dead. And -- and I just want to make sure that that's not so. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll keep the motion on the floor, and he can certainly bring it back. But I want to make it very clear I think 500,000 or one year -- if it's 544,000, if that's what we raise annually, if we end up with the additional -- but 500,000 is my upper limit. I don't want to come back and say we've got a gap of 300,000 and have a 2-hour debate on that. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Fine. With that I'll call the question. All those in favor please say aye. All those opposed? There being none, motion passes four to zero, one abstention. Thank you, Mr. Olliff. Item #8C2 AMENDMENTS TO THE COLLIER COUNTY TOURIST TAX ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS FOR THE COLLIER COUNTY MUSEUM AND THE NAPLES FISHING PIER AND SUPPORTING THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS FOR THESE PURPOSES FOLLOWING THE AMENDMENT OF THE ORDINANCE - DENIED. COUNTY ATTORNEY TO RESEARCH AND REPORT BACK TO THE BCC Next item -- MR. OLLIFF: I don't know whoever said this job wasn't challenging. MR. CUYLER: Madam Chairman, for the record, I believe that takes care of C-2 as well. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We don't have to contribute anything. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Excuse me, Mr. Olliff -- Mr. Cuyler, what were you saying? MR. CUYLER: Mr. Olliff, that takes care of C-2 as well? MR. OLLIFF: (Mr. Olliff nodded head.) CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Excuse me, ladies and gentlemen. Could you -- we're still trying to run our -- our business here. Thank you. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I -- I just gotta make a comment before we move to the next item. Someone just stood up, looked angry, and said, why should you get a park for $500,000? People are mad because we're giving half a million dollars. I mean, we don't have to give anything. I would hope that the county would get some credit for bellying up to the bar and making a commitment for one half million dollars. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. Mr. Olliff, next -- you have the next item also, item 8-C-2. MR. OLLIFF: Yes, ma'am, the next item, 8-C-2, is a recommendation. And this is the part 2 and 3 of the recommendation there, the -- the item that was taken to the Tourist Development Council. And this is a request the county commission consider amendments to the existing tourist development tax ordinance that would allow for funding of the Collier County museum and the currently scheduled repairs of the Naples fishing pier. Both of these projects are currently specifically listed within the state statutes. Both of these specific projects have tourist usage, anywhere from 40 at the pier to 70 percent at the county museum. And in both cases it would require an ordinance amendment of that tourist development tax in order to do that. The funding source being recommended here is that category C which has historically not been spent annually and -- and is not going to affect either the beach renourishment or that shoulder-season advertising that was discussed at the TDC meeting. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Constantine. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: This actually was the item I was looking in the other executive summary for where it said, can tourist tax be used for capital? Yes, throughout the state. One of the primary uses is for construction of sports stadiums which are clearly capital in nature. They're also clearly the item that was rejected by the voters in 1992. I go right back to my little sermon from the last item, and that is we start messing with the tourist tax now, you make one amendment now, you make another amendment two years from now and so on, you end up with something that doesn't resemble what the public voted on. The only county in the state of Florida that has stuck with what they originally said is Monroe County. And -- and I think we -- we -- I think we owe it to the public to keep -- they voted on a specific thing just a couple of years back. And I think we owe it to them to keep to the terms that they asked for and voted in favor of. And on the last page it says, the apparent key question was would the public rather pay one way or the other. The other thought is, or would they rather not pay at all. Perhaps we have to limit what we contribute. I mean, the museum has traditionally been in the budget. And we'll, I assume, continue to do that. But maybe we need to look at what our contribution is or will be to the Naples fishing pier. Frankly, it's -- it's owned by the city, operated by the city. All decisions are made by the city. They've taken the telescopes off. They debated on whether or not to have metal roofs. Now there's a debate going on as to whether or not they're going to have lights out there and maybe gate it at night and you won't be able to go out. We don't have any impact or any say whatsoever on what happens with that pier. We should certainly contribute something. I see you getting all worked up here. I don't -- I don't argue -- not you, Pam. I don't argue that. It is a -- an attraction for Collier County. But we may need to look at how much and -- and how to pay for that. And changing the TDC law that the public voted on specifically for that purpose I can't support. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hancock. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Olliff, what is the city's proposed bill, if you will, for repairing the pier in total? MR. OLLIFF: Currently the total project is at $560,000. The split is 50/50 city, county. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: But you're saying the total project is 560,0007 MR. OLLIFF: That was what we were originally told as part of last year's capital budget, yes. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. They're asking us to expend 280,000. MR. OLLIFF: Yes. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: When was the last survey done as far as users of the pier, county residents versus either visitors or city of Naples residents? Again, I -- I agree. I think there's a proportionate share. I mean, our county residents do use the pier. The city of Naples doesn't exactly generate a ton of revenue off of it. So I think yes, there's some responsibility for funding. I just want to make sure it's not disproportionate. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm just going to try to answer that. The question on use is the rest of the county has ten times as many people as the city. So you could have a 90 percent use and say that's equal use. Their citizens are using it the same ratio as the county so -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: We don't exactly charge them for using county parks. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Now wait a minute, guys. There are people that want to say something. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm playing by the rules. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Mac'Kie. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It's so rare for me to wait my turn. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: That's true. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It's an absurd concept to be discussing this as if we are giving a gift to the city. When city residents stop paying property taxes into the county coffers, then you'll be giving gifts. Right now the money that we control, a great disproportionate amount of it is paid by people who happen to live in the city of Naples. I wrote it down. I got it carefully here by my side. There are two funds. There is fund 111 which is paid by unincorporated Collier County. And then there's fund 001 which is a county-wide fund. It's not a gift. It's their money. Quit acting like it's your money and it's not their money. They paid it. People who live in the city of Naples pay taxes to Collier County. They're not getting their share. I'll try to not make too much of a tirade about that, but it's not a gift from the county. It's the city residents who pay those tax dollars. So we need to stop acting like it's a gift. More to the point of -- of the issue in front of us, however, on that point, I agree completely with Commissioner Constantine that we should not make any change to the TDC ordinance as it is presently -- was voted on and adopted by the voters. So I do not support any change. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Norris. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, I do support change in category C because it's -- we have not gotten good utilization out of that because the cumbersome methods of having to pay it back, and people just have not been using it. Last week we had a request for someone who says they would use it. However, we had that same -- request from that same party for I think 220 or 250 once before and which didn't get used. And it's just -- it's built up a large amount of money in that account because nobody uses it, and I think we need to do something different with it. So I do support doing something different with it so that somebody does get some good out of that money. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Constantine. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I think you can change the application process for those funds. You mentioned paybacks and all that. I think you can change the application without changing the integrity of what the voters voted for. You can stay with events and with promotion of the area and with beaches just as it was on the ballot. Right now the bureaucracy to get some of that money has been confusing. And -- and I proposed some changes to that earlier in the year you may recall, and -- and that's somewhere in the process now. Commissioner Matthews and the TDC I understand are looking at some potential changes for category C and how you get that and so on. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We've made some -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The -- so from that standpoint, changing the bureaucracy to get those dollars, I agree. But to change the formula the public voted on, I can't do it. MR. OLLIFF: Sometimes I have no idea why I bring these items. I should just stay in my hole and be happy. But this particular item, some of the rationale -- I want to just at least let you know some of our thought process. The museum was on the originally approved tax list. So, I mean, it was an item that was presented to the public. The other suggestion that's always been made to us on the staff level is the public didn't vote on those items because they weren't given an opportunity to. They weren't on the list. The input that we always get is we want the tourists to pay for as much as we can as opposed to ad valorem taxpayers paying for those, especially those items where you can demonstrate that the tourists are using them a lot. The museum is -- is a perfect example of that. It's one of those where 70 percent of the people who go through there don't live here in the county. And yet we're supporting it 100 percent through ad valorem property taxes. The Naples fishing pier, the only reason we brought that forward was -- was simply because it's -- it's one of those items where it will make a cash difference to you in next year's budget. That is money that you will have available to you to offset ad valorem taxes next year. And there seemed to be no better item in this entire community that represented tourism and tourist use than Naples fishing pier. And just for those two reasons are the reasons we promoted both of those to you. There are some other items that I mentioned before, beach parking, beach maintenance programs. All those kinds of things are things that other counties are using that tourist development tax for. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Mr. Cuyler, this category C, it's -- 15 percent of the tourist tax dollars that -- that are collected are dedicated to category C. MR. CUYLER: Correct. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: And category C is described as cultural events and special projects? MR. CUYLER: I don't have the ordinance. It's described as projects and special activities I believe. I don't recall exactly what the wording is. I could get it pretty quick if you're that interested in exact wording. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. I -- I guess my concern is -- more my question, I guess, is why wouldn't something like the Naples pier or the museum or even Lake Avalon be considered a special project? MR. CUYLER: Well, that discussion came up at the TDC. And, as a matter of fact, I'm doing some research right now. I'm having somebody go back through the minutes. There were some of the members who said we seem to recall that the original intent for the word project may have gone beyond the scope of the activities. In other words, they weren't synonymous with regard to what you could do. Other members seemed to say, no, that was really in the same type of thing as an activity. It's just perhaps more of an -- a set project activity. And I'm going back and looking at that. Regardless of what it says, the guidelines that have been adopted by the TDC preclude the types of things you're talking about, the capital expenditures for a museum, anything. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: But the guidelines are not the ordinance. MR. CUYLER: They are not the ordinance. And if we go back and can find something different -- I'm not sure you're going to. But if you can find something different with regard to the original intent because the -- the statutory language as you are -- are referring to is, you know, fairly concise in its language. It doesn't have a description of what's involved or what's not involved. I think that a lot of the discussion has been since a museum is a specific statutory item under 1250104 that if that's not specifically listed in your plan that having something as general as the word project would not include it. That's also the same argument that you have with pier -- the word pier, and I think we've had that discussion with Tom too. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Uh-huh. Well, I -- I'm kind of halfway between the commissioners on this side and the commissioner on this side. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: You're exactly halfway between. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Well, but I'm in -- in -- in thought on this one too. I do not prefer to see the 15 percent changed to 6, 6, and 3. But what I -- what I think I would like to see is the guidelines expanded to include these kinds of projects. MR. CUYLER: The exact wording is the 40 percent is divided into the 25 percent and the 15 percent. The language for the 15 percent is for local projects and/or activities which promote tourism. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. So Lake Avalon, the pier, the museum, they all can be argued to promote tourism. I mean, if the -- if the -- if the object is that they hold a tourist here in Collier County even one more night, they promote tourism and bed nights. They put the heads on the beds. MR. CUYLER: I'd like to -- to -- before I said yes, I'd like to finish the research we're doing. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. MR. CUYLER: I've had four years of litigation on this. I'd like to make sure that -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah, I don't want to get into more of that. MR. CUYLER: -- whatever we do is -- is within the ordinance. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I just -- I just feel like my preference would be rather than change the ordinance and the percentages within the ordinance, I'd rather see the guidelines change to include these other projects when they compete on a heads-up basis. Commissioner Hancock was next. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I assume I have permission to speak, Commissioner Hac'Kie? I'm not going to be admonished unnecessarily on this, am I? COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: (Commissioner shook head.) COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Property tax are currently paying for facilities that are used by a fair margin of tourists. There's no question. You want to say something so bad, don't you? COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm just going to be sweet and demure. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: The -- the -- the point that's being made by Commissioner Constantine is correct, and that is that the voters did approve specific language. I know there's a push out there to go from 2 percent to 3 percent by some people and so forth. If that type of issue is brought to discussion, that may be the time at which we look at the -- the overall spectrum of how things are changed to allow for these things because there's no question that tourism, you know, the tourists use the pier. The tourists use the museum. And for county taxpayers to keep up those facilities for the use of -- by most -- you know, in many cases by tourists, I think we as taxpayers feel an inequity there. And I would like to address that in the formula, but I'm just not sure that this specific amendment is the way to do it. The discussion may come at a time when we look at the overall program again such as we get a request to go from 2 to 3 percent which I expect to happen sometime in the next few years. And that -- that would be my preference as opposed to doing it specifically for the museum and the pier this year. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Constantine. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I'm going to make a motion that we decline staff recommendation; however, we give Mr. Cuyler direction as outlined just moments ago by Commissioner Matthews to do research. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: To -- to do the research. MR. CUYLER: Madam Chairman, let me know one more thing. This is not the answer, but this is something of interest. The category B which is the 40 percent which is then split down between the two percentages indicates that it's to promote and advertise county tourism within the state, nationally, and internationally which encourages tourism with an emphasis on off-season visitors to the county. So again, that's another item that's going to play into that interpretation that I'll be looking at. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Fine. We have a motion. Is there a second? COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second to deny the amendment to the ordinance ninety -- which is it?-- 9260? MR. CUYLER: That's correct. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Anyway, the -- is that the ordinance number? And -- but -- but instead to give direction to Mr. Cuyler, our attorney, to continue the research and bring back to us what -- what is available based on the intent of the discussions that happened two years ago, three years ago. If there's no further discussion on the motion, I'll call the question. All those in favor please say aye. All those opposed? Motion passes four to one, Commissioner -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Those ayes were kind of like a wave. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Norris being in the opposition. Thank you, Mr. Olliff. MR. OLLIFF: Thank you. Item #10A GRANT APPLICATION RELATING TO PROJECT HELP AUTHORIZED TO BE SIGNED COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Madam Chairman, the next item is the -- for your signature on a grant application. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yes. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: After having read through here, I -- I don't have any questions with it. I don't have any problem with it. I assume the board doesn't have any problem with it? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I had no -- no problem with it. Project Help is seeking some grants. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Unless Beth wants to say anything, I'll move along and make a motion in favor of the item. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I think she's merely here to answer questions if we have any. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second to authorize the chair -- chairman to sign the grant application for Project Help. If there's no further discussion -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: There is. There is. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: There is further discussion. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: This doesn't commit the county to funding in any way? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I don't believe so. It's just a question of whether we sign the grant. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, I -- I need an answer on that before I vote. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Miss Koake is going to give that to us. MS. KOAKE: For the record, Beth Koake, executive director of Project Help. No, this does not commit the county at all. This is a federal VOCA grant which is -- actually federal criminal fines pay into the grant -- into the federal monies. And then state -- it filters down to the state. So that's the grant that I'm trying to apply for. And there's a lot of competition, but I am trying, and that's what some very kind commissioners have told me to do. So that's what I'm trying to do. That's all it is. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I hope you'll be successful. Mr. Cuyler, do you agree with that? MS. KOAKE: Thank you, sir. MR. CUYLER: To the question does the county have any responsibility or -- the answer is no, we've taken a look at that. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Thank you. MS. KOAKE: Thank you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. We have a motion and a second. Is there further discussion on the motion? There being none, I'll call the question. All those if favor place say aye. Opposed? There being none, motion passes five to zero. The chair will sign that. Item #SH1 FUNDING BEACH RENOURISHMENT AND PASS MAINTENANCE PROJECTS AND ONE AMENDMENT WITH TOURIST DEVELOPMENT TAX REVENUES - APPROVED I think we skipped over item 8-H-l, funding beach renourishment and pass maintenance projects and one amendment to the tourist development tax revenues. Miss -- Mr. Hargett -- or Miss Gansel, I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Unless there's something more than what meets the eye here on the summary, I'll make a motion. This seems fairly cut and dried. I think we're all familiar with it. MS. GANSEL: I feel as though the summary has explained the situation. And if there aren't any questions -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll make a motion to approve the item. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I have a question. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yes, ma'am. Commissioner MAc'Kie. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Just -- I -- I note on page 39 of the packet is where the -- the beach renourishment maintenance committee recommends disapproval of the Clam Pass portion of this funding. And I -- I couldn't find anything in here telling me what the rationale was for that recommendation. I thought perhaps it's something that you guys have discussed before. Does anybody know why? MS. GANSEL: The beach committee -- Jean Gansel in the budget office. The beach committee did not recommend funding of this project at this time -- at the time that they reviewed it which was back in November. However, they did say that they would reconsider this project should funding be necessary. And since that time, funding has become necessary. And I believe Mr. Conrecode would like to address that. MR. CONRECODE: For the record, Tom Conrecode from your capital projects office. The recommendation of the beach committee was that we want to direct all funding available to putting sand on the beach. They didn't see this as an essential project and as a result said, we'll recommend funding it when it closes, if and when it closes. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And then it did. MR. CONRECODE: It has since closed. We expect to come back to the board in two to three weeks with a total summary of those costs to reopen the pass. And at that point we'll recommend that the TDC fund be used as a source for that. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: second? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Thank you. We have a motion. Is there a I'll second the motion. Thank you. As we're all quickly reading hoping we don't second something we're not really sure about. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second to approve the executive summary and the funding recommended by the TDC. MS. GANSEL: It -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Excuse me. MS. GANSEL: It wouldn't be the recommendation of the TDC. The TDC had not recommended the OCPM charges. But when we came back to the board, our recommendation is that those fees be included in the project totals. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. MS. GANSEL: Okay. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: All right. We have -- the motion then is -- COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Staff recommendation. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: -- staff -- staff recommendation. And we have a second. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Another question. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Discussion, Commissioner Hac'Kie? COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Just another question. Before that OCPH fees issue came specifically as a -- as a proposal and now it's lumped into this group of proposals, is there a reason why it's treated differently from one time to the next? MS. GANSEL: Okay. The -- in the past the TDC has recommended OCPH charges with the beach renourishment projects. At the last meeting they did not. We came forward with that to get board direction and a policy decision as to how they would view those funds with TDC -- using TDC money for that. That was how come we came separate. Initially the vote was four to one to include those funds. Therefore, we came forward with the projects in -- in their entirety as they were requested. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hancock. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: As you probably know, Commissioner Hac'Kie, item D deals with just that. I've asked to look at that TDC funding again. And I'm not so sure that we can't do one without the other. Can we continue this item until after item D so that the board takes a -- a policy decision -- again, I know it's taken it once. I'm asking to revisit the issue -- take a policy decision on that and that will have whatever impact on -- on this approval. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: temporarily table this? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Are you making a motion to That's what I meant to say. I need a second. Second. Okay. We have a motion to temporarily table the current discussion on the beach funding, and I'm going to call the question. All those in favor please say aye. Opposed? There being none, this executive summary is temporarily tabled. Item #10B RESOLUTION 95-234 CREATING THE FLORIDA CITIES WATER CITIZENS COHMITTEE - ADOPTED Let's move on to item 10-B, discussion of Florida Cities. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Each of you has a resolution in front of you. Also during the week I distributed the transcript from the meeting where this took place, and I don't have that in front of me. However, paraphrasing roughly, there was a comment from -- thank you very much -- from Mr. Ferguson in the transcript with a specific suggested group, and Commissioner Saunders made a motion, and his motion included the committee be appointed as requested by Mr. Ferguson. We don't -- I don't have -- I have back in my files -- and I apologize I don't have it out here this morning -- but the list that Mr. Ferguson had. I was under the impression he had read that into the record. And this morning I realized he had not, so -- but it basically consists of some neighbors around the area, representative of the Golden Gate Civic Association. I think it may have someone from the Chamber of Commerce. But it has specifics in there. And that was incorporated as part of the motion. However, we have never formally done that, and thus there has been no formal meeting, and construction has commenced on the waste water plant. This is merely a formality to do that. The vacancy on this resolution as you see it is under item 2. It says the Golden Gate Citizens Committee shall be composed of the following members, and we'll merely fill in Mr. Ferguson's memo as it was outlined there. I just need approval on that so they can get their motion -- get their group together with Florida Cities before we get too far on construction out there. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I -- you know, I had understood -- and I was sitting on the board when this was done. I guess I had merely understood that Florida Cities was going to do the same thing that Waste Management has agreed to do for the landfill. And that is that they would assemble this group of people. And if -- if they haven't done that, I'm -- I'm really disappointed in them to have continued and gone on with the construction without having done what they agreed to do. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Frankly, not only have they failed to do that, but they have suggested -- there's a water committee of some sort. I can't remember what the title is but utility committee out there that has been appointed by them, some of which don't even live in the water district, some of which -- none of which live in the general neighborhood and so on. They were saying, well, we -- we met with them and so on. It clearly did not meet what was intended in the motion. So this was -- this is as a clarification for both us and Florida Cities. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion. Is there a second? COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Second. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second to create the Golden Gate Citizens Committee to Florida Cities Water. If there's no further discussion, I'll call the question. All those in favor please say aye. Opposed? There being none, motion passes five to zero. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And that disappears when construction is completed or we have to reappoint it in year. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: It's got a sunset in a year? COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah. Item #10C RESOLUTION 95-235 APPOINTING MR. LIND TO THE HOUSING FINANCE AUTHORITY - ADOPTED CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Next item on the agenda is the Housing Finance Authority of Collier County. We once again have an emergency request to appoint a member to this committee. And we did this last week for a different member. And I was told after last meet's -- last week's meeting that there is somehow another emergency to appoint another person. And I'm -- you know, I'm bringing it forward because we need a person appointed. But, Mr. Pickworth, would you please tell us why we have all these emergencies on this committee? MR. PICKWORTH: Yes, Commissioners. I'm Don Pickworth representing the Housing Finance Authority. I had originally intended to bring both of the people forward last week. I did not intend that this would have to take place in -- in two separate items. And the only -- the only thing that caused the -- last week it was a reappointment. It was not appointment. Somehow it got cast as an appointment. Dawn Litchfield has been a member of the authority for years, and this was simply a reappointment. This one is to fill a vacancy only because we have a couple of meetings coming up in the next couple of weeks that require us to take some actions dealing with some of the single-family issues that we've been in here on. And we have a couple people out of town. And the vacancy -- we had intended to -- to come before you with this vacancy in due course and not do it this way. That was not our intention. But with -- with troubles now getting a quorum with that vacancy, it becomes a problem. And I do apologize. I -- like I say, we didn't get the paperwork. Otherwise I would have had both of those things last week. And I do apologize for doing that. That's not what we -- what we prefer to do and not been our history over the past 15 years. But we find ourselves in a pinch, and I appreciate your -- your forbearance. And we won't do this again. But we -- we just find ourselves in a difficult situation. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I understand that. I -- I -- I think I'm just a little stymied that we have two emergencies, quote, unquote, in succeeding -- MR. PICKWORTH: It was one emergency. It just ended up having to get solved in two parts. That's -- it was one emergency. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Thank you. Is there a motion to appoint this person? COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So moved. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Second. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second -- COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Third. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: -- and a third to appoint Mr. Lind to the Housing Finance Authority of Collier County. If there's no further discussion, I will call the question. All those in favor please say aye. Opposed? There being none, motion passes five to zero. Thank you. Item #10D DISCUSSION REGARDING TDC FUNDS FOR OCPM PROJECTS - WITHDRAWN Next item on the agenda is item 10-D, the OCPM funding dealing with TDC money. Commissioner Hancock. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: I'll be real brief with this and just ask for the board to -- to take a vote on a position as a matter of policy. When we discussed this I guess it was two weeks ago now, it was stated at that time by Commissioner Norris that all we were doing was asking that OCPM be paid out of TDC funds for work that otherwise an outside consultant would be doing. I agreed with that then. I agree with it now. The problem that has come to my attention is that a lot of the work that is being done are the same types of -- of elements that are done on road projects and all kinds of county projects such as contract administration. I asked Mr. Conrecode for a breakdown of exactly what OCPM has done on these -- these different areas. And I can say that about -- in the case of Marco Island beach restoration of five elements there, two appear to me to be consultant activities. The other three appear to be contract administration, serving as liaisons to advisory committees. My -- my problem is that as road projects come up, we do a lot of these contract administration things, yet we don't charge for them. They're -- we charge our own county departments for them. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah, we do. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: End of problem. MR. CONRECODE: For the record, Tom Conrecode, your capital projects office. Yes, sir, we do. We are completely set up as an enterprise fund. Every project we work on, whether it's a park or a road or library, whatever it is, we budget for and bill for our services on an hourly basis. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: It's a professional department that bills its time. MR. CONRECODE: Every single time. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: So on -- in no case am I going to see a county employee out of OCPM spending any time that is not billable per se paid by other county departments. MR. CONRECODE: Well, I wouldn't say that. For instance, we have some clerical support who is considered overhead. They don't bill on an hourly basis. Some of my time is administrative and charged to that overhead as well as opposed to billed on a project-by-project basis. My time here this morning, for instance, isn't billed to any specific project. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: I just -- it just seems to me that some of these things are inherently government functions. And -- and I -- I guess if we're doing it everywhere, I really can't -- I guess then if I have a problem with that, I have a problem with the function and base of OCPM, not necessarily just with this particular project. But I understand setting up an enterprise fund and so forth. But Lee County did this and stopped doing it because it failed miserably, and I'm just concerned that -- that we're actually running the cost of these things up as opposed to down with these types of activities. And I guess I'll with -- withdraw the item at this point because I -- I obviously don't hear any support up here for changing things. But that answers my question. Just it seems strange to me that the county putting a contract together to let we now charge our own departments for and so forth. It's awkward at best. MR. CONRECODE: It's awkward for us as well. But it absolutely captures the true capital cost of every project that this county builds. And I think that if nothing else has made the budget and the finance people very happy with this procedure. It's a lot of additional work for us. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I have a question. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I was just going to say that if you don't do it the way we're doing it and assign the appropriate cost to the appropriate cost center and so forth, then his department falls to the ad valorem taxpayer to be paid, and that is not fair. If we are collecting, for example, road impact fees to make a road project and then asking the ad valorem people to -- to get involved in part of that cost, I see it as -- as a -- a normal typical cost of a project that has to be done. And so why shouldn't the individual project pay for it? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Tim, did you say you're withdrawing the -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah. Of the -- my colleagues other than possibly Commissioner Hac'Kie, I really don't hear anyone who wants to broach this differently. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Well, I do. I do. And -- and I wish that you would not withdraw it at least for another ten seconds. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I won't withdraw it for another ten seconds. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Conrecode -- MR. CONRECODE: Yes, ma'am. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: -- on this list under duties, Marco Island beach restoration, that project is not funded with TDC money. And if the tourist development tax had not been voted -- and certainly Marco Island restored its beaches before the tourist tax was voted -- who would you be charging these duties to? MR. CONRECODE: I think it's fund 189. It's the HSTU. It's a county-wide HSTU that -- or not county-wide, an island-wide and a beach-front HSTU, two separate HSTUs that were established to advance that project. And that's who we would be billing those charges to. And I can provide you with a copy of how much we bill to all the different funds, gas taxes and HSTUs and TDC funds and all of that. I could provide you that accounting if you'd like. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Uh-huh. Well, I -- MR. CONRECODE: But previously it was the HSTU down there. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: And I -- and I know Marco Island is -- is looking or hoping that there will be enough money left over eventually to help them pay the bond issue off. And I for one feel that if there's enough money left over we should do that. But temporarily all of the contract administration for the beach raking and so forth, you are billing the TDC for that money. MR. CONRECODE: Yes, ma'am. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Commissioner Hac'Kie? COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Just a question. Was it a decision of this board that that's the way -- I mean, when did that change occur from the HSTU to the TDC funds being used? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I don't know. I presume it happened before these members came aboard. MR. CONRECODE: It was a decision of the board, and it happened I believe two or three fiscal years ago because the people on Marco Island were tired of paying it out of ad valorem taxes because they were specifically being hit with that, and they saw it as a fund. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Those TDC funds are to go toward beach restoration and maintenance, and that is maintenance, and just because it was restored with someone else's money doesn't mean we can't maintain it with the TDC funds. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No, I don't -- I don't question the appropriateness of it. I just wanted to be sure that it was a policy decision made by the board, not by staff. MR. CONRECODE: Yes, ma'am, it was a board action. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'll -- I'll credit this item to a lack of understanding of history on the board and -- and just one more thing I have to learn about. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Well, don't let that stop you from asking questions seriously because that's what educates us all. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I would withdraw the item from the board's consideration unless there's an objection to that. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Thank you, Commissioner Hancock. CONTINUATION OF ITEH #8H1 With that we will go back to item 10-H-1. We -- we have a motion on the floor and I believe a second to approve the funding as presented by staff for beach renourishment. If there's no further discussion, I will call that discussion. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: One more question. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hac'Kie? COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I -- I'm -- I'm just trying to understand the staff report here. I understand on the first line why the requested amount of -- of 15 million differs from the TDC recommended amount because that's the 15 million dollar project. But on other items, how did it come that for Marco Island beach maintenance 191 was requested, 166 is recommended by TDC, and now staff is recommending the 1917 MS. GANSEL: That's the OCPH charges. It was T -- the TDC's recommendation that the OCPH charges not be included. And that's putting them back in. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So the difference is you're adding it back in. MS. GANSEL: Yes. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just to clarify, you don't add that back in. It's -- you have a recommendation. TDC reviews that recommendation, and then we review that recommendation. MS. GANSEL: Exactly. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: They don't change it in between. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, TDC's recommendation was different from the staff's recommendation. MS. GANSEL: Staff's recommendation. And staff recommendation was based on the policy of the board two weeks ago to include those charges in the funding projects. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And I can be assured that we'll see Clam Pass in the coming weeks? MR. CONRECODE: Two or three weeks. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: About three weeks? Okay. If there's no further discussion, I'll call the question. All those in favor please say aye. Opposed? MS. GANSEL: Thank you, Commissioners. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Motion passes four to one, Commissioner Hac'Kie in the opposition. Thank you, Miss Gansel. I believe that concludes our agenda for today. Item #14A DISCUSSION REGARDING BIG MARCO PASS CRITICAL WILDLIFE AREA - LETTER TO BE PREPARED FOR LEGISLATIVE REVIEW COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Almost. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Almost except for communications. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: The communications. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: And Commissioner Norris has communications regarding the critical wildlife area at Sand Dollar Island. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Yes. As -- I hate to keep bringing these things up on an add-on basis, but it seems like something happens every week that we need to talk about. It's moving along fairly rapidly. The -- the discussion earlier of the beach management plan is still as it was. However, indications are that the game and fish commission will take their request before the Governor and cabinet three weeks from today which would be a week after we discuss the beach management plan. You -- you all have in the past received the back-up information containing the request from the game and fish commission. And what it really amounts to is a redefinition of the boundaries which is really not a problem. But there's a very innocuous-sounding thing in there that -- that really has a dramatic effect on our citizens and our beaches. And what it is is it would give them for the first time the legal authority to actually go down and post off limit areas on Marco Beach which would include Tigertail and Hideaway and all the way down almost to Residents' Beach which is quite a distance. It's over a third of Marco Beach. And what their request amounts to is simply that -- that not only will they be able to post offshore areas, but they will have the legal area to post the onshore areas. And this letter has been drafted up. It should be -- it has my name on it, but it should be, I think, for the chairman's signature. And it's a letter that we are proposing to send out to our legislative delegation to help get them involved in -- in the process of contacting the Governor, cabinet, and the DEP along with our own efforts. There -- there has been an initial contact with a legal firm in Tallahassee to help us on this issue. Are you familiar with that, Mr. Hargett? MR. HARGETT: No, sir. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. The initial contact has been made with a law firm in Tallahassee. At some point the board may want to authorize it, and I'm not sure what the expenditure is right now. It's probably not a major expenditure. But there -- there may be a time very shortly that we will need to get board authorization in case we need to -- to -- to employ the services of this legal firm on our behalf. And this might be a good time to go ahead and ask Mr. Hargett to get that on the agenda for next week so that we don't have to put it on as another add-on because these things are happening too fast to keep up with. But what I'm asking for today is just simply board direction to get the chairman's signature on this letter and forward it to our legislative delegation just to let them know what our concerns are and to ask them to be prepared to give us some help on presenting our position. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Is it your intention to be at the April 11 meeting with the Governor and cabinet? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I'm already committed to being in Tallahassee on the 4th of April. If I have to -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm going to be there that week, John, so if you need -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: But this is a Tuesday. You're not going until Wednesday. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: The 4th and the llth, unfortunately they're both Tuesdays. And -- and if -- if it's necessary that I go up and make the presentation, I guess I'll have to do it. But that will mean I'll have to miss two commission meetings in a row. But this is an extremely important issue. If they do this, we're left -- we're left -- essentially we can forget our beaches down there for that portion. And we're left with -- our remedy I understand from Mr. Cuyler would be to go to court. And who knows then what will happen? So I think our best chance is to -- to present a logical, orderly case to the Governor and cabinet that -- that this is -- this is a very important issue to our citizens and not only from our citizens' point of view but tourists and a recreational and an economic aspect. This is -- this is a fully developed tourist and retirement community. And -- and to be able to post the beach off limits is just absurd. But that's what they're going to try to do. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No objection here. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. I don't have any objection to signing this letter if -- if the board wants me to do so. Hr. Norris, on April 11, though, if -- if you -- could you make that decision as soon as you can because there are already only four members who are going to be present that day, and that is a land use meeting day and which we would certainly have to make anyone who is -- is coming before us requiring four votes to put them on notice that we will not have four votes available. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. We don't know -- that meeting -- the unfortunate part of it is is that meeting has not to our knowledge at least been scheduled in front of the cabinet. And so we don't know specifically what the date is going to be. We just have indications that that is a probable date. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. COHHISSIONER NORRIS: We should know more about that shortly hopefully. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Well, as soon as you make that decision, let us know. Mr. Cuyler. MR. CUYLER: We also traditionally on those land use days for the manager's office give the petitioners the opportunity, if they need four votes and there's only four votes, to continue if that's what they wish to do. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah, but they're -- it may very well be on that date we won't have four votes to offer. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: If we know we're only going to have four and might only have three, why don't we just alter it in the month of April to a week later or a week before. And I guess John's not going to be here the week before, so let's do it the week after. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We've already advertised. We've already advertised. We would have to continue them at this point. MR. CUYLER: As long as you can get it on your agenda and show it as a continuance and take a motion to continue -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Why don't we plan on that. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Looks -- looks like we're headed that way. Are there further discussion, communication items? COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No, ma'am. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hac'Kie? COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No, ma'am. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Constantine? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: None. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hancock? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: No. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Hargett? MR. HARGETT: No, ma'am. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Cuyler? MR. CUYLER: No, ma'am. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Hiss Filson, we're done? MS. FILSON: Yes, ma'am. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Which is it, Sue? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We're adjourned. ***** Commissioner Constantine moved, seconded by Commissioner Hancock and carried unanimously, that the following items under the Consent Agenda be approved and/or adopted: ***** Item #16A1 FINAL PLAT OF "WORLD TENNIS CENTER, PHASE SEVEN" - WITH STIPULATIONS AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY See Pages Item #16A2a RESOLUTION 95-210, PROVIDING FOR ASSESSMENT OF LIEN, FOR THE COST OF THE ABATEMENT OF PUBLIC NUISANCE - OWNER OF RECORD: THOMAS L. LISKA See Pages Item #16A2b RESOLUTION 95-211, PROVIDING FOR ASSESSMENT OF LIEN, FOR THE COST OF THE ABATEMENT OF PUBLIC NUISANCE - OWNER OF RECORD: GARY J. HELWEGE & CHRISTINE HELWEGE See Pages Item #16A2c RESOLUTION 95-212, PROVIDING FOR ASSESSMENT OF LIEN, FOR THE COST OF THE ABATEMENT OF PUBLIC NUISANCE - OWNER OF RECORD: FRANKREICH - IMHOBILIEN CO. See Pages Item #16A2d RESOLUTION 95-213, PROVIDING FOR ASSESSMENT OF LIEN, FOR THE COST OF THE ABATEMENT OF PUBLIC NUISANCE - OWNER OF RECORD: DAVID A. ELDRIDGE Item #16A2e See Pages RESOLUTION 95-214, PROVIDING FOR ASSESSMENT OF LIEN, FOR THE COST OF THE ABATEMENT OF PUBLIC NUISANCE - OWNER OF RECORD: EDWARD J. PELC & LAVERDA PELC Item #16A2f See Pages RESOLUTION 95-215, PROVIDING FOR ASSESSMENT OF LIEN, FOR THE COST OF THE ABATEMENT OF PUBLIC NUISANCE - OWNER OF RECORD: THE NEW YORK TIMES CO. e HERBERT VALENTINE See Pages Item #16A2g RESOLUTION 95-216, PROVIDING FOR ASSESSMENT OF LIEN, FOR THE COST OF THE ABATEMENT OF PUBLIC NUISANCE - OWNER OF RECORD: PAUL L. RIDDLEBERGER See Pages Item #16A2h RESOLUTION 95-217, PROVIDING FOR ASSESSHENT OF LIEN, FOR THE COST OF THE ABATEMENT OF PUBLIC NUISANCE - OWNER OF RECORD: MARC D. JACOBSON TRUST Item #16A2i See Pages RESOLUTION 95-218, PROVIDING FOR ASSESSHENT OF LIEN, FOR THE COST OF THE ABATEMENT OF PUBLIC NUISANCE - OWNER OF RECORD: JOSEF HEINZ OBERT See Pages Item #16A2j RESOLUTION 95-219, PROVIDING FOR ASSESSMENT OF LIEN, FOR THE COST OF THE ABATEMENT OF PUBLIC NUISANCE - OWNER OF RECORD: EDWARD PELC & LAVERDA PELC See Pages Item #16A2k RESOLUTION 95-220, PROVIDING FOR ASSESSHENT OF LIEN, FOR THE COST OF THE ABATEMENT OF PUBLIC NUISANCE - OWNER OF RECORD: ANDRONIC CANTACUZINO Item #16A21 See Pages RESOLUTION 95-221, PROVIDING FOR ASSESSHENT OF LIEN, FOR THE COST OF THE ABATEMENT OF PUBLIC NUISANCE - OWNER OF RECORD: DANIEL CASTRO AND GISELA CASTRO Item #16A2m See Pages RESOLUTION 95-222, PROVIDING FOR ASSESSHENT OF LIEN, FOR THE COST OF THE ABATEMENT OF PUBLIC NUISANCE - OWNER OF RECORD: JULIUS H. HORODAN Item #16A2n See Pages RESOLUTION 95-223, PROVIDING FOR ASSESSMENT OF LIEN, FOR THE COST OF THE ABATEMENT OF PUBLIC NUISANCE - OWNER OF RECORD: CASIHIRO A. EGUIZABAL AND HARLENE EGUIZABAL See Pages Item #16A2o RESOLUTION 95-224, PROVIDING FOR ASSESSMENT OF LIEN, FOR THE COST OF THE ABATEMENT OF PUBLIC NUISANCE - OWNER OF RECORD: PHILLIP PIERRE & MATTHEW HENDRICK See Pages Item #16A2p RESOLUTION 95-225, PROVIDING FOR ASSESSMENT OF LIEN, FOR THE COST OF THE ABATEMENT OF PUBLIC NUISANCE - OWNER OF RECORD: PHILLIP PIERRE & MATTHEW HENDRICK See Pages Item #16A2q RESOLUTION 95-226, PROVIDING FOR ASSESSMENT OF LIEN, FOR THE COST OF THE ABATEMENT OF PUBLIC NUISANCE - OWNER OF RECORD: HNH VENTURES See Pages Item #16A2r RESOLUTION 95-227, PROVIDING FOR ASSESSMENT OF LIEN, FOR THE COST OF THE ABATEMENT OF PUBLIC NUISANCE - OWNER OF RECORD: IRENE SCHAEFER See Pages Item #16A3 ACCEPTANCE OF WATER AND SEWER FACILITIES FOR SAN HIGUEL AT THE VINEYARDS - SUBJECT TO STIPULATIONS AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Item #16A4 ACCEPTANCE OF FINAL PLAT OF "OVERBROOK AT THE VINEYARDS" - SUBJECT TO STIPULATIONS AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT See Pages Item #16B1 RESOLUTION 95-228, AND JOINT PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT WITH THE STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION RE MAINTENANCE OF PROPOSED HIGHWAY LIGHTING IMPROVEMENTS TO SR 84 (DAVIS BLVD.) See Pages Item #16D1 SATISFACTIONS OF CLAIM OF LIENS FOR BERNELL GRAY AND VERNON AND LUCY HEISTON See Pages Item #16D2 NOTICE OF PROHISE TO PAY AND AGREEHENT TO EXTEND PAYHENT OF WATER AND SEWER IMPACT FEES FOR ROBERT AND ARLENE KOVERA See Pages Item #16D3 NOTICE OF PROMISE TO PAY AND AGREEMENT TO EXTEND PAYMENT OF WATER AND SEWER IMPACT FEES FOR JUAN AND ELBA DE JESUS; LAURA AND PAUL COE, PATRICIA HERING, AND DAVID AND DIANNE ZOHETSKY; HARSHALL AND SANDRA HECK; BETTY D. LAYTON; GARY AND VICKIE HETTS; AND ROSEMARY SHULL See Pages Item #16El RESOLUTION 95-229, CANCELING THE REMAINING 1994 TAXES UPON LAND ACQUIRED FOR PUBLIC USE KNOWN AS THE PELICAN BAY COHMUNITY PARK See Pages Item #16E2 BID #95-2336 RE BUILDING "J" BOILER RENOVATIONS AND TESTING - AWARDED TO GULF COAST CONSTRUCTION, INCORPORATED IN THE A_MOUNT OF $39,774.00 Item #16E3 AMENDMENT TO CONTRACT WITH JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC. FOR BUILDING AUTOMATION SYSTEMS See Pages Item #16H1 BID #95-2339 FOR THE INSTALLATION OF A FUEL TANK AT THE NEW COUNTY HELICOPTER HANGAR - AWARDED TO FUEL TECH, INC. IN THE A_MOUNT OF $54,139.00 Item #16H2 BUDGET AMENDMENT RECOGNIZING CARRY FORWARD IN FUND 157 CHOKOLOSKEE ISLAND Item #16H3 CHANGE ORDER NUMBER ONE TO THE RECONSTRUCTION OF PUMP STATION 16A, 18C AND 52A, RE COLLIER COUNTY BID NO. 94-2255 - TO DOUGLAS N. HIGGINS CONSTRUCTION CO., INC. IN THE AMOUNT OF $34,300.00 See Pages 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 #16J1 CERTIFICATES OF CORRECTION TO THE TAX ROLLS AS PRESENTED BY THE PROPERTY APPRAISER'S OFFICE 1994 REAL PROPERTY TAX ROLL NO. DATE 130-133 3/6/95 - 3/9/95 Item #16K1 SATISFACTION OF LIEN DOCUMENTS RE NUISANCE ABATEMENTS See Pages Item #16L1 RESOLUTION 95-230 RE SATISFACTION OF LIENS IN FULL FOR THE 1991 SOLID WASTE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL SERVICES SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS See Pages Item #16L2 RESOLUTION 95-231 RE SATISFACTION OF LIENS FOR CERTAIN RESIDENTIAL ACCOUNTS WHERIN THE COUNTY HAS RECEIVED PAYMENT AND SAID LIENS ARE SATISFIED IN FULL FOR THE 1992 SOLID WASTE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL SERVICES SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS See Pages Item #16L3 RESOLUTION 95-232 RE SATISFACTION OF LIENS FOR CERTAIN RESIDENTIAL ACCOUNTS WHEREIN THE COUNTY HAS RECEIVED PAYMENT AND SAID LIENS AER SATISFIED IN FULL FOR THE 1993 SOLID WASTE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL SERVICES SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS See Pages There being no further business for the Good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by Order of the Chair at 12:28 p.m. BOARD OF COUNTY COHMISSIONERS BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS CONTROL BETTYE J. MATTHEWS, CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK These minutes approved by the Board on as presented or as corrected TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF DONOVAN COURT REPORTING BY: Shelly Semmler