Loading...
BCC Minutes 04/11/1995 R RGULAR MEETING OF APRIL 11, 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 9:03 a.m. In REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRPERSON: VICE CHAIRMAN: Bettye J. Hatthews John C. Norris Timothy J. Constantine Pamela S. Hac'Kie ALSO PRESENT: W. Neil Dotrill, County Hanager Kenneth B. Cuyler, County Attorney Sue Filson, Administrative Assistant Deputy Paul Canady CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Call to order the Board of County Commission meeting for Tuesday, April 11, 1995. Mr. Dotrill, would you lead us in an invocation and the pledge. MR. DORRILL: Heavenly Father, we thank you for today, and, as always, we thank you for the wonder of Collier County and what it means to all of the people of this community. We thank you for our democratic process in this great nation that we live in. It's always our prayer that you would guide the deliberations and business decisions of this commission today as they make important decisions that affect Collier County and its people, and we'd ask that you bless our time here together today, and we pray these things in your Son's holy name. Amen. (The pledge of allegiance was recited in unison.) Items #2 & #2A AGENDA AND CONSENT AGENDA - APPROVED WITH CHANGES CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Hr. Dorrill, we have a few changes? MR. DORRILL: Good morning. Very few. The first change is an add-on item under the "Board of County Commissioners." It would be 10A as it pertains to a resolution to the legislature concerning use of Tourist Development taxes for beach renourishment. I have two items we'd like to move off the consent agenda and onto the regular agenda today for presentation. The first one is under "Emergency Services." 16F(1) is moving and will become 8F(1) as it pertains to a tower lease agreement for certain equipment associated with our 800-megahertz radio project. That's -- 16F(1) is moving and will become 8F(1). And then the other one is -- 16H(3) is moving and will become 8H(5) as it pertains to authorizing certain drainage and utility easements as it pertains to the Radio Road storm water system in conjunction with the Golden Gate canal. That's -- 16H(3) will become 8H(5). And I've noted one communication item for myself to discuss concerning your schedules at the end of the day, and that's all that I have. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. Commissioner Norris, do you have any further changes? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: No further changes. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hac'Kie? COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: None. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Constantine? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No. I might have something under "BCC Communications." CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Thank you. With no further changes to the agenda, is there a motion -- COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Hiss Chairman, I'll make a motion that we accept the agenda and the consent agenda with changes as noted. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll second that. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second to accept the agenda and the consent agenda as changed. Is there further discussion? All those in favor please say aye. All those opposed? There being none, motion passes 4-0, Commissioner Hancock being absent, and I will not say again today Commissioner Hancock is absent. He's absent for the day. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Are you sure? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I think so. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah. I think so. Item #3 MINUTES OF THE MARCH 13, 1995 BUDGET WORKSHOP, MARCH 14, 1995 REGULAR MEETING, MARCH 15, 1995 BUDGET WORKSHOP, MARCH 16, 1995 BUDGET WORKSHOP AND MARCH 21, 1995 REGULAR MEETING - APPROVED AS PRESENTED COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Miss Chairman, I'd like to make a motion that we approve the minutes of the March 13 budget workshop, March 14 regular meeting, March 15 and 16 budget workshops, and March 21 regular meeting. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second to approve the minutes for various meetings as stated. All those in favor please say aye. Opposed? There being none, motion passes 4-0. Item #4B EMPLOYEE SERVICE AWARDS - PRESENTED Next on the agenda are service awards. We have two today. First is Chahram from Development Services. He's been with Planning Services for five years. Congratulations. Next on the list is someone who's been with the county for 15 years in the Office of Capital Projects, Allen Hadsen. Item #5A BUDGET AMENDMENT 95-224 - ADOPTED We'll move on to the -- further on the agenda to budget amendments. Mr. Smykowski. MR. SHYKOWSKI: Good morning. For the record, Michael Smykowski, Acting Budget Director. There is one budget amendment on the budget amendment report that requires the board's approval this morning. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Are there questions? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Madam Chairman, motion to approve that item. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion to approve. Is there a second? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Second. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Motion and a second. If there's no further discussion, all those in favor please say aye. Motion passes 4-0. MR. SHYKOWSKI: Thank you. Item #SB1 RIGHT-OF-WAY ACQUISITION AGREEHENT, LICENSE AGREEHENT, AND DEVELOPER CONTRIBUTION AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY AND THE HALSTATT PARTNERSHIP RE THE SIX LANING OF GOLDEN GATE PARKWAY FROM GOODLETTE-FRANK ROAD TO AIRPORT-PULLING ROAD, INCLUDING INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS - APPROVED WITH CHANGES CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. The next item on the agenda as we move to the county manager's report, item 8B(1) under "Transportation," a recommendation that we approve and authorize a right-of-way agreement. MS. QUINN: Good morning. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Good morning. MS. QUINN: I'm Deena Quinn. I'm the real property supervisor, and I'm presenting this agenda item on behalf of the Transportation Services Division this morning. This agenda item involves the approval of three agreements. The parties are Collier County and the Halstatt Partnership, the developer of the Grey Oaks subdivision. The first agreement is the Right-of-Way Acquisition Agreement. The second agreement is the License Agreement, and the final is the Developer Contribution Agreement. These agreements are necessary in order for Collier County to finalize the environmental permitting with the South Florida Water Management District, and also it will allow Collier County to issue a notice to proceed to the contractor for the six-laning of Golden Gate Parkway from Goodlette-Frank Road to Airport-Pulling Road. The Right-of-Way Acquisition Agreement will allow for road expansion, utility and sidewalk improvements both north and south of the existing road right-of-way along Golden Gate Parkway. It will also allow for land for roadway water management purposes, land for wetland mitigation purposes as required by the permitting agencies, and also acceptance of an additional 20 acres for drainage purposes for a portion of the future Livingston Road. The License Agreement will allow the Real Property Management Department time to process and close on the properties pursuant to the Right-of-Way Acquisition Agreement and will allow Collier County to proceed with the road construction as well as the mitigation work prior to closing. The Developer Contribution Agreement allows for road impact fee credits for the conveyance of the Golden Gate Parkway property as well as road impact fee credits for Livingston Road property previously conveyed to Collier County pursuant to the plat. If you'll look at the last page in your agenda packet, which I believe is page 100, I've broken down the land values into two columns. The first column shows the county's last revised offer. The second column shows the Halstatt counter-offer. Then I've subsequently broken that down into three components. The first component shows the total monetary compensation that Collier County will be paying. Collier County's last revised offer was at $145,450, and the counter-offer was at $175,951. The second component deals with the road impact fee credits. The first land value as revised by Collier County was at $870,050, and the property owner's counter-offer was at $1,067,605.65. And the third component shows the total monetary as well as the road impact fee credits. If you'll note in your agenda packet on page three, I had inadvertently shown the total difference as $248,799.65 where it's actually $238,799.65. So it's $10,000 less than what's shown in your agenda packet on page three. We're proposing a cash payment for the construction easement, the drainage and the mitigation easement of a hundred seventy-five thousand dollars nine hundred fifty-one cents and a total of $1,067,605.75 for the road impact fee credits for the conveyance of the road right-of-way for Golden Gate Parkway as well as for a portion of the Livingston Road which was previously dedicated by plat. Staff is recommending the acceptance of the counter-offer even though the owner's values are slightly higher than the county's values. They are within an acceptable range for settlement. If the agreements are not approved, then the construction penalties and condemnation costs would be incurred which could exceed the proposed agreement amount. Therefore, staff is recommending approval of the attached agreements in accordance with the agenda item and the attachments. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Are there questions for staff? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll make a motion we approve the item with the amendments and any further changes you've noted. MS. QUINN: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I have one -- one question, and it deals with the developer's commitment. We had one of these before us a couple of months ago about a road up off of Immokalee Road going to Quail West, and on that we required that the monies or that the impact fee credits would not be transferred until the county accepted the road. MS. QUINN: Well, according to the Developer Contribution Agreement, those impact fee credits will not be in place until we actually close on the property with the property owner. So even though they're giving us a License Agreement to allow us to go ahead with the construction, we will not honor those road impact fee credits until we actually obtain the properties via the conveyance documents. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: But what about acceptance of the road itself? MS. QUINN: The acceptance -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I mean, I'm concerned -- I'm confused a little bit because four months ago when we had something similar to this, we did not allow the developer to access the impact fee credits until the road was accepted which could be as much as a year away. MS. QUINN: You're talking about Livingston Road? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: No. I'm talking about Northbrook Road. MR. KANT: Excuse me. For the record, Edward Kant, Transportation Services Division. Madam Chairwoman, I believe that what you're referring to is the Northbrook Drive agreement. That was a road that was constructed by the developer. This particular transaction that we're talking about this morning is a road which will be constructed by the county, and this is no different from our acquiring any other piece of right-of-way in order for us to construct this roadway. What the developer has done is allowed us through the use of the License Agreement to have access to the property so that we don't get held up in the construction because it will take several weeks to get these papers in place, but the acceptance of the roadway is a part of our normal construction process. This is not a developer roadway. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: So this varies because the county is going to be doing the actual construction, will be in complete control of what's going on? MR. KANT: Absolutely. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: And we know what the road's going to be on both the east and the west side so we don't have a connection problem, interconnect on this road as we may have eventually with the Northbrook Road? MR. KANT: No, ma'am. This is -- As I said, we're talking about the six-laning of Golden Gate Parkway. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I know. MR. KANT: And -- And their connections have already been delineated within their DRI agreement, and those are probably a number of years down the road. The beauty from our point of view of him allowing us to get in is that we can start this work after season and get a good start on it before we get too well into the next season. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I guess what I'm trying to say is that in the end, this road -- the developer commitment and the impact fee credits in accordance with Ordinance -- what is it? 92-22? MR. KANT: 92-22 as amended. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: -- makes more sense to me, and where I opposed Northbrook Road, I'm probably going to support this one because we're in -- we're in control '- MR. KANT: That's correct. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: -- of this one, both the east and the west segments of the road as opposed to another road where we did something similar to this but the availability of the road for public use is questionable in the near future so -- MR. KANT: As a codicil to that, we have made a request -- formal request to the developer for that dedication. That should be coming about within several weeks. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: One other question for Hiss Quinn. There's a 22, almost 23 percent variance between the appraisals. MS. QUINN: That's correct. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: And is it -- Would it cost us $238,000 to pursue this through a '- MS. QUINN: Yes. It's possible that it could. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: -- eminent domain? MS. QUINN: Yes, it could. As I noted in the executive summary, the cost could vary, and those costs could be cumulative. I think I provided costs for an order of taking, what it would cost for negotiations after an order of taking, and then the cost that could be associated with a trial afterwards, and those costs could be cumulative. In addition, the county has not issued the notice to proceed to the contractor; and, therefore, also the contractor could actually start imposing penalties against the county for not beginning the construction within that 30-day notice period. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Thank you. Mr. Cuyler, will one motion take care of the entire project? MR. CUYLER: Yes. That is staff's recommendation, if I'm not mistaken. MS. QUINN: Yes. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I'll second it then. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Fine. We have a motion and a second to approve the recommendation with the amendments Hiss Quinn noted. If there's no further discussion, all those in favor please say aye. Opposed? There being none, motion passes 4-0. MS. QUINN: Thank you. Item #SD1 AUTHORIZATION FOR VILLAGE PRODUCTIONS OF GOODLAND, INC. TO HOLD AN EARTH DAY CEREMONY AND ACCEPT DONATIONS AS PART OF THE CEREMONY - APPROVED CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. Next item on the agenda is item 8D(1) to authorize Village Productions of Goodland to hold an Earth Day ceremony. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: This is in reference to the item we've discussed a couple of times before? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I think so. It looks like it's the handprint on the water tower again. COMHISSIONER NORRIS: I think they want to do that again. Nobody came today from the group? MR. DORRILL: I don't see anyone from Utilities. If you want to continue it or -- It seems to me to be a simple request. COMHISSIONER NORRIS: It is. The lady had spoken to me previously about this and just wanted to do it again and do it in conjunction with Earth Day and have another one of those little functions where they put their handprints on the wall and that sort of thing. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Such a great idea. COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Maybe we can get Tobey back down there and get his footprints on again. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: COMMISSIONER NORRIS: CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: COMHISSIONER NORRIS: CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: COMHISSIONER NORRIS: As a free dog. Uh-huh. Okay. Yeah. Do we have a motion? Motion to approve. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll second the item. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second to approve this request. If there's no further discussion, all in favor please say aye. Motion passes 4-0. Item #SF1 RECOHMENDATION THAT THE BOARD OF COUNTY COHMISSIONERS APPROVE RADIO TOWER LEASE AGREEMENTS IN ORDER TO ACCOHMODATE EQUIPMENT AS PART OF THE 800 HHZ RADIO SYSTEM - CONTINUED TO 4/18/95; STAFF TO PROVIDE REPORT RE STANDING WATER AT TOWER SITE Next item on the agenda is item 8F(1). This is dealing with the tower lease that was moved from the consent agenda. MR. DORRILL: This was moved at my request as a result of a conversation with a citizen yesterday. That individual is here. I've asked Mr. Daly to be here. This is a master lease and agreement for eight of the necessary tower sites for the county 800-megahertz system. Five of those sites are already in place. It's my understanding three of those are owned by the GTE Corporation. The other two are owned by the Florida Department of Transportation. The balance are going to either be on county property or sites to be determined. Mr. Rodinsky lives off the East Trail and has been a perennial source of concern for towers and the zoning and land-use-related designation for towers. He has one in his back yard. Some of you will recall him being here before. He had three specific questions, not necessarily as they pertain to this lease, but the GTE tower in his back yard in particular, and he had asked to be able to speak to these items and had asked for this to be pulled off, and I'm going to let him speak for himself, and then we'll attempt to answer his questions. John, did you need to say anything other than -- MR. DALY: No. MR. DORRILL: Mr. Rodinsky, your turn. MR. RODINSKY: Chairman Matthews, Commissioners, my name is Paul Rodinsky. I live at 11231 Trinity Place. I have nothing against the sheriff's department putting their antennas on these towers. It happened to be brought to my attention last Thursday night -- during the tornado watch and the hurricane watch, I looked out my back window, and at seven o'clock that night, two hours while this watch is going on we had someone climb that cellular tower approximately 300 feet and install the sheriff's antenna for the sheriff's department during that lightning storm and tornado watch which we saw this man swinging back 30 feet from one side of the tower to the other and we were horrified. It just shows what these people will do without a permit to stick up towers on this particular tower where we live and that I've been fighting against for the last eight years because of the way it's been built in water. And I'm only here today to show you pictures of this particular tower that's setting in water for at least seven months out of the year that has caused me over $10,000 in damage just in 1994. We're not talking about the years prior to that. Only in the inception of this tower I've had these problems. Now, to me, if you see a tower that's sitting in water, the cement pad should be above the water. The main structure should be out of the water. This will allow that tower for the lightning to work because we all know lightning from the tower goes down into the ground. But when the main structure -- the main metal structure is sticking out of the water, the communication industry is telling me it goes down through the water. Well, I learned in the sixth grade that electricity travels on top of water. I have pictures here of this tower that they want to build another modular building next to that's positively not safe for Collier County. Nobody even wants to tower share with this tower because it's not safe, and it's brought up so much controversy in the last eight years, and I brought these pictures in. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. MR. RODINSKY: Pass them down. And those tower -- Those antennas for the sheriff's department were put up on that tower on Thursday during the tornado watch at 10:30 at night and possibly could have taken a person's life that the county would have been responsible for. Another thing, we had an ordinance made up that made me very upset because I couldn't do anything about the ordinance. When the workshops went on, all the tower industry did was argue back and forth about tower sharing and wasting Bryan Milk's and the lawyer's time, and this went back and forth until GTE stood up and said, "Well, I'm going to give free tower use to Collier County because we're good neighbors." That is on the record, and I want someone to find that on the record, because I don't think Collier County should give GTE not one dime for their tower use since they made three -- $2.3 billion in profits in 1990. They don't need Collier County's money, especially when they made a statement in front of -- in that workshop and in front of this board for free tower use. It's like a bribe. They pay off the "Naples Daily News" with advertisements in the paper. You can't get anything derogatory about cellular or towers or anything in the newspaper. They're afraid they're going to lose all their advertisements from Cellular One or GTE. They won't even put the agenda on the front page. They put the crossword puzzle and tell what page that's on and it just -- They want -- It's -- The whole town covers it up. News is brought to you by Cellular One at 6:30 or GTE. Now, I think somebody should look at this particular area that they want to stick a modular building in and stick more stuff on just this particular tower. But as far as this -- free towers from GTE offering free tower use, why should we rent and waste our money? We should be saving a million dollars somewhere and especially if they're offering this at a workshop when we're making up an ordinance for Collier County. And they didn't even face the issues which we were really here for. We wanted to show this tower sticking out of water seven months out of the year, and the only time they do anything is when the dry season -- that's when they get all their permits and send down the county and put dirt piles and hide the water. Let's see. And all I'm asking from Collier County is not to use that tower, not to build the modular building over there. You're going to attract more electromagnetic fields to that tower. We're already worried about cancer and microwave, and we know nothing about radio waves and cellular waves. They're worried about cellular phones when these emit millions of times more power than cellular telephones. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Can you wrap it up? MR. RODINSKY: All I'm asking is Collier County not to use that particular tower which is the old Marco tower, to let them find another tower because I've had so much damage now. Everything done in this particular place has been done underhanded and illegally. There's been red tags in this whole area for years, and all I'm asking is Collier County not to use this tower, to use another tower, and to check on what -- the meetings, what they -- was said, and you possibly save the taxpayers of Collier County maybe a million dollars, maybe more, because if they're offering free tower use -- they weren't offering free tower use on one tower. This was at the workshop. This was said in front of Bryan Milk. This was said in front of the lawyer. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: You've already covered that. Can you wrap it up? MR. RODINSKY: Well, I want to make sure that -- and it was also said, if I remember right, in front of this commission -- he actually said free tower use to the sheriff's department, and his name is Mr. Kersteen from Tampa. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. MR. RODINSKY: And I thank you very much. MR. DORRILL: Mrs. Rodinsky is -- She said that she does not wish to speak. Mr. Rodinsky made one additional comment when he asked to see me yesterday. He indicated that they had made a representation concerning free service and that he was led to believe either as part of the adoption of the ordinance or the adoption of the conditional use for this tower, that they were limited to only one antenna. That was not my recollection when I told him that we would try and determine what the record was and that I would pull this item off today and allow him to speak about his concerns. Some of his concerns have been ongoing for years as they pertain to this tower which is on the lot adjacent to his back yard. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Have you been able to determine what the record holds for this? MR. DORRILL: There was nothing on the record as it pertained to the public hearing, and he told me just before the start of the meeting this morning that it was at a workshop where a representative from GTE said that Collier County would be able to have free space on its towers, and we have not been able to determine that and have not been able to pin down the actual date of the workshop until just -- he talked to me right at nine o'clock. MR. RODINSKY: Mr. Dotrill -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Constantine. MR. RODINSKY: Excuse me. I'd just like to mention that this was read before they took the vote after the workshop, and it was something that I didn't remember until I looked at my papers. MR. DORRILL: I understand. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Rodinsky, we're in the process of trying to -- MR. RODINSKY: Okay. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: -- get to the bottom of this. Thank you. Commissioner Constantine. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It seems to me Mr. Dorrill's only had 24 hours to do some homework on this, and it's certainly not going to do any damage to continue the item for a week and see if we can find -- Obviously if someone has offered us free tower space, it doesn't make much sense to enter into a lease and spend money on it. So I'll make a motion to continue the item for a week. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second -- Would the motion maker consider getting a report as well on the water that apparently the tower is in most of the wet season -- COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah. I'd be happy to include that. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: -- to see what the effect of that is in a lightning strike and with the relationship to the property around it? Would the seconder accept that? COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Certainly. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: It's a motion and a second. All those in favor please say aye. Motion passes 4-0. Thank you. Item #SH1 FINAL RANKING OF CONSULTANTS AND PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH METCALF & EDDY, INC. FOR PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING SERVICES FORAN 8-MGD EXPANSION TO THE NORTH COUNTY WATER TREATEMENT PLANT, RFP #95-2323 - STAFF RECOMMENDATION APPROVED Next item on the agenda under the "County Manager," 8H(1), approve final ranking of consultants and professional services agreement. Mr. Conrecode. MR. CONRECODE: Good morning, Commissioners. For the record, Tom Conrecode from your Capital Projects Office. The item before you today is 8H(1). It is a recommendation that the board approve the final ranking of consultants for the eight-million-gallon-per-day expansion at the North County Regional Water Treatment Plant. The Consultant Selection Committee received proposals from five firms on February 10 and went through the ranking process and is recommending in this negotiated contract with the number one ranked firm of Metcalf and Eddy teamed with Agnoli, Barber and Brundage locally. The scope of the work includes design, permits, plans and specs and construction observation as well as startup for the eight-HGD expansion. Services negotiated are $1,181,619, and staff recommends that the board approve the contract and approve the associated budget amendments with it. I would like to note for the record that there were two minor clerical changes made on page one and two of the contract, and we'd like to just switch out page one and two as a result of that. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Questions for staff? Commissioner Constantine. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah. I've got a couple of questions. I'm not happy with the way the item is presented. We don't have any idea how the ranking was done. I don't have any idea who's on the Consultant Selection Committee. I don't know if there was a matrix. I don't know what points were assigned to what. All I know is the order that's finally recommended and then the contract that's been worked from there. I have a couple of concerns about the order in particular. But, I guess, first and foremost, where's the backup? Where's the information on how you arrived at this order, one through five? MR. CONRECODE: I'd be happy to provide that to you. We don't typically provide that. We do the consultant selection process in accordance with the county's purchasing policy, and the standard ranking matrix evaluation forms again are part of that standard RFP process. I'd be happy to provide you with that, the specifics of the ratings on this selection process. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I don't know what standard practice is. We have seen those. We have had those in some of our executive summaries before, and my comfort level is much higher when I can at least look through there and -- MR. CONRECODE: Okay. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- make some sense out of why people are ranked where. MR. CONRECODE: Okay. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The second question is, the last three or three of the last big projects we've done have been with consultants or engineers from somewhere else outside, and they'll have a local firm do some work with them, but the primary is further away somewhere. Where is Metcalf and Eddy? Where are their offices? MR. CONRECODE: The offices they'll operate out of here are on the east coast of Florida. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Are those their own -- Are those Metcalf and Eddy offices? MR. CONRECODE: That's their offices, yeah. They are, I believe, a Delaware corporation which is where their national headquarters are. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: My concern is that with a couple of our big projects, in particular we've had work done, some problems have arisen, and then they are away somewhere. They're long gone, and I would think there would be some level of comfort on these. I know we had the discussion last year as far as general -- not even a year ago -- maybe six months ago, as far as general purchasing policy, do we want to give extra points for somebody locally and that's -- I don't think if we're talking bidding-wise that's necessarily true. But I think if we're looking at qualifications, ranking, and then going to negotiate, I don't know how much -- again, because I don't have the matrix, I don't know how much credence was given to local firms but -- MR. CONRECODE: And I could provide that. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'd much rather have the primary be local rather than just have them bring somebody on board so they could say they have a local firm, because if there is a problem two years from now, it's not Agnoli, Barber and Brundage that are going to be able to clear that up for us. MR. CONRECODE: There are a couple of things that staff considers important in evaluating -- in going through the evaluation process, and certainly location of the firm is one of the key factors, one of the five areas that were rated. Potential points in that area are five total points that could be accumulated. The second area, and I think probably somewhat more important in a project like a reverse osmosis treatment plant, is experience on building reverse osmosis treatment plants and staff went through that -- the Selection Committee went through that and made the selection based on the most experienced, the most qualified firm building those types of plants, and that's my estimation of why Metcalf and Eddy was the number one ranked firm. They've done more than anyone else on -- of the proposers. In fact, a couple of the firms on here have never done one. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: When you say more -- Frankly, I'd rather see all that in front of me rather than ask you item by item. I'd be more comfortable -- MR. CONRECODE: I'd be happy to bring it back. That's not a problem. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Just a moment. Commissioner Norris. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Commissioner Constantine brings up a good point, although to me a physical location is important but not as important as availability. If someone -- It's possible that someone could be located in some other area but still be available when we need them. And since we don't know -- This board is not familiar with Metcalf and Eddy particularly. We'll have to rely on your input here as to whether you feel that they will be available to us should problems arise in the future, and I don't have any way of knowing that unless you can clarify it a little bit for me. MR. CONRECODE: Well, one of the things that gives me confidence in recommending Metcalf and Eddy is the fact that they are a firm in good standing that's been around for a long time and has done a considerable amount of this work. They've probably done more internationally than any other firm that I'm aware of in the engineering industry. So in terms of availability and in terms of national standing, I think you're probably dealing with one of the top firms to do this kind of work. That's not -- That's not to say that there isn't important consideration among local presence too. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Any further questions? Commissioner Constantine. COHHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Would you have any objection to continuing the item until we can have that matrix and all that information so we know on what you've based the rankings? MR. CONRECODE: We'd be happy to do that. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Just a moment. Commissioner Hac'Kie. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Just a question about the continuation. Does it cause a problem to delay, or how much delay are we talking about and what's the -- what are the repercussions of delay? MR. CONRECODE: Well, I could delay a half-hour and get you the material you need or I could delay a week and have it back on your agenda next week. That's at your discretion. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And if we just delay a week, does that cause a big problem in this project? MR. CONRECODE: Not a big problem. It's a week that we have to deal with otherwise. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: If you don't have a problem with delaying it, then I defer to Commissioner Constantine. MR. CONRECODE: Well, if it makes -- if it makes the board feel better, we'd just soon do it and make them -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'd just feel more comfortable having the ability to review that info. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Constantine, is that a motion to continue? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll make a motion to continue one week. Does that work, Tom? MR. CONRECODE: That will work. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: One week -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Is there a second? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- pending that information. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Is there a second? Motion dies for lack of a second. Is there another motion? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Can we continue it until later today? I don't want to make a decision without having any of the information on which to base that decision. That doesn't make any sense to me. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I -- I '- MR. DORRILL: Let me say that we've sort of come full circle on this. You may recall that originally staff was not -- Well, in recent history the board said for certain projects that they wanted to interview the firms. Then the board said -- I can't remember what the time reference was -- they didn't want to do that anymore, and they didn't want to have to sit through the presentations and the oral presentations and then rank engineers because the contention at that time had been it was always the same one or two firms that seemed to get the county's business, and so then we revised the process, and we can show you what the staff matrix is. I don't know typically that we always include the staff matrix in here, but you're certainly entitled to that and entitled to know what the major categories were and what -- the individual tankers and the points that they gave. It's all a matter of public record. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Gee, thanks. A couple of questions, one for the board. I asked, is there any objection to continuing until we get that information and everyone said -- either said no or said nothing, and then when I made the motion to continue it until we had that information, nobody wanted to do that. So I guess -- what is it y'all want to do? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I -- I -- If you'll make a motion again, I'll second it. I personally don't need to delay because I know that Tom has more experience in this area than I do, and I'm going to defer to his judgment and trust that he's weighted these things appropriately. And, frankly, as much as I like to use local companies, I have more of a concern that we choose an experienced engineer for such a specialized item. I know that that's Tom's job to make that kind of a recommendation, and I'm going to trust that he did that. So I personally don't need a delay; however, if you'd be comfortable with moving it to the end of the agenda, would that be enough time for you? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's -- Yeah. I'd, frankly, prefer to see it and be able to look at it and digest it, but if the only way we're going to continue it is to continue it for an hour instead of for a week, then I'll do that. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: That's fine with me. I -- I feel comfortable about voting on it today. I hate to continue something that seems to be fairly boilerplate. I think probably the way this presentation has been presented to us is in response to what we've requested in the past but if we -- Also, as part of this, if we would like to amend our procedure to have these matrices put back into the agenda packet, I would certainly have no objection to that. I think in the future that would certainly be helpful. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It seems to me that's a compromise between the two. There's a far cry between us sitting and interviewing each engineering firm and having absolutely no information which is what we have right now -- MR. CONRECODE: We'll make sure -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- and there ought to be a compromise between the two. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Yes. I agree. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Conrecode, can we see this back at the end of the agenda today? MR. CONRECODE: Yes, ma'am. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Which will probably -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Can you get those to me as quickly as you can -- MR. CONRECODE: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- so I can look it over in the meantime? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Based on the speed at which we're going, it's probably going to be about 11:30, if not sooner. MR. CONRECODE: I can have it -- I can have it here that quick. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Thank you. It may even be sooner, so as quickly as you can. Item #8H2 SELECTION OF AN ALTERNATE BORROW SITE FOR THE COLLIER COUNTY BEACH RESTORATION PROJECT - STAFF RECOHMENDATION APPROVED Let's move on to the next item. Item 8H(2), a recommendation to consider selection of an alternate borrow site for the beach restoration project. Mr. Conrecode. MR. CONRECODE: Commissioners, in an abundance of caution and looking towards the schedule for the completion of the beach renourishment project -- actually, for the start of the beach renourishment in the fall of this year and after review of the primary borrow site that was identified as Capri Pass, we felt it was prudent to bring to the boardws attention and to the Beach Renourishment Committeews attention the problematic concerns from a number of different people, the environmental agencies, the residents on Marco Beach, related to the Capri Pass borrow site. The findings of the initial work werenwt definitive and couldnwt provide the assurances that the folks on Marco Island were looking for, and we think itws important at this point to ask the board if theywd like to consider alternate borrow sites. The alternate borrow sites are shown off the coast in the attachment that youwve got. Iwve asked Dr. Stephen to be here this morning to speak to some of the specifics related to the research that hews done and the engineering involved. So subject to any questions -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Are there questions? MR. CONRECODE: -- I defer to the board or ask Dr. Stephen to come up. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Are there questions for staff? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I do. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Norris. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: The -- Excuse me. The borrow site that I see depicted on our packet seems to be a lot closer. Do we know the sand quality of that or is that a question better asked of Dr. Stephen? MR. CONRECODE: Itws a question asked best of Dr. Stephen. We know generally what it is. Again, we have to do some fairly detailed work in order to find out at the depth of four, five, six, eight feet what the quality is. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: If we were to use this area as our main borrow site, would that result in probably some cost savings on the project? MR. CONRECODE: To date Iwve been saying that itws cost-neutral. We donwt -- We know itws not going to cost any more money. Therews a potential for savings, but itws really difficult to identify, again based on grain size analysis, whether therews going to be repumping involved of the sand. So therews a couple of things that wewre still looking at, and, you know, if therews some time savings or some mobilization savings, those are real hard to measure at this point until we know more about the source of the -- the sand source. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: The distance seems to be about one-fourth of the distance that we would otherwise be shipping sand, and that seems to me it would -- all other factors being equal, we would have to save a substantial amount of money for that. MR. CONRECODE: The number one issue there being the repumping of the sand. Youwre correct, Commissioner. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: The repumping and the quality of the sand, and thatws, I guess, what we need to hear from Dr. Stephen. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I have a question, Mr. Conrecode. These sites, while theywre much closer than the 19 miles from Vanderbilt to the Big Marco Pass, itws still eight miles away and '- Do you know what the efficiency is of pumping the slurry eight, nine miles? MR. CONRECODE: I~d ask the expert to speak to that. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I guess -- Let me tell you where I'm going so that we look at this. Number one, about a year and a half ago we had a lot of sand pulled out of the Gulf and put down at Naples Landing, and we were looking at a lot of different sand sources, some of which we said didn't look good and others looked fine. And somehow or other in the intervening year and a half, we seemed to get concentrated on Big Marco Pass, and I don't know how that happened. Number two, what happened to all the sand sources that were available that we said were good? And, number three, another source that we were talking about a year and a half ago that we haven't talked about since is inland sand sources, and it seems to me that if we can't efficiently pump eight miles and we have to repump, that we ought to be looking then at inland sand sources and barging this stuff down here and pumping it. So, I mean, it seems to me there's an awful lot of variables that we still need to address. Dr. Stephen. DR. STEPHEN: Thank you. For the record, I'm Michael Stephen. I'm the project manager for Coastal Engineering. The request, first of all -- To answer your questions, Commissioner Matthews, first of all, if you look at the planned sheet that was attached to the agenda item, just to the south of Vanderbilt Beach and offshore, there are rectangles labeled borrow area 3-2-1, borrow area 3-5, borrow area 6. Those areas are the offshore material or those areas that were selected as being visibly suitable for offshore borrow material at the time that we did the clamshell testing to which you referred. The best material -- The instruction that we've received was that the Capri area was the highest quality and was the preferable source of material; thus, that area became the focus of the primary borrow area. It was an area large enough that had enough material to do the entire project. The location at Capri is far enough away that really the -- probably the most practical method of transmitting the sand is by using a barge to hydraulically excavate the sand, put it into scows which transport the material up to Naples, would then meet another suction dredge and would be pumped on shore from that offshore dredge. This is the mechanism that was successfully used last year at the Venice Beach restoration project. So that is a normal practice. We've been on site, seen that operation working. The -- To answer Commissioner Norris' question, because that mechanism or that process requires the travel time of a large ocean-going tug to haul those scows back and forth, that would bring a cost savings to the utilization of these borrow areas offshore if they were to be suitable. The additional alternative that is added by the possibility of using these proposed alternate borrow areas would be that they are within straight pumping distance for some of the larger, more efficient hydraulic dredges, that it is within the distance of feasible pumping for something like the beach builder which can pump up to 50 or 60,000 feet. So that does come into the realm of feasibility and provides another alternative. In our discussion with the dredging contractors over the last year, they have indicated that they would actually price out or cost out direct pumping even from the Capri location. It may not be cost effective and may not be the lowest bid price, but they would look at that. They will look at every alternative. The final element, I believe, that you mentioned is the use of upland sand, and that has always remained an open point of consideration and has always been a point of discussion. We have tried to keep the local upland sand source contractors apprised of the status of the project, and they realize that there would be extreme difficulty in direct supply to a place like downtown Naples or over the bridges during the season in the middle of the -- of the seasonal period and the high traffic area, but they look toward the possibility of stockpiling and also using material in a supplemental fashion for maintenance in the future and also at the possibility of Vanderbilt Beach where there is straight access. The residents of Vanderbilt Beach informally have indicated that they're not -- they don't look favorably on that alternative, but I think that we have always considered that to be an open bid option, and that will be a decision to be made in conjunction with the board at the time the bids are received. I hope that answers your question. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Well, it does except that I'm -- I still continue to toy with the idea that we have a sand water beach system of which there's -- I guess you could say almost a finite amount of sand currently in that system, and it seems to me that if -- that it's not exactly a static system by a long shot, but the sand does move around in the system, and if we were to take sand from one borrow area and -- or at least take it in an exorbitant amount from one borrow area, that nature is just going to put the sand back where we took it from in a given amount of time. Whatever that time is I don't know, whether it's two years or ten years. I guess it's related to the storms. And I'm just toying with the idea and wondering if we were to add sand to the system, i.e., bring it from an outside source, if we would not have in the end a better project because we haven't taken it from the system, just to move it from one place to another, and we all know that when you mess around with Mother Nature like that, you wind up losing the ball game. DR. STEPHEN: That's a very good point, and I think maybe I can add some clarification or some focus to that issue. The system where the sand moves actively around as you're describing occurs basically landward of the 12-foot depth contour offshore, and it is about at that depth as you move from the beach directly offshore about 800 to 1,000 feet offshore that we encounter this rocky hard bottom that we have determined to exist in the near shore area. There is not a lot of sand moving around seaward of that point. As you move seaward of that point, you get into deeper and deeper water. In the case of the offshore borrow areas that we presently have identified, they are 25 feet deep. So they are well outside the area of active sand motion, and there is no real direct mechanism to cause sand to be displaced from the beach back out to those areas; thus, the use of those offshore areas is more akin to what you were seeking, that we bring in sand from an outside source and put it on our currently active beach. In fact, ideally the areas that we are looking at right now were old beaches at some time in the geologic past, but at minus 30 feet it's been eons since they've been in the active zone. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Other questions? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: So, in effect, you're saying that Commissioner Matthews' concern would be addressed by taking some offshore sand and putting it into the onshore system? DR. STEPHEN: Yes, sir. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: As equally as effective as trucking in sand from some other location? DR. STEPHEN: Yes. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: You're getting new sand in the onshore system? DR. STEPHEN: That's correct. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. That's what I thought I heard you say. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yes. That's what I heard him saying too. Do you have some idea of -- and I know we're all in a rough-guess stage at this point, but what's your approximate cost per cubic yard delivered pumping from these new sites? DR. STEPHEN: I have not run a specific number on that, but I would say that we might save a dollar a yard. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Save from what point? DR. STEPHEN: From -- From the -- that the -- that if we were going to use the NB sources, we're looking at about $8.50 a cubic yard. As a budget element, we might lower that to $7.50. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: So using the new borrow sources, we could pay as little as $7 a cubic yard to put the sand on the beach? DR. STEPHEN: Yes. Realize that mobilization is -- is -- There are two fundamental costs. Mobilization is the process of bringing the equipment from wherever it is now down to the project area. That really isn't necessarily going to change. They're going to have to bring barges. They're going to have to bring dredges. And so they load all of that onto the barges. Then they bring this train of equipment down here. They basically would use the same or similar equipment for each site. But the operations, if it is a shorter distance to pump or that the haul distance is shorter, that would theoretically reduce their cost to transport and that's -- that would lower that cubic yard cost. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Constantine. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just to put that in perspective, how many cubic yards will it take to do the entire project? DR. STEPHEN: 1.3 million. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So we're talking $1.3 million potentially. DR. STEPHEN: If I had to estimate it right now, which is what I'm doing, I would estimate a potential of about a million dollars differential. Please realize that we have one or two samples that we have taken in these locales. It's very preliminary information; thus, I think that -- as Mr. Conrecode put it, it's a step towards prudence, a step towards evaluating a potentially viable alternative. We don't want to leave it hanging out there and not do that. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Have you done the vibra cores on these new borrow areas yet for suitability of the sand? DR. STEPHEN: No. That's really what this request is, is to inform you that we would like to proceed to do that. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I see. Any further questions? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Any speakers? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Are there any speakers on this, Mr. Dorrill? MR. DORRILL: No, ma'am. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: The request then is just to go ahead and investigate this source; and, if so, to move forward with it -- if it's acceptable, I mean? MR. CONRECODE: Yes, sir. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, I'll -- I'll make a motion that we -- that we accept staff's recommendation on this one. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Second. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second. Are there further -- Is there further discussion? Being none, I'll call the question. All in favor please say aye. Motion passes 4-0. Item #8H3 TOURIST TAX FUNDING FOR SWAMP BUGGY RACES, EAST NAPLES CIVIC ASSOCIATION, COLLIER COUNTY SENIOR GAMES, INC., AND NORTH NAPLES LITTLE LEAGUE - STAFF RECOHMENDATION APPROVED Next item on the agenda is 8H(3), tourist tax funding for a plethora of events. MS. GANSEL: Yes. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Miss Gansel. MS. GANSEL: Good morning, Commissioners. My name is Jean Gansel from the Budget Office. I've brought forward to you four requests for category C funding. These events have been reviewed by the Tourist Development Council and they recommend funding for them. The first one is for the Swamp Buggy Races to be held Hay 27 and 28. The request for funding is $48,471. We also have a recommendation from the TDC to waive the guidelines for reimbursing the funds. Your guidelines require that the organization put the money up front and they submit invoices to us. We then reimburse them for those expenses. Mr. Vaccaro is here to answer any questions you have. Essentially he has -- would like to do a larger event to publicize more widely within the state, and their organization does not have the money to do that, but they will submit, of course, all the invoices, and we will assure that the accounting is appropriate. Would you like me to go through each event or do you want -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I don't know that we need to do that. Does anybody want her to go through -- It doesn't appear so. MR. CUYLER: The contract in front of you is for Swamp Buggy. The other two approvals, the contract will come back to you probably on your consent agenda, but we did have that one ready. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I want to add a comment. During the TDC hearing, Mr. Vaccaro said that not many locals comparatively to out-of-town people attended the Swamp Buggy, and I thought that was interesting when he said it until over the weekend I was talking with a gentleman in North Carolina, and guess what they watched on television? The Swamp Buggy Races. So I -- He's got a good point. Is there a motion on the Swamp Buggy Races? COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Move approval. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just on the one or are we approving four? MR. CUYLER: It would be staff's recommendation which includes the others. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Which includes them all. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Perfect. Move approval. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll second that. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second to approve the tourist tax funding for the Swamp Buggy Races, the East Naples Civic Association, Collier County Senior Games, and the North Naples Little League. If there's no further discussion, all those in favor please say aye. Motion passes 4-0. MS. GANSEL: Thank you. Item #8H4 RESOLUTION 95-273, REVISIONS TO GUIDELINES FOR CATEGORY C TOURIST TAX GRANTS - ADOPTED WITH THE SUPER MAJORITY SET AT SIX MEMBERS CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. Next item on the agenda is revisions to the guidelines for category C tourist tax grants. Miss Gansel. MS. GANSEL: In January the Tourist -- The Tourist Council has a subcommittee on tourism. They met and reviewed the guidelines for category C. As a result of that subcommittee meeting, they came up with three recommendations which they brought forward to the TDC, and the TDC did recommend approval of those three changes to the guidelines. The first one is to -- One of the ineligible expenditures is that full-time salaries or supplements to full-time salaries is not eligible for reimbursement. The TDC felt that the supplemental salaries should be an eligible expenditure just as other costs that they might incur. They left in full-time salaries as an ineligible expenditures but requests that we delete "or supplements for salaries of existing staff." COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Question on that item. MS. GANSEL: Yes. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: If we're deleting that, then staff will become ineligible? MS. GANSEL: If they are working on the project and they document the time that they are putting on the project, that that part of their salaries would be eligible for reimbursement. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Are we defining that only full-time are eligible; and, if so, why? MS. GANSEL: The item as it was originally stated was as an ineligible expenditure full-time salaries or supplements for salaries of existing staff, and they're requesting that full-time salaries continue to be an ineligible expenditure but supplements for salaries would not. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Okay. MR. CUYLER: Supplemental personnel have always been an eligible cost -- I mean, if you bring them on especially for the project. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you. MS. GANSEL: Okay. The second item that they have requested to be changed is currently we have 100 percent match requirement from the grant of the grantor and what they are -- and 50 percent of that 100 percent may be in kind. Their recommendation is that we change that to be a 50 percent match in cash and where there would be no in kind match. Essentially if you had $100,000 total budget, as the guidelines now stand, they would need to match 50 percent. Twenty-five percent could be cash, 25 percent -- or 25,000 cash, 25,000 in kind. The revision would be that for a $100,000 project, they would need 25,000 cash. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: And they can't -- There will be no in kind -- MS. GANSEL: Exactly. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Nothing in kind counts. MS. GANSEL: Exactly. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Are there other questions on that subject? What's to be gained by doing that? I'm not sure I understand. MS. GANSEL: I think part of the thinking in this was the difficulty in quantifying in kind, putting a cash value to it with the reimbursement process, that it was just easier and to have just the cash as a requirement for accounting purposes. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Other -- Other donations or gifts or grants would qualify for the cash in kind? It doesn't have to be money specifically raised by the event itself? MS. GANSEL: I would say that they would have to be -- they would have to be cash donations, that in kind is eliminated from that. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Any source. MS. GANSEL: That -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: But it cuts the match in half, the requirement for the person -- MS. GANSEL: Exactly. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Okay. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: And the last item? MS. GANSEL: And the last item is a new provision that they added, that any project requesting over $500,000 in TDC funds would require a super majority recommendation of the Tourist Development Council. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: How many votes is that in the -- MS. GANSEL: The discussion at the meeting, although I must admit, I'm not sure from a legal perspective, was that it would be seven of the nine thinking that it was, you know -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Does super majority automatically dictate 80 percent? MS. GANSEL: Or is it more than one? MR. CUYLER: It would be your majority plus whatever is necessary to get to your next vote. In that case -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Majority would be five. MR. CUYLER: A majority would be five. So a super majority could be considered six as opposed to seven. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I think we -- I think in this -- MR. CUYLER: Six to three. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: To eliminate concern, I think we ought to specify that it be six or seven votes or whatever we want it to require because I can see now a discussion developing on what's a super majority. MS. GANSEL: Yes. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Six is two-thirds which is probably a super majority. I mean, I'm trying to think of large bodies that do this like the house or senate or those. When they have something that's controversial, it's two-thirds. MR. CUYLER: And I think it's also important to make sure we get on the record that the TDC recommendation is still only a recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners. Whether they do or do not have a super majority, you still have the ability to take your vote the way you see fit. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I'm just commenting that the phrase "super majority" leaves it open as to what the requirements are, and we as the board probably should fix that number. Commissioner Norris. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I believe, if I understand it, though, the TDC is asking for a seventh. MS. GANSEL: That was the discussion, although it wasn't a part of the motion from the subcommittee nor from the TDC. It was one of those things after when you're thinking about you wish you had clarified at the time. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Yeah. Well, given the nature of the committee as an advisory to this board in any case, I feel inclined to grant them whatever they ask for so -- but you're saying they weren't clear on what they were asking for? MS. GANSEL: It was part of the discussion, and as you've said, I really -- in retrospect, I wish I had asked that at the time when the motion was made, but it was not -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: It wasn't real clear? MS. GANSEL: -- included in the motion. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: It was not included -- MS. GANSEL: I don't believe it was even discussed at the TDC meeting -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I don't think it was. MS. GANSEL: -- at the subcommittee when they were going back and forth, but it was not included in their motion either from the subcommittee. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So at the actual TDC meeting, it wasn't discussed at all? MS. GANSEL: It was discussed as a super majority as opposed to the actual numbers that were involved in that. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: So that -- that -- you know, from my perspective, I guess at this point we either need to clarify that or this board needs to fix a number on what that -- on what a super majority really is because Mr. Cuyler is telling us that it could be as few as six, but the information coming to us from other -- from members of the TDC is that their intention is seven. So, you know, I would suggest that this board fix it. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let me make a couple of thoughts. One, we were just told the TDC didn't discuss it. I know the subcommittee did, but that's only three people out of the TDC. Super majority is usually two-thirds -- being most bodies, majority plus one, but if you get into a large body, it's two-thirds. I think six out of nine is a pretty healthy thing. As you said, it's advisory in nature anyway. We still have the ability to review the item regardless. So I'll make the suggestion of six. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Let me make a motion that we approve the recommendations of the TDC and set the number for a super majority at six, and if the TDC has a preference of seven -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Let them come back. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: -- that we'll hear -- that we'll rehear this item and set it at seven for them but for now we'll set it at six. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I think that's fair in view of the fact that Mr. Cuyler is telling us that six would be the number. Mr. Cuyler. MR. CUYLER: One last thing. Your guidelines have been adopted by resolution, so if I can notify the clerk to save a resolution number, and if you will indicate in your motion that this will be done by resolution, then we'll take care of that. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I will amend my motion to so indicate that this will be done by resolution. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I will second the motion. I have one question I just need to clarify on that staff item. The time specifically spent by an employee of Florida Sports Park for Swamp Buggy, regardless of whether they're full-time, part-time, whatever, the time that they specifically spend on that event can be credited, and then they do over and above that or you can keep them on year round, but anything they specifically do for that event can be credited -- MS. GANSEL: Right. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- with this change? MS. GANSEL: Those expenses would be reimbursable, yes. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Okay. Thanks. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. We have a motion, we have a second to accept the revisions to the guidelines of category C by resolution, and the clerk will reserve a resolution number. If there's no further discussion, all in favor please say aye. Motion passes 4-0. Thank you. MS. GANSEL: Thank you, Commissioners. Item #8H5 RESOLUTION 95-274, AUTHORIZING THE ACQUISITION BY GIFT, PURCHASE OR CONDEMNATION THE DRAINAGE EASEMENTS FOR DRAINAGE, UTILITY AND MAINTENANCE PURPOSES WHICH ARE REQUIRED TO COMPLETE THE CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE OF THE STORMWATER OUTFALL SWALE FROM RADIO ROAD NORTH TO THE GOLDEN GATE MAIN CANAL WITHIN THE LIFE OF THE SURFACE WATER PERMIT - ADOPTED CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Next item on the agenda is item 8H(5) which was moved from the consent agenda. Mr. Conrecode. MR. CONRECODE: Commissioners, for the record, Tom Conrecode again from the Capital Projects Office, and we had asked that this item be pulled off the consent agenda because it's a request for condemnation, and it's required to be heard on your regular agenda. This is a follow-up to an item we presented to the board in November of '94 wherein the board adopted a resolution authorizing staff to acquire property by gift or purchase for those easements associated with drainage of the future Radio Road project. This, in fact, will then authorize us to go to condemnation if required if we can't acquire the parcels otherwise by gift or purchase, and it's for a total of six parcels, and the fiscal impact is $115,000. Staff recommends that you adopt the resolution and authorize the chairman to execute it. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Are there questions from staff? I'm -- for staff. I'm sorry. It doesn't look like there are any. Is there a motion? COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Move approval. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: There's a motion. Is there a second? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll second that. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second to approve the recommendation of staff. If there's no further discussion, all those in favor please say aye. Motion passes 3-0, Commissioner Norris being absent. Mr. Conrecode, are you ready to move with the other item? MR. CONRECODE: Yes, ma'am. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Could maybe we have those to look at before we take it back? I'd just like to actually look at them and see what I'm voting on before we actually vote on them. Item #12C1 RESOLUTION 95-275, RE PETITION AV-95-003, AGNOLI, BARBER & BRUNDAGE, INC., AS AGENT FOR OWNER, VRG-HARSH ASSOCIATES, LTD., REQUESTING VACATION OF PORTIONS OF DRAINAGE, ACCESS AND MAINTENANCE EASEMENTS LOCATED ONN A PORTION OF THE PLAT OF GRAND ISLE AT PELICAN MARSH - ADOPTED CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Why don't we look at the last item, 12C(1), and then we'll take a break and come back and do this one. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Great. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. We're going to proceed to the next item on the agenda, item 12C(1), Petition AV 95-003. MR. MULLER: Good morning, Commissioners. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Good morning. MR. MULLER: For the record, my name is Russ Mullet with the Transportation Services Division. Item 12C(1) is a public hearing to consider Petition AV 95-003 for the vacation of portions of drainage, access, maintenance easements on a portion of the plats Grand Isle, Pelican Marsh being a replat of a portion of Pelican Marsh Golf Course phase one plat. The golf course plat had a blanket drainage, maintenance, and access easement. During the construction of the golf course, the developer considered a sliver of the land could better be utilized as home sites, and now it's desirous to vacate the drainage access and maintenance easement. Letters of no objection have been received from Water Management, Project Plan Review, the Grand Isle Homeowner's Association, and WCN Communities. A resolution was prepared and approved by the County Attorney's Office in accordance with Florida Statute section 177.101. And based on the letters of no objection and the county having no maintenance responsibility, the staff recommends approval. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Are there questions for staff? Are there public speakers, Mr. Dotrill? MR. DORRILL: No. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll make a motion that we follow -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Just -- I have to close the public hearing. Is there a motion? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm terribly sorry. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: That's fine. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll make a motion we follow staff's recommendation on the item. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I'll second it. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second to approve Petition AV 95-003 as recommended by staff. There's no further discussion. Those in favor please say aye. Motion passes 4-0. Thank you. Item #10A RESOLUTION 95-276, RECOHMENDING TO THE STATE LEGISLATURE THAT MAXIMUM DISCRETION BE GIVEN TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENTS FOR USE OF TOURIST DEVELOPMENT TAXES FOR BEACH RENOURISHHENT - ADOPTED We have to go back up. I missed an add-on item, 10A, which is a resolution by the Board of County Commission to -- MR. DORRILL: You also have a public comment as well. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have public comment as well? Okay. The resolution is asking the legislature for the State of Florida to reserve for the county governments in each of the 67 counties the full and maximum discretion related to the Tourist Development taxes and the use of them. I had been notified by our legislative delegation that this item was being considered by the legislature and thought it would be good for us to make a resolution asking the legislature to maintain maximum discretion for the counties. So is there any discussion on the item? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Great idea. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Is there a motion? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Motion to approve. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second to approve the resolution requesting maximum discretion for county government on the Tourist Development tax. MR. CUYLER: And that includes your direction that this be sent to the legislative delegation. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yes. It includes direction that it be sent to the legislative delegation. Is that correct, motion maker? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Absolutely. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And a second. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Fine. All those in favor please say aye. Opposed? There being none, motion passes 4-0. And now we are moving back, Mr. Conrecode, to item 8H(1), RFP 95-2323. MR. CONRECODE: Commissioners, what I've handed out to you is a copy of the request for proposals as it was distributed in January by the purchasing department, and on page 22 and 23 of that package, it specifically describes the evaluation of the proposals so staff or the Selection Committee in this case and the firms who are proposing understand how they're going to be rated and reviewed as a part of this process, and that's largely in accordance with the Consultants Competitive Negotiation Act. The other handout that I've provided you provides a summary sheet which tallies the total scoring of all the firms within the process, and then it goes back through the Selection Committee and identifies how each member of the Selection Committee ranked each of the firms on all the criteria listed. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Are there further questions for staff? Oh. We were going to -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Did you want to take a break? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's okay. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Are you ready to move? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: If you'll be patient with me, we can do it. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah. Okay. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just -- Maybe, Tom, you can walk me through this. "Current and projected workload," for example, I assume that means if they are already weighted down with projects for us, we don't want to put all our eggs in one basket or -- MR. CONRECODE: Not necessarily just with us but with other work as well. We asked them specifically to identify those contracts that they're currently working under, the percent completion of those contracts as well as other proposals that are pending award, and we kind of weigh that to make sure that the staff they have assigned to our project isn't necessarily assigned to four other projects and can't give us the kind of commitment that we require. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I guess why I ask that is you mention the number one ranked group which is -- MR. CONRECODE: It's Metcalf and Eddy. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- Metcalf and Eddy is doing projects all over the world. I'm wondering, do we become such a tiny speck in the big picture that two years from now when there's a problem we have trouble getting attention. MR. CONRECODE: Well, I hope that we don't have a problem two years from now -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So do I. MR. CONRECODE: -- but specific to this, the team, for instance, that's proposed as a part of their package is currently constructing a facility in Hollywood, Florida. They would propose to take that same team and move it here for the same type of facility. It's largely like the facility we have now. In terms of availability in the future, I think all of us are subject to getting hit by a truck tomorrow so -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Why I ask that is if -- I mean, if they take that same team and move them to Jacksonville when they're done here, then they're all busy doing Jacksonville. And if we have a problem -- and we have on some other big projects having to do with utilities -- who then do we get to come back and work with us on that problem? Whereas if you -- I've lost my page here but -- I don't know what order the -- any of the locals are but -- What item is this? 8H(1)? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: 8H(1). COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The -- My thought just being, if there was -- and I agree with you. I hope there is no problem after the fact, but if there is, number two and number three can be in your office in 30 minutes' time if they needed to be. And just knowing our experience on a couple of other big projects, I'd hate to have a difficult time tracking down Metcalf and Eddy after the fact. MR. CONRECODE: Well, and I -- and I think maybe I'd like to put one thing in perspective. In every case here, we have an out-of-town firm teaming with an in-town firm. In the case of Metcalf and Eddy, Metcalf and Eddy happen to be the headliner on the proposal page that shows up as Metcalf and Eddy, slash, Agnoli, Barber and Brundage. In Hole, Montes' case, they were the headliner on their proposal with Kimley-Horn and Associates as the co-proposer. With Wilson, Miller and Black, Veatch, the same thing. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I noticed Agnoli, Barber and Brundage were hedging their bet and teamed up twice there. MR. CONRECODE: Yes, sir. That occurs commonly on some of these. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You mentioned these folks have -- Metcalf and Eddy have quite a bit of experience doing RO? MR. CONRECODE: What the Selection Committee found was that Metcalf and Eddy and Boyle Engineering had the greatest extent of experience, although the county has some concerns with how Boyle had performed previously. As a result, they didn't rank very high in the selection process. Greeley and Hansen hasn't done an RO plant so, therefore, ranked fairly low. Wilson, Miller and Black and Veatch have pretty considerable experience in doing these type of plants. Hole, Montes has some experience in association with Kimley-Horn and Associates but on a very small scale. The largest facility they've built is the one MGD facility. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Have we done any work with Metcalf and Eddy before? Has the county? MR. CONRECODE: We have not that I'm aware of. Not in the seven plus years that I've been here. We went through an exhaustive reference check all up and down the eastern seaboard of the United States with everyone that they have dealt with before. Let me qualify that. Not everyone they've dealt with before. With everyone that we could find references on. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I noticed none of them get too high marks on ability to complete project on budget. Nobody got higher than a three. And I'm picking one ranking out here but -- in particular but -- MR. CONRECODE: MAybe as staff skepticism. I'm not sure which one you're on. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Or staff realism maybe. I guess we found one that has a four -- MR. CONRECODE: The highest ranking on that one is a three. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Was a three. MR. CONRECODE: Three points. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Okay. MR. CONRECODE: There are representatives of Metcalf and Eddy here if you care to talk with them further. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Do we have -- Oh, okay. Here. I'm just trying to learn how this works as we go. MR. CONRECODE: One of the things that we typically do is evaluate -- everyone evaluates independently so that there's no influence, and when the ratings come together, it kind of falls into place to make sure that somebody doesn't adversely influence the outcomes. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Any further questions? Are there further questions? Is there a motion? COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I move we accept staff's recommendation. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Second. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second to accept staff recommendation and award the contract to Metcalf and Eddy. If there's no further discussion, call the question. All in favor please say aye. All opposed? There being none, motion passes 4-0. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just -- MR. CONRECODE: We'll be sure to include those in the future. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just a comment, and, Tom, this is in no way critical of you. I appreciate the work you do. I just -- If there was no need for this board to do anything except accept staff recommendation, there would be no need for this board. MR. CONRECODE: I understand. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So I'd just like to know what it is we're voting on. MR. CONRECODE: And we'll make sure that's in the future packets. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thanks. MR. CONRECODE: Thank you. PUBLIC COMMENT ON GENERAL TOPICS CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. Mr. Dorrill, you said we have public comment? MR. DORRILL: Yes, ma'am. Mr. Andrews. MR. ANDREWS: I decided to postpone that for one week to give you guys something to think about for a week. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We've got nothing else on our mind. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: That -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Now I'm going to worry all week, Charlie. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We're going to worry all week. That concludes the published agenda. We're into staff communications. Item #15 STAFF COMMUNICATIONS Hr. Dotrill, you wanted to talk about budget workshops. MR. DORRILL: Well, I just -- I wanted to propose a similar time frame for the board's line item reviews that we had last year, and I'd asked Mr. Smykowski to look at last year and then put it in this year's terms. I think the board had already said they were going to take off the final week of June to coincide with the 4th of July holiday, and in anticipation of that, Mr. Smykowski has requested that we ask the board to consider those three days for line item reviews in June. They would be Monday the 19th, Wednesday and Thursday the 21st and 22nd. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Can I make one suggestion here? And that is, each year -- I think one year we didn't do it this way and one year we did and when we have -- as this is laid out, we would have a budget meeting most of the day Monday, we'll have a commission meeting Tuesday, we'll have a budget meeting Wednesday and Thursday most of the day, and I don't know if that's an HPO week or not but -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It is. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: It may wait. It may be. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And five meetings -- You know, I like all of you, but I don't want to see you all day for five days. That is a long week. That's an exhausting week. Last year physically, mentally, everything, I was just beat, and I don't think that's the most effective way to do it, and I wondered if we might kick at least one of those days maybe back to Friday the 16th or something just to have a day to actually get some work done in the office during that week too and give us a little break from sitting out here every single day. I don't know if there's anything else scheduled. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I've got a problem with two of the dates, and that is that the 21st and 22nd we're leaving to go to England I believe on the afternoon of the 21st. So as much as my interest is in the budget meetings, I very much would like to see these bumped forward. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: What about the 14th and the 16th instead of 21st and the 22nd? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have to look at what the feasibility of staff is as well. Mr. Smykowski, can we bump these forward a week? MR. SMYKOWSKI: Yes, we can. Obviously the earlier we go in June though, the greater difficulty it poses in terms of having a balanced budget to bring to you. The sheriff's budget does not come in until June 1st, so obviously we're scurrying to put that together and reflect the impact and the MSTD in general funds but we will -- COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What if we try 16, 19, and 21 and if Commissioner Matthews ends missing public comment at the end or whatever period -- because you leave the end of the day? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: End of the day, yeah. Well, we have to drive -- we have to -- COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That way we can plow through as much as we can on the first two and a half days. Then hopefully you won't have to miss anything. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Did you want to set aside specific times at this point? We need a total of about 15 hours, roughly five hours per day. I don't know in terms of your schedules or -- should I just sit down with Mrs. Filson? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: The 16th is -- MR. DORRILL: We typically begin at noon unless you want to begin earlier than that. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What? MR. DORRILL: We typically begin at 9:00 unless -- I know what your vote is on that. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: 9:00 a.m. Is great. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: So typically you need five hours a day, and if we were to start at 9:00 and schedule until 3:00 with an hour for lunch -- MR. SMYKOWSKI: 9:00 to 12:00 and then 1:00 to 3:00. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: -- we -- we should be well within the -- COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Well, we could also, of course, start at 7:00, and then by noon we'll be through. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Norris, you can start at 7:00. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The one thing, if you're going to be a little tight on the last day, do we want to kick an extra hour in the first two days -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- so that -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I think that was -- COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- you don't have to miss -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: That was my point, that we-- if we -- if we went from 9:00 until 3:00, that would be six hours a day. We'd get 12 hours in the first two days and three in the third day. COMHISSIONER NORRIS: What happened to lunch? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Take a late lunch on Wednesday. MR. SMYKOWSKI: 9:00 to 12:00 and 1:00 to 3:00 on the 16th and 19th and then -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: 9:00 -- Well, wait a minute. 9:00 to -- 9:00 to 3:00 is -- Okay. We have to make it 9:00 to 4:00 in order to accommodate lunch to get six hours in. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Okay. We'll go 9:00 to 4:00 on the 16th and the 19th. That will give us 12 hours, and then we'll just go 9:00 to 12:00 on the 21st. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: 9:00 to 12:00 on Wednesday. Okay? MR. SMYKOWSKI: That's fine. Thank you. MR. DORRILL: I also wanted to relate that I had a phone call yesterday after five o'clock from Dr. Polkowski, and I think you may want to share with the board what their position is, and I have promised her that this item will be on next Tuesday's agenda. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: On next Tuesday's agenda? I visited yesterday with Dr. Polkowski and the legal people for the HRS, and it seems that Hillsborough County has changed its contract to eliminate the clause that has been giving -- giving us some -- some grief. So she is asking with that in mind that this board consider their contract again next week since it has come back to us unsigned, and I believe we are putting it on the agenda for next Tuesday. Is that correct, Mr. Dorrill? MR. DORRILL: Yes. She said that she would not be providing my office with a copy of their opinion. Is your office in receipt of that or -- She said she had a copy for you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah. She -- She just -- She gave me a copy of it and asked me to distribute four copies to other board members which I did yesterday afternoon by way of memo so -- MR. DORRILL: If we could just get a copy of that, then we will use that as the executive summary. Also, I wanted to relate to the board I had received a phone call from the Florida Association of Counties, and their general counsel had done some legal work on that. Again, I don't know, Ms. Matthews, whether you've been advised of that, but they mentioned one senate bill in particular that would seem to preclude our asking for that type. And they let me know, because of your inavailability, that they would not be in a position to support us on this because of legal research that they had done. They referenced a senate bill that was passed in 1993 that would -- and I don't have the number, but I don't know whether again that's something in Dr. Polkowski's information to you or not. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah. I became aware of that also yesterday, and it's in the package that she distributed, the senate bill in 1993 remedying the problem that we're perceiving. MR. DORRILL: Very good. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Constantine. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I've got a good friend on the Pinellas Commission, so I will see if we can get a little history on their thing before next Tuesday as well. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Pinellas or Hillsborough? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's what I think -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I thought it was Pinellas. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I was trying to remember which it was. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Hillsborough County is the one that has the -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm sorry. I thought you said Pinellas. MR. DORRILL: They have a special sales tax in Hillsborough that supports indigent health care. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Fine. Then we will see that on the agenda next -- MR. DORRILL: That was my promise to her, yes. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: -- next Tuesday. MR. DORRILL: And I'll need to get a copy of the -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I'll see that -- Miss Filson, you'll get him a copy of it. Okay. Thank you. MR. DORRILL: That's all that I had. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Do we have public comment? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Charlie was our public comment and he deferred until next week. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Oh. That's right. Item #14 BOARD OF COUNTY COHMISSIONERS' COHMUNICATIONS CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Norris, do you have communication items? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Yes, I do. I'll update you on our meeting last week up in Tallahassee. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: A successful meeting, I hear. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: It was in many respects. We went up there, as you recall, to discuss our beach management plan on Marco Island with the DEP and also to chat with the Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission to see how their proposal would interface with our maintenance process on Marco Beach and what to expect and perhaps maybe to enter discussions with them. During that meeting which was attended by Mr. Dotrill and myself and our legal counsel in Tallahassee along with the deputy director of DEP and the director of the Bureau of State Lands plus three members -- representatives from Game and Fish, we discussed at length these items, and the deputy director suggested rather than going through a formal beach management plan, that they could simply take those elements that we were interested in in our plan and write that into the easement that we have for maintenance of the beach, therefore, saving a lot of administrative problems and making it much easier for us to go down and accomplish our little routine maintenance items that we need to do such as raking or filling the little runnels when they form and that sort of thing. The other part of the discussion was with the Game and Fish Commission. And, as you know, they have -- they have submitted a request to expand their critical wildlife area on Marco Beach, and their proposal describes a surveyed line along Marco Beach for a length of 1.4 miles. While they maintain that they have no intention of hampering beachgoers for the use of the beach, our concern has been all along that while they may indicate that that is their intention, their proposal, their request if granted would give them the legal authority to do just that, to rope off 1.4 linear miles of Marco Beach, and, of course, that causes us great concern just for them to have the legal authority to do that. So under discussions it was agreed that this item will not come before the governor and the cabinet for final disposition until Game and Fish and Collier County get together and try to work out an agreement that will be satisfactory for both parties, and the director of that section of Game and Fish, Brian Hilsap, I believe was appointed at that time to represent their side, and I assume that the board would ask me to represent our board in those discussions and if that's -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Good assumption. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I think that's a good assumption. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: If that's the case, then I will contact Mr. Milsap and we'll try to get this under way as soon as possible. I think this is -- The importance of this meeting was that I believe for the first time we've been able to get them to at least talk to us about our concerns which is a major step forward. They have never been willing to do that in the past. This is like any number of issues. You know, people on one side that say the beach should be for people only and not any birds, and you have people on the other side that say, well, the beach should be only for birds and people shouldn't be allowed to interfere with them. And, of course, just like anything else, the answer is somewhere in the middle, and that's what we need to find. There's -- There's a long history of Marco Beach being shared by people and wildlife without any conflicts, and the conflicts are coming from government, not -- not the citizens. We just need to be able to make sure that we protect both the interests. Our very valuable interests of our wildlife and those conservation efforts of the Game and Fish, we can support those, but we need to have a clear understanding that this is a recreational beach, and our citizens need to continue to have access to those beaches that they have enjoyed for over 30 years. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. It sounds like a meeting that was productive, very productive. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: It was well worth our trip. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Good. Good. Commissioner Hac'Kie, did you have anything? COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Nothing today. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Communications? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Constantine? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I have one item in particular with the county manager. I'd like to see some sort of formal report to the board, next week perhaps. There have been a number of comments in the media and in the press. As of late, those comments were then inflamed by our Developmental Services debacle. But regarding the direction of the county, we have -- we don't need to go through the list, but we have a number of fairly prominent positions that have gone unfilled for some length of time, and there is a perception -- whether it is a reality or not, you can correct when you report to us. But there is perception that there are some parts of our county government that are adrift. I would like to know what direction you have in mind, what direction we're headed, try to put the public at ease, that I assume there is a direction, and we can clarify on the record what that is and where we're headed with -- in general and with some of the specifics as far as Developmental Services and Utilities and Environmental Services and so on. I think it's very important right now with some of the perceptions that are out there that we make it clear what direction we're headed in, and I'd like to see some sort of formal report back, and obviously if any of the members of the commission have suggestions or thoughts or comments for our manager, you can do that prior to that time or at that time as appropriate. MR. DORRILL: I might want to ask for one additional week. I know next week has the potential for being kind of a long agenda. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's fine. MR. DORRILL: And if -- Two weeks suits me. I can tell you -- You're specifically interested in what our current plans are for the Community Development administrator and Utilities administrator positions, and then secondarily I know there were some comments after your program budget review as to what our intent was this year for Environmental Services. We can do that. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Good. We'll look forward to that in two weeks. I have two items both of which are pretty quick. One is earlier today we had conversation about the selection tabulations, and I believe what I was hearing the board -- while it doesn't want to necessarily sit through the selection process itself, in lieu of doing that, I think we really would like to have the selection tabulations on all contracts in which there's been a Consultant Selection Committee put together. I believe that's precisely what I was hearing, and I'm seeing some heads shake up here. So we really do want to see that in lieu of making the selections ourselves. The last item is a real quick update. The FAC has decided to have its meeting at MArco Island in June, and I'll be meeting with the executive directory for the -- director for the FAC this Thursday when I'm at the board meeting and discussing what he's looking for as far as our help in putting this meeting on or is there any help. I understand in the past there's been substantial help from the county government in putting this meeting on. Is that correct, Mr. Dotrill? MR. DORRILL: He spoke to me yesterday. Apparently you weren't available, unless he called you later in the afternoon. I didn't know they were -- They were in town on Saturday and had a meeting with you but you weren't able to attend. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I wasn't able to get there, no. MR. DORRILL: I think that we have hosted their annual meeting three times in the last eight or nine years that I can recall since I've been the manager. They like coming to MArco Island, and they like that property, and they're also pursuing a multi-year agreement with MArriott that the board is going to consider to rotate among three MArriott properties to get a better price. As a part of that and in an effort to hold down the cost, he did ask and he's going to want to know what the position of the county commission is to either host a certain event and/or provide staff for in kind services to help work the registration tables and those types of things and/or be available to take tickets at social events and to what extent the county commission is interested in getting local corporate sponsorship to help underwrite -- you know, like the opening, welcome reception and those types of things. So those are the questions that he's going to have for you. My recollection is that we have done that type of thing in the past. To what extent we have used county budget funds I don't know. I'd need to research that. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. I've asked Miss Filson to get for me a list of corporate sponsors for the three years that we have had it and so that we can see -- get an idea of what's been done in the past and -- MR. DORRILL: It's usually the late summer that that occurs? July? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: It's the last week of June. MR. DORRILL: June? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Uh-huh. Last week of June. Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday I believe. But I just wanted to update the board that we'll be seeing more on that. Commissioner Hac'Kie. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Just -- I didn't hear that we were talking about spending county budget money, did I? I mean, if we're talking about -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: If we -- If we have staff take tickets and work the registration desk, we are diverting them from their regular duties so it -- it would be budget money. MR. DORRILL: I don't recall us ever spending county funds in direct support of the convention. I can recall the county commission helping raise some corporate sponsorship to underwrite some of the social events. I know that one year Commissioner Goodnight arranged for us to go to one of the big packing houses, and they had a steak barbecue, and some of the farming companies had helped underwrite a portion of the cost for the barbecue and that type of thing. There will be other corporate sponsors that the state association has access to like the Florida Association of Road Builders, the Florida Association of Caterpillar Tractor Dealers and things like that. Those are access and sponsorship that they -- they will pursue independent, but I'm sure that he's going to want to talk to you about that when you see him on Thursday. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. And I'll be looking forward to meeting with him Thursday and get a better idea of what's expected, and I'll memo each -- each of you when I get back as to what -- what we're looking at. Is there anything further? MR. DORRILL: I have one last thing. Just -- This is another -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Dorrill. MR. DORRILL: -- just a heads-up for next week to let you begin thinking about this. You may have heard earlier there's been a little -- I won't say a point of contention but some concern that was expressed to me by the local judiciary as it relates to an interest on the part of the state courts administration, the circuit in Fort Myers to assume responsibility for all the employees in the courthouse and put them on the state payroll and you provide a direct cash payment to the circuit court administrator and the chief judge of the circuit to run the courthouse activities, and we had asked for some budget information from other counties and how the funds are allocated and how the state court budget funds are allocated, and I had promised Judge Reese and Mr. Wilkinson who's the state courts administrator that we would try and have this on also for next Tuesday. It's a very important item. Other counties are doing it differently from the way that we have historically done it here, and I just wanted to alert you that that will also be on next Tuesday's agenda. Very important -- Very important to our judges. The judges may not be in total agreement as to how that should proceed but kind of an important item for next Tuesday. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I also don't want to give the court system, though, an open hole into our pocketbook, you might say. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Blank check. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: That's a -- That's like maybe like owning a boat, just a constant drain on money. My clients tell me it's a drain on money. If there's nothing further, we're adjourned. ***** Commissioner Norris moved, seconded by Commissioner Constantine, that the following items under the Consent Agenda be approved and/or adopted 4/0 (Commissioner Hancock absent): ***** Item #16A1 FINAL PLAT OF "QUAIL WEST, PHASE III, BLOCK K, LOT 97" - WITH STIPULATIONS AS LISTED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY See Pages Item #16A2 FINAL PLAT OF "WALDEN OAKS PROFESSIONAL CENTER AT LONE OAK" See Pages Item #16A3 ACCEPTANCE OF WATER AND SEWER FACILITIES FOR VILLAGE WALK, PHASE ONE - WITH STIPULATIONS AS LISTED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OR Book Pages Item #16A4 REMOVAL OF STOCKPILED SURPLUS EXCAVATED MATERIAL AT ISABEL COLLIER READ HEALTH PARK, IMMOKALEE, FLORIDA - SUBJECT TO PAYING THE ROAD IMPACT FEES Item #16A5 ACCEPTANCE OF WATER AND SEWER FACILITIES FOR PELICAN MARSH, UNIT SIX, PHASE ONE - WITH STIPULATIONS AS LISTED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OR Book Pages Item #16B1 AWARD BID #95-2350 TO M. D. MOODY & SONS, INC. FOR THE PURCHASE OF A REPLACEMENT MOTOR GRADER FOR THE ROAD AND BRIDGE SECTION - IN THE AMOUNT OF $79,808.48 Item #16B2 APPROVAL OF THE PURCHASE OF ONE (1) BADGER HYDROSCOPIC EXCAVATOR FOR THE ROAD AND BRIDGE SECTION IN ACCORDANCE WITH FDOT STATE CONTRACT NO. P9829, AWARDED TO LINDER INDUSTRIAL MACHINERY IN THE AMOUNT OF $169,334.00 Item #16C1 FORMAL BID PROCESS WAIVED FOR THE PURCHASE OF TELEPHONE NOTICES AND RENEWAL PROGRAM FROM DATA RESEARCH ASSOCIATES USING ADDITIONALLY RECEIVED STATE AID FUNDS Item #16D1 SATISFACTIONS OF CLAIM OF LIENS FOR JAMES AND BOBBLE ASHBACHER; HARRY BROTHERS AND IRENE BROTHES AND DANIEL AND IRENE GESUALDI; CHRISTOPHER AND LORI HOLLEY; RUSSELL AND PATRICIAHARTIN; AND DONALD ORR See Pages Item #16D2 SATISFACTIONS OF NOTICE OF PROMISE TO PAY AND AGREEMENT TO EXTEND PAYMENT OF SEWER IMPACT FEES FOR CYNTHIA ANN MORSE BRETT, RAFAEL AND GISELA ESCOLASTICO, DEVIN SMITH AND LOUISE HAUPT, FRANCES H. KIRBY, PATRICIA MITCHELL AND EVANDERAND LISBETH MOORE, ABEL AND ESTEL RAMOS, AND PEGGY LEE THOMAS See Pages Item #16El BUDGET AMENDMENT FOR THE ADMINISTRATION BUILDING RENOVATIONS Item #16E2 APPROVAL OF A LISTING OF APPRAISERS AND APPRAISAL FIRMS FOR APPRAISAL AND VALUATION SERVICES WHICH THE COUNTY MAY REQUIRE FROM TIME TO TIME, PURSUANT TO RFP-95-2338 - AS INDICATED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Item #16F1 - moved to Item #SF1 Item #16G1 CERTIFICATES OF CORRECTION TO THE 1994 AND 1995 SOLID WASTE COLLECTION SPECIAL ASSESSMENT ROLLS; AUTHORIZE REFUNDS AS APPROPRIATE See Pages Item #1662 RESOLUTION 95-272 ADDING UNITS TO THE 1995 COLLIER COUNTY MANDATORY SOLID WASTE COLLECTION SPECIAL ASSESSMENT ROLL; EXECUTION OF CERTIFICATES OF CORRECTION See Pages Item #16H1 PAYMENT OF DEFENDANT'S ATTORNEY FEES AND COSTS PURSUANT TO CASE NO. 94-2826-CA-01-CTC (BONITA BEACH ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY) - IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,080.00; FUNDS TO BE DEPOSITED INTO THE REGISTRY OF THE COURT Item #16H2 - this item has been deleted Item #16H3 - moved to Item #8H5 Item #16H4 AWARD CONTRACT TO CONSTRUCT THE GOLDEN GATE COHMUNITY PARK SOCCER FIELD LIGHTING PROJECT (BID #95-2345) TO BENTLEY ELECTRIC CO., INC. - IN THE AMOUNT OF $66,404.00 Item #16H5 APPROVE THE PURCHASE OF A PARCEL OF LAND FOR THE LIVINGSTON ROADWAY PROJECT 60071 (GOLDEN GATE PARKWAY TO RADIO ROAD) - IN THE AMOUNT OF $94,775.00 PLUS RECORDING FEES OF APPROXIMATELY $10.50 See Pages Item #16H6 AWARD BID #95-2351 TO P&H CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A SHADE STRUCTURE AT THE GOLDEN GATE AQUATIC FACILITY - IN THE AMOUNT OF $34,400.00 Item #16H7 AWARD BID #95-2352 TO SUPERB HEATING & AIR CONDITIONING FOR THE INSTALLATION OF A HEATING SYSTEM TO HEAT THE ACTIVITY POOL AT THE GOLDEN GATE AQUATIC FACILITY - IN THE AMOUNT OF $13,870.00 Item #16H8 WAIVE FORMAL BID PROCESS AND APPROVE FUNDING FOR THE EMERGENCY OPENING OF THE CLAM PASS INLET - BUDGET AMENDMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF $65,000.00 Item #16H9 AWARD BID #95-2337 AND AUTHORIZE CONSTRUCTION AGREEMENT FOR THE IHMOKALEE PUBLIC HEALTH BUILDING - SUBJECT TO REVIEW BY THE COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE 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 No. Dated 143-145 3/24/-3/29/95 147 3/30/95 1994 Tangible Personal Property 124-127 3/28-3/30/95 Item #16K1 BUDGET A_MENDHENT TO RECOGNIZE FISCAL YEAR 1993/94 AUDITED CARRYFORWARD IN THE LAW ENFORCEMENT TRUST FUND (608) - IN THE A_MOUNT OF $21,887.00 Item #16K2 BUDGET A_MENDHENT TO RECOGNIZE FISCAL YEAR 1993/94 AUDITED CARRYFORWARD IN FUND 199 - IN THE A_MOUNT OF $54,624.00 Item #16K3 USE OF CONFISCATED TRUST FUNDS TO PURCHASE CRIHE PREVENTION MATERIALS - IN THE A_MOUNT OF $5,000.00 Item #16K4 BUDGET A_MENDHENT TO RECOGNIZE FISCAL YEAR 1993/94 AUDITED CARRYFORWARD IN THE CONFISCATED TRUST FUND (602) - IN THE A_MOUNT OF $122,172.00 There being no further business for the Good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by Order of the Chair at 10:43 a.m. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS CONTROL ATTEST: DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK BETTYE J. MATTHEWS, CHAIRPERSON These minutes approved by the Board on as presented or as corrected TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF DONOVAN COURT REPORTING BY: Christine E. Whitfield, RPR