Loading...
BCC Minutes 09/26/1995 RREGULAR MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 26, 1995, OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COHMISSIONERS LET IT BE REHEHBERED, that the Board of County Commissioners in and for the County of Collier, and also acting as the Board of Zoning Appeals and as the governing board(s) of such special districts as have been created according to law and having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:05 in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: ALSO PRESENT: CHAIRPERSON: Bettye J. Hatthews Timothy J. Constantine John C. Norris Timothy L. Hancock Pamela S. Hac'Kie W. Neil Dotrill, County Hanager Kenneth B. Cuyler, County Attorney Mike HcNees, Acting Asst. County Manager David Weigel, Assistant County Attorney Item #3A AGENDA AND AGENDA CHANGES - APPROVED WITH CHANGES CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I'm going to call to order the board of commissioners' commission meeting for September 26, 1995. Mr. Dotrill, will you lead us in an invocation and prayer and pledge -- prayer. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: All of that. MR. DORRILL: Heavenly Father, we thank you. We give thanks and praise to you and your name and your grace this morning. Father, we thank you for the people of Collier County and our elected leadership, our support staff that is county government. We are always thankful for the endeavors and the interest of those citizens who choose to participate in this governmental process. Today, on what is an election day, we thank you for that opportunity as well, and also we lift up before you this morning the opportunity to recognize the very important issue concerning domestic violence and those in this community who are trying to do something about that. We would ask that you bless our time here together that it would be fruitful and beneficial and that the vote and action of this commission would be a reflection of your will for our community. And we pray these things in Jesus's name. Amen. (The pledge of allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Dorrill, we have some changes. MR. DORRILL: Yes, ma'am. Good morning, Madam Chairman, we do. Before I again -- I understand that Mr. Ochs did a fine job in my absence last week. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: He did, indeed. MR. DORRILL: Good. It's nice to be able to have good staff to depend on when you're out of town. It's good to be back. I have three add-on items. The first two are under the Board of County Commissioners, a request of the chairman, item 10(E), an add-on item concerning the county attorney's contract. Item 10(F) is a request to approve a renewal of a rental agreement in Tallahassee associated with the tri-county lobbying coalition; that's 10(F). I'm going to have an add-on item. We may need some discussion on this one because I was just handed this, item 12(C)(5), which is going to be under public hearings is a recommendation that the board approve an ordinance repealing Ordinance 89-22 as it pertains to the Collier County homeless advisory committee. My question is has that been properly advertised, just inadvertently left on the index? And the answer from the staff is yes. I have one item that is on the consent agenda that we'd like to move off and add to the regular agenda for a presentation. It's item 16(C)(4), is moving and will become 8(C)(1), which is a resolution to amend the parks and rec facilities license and fee policy as it pertains to county resolution 94-848. I have one item that is requested to be continued, and it will be continued for one week until your first meeting in October. It's item 16(A)(2) as it pertains to a routine water and sewer facilities acceptance agreement for Village Walk, phase 3. And that's all that I have. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Dorrill. Are there additional changes to the agenda, Commissioner Norris? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Nothing further. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hancock? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yes, ma'am. I have two additions. I was requested by this board to bring back today a forum of our consolidation committee. Would that be appropriate under add-on item under BCC, Mr. Dotrill? MR. DORRILL: Yes, sir, I believe so. 10 (G). COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: The second item -- and I'm sorry, you'll all be getting just a memo showing structure from the meeting last night, and it's not very detailed so -- the second item is I've asked Mr. Boldt to present a very brief overview of the Naples Park drainage scenario. I think in -- in going through the process, the last couple of steps, there have been some changes that -- that may surprise some of you. So I just think there's an update that needs to occur for all of us to understand what is going out. And -- COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Talking about it is a surprise to me as much as we've talked about it, but if you're confident we need to talk about it again -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: This will take about five minutes, and Mr. Boldt will be meeting with each of you individually, but I think there's something that needs to be stated for the record COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- that we all need to understand. And I've asked Mr. Boldt to be here for that. MR. DORRILL: 8 (B) (8) . COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Where will that be, sir? MR. DORRILL: 8(B)(8) as part of the regular agenda under public works. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Hac'Kie? COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: And that's all I have. Thank Thank you. Commissioner No, ma'am. Commissioner Constantine? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I have a couple of things. What will become 10(H), I'd like to have a discussion and perhaps some staff direction relating to community transportation and transportation disadvantage. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And also there are two items on the consent agenda I do not wish to remove, but I would, Mr. Weigel, need to make sure this is appropriate, but 16(C)(1) and 16(C)(5) I intend to put a no vote on. I don't need to pull them off and discuss them. If we need to pull them off to make that happen, we can. If we can just reflect for the record that on that consent agenda those two items I intend to vote no. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: 16 what? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: 16(C) (1) and 16(C)(5). CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I concur with you on the C(5). COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: If we can get one more, we might want to pull the item. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: No. I think there's a majority that's going to make that go. MR. DORRILL: Ms. Matthews, I have one additional item, at the request of the clerk, if you'd poll the board. Do you all have any other changes? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: No. I have -- I have none. MR. DORRILL: Okay. The clerk has requested that item 16(1)(2) be continued for one week. There is no problem with this item. This is very important. The board has directed that those residents in the south half of sewer area B receive a refund check from the county. They need one additional week just in order to have the check run coincide with their requirements as opposed to what may have been in the resolution, as I understand it, and just a one-week continuance for 16(1)(2), and then those checks will run in the next subsequent check run as part of that. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Madam Chairman, I'd make a motion we approve the agenda and consent agenda as amended noting that Commissioner Constantine is voting against 16(C)(1) and 16(C)(5) and Commissioner Hatthews voting against 16(C)(5). COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Second. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second to approve the agenda and the consent agenda as amended and votes voted. All those in favor, please say aye. Opposed? It passes five to zero. Item #5A1 PROCLA/vLATION DESIGNATING OCTOBER AS NATIONAL DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AWARENESS MONTH, 1995 - ADOPTED There are no minutes to approve at this point. Next item on the agenda is proclamations and service awards. Commissioner Mac'Kie. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yes. I'm pleased to be able to read the Collier County proclamation for National Domestic Violence Awareness Month for 1995, and I'd ask if Sheriff Hunter and Judge Brenda Wilson would come forward to receive the proclamation. The usual procedure is to come here and face the cameras. I'm confused about which camera you'd face at this point, but if you wouldn't mind facing the audience, perhaps that would be best. Whereas, there were 1,490 arrests of domestic violence in 1994, and in the last 12 months there were 5 domestic violence deaths in Collier County; and, Whereas, domestic violence is the leading cause of injury to women and accounts for 100 percent of 1994 homicides to women in Collier County; and, Whereas, children in Collier County who witness domestic violence are more likely to themselves be abused, to have learning disabilities, other serious consequences including truancy, delinquency, pregnancy, or become abusers themselves, and that domestic violence is the leading cause of birth defects in Collier County; and, Whereas, many Collier County policy makers, agencies, and institutions have joined forces to form the Collier County domestic violence task force; and, Whereas, the 20th Judicial Circuit -- I'm sorry, whereas, the 20th Judicial Circuit State Attorney's Office developed a no-drop policy in cases involving domestic violence and has committed to pursue prosecution aggressively, with or without the cooperation of the victim; and, Whereas, the Board of County Commissioners declares Collier County to be a domestic violence-free zone; and, Whereas, the Collier County Commission gratefully acknowledges, recognizes, and endorses the efforts of the Collier County domestic violence task force under the leadership of the Honorable Brenda C. Wilson; and, Whereas, the Board of County Commissioners gratefully acknowledges and recognizes Sheriff Don Hunter and Collier County's domestic violence task force project to erect warning signs along Collier County roadways declaring to the public that law enforcement and the community will not tolerate domestic violence. Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that the month of October 1995 be designated as National Domestic Violence Awareness Month 1995 in Collier County and encourage citizens to become aware that domestic violence is not a private matter, but a serious and destructive behavior pattern that leads to injury and death. We honor those men and women who work with compassion and dedication to end domestic violence; law enforcement professionals, judges, attorneys, health care providers, advocates, shelters and hot-line administers, clergy, journalists, and concerned citizens. We care for and support those who are no longer victims, but survivors, whose grievous pain and isolation are our tragedy as well. But by turning their anguish into action, others may escape the legacy of abuse and live free from fear. Done and ordered this 26th day of September 1995, Board of County Commissioners, Collier County, Florida, Bettye J. Matthews, Chairman. Madam Chairman, I'd like to move we accept this proclamation. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Second. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second to accept the proclamation -- and it gives me pleasure. I want to call this vote. All in favor, please say aye. Opposed? There being none, motion passes five to zero. (Applause) JUDGE WILSON: Sheriff Hunter. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: If anybody would like to -- JUDGE WILSON: A couple of comments. SHERIFF HUNTER: A couple of comments. I'll be very quick. Thank you very much for the proclamation and the recognition. Congratulations to Judge Wilson, because without her we would not have moved this, and it's always very important to have the judicial arm enforcing these initiatives. I'd like to say that this particular task force is a further refinement to Collier County making it an even better place to live, and we believe that we have the upper arm now with your support and with the support of the Court, and we'll move swiftly and aggressively to make this work. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. JUDGE WILSON: I'd also like to thank you, not only for the proclamation today, but thank you so sincerely and personally for keeping us in your budget, the domestic violence unit and the domestic violence court. I'm going to leave here and go to talk to hopefully some people from the media and announce that we are going to begin hiring the domestic violence unit employees thanks to you, and the domestic violence court will become a reality in Collier County. Domestic Violence Month is something that we have planned to bring a lot of recognition to the people that are working in this area, but also to make the public aware of how serious this problem is. Tiffany White is the chairman of our committee. She's standing back there -- or sitting back there, but I'd like her to stand, Tiffany. She has put together an amazing agenda for this month. There are two pages of events that we will be going through. There are going to be signs that are going to be put on the roadsides thanks to your Department of Transportation and sheriff's office. There are going to be banners that are going to be placed. We're going to ask everyone, including all of the commissioners, to wear purple victim awareness lapel ribbons during this time. We're going to have distribution of matchbooks with numbers and survival tips on them, mailing of -- by the shelter, information about how to identify and help victims of domestic violence. There will be a presentation at Coastland Center Mall with all of this information to distribute to the public. Naples Depot town hall meeting is going to be presented by the Naples Alliance for Children, Violence, the War Against our Children. That's October 17th, if you want to mark your calendar for that. There will be on October 19th a candlelight vigil on the courthouse steps. On October 18th Representative Butt Saunders is sponsoring a symposium on criminal justice at The Registry, and it's featuring Robin Hasset (phonetic) who is the executive director of the governor's task force on domestic violence, so you might want to -- to attend that if you can. Coastland Mall, October 28th, there will be a United Way sponsored community awareness presented by Project Help and the shelter. The Fraternal Order of Police are sponsoring stickers during the whole month of October showing places that are safe havens. And October 29th there will be an interfaith service of prayer and healing at the United First Christian Church. So it's going to be a very full month. We really appreciate you starting it off so well with this proclamation, and thank you again for allowing the domestic violence court to be possible. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Community involvement. Thank you. (Applause) Item #5B SERVICE AWARDS - PRESENTED Next item on the agenda is service awards. We have one person on our list today, and I understand that he could not be here. MS. FILSON: Yes, we rescheduled him until next week. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: But it is a ten-year -- oh, he'll be here next week? Okay, we'll do that next week. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Once again, more longevity in parks and recreation. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah, I know. I mean, if he wasn't going to be able to be here at all, I certainly wanted to recognize him, if nothing else to give his name, but we'll do that next week. Item #SB1 DEVELOPER AGREEHENT WHICH ALLOCATES ROAD IHPACT FEE CREDITS AND PAYMENTS FOR CONSTRUCTION OF THE LIVINGSTON ROAD BRIDGE AT IHMOKALEE ROAD TO THE DEVELOPER OF CARLTON LAKES - APPROVED WITH CHANGES Next item on the agenda is in the county manager's report and item 8(B)(1) public works, a recommendation to approve a developer agreement. Mr. Archibald. MR. ARCHIBALD: Good morning, board members. For the record George Archibald representing your transportation department. Agenda item 8(B)(1) is an impact fee agreement for segments of Livingston Road to be constructed by the developer Carlton Lakes. The agreement itself is somewhat standard. It follows the county's road impact fee credit form and is consistent with provision 3.06 of County Ordinance 92-22. The dollar amount of the improvements represents the construction cost of the bridge going north of Immokalee Road and also includes a short road segment in addition to lighting and signing and markings. The final credit in the amount of approximately $498,000 shall be subject to not only completed construction, but certified construction costs. The schedule of the proposed work is to get the project underway, I understand, within 60 days and complete the work during the first quarter of 1996. From a timing standpoint it should be noted that the county had to remove an adjacent bridge serving Willoughby on Lakeland Avenue. So the timing of this bridge to be built by a developer is going to not only benefit the developer, but more importantly, the adjacent area as it continues to develop. The special provisions of the agreement -- there are three that I need to bring to the board's attention. One is that the board needs to be acting by wearing two hats, one as the board, but also as the governing board of the Collier County sewer and water district. The reason for this is that some of the access has to be across property that would be conveyed to the county through the PPID. The second item is that there is a provision in here that allows the board to reimburse the developer to the degree that funds become available as a result of agreements that are pending between the county and South Florida Water Management District for replacement of bridges in the Willoughby and Palm River area. That agreement that's being worked out will be brought back to the board at some future point in time. And the last comment that your staff has is that we would request that there may be one minor change in regards to a reference in the agreement. And we would request that the county attorney's office reserve responsibility to make a minor change in regards to the verbiage in the reference. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: What is that change? MR. ARCHIBALD: In regards to paragraph 4 of page 2, to just simply make reference to paragraph 3 and 4 in that item. And, again, that would be just a reference change that's been requested by the developer, and this office has no objections to it. The county attorney's office still needs to review that. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Commissioner Hancock. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Obviously this bridge has become very much needed since the demolition of the older structure to the west. My only question is will the impact fees that are being credited have any adverse impact on the five-year CIE? In other words, these impact fee credits, will they push any other projects off the shelf? MR. ARCHIBALD: No, they should not and, again, the reason being is that those impact fees are related to on-site development. So if that development occurs, then you're getting a credit for those improvements that are made. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I just wanted to make sure we weren't counting on money that now would not be coming in so -- MR. ARCHIBALD: No. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. MR. ARCHIBALD: Typically the commercial side of this is not reflected on the revenue side -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. MR. ARCHIBALD: -- of your impact fees. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Thank you, Mr. Archibald. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Constantine. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'd like to make a motion the board approve the attached road impact fee agreement including the legal changes as described by Mr. Archibald, authorize the chairman to execute the agreement. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Direct staff to process the agreement in accordance with all applicable terms. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'll still second. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: That's probably one of the longest motions you ever made. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well said. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Usually it's just a motion to approve. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah. Is there further discussion on the motion? There being none, I'll call the question. All in favor please say aye. Opposed? Motion passes five to zero. Item #882 RESOLUTION 95-546 AND CWS-95-6 AUTHORIZING THE ACQUISITION BY GIFT, PURCHASE OR CONDEMNATION THE EASEMENT INTERESTS FOR UTILITY AND TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION PURPOSES FOR THE WATER PIPELINE AND WATER WELL SITES AS THE PROJECT PARCELS REQUIRES TO COMPLETE THE NORTH COLLIER REGIONAL WATER TREATMENT PLANT EXPANSION PROJECT - ADOPTED Next item on the agenda is 8(B)(2), a recommendation that the board adopt a resolution by gift -- acquisition by gift, et cetera. Mr. Gonzalez. MR. GONZALEZ: Good morning. Adolfo Gonzalez of your office of capital projects management. This item is for the expansion to the reverse osmosis treatment facility at the north Collier regional water treatment plant. We're currently at 12-million-gallons-per-day capacity. We're expanding it an additional 8 million gallons per day. The construction is scheduled to start January of the next year. Staff has looked at alternatives to siting the well fields and transmission lines off site and I believe the location that's shown in your executive summary to be the most feasible ones. There are going to be eight wells off site and a dual 15-inch transmission line leading from the eight well fields to the water treatment plant. We have received one letter of concern from a homeowner for a couple of the easement parcels we're trying to pursue. I'd like to enter that into the record if I may. Staff's recommendation is that you adopt the resolution allowing us to acquire the parcels by either gift, purchase, or condemnation and to authorize the chairman to execute the resolution. I'll be happy to answer any questions you may have. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Constantine. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Motion to approve staff recommendation. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second to approve staff recommendation. I have -- I've already received a copy of this. The request I had was that this be read into the record. Is simply putting it into the record adequate, Mr. Weigel? MR. WEIGEL: Yes, that's adequate. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: That's adequate, okay. If there's no further discussion on the motion, all those in favor please say aye. Opposed? Motion passes five to zero. Thank you. Item #883 BID #95-2399 FOR THE CONSTRUCTION IHPROVEHENT OF THE ESTATES COHMUNITY PARK FACILITY - AWARDED TO P & H CONSTRUCTION CORP., INC. Item 8(B)(3), a recommendation the Board of County Commissioners authorize the contractor board. MR. KARPINSKI: Good morning, Commissioners. For the record, Bertin Karpinski with your office of capital projects. Before you is an executive summary seeking approval to award the construction of the Estates Community Park to P and H Construction. This is bid number 95-2399. Commissioners, on August 2nd of this year bids were received and opened from three firms by the purchasing department. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm terribly sorry to interrupt, but I'll make a motion we approve. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Are we still on a December start date? MR. KARPINSKI: We are slightly behind due to a couple of factors, but we are looking at completing that within 160 days of starting construction which will occur next month. That would be a February completion date. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. We have a motion to approve. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Motion and second to approve. Question, Commissioner Hancock. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Quick question, I know that we talked about limiting hours of operation when this originally was approved and so forth. I'm not sure I was on the board then, but I remember the discussion anyway. The lights for the ball field, are these going to be the shielded type that we install? MR. KARPINSKI: Absolutely. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I couldn't recall that. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Is there further discussion? All in favor, please say aye. Opposed? Motion passes five to zero. Thank you, Mr. Karpinski. Item #884 BID 95-2425, COLLIER COUNTY BEACH RESTORATION PROJECT, AWARDED TO T. L. JAMES & COMPANY, INC. IN THE AMOUNT OF $8,903,830 AND RESOLUTION 95-547 GRANTING A WAIVER OF MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE NOISE LEVEL - ADOPTED Next item is a recommendation to award a contract for bid number 95-2425. MR. HUBER: Good morning, Commissioners. For the record my name is Harry Huber representing the office of capital projects. If I may, I'd like to hand out a resolution which is associated with this bid item. MR. DORRILL: We have some speakers on this, too. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Okay. Thank you. MR. HUBER: The objective of this item is to award a contract for construction of the Collier County beach restoration project and also to obtain a waiver of the maximum allowable noise level and time of day restrictions included in the Collier County Code. Sealed bids were opened on the 13th of September of this year. We received two responsive bids. That was from T L James and Company and Great Lakes Dredge and Dock. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Harry, I'm going to -- if I may interrupt you there and kind of cut to the chase here. There's not much question on the bid. I think probably if there's any item of discussion for us it's going to be the type of waiver for noise and equipment operation. MR. HUBER: Okay. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I guess I just want to pose a question to you, and if the board has continued questions, we'll go beyond that. But when we're talking about operating 24 hours a day in front of where someone lives on the beach, about how long does it take to -- you know, we're really talking about dozers that move the material once it's brought up on the beach. That's the predominant noise; is that correct? MR. HUBER: Yes. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: About how long does it take to do a linear foot? So, in other words, how long is someone going to have that right behind them on a typical condo or typical home site? MR. HUBER: Well, I would say, you know, we're probably only talking one day for any particular location. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: So then you may exceed noise levels on that property for one or two days? MR. HUBER: And it's not even certain that we're going to exceed the -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. MR. HUBER: -- decibel level in the county code is during that -- from 6 p.m. to 7 a.m. -- is 55 decibels. The contractor indicated to me that a dozer running at full throttle and standing right next to it it's like 70 decibels. So, you know, the likelihood -- but the reason we're asking for the waiver is, you know, in -- in the event that that would happen and there would be complaints. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. MR. HUBER: I've -- the county attorney's office advised me that the appropriate approval mechanism for this would be by resolution, so that's why I drafted up that resolution. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I don't mean to speak for my colleagues, but I don't -- based on two bids, I don't think there's much question there. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Not on the bids themselves. Any other questions regarding the noise or the bid? I do have one. Are these bulldozers going to run all night? MR. HUBER: Pardon me? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Are these bulldozers going to run all night? MR. HUBER: Yes. If I may -- possibly Dr. Stephen here -- he can maybe, you know, give you more insight as to the operation and, you know, the time of the operation. But, yes, they -- as far as I know, they will be operating all night or 24 hours a day. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: And there will be lights and so forth on the beach so they can see what they're doing? MR. HUBER: I believe so, but I would turn this over to Dr. Stephen, and he can give you more detail on that. DR. STEPHEN: Hi. Good morning. For the record my name is Michael Stephen. Commissioner, the -- the operation at the discharge or the operational activity that takes places on the beach primarily occurs at the discharge site, and the bulldozers will be sitting quiet and turned off, and every 30 or 45 minutes depending upon the rate of progress that they're making with the fill, the fill will mound up in front of the discharge pipe. The dozers will operate for 20 or 30 minutes to shove that material, spread it out, and to build a dike parallel to the beach, and then they back off, and they'll add an extra section of pipe and move on down the shoreline. So they operate intermittently. Obviously they will have lights on when they are running. There will be -- the contractor's required to have a man on station at the end of the pipe at all times when they are discharging and operating. And so there will be a certain amount of light in the vicinity of that discharge point. The rest of the beach would be dark and quiet, so it will be just in the immediate area that there would be activity. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I just want to clarify that what you're telling me is that this is going to be a 24-hour-a-day operation. DR. STEPHEN: Yes, ma'am. MR. DORRILL: One thing that I was sensitive to -- I had one question maybe for Dr. Stephen or Mr. Huber as it pertains to the bulldozers. It's not the diesel noise as much as it is the very high decibel electronic backup warning device. And I -- you know, I don't know whether we're getting into an OSHA conflict here, but any of us that have been near a truck that has one of those very loud, very audible backup electronic warning devices that seems to me to be more aggravating, that beep, beep, beep, than just the -- you know, the sound of the diesel engine. I don't know whether that's something we can talk to the contractor, whether he's got any latitude there or not. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah, don't back up. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I can guarantee you that if they leave those horns hooked up, we will be getting calls. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yes. MR. DORRILL: That's my only reason for mentioning it is whether they can use some other type of backup device or -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yell, "I'm backing up." DR. STEPHEN: We can request or present that to the contractor, but I'm fairly certain that that's a standard operational MR. DORRILL: We need to exhaust every conceivable -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Absolutely. MR. DORRILL: -- opportunity to limit those electronic because that's an obviously high-pitched noise. I don't know whether they can use a bell device or other mechanism, but that would be a nightmare. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Unfortunately, I believe we're dealing with OSHA, the home of regulations. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Let's find out. Let's be absolutely positively sure that we don't have another alternative. And my other question probably for Dr. Stephen is I'm -- I'm not anxious to approve this noise ordinance exception. What are my choices? What are my alternatives? DR. STEPHEN: Well, the -- the project was bid on the basis of 24-hour operation because that is the norm in the industry. The -- the alternative is to require the contractor to operate just during daylight hours or some period that you would otherwise designate. And that -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And the cost of the project would DR. STEPHEN: Will go up. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Significantly? DR. STEPHEN: Yes, ma'am. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thanks. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Do we also run into timing concerns if we're not done by a certain point? I mean, do we run into the next turtle season? MR. HUBER: Another note of interest in this regard is that this basically applies only to the Vanderbilt Beach portion of the project. The city has already granted a waiver of this provision for that portion within the city limits which is a majority of the project. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I -- I guess that the phone calls probably will come if this beep, beep, beep -- and I don't do that as well as Mr. Dorrill does -- MR. HUBER: The other thing is this waiver is only for a period of 30 days, and then at -- at that point if there's still a need for the waiver if he hasn't finished that portion of the project, we need to return to the board and get an extension of that waiver and possibly additional conditions of the waiver depending on what complaints come in. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'd -- I'm ready to get to public speakers, but I did want to mention that I have a considerable constituency in the Vanderbilt Beach area that's going to be impacted by this. The mitigating factor here is that this beach is going to have to be built, and if everybody wants it built so that no one gets disturbed, it just isn't going to happen. So there is going to be a level of inconvenience, and I know I'm going to get flooded when the construction goes on out there with phone calls and so forth, and I'll have to deal with them. But the truth is there's a level of inconvenience that's associated with this project because there's no neat tidy way to get it done. So I think we need to at least understand that, and as Mr. Huber said, let's take it 30 days at a time. And I think that's a prudent approach. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Speakers, Mr. Dorrill? MR. DORRILL: Yes, ma'am, which there are three. Mr. Cadenhead and then Ms. Krier, if I could have you stand by, please. Mr. Cadenhead, good morning. MR. CADENHEAD: Good morning. My name is Bobby Cadenhead. I represent Naples Beach Sand Company. And basically I'm here to tell you that your bid with T L James is a good bid. It's a very low, responsible bid. And there's only one drawback, and if Mr. Huber and Dr. Stephen was allowed to keep on talking, is that whether or not there is an adequate amount of sand in the borrow areas to support the job. We made -- there was two responsive bids, and being able to bid the package as it was presented, we made a nonresponsive bid with an FOB sand delivery picked up in Bonita Springs with the county being able to get their own trucks to put the sand on the beach. We think in talking to other competitors that was competitors on the job that did not bid it that the sand source that is out there at this present time is not totally adequate to renourish your whole beach. And we're asking you to ask Dr. Stephen, Harry Huber basically of these concerns. We've sit down and talked to them. We think that your contract with the James company is a very, very low bid, and not to take it, not to act on it right now would be unresponsive to the county. But you need to question the source of the material that you have in order to complete the building of the beaches and also there's -- there's a bill that you need to also think about is once you build the beaches, how you will nourish them and maintain them. So that is my situation. In the -- in the bid process we delivered to the county a bid of so much a yard with a stipulation of discounts and stuff like that, and maybe Harry or Mike can address that. But that's all I have to say on it. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. MR. DORRILL: Ms. Krier, and then Mr. Herms. MS. KRIER: Good morning. For the record I'm Ellie Krier, and I'm representing the Chamber EDC Coalition for Government and Community Affairs. We're here this morning simply to recommend the acceptance of awarding the contract. Our committee that's been following this particular process is very satisfied with the thoroughness of the process. We do commend Mr. Stephen for his ongoing efforts to continue to answer public concerns as they have come up throughout the timing of this. And we urge you that the single biggest issue is that you deal with this because you need a single mobilization. The sea turtle season looming, the cost will escalate enormously if we are forced into a position of having to continue the project after the nesting season, so the single mobilization is what we highly endorse. Thank you. MR. DORRILL: Okay. Mr. Herms. MR. HERMS: Good morning, Commissioners. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: What you got in that Tupperware? Did you bring lunch or what? MR. HERMS: No, it's not lunch. I brought some of the actual samples of the sand and the -- we've been going through this process for about five years trying to find a good sand source. And as most of you know, we've gone from the first sand source, which was quite inland, within a couple of miles of the beach, down to the second sand source down by Marco Island and now to the third sand source which is about 6 miles off of the Naples pier. The material that I've had a lot of problems with over the last five years is the high shell content of the first two borrow areas that were located. The third borrow area, which has about 1.6 million cubic yards within, it has some very good quality sand. It has very little shell, and I've got a sample of it here that came right off of the bottom, and we took four citizens from the Olde Naples area, went out in a boat with divers. We took four specific samples from -- there's actually three borrow sites 6 miles offshore, and they were almost identical. And I want to send this around. Now, this is wet. It does have a slight odor to it, but when it dries, it dries much lighter. It's -- it's the best material by far that has been found over the last five or six years. There's one other concern that I have after the workshop that was conducted with Coastal Engineering on the sand samples. The state in reviewing this permit has had a lot of concerns with the sea turtle nesting ability. They're very concerned with the quality of the sand and the shell content in that sand. Specifically -- and I don't know whether you're familiar with this, but the staff of the county in the Marco Island project reviewed this exact issue of the ability of sand -- of the sea turtles to nest. And the Marco project had approximately a 47 percent ratio of successful nests in comparison to the number of tries of crawling up the beach in 1990. After that period of time in '91, after that beach was renourished, that dropped down to 25 percent. It continued at 25 percent the next year, went to 26 percent, and it has slowly been going back into the 30 percent ratio, and this comes right from your own staff, the sea turtle nesting staff that does that work for you. I have had continuing problems with the ability of a shell beach to function for the residents, and there is one last borrow area that the state has concerns with that is being planned to be used on this project. It's called borrow area six. It was one of the original borrow areas, the first set of borrow areas going back to 1990 and '91. I've got a sample of it here that I will send around to you that has extremely high shell content in it for about 2 feet or approximately fifty to sixty thousand cubic yards of material. My concern is that there's two possibilities according to your engineer of where this material may be placed. One is Vanderbilt Beach in approximately a 2-foot thick layer down on top of the existing beach now to be covered between 3 and 4 feet of good, quality sand. The other is in Olde Naples. My concern is we in the Olde Naples area have been following this issue for a number of years. We do not want this borrow area number six to be placed in Olde Naples. We like the quality of the other sands. I'm asking a commitment on the part of the county commission as well as in the state permit to require that all of the material from borrow area six be placed on Vanderbilt Beach at a -- at least a minimum. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: So you don't want it but it's okay if the folks in Vanderbilt Beach get it? That's an interesting point. MR. HERMS: Yes, it is. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I bet Mr. Kobza would like to talk about that. MR. HERMS: It's an interesting issue, and the member of the beach renourishment committee has stated he would like it on Vanderbilt Beach. And the state is planning on placing it on Vanderbilt Beach and placing it in the contract. Now, my preference is I wouldn't use it on any beach, but that's where the state is going with the issue as far as the permit, and I'm asking that the commission here makes sure that material doesn't go on our beach in the south of Naples, and as well I would have no problems with you not putting it on the Vanderbilt Beach. Thank you very much. And one last thing that I'm going to send around. This is the inland sand. If we have problems with this project and you need inland sand, you'll find that this is extremely high-quality sand that could be utilized, for instance, in Vanderbilt Beach if we run out of sand. Have I -- have I gone over my 5 minutes? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah, you have. MR. HERMS: Okay. Thank you very much. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hancock. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Stephen, my understanding is that you can look at this material. There is a point at which material being brought up from the bottom is rejected due to high shell content. What Mr. Herms just passed around, it's my understanding that that would exceed the shell content for the contractor, and you would have to reject that particular material? Is that a -- you know -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Would you like a close-up inspection? DR. STEPHEN: I'm not familiar with specifically what he's passing around. I can tell you a couple of -- a couple of points that have been raised. First of all, with regard to the -- go back to Mr. Cadenhead's questions. And really I want to -- I want to talk about the basic contract in the specifications and in the plans. First of all, there is a -- a 20-percent allowance. And this is important for your fiscal decision making that you're going to -- to be reviewing later. The -- the contractor is paid on the basis of the quantity of material that he actually puts onto the beach. We will survey the existing beach in association with the contractor later this month before he starts to work. And then as the contractor completes thousand-foot segments of beach fill, that will be resurveyed and become a basis of payment. There is what we call a tolerance, an allowance above and below the grade elevation that's presented on the plans. And that allowance equates to about 20 percent of the total amount of fill that might go onto the beach. So we could end up theoretically having as much as 200,000 yards more sand on the beach that we would be required to pay the contractor for. And we would be happy to pay the contractor for that at the good price that he has given us for cubic yard for the sand. But we also have an allowance below that. In other words, if he happens to be slightly less than the one million yards, if it's eight hundred fifty or nine hundred thousand yards, that's okay too. In other words, that will cause only a minor variation in the width of the beach and will not affect the design. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Dr. Stephen, may I interrupt you DR. STEPHEN: Yes. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- because you're too smart for me a lot of the time. And what I'm wondering is can you look at that and tell us whether if it would or wouldn't be rejected? I mean, I don't know if that's within your expertise or if it's somebody else's job. I'm not suggesting you have to know. But if you do know, I'd like to know. DR. STEPHEN: All right. The diameter of those shells appears to be less than 2 inches. In other words, if you just -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: By the knuckle measurement? DR. STEPHEN: By the knuckle measurement method, okay, that appears to be less than 2 inches. The fact is, as Mr. Herms stated, that there is only about 50,000 yards of that material, and there's over 200,000 yards of this clean, fine, white sand. So, first of all, part of what's going to happen is that that will be blended with this uniform white sand material. Second, the permit will require that that material which lies on the surface will be the first material that is encountered by the dredge. That material is to be placed on the bottom of the fill template. In other words, it's to be placed underwater. And so it will not be on the surface of the beach. This is not really a -- not only a people issue, but it is a biologic issue. This is the significant point of concern that was correctly expressed by Mr. Herms that we have been hearing from the DEP in our permit negotiation. And as the stipulations that they have developed in concert with us with regard to the placement of that material are now satisfactory to them. We received a draft notice of intent to issue this morning on our fax from the DEP. We are to review that with the county staff, and we will hopefully have a signed notice of intent next Monday or Tuesday. And it includes the burial, in effect, of that material. The third thing that has gone on is that we have met with the contractor. And the contractor indicated to us that he bid the borrow area six material to either go to Park Shore or to Vanderbilt. In other words, there's no intent upon the part of the contractor, as we understand it, to put it way to the south down on Naples beach. So the DEP has told us that they -- if they accept the material to go on the beach, that it theoretically can go anywhere. But they're not going to -- to single out a specific beach as I understand it. Now, there may be other people that we're talking to. But what I understand now is that the material, borrow area six, is acceptable with the control stipulation that that surface material is placed early and goes down low in the section. And we have a specification that says if anything larger than 2 inches shows up, that the contractor is required to remove that. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Is -- is 2 inches a standard? I mean, where did the 2 inches come from? Why couldn't we have it at an inch? DR. STEPHEN: Well, you have to -- you'll have to -- you could have it at an inch, but all of that adds to the difficulty and the cost, and it relates to the characteristics of your material. We have grain size analysis, and probably less than 1 percent of the total of all of the material that we're dealing with is any greater than three-quarters of an inch. I mean, every bit of the -- you know, all of our tests show that a very, very small amount of the material is up in the larger size, and when there is something in the larger size, it's only one or two shells -- shells and, frankly, there are natural materials on the beach that are larger. If you look at Naples beach today -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I've stepped on them. DR. STEPHEN: -- there are rocks and big shells that have washed up frequently. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We have all stepped on those. DR. STEPHEN: So we don't want to get into a situation where we're causing the contractor to be going to an extreme. Again, it's a cost and -- and process issue. So we are extremely aware and -- and very concerned about and are trying to address all of these -- these issues and are working very hard to do that. And I hope that we're achieving reasonable compromise and success, one, with the environmental community and the permits and, number two, with our own community on all of these issues. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: To try and bring Mr. Herm's concerns to a close, what we're dealing with here is a borrow area that the upper 2 feet has a high shell content as opposed to what's beneath it. DR. STEVENS: Yes. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: And that high shell content in the areas that it's being distributed to will be used not on the beach face, but down in the water area? DR. STEPHEN: Yes. Down below the average elevation. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And this is not an issue of discrimination against Vanderbilt Beach. It's just that it happens to be closest to the borrow area? DR. STEPHEN: That's correct. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Mrs. Chairman, I think my concerns have been adequately addressed. And although Mr. Herms raised some very important points, I think -- I think that those have been addressed and, additionally, I don't think it's appropriate for us to go in at this late stage and start adjusting the -- the bid that's already been let and the contract and the permits and all that. So I will make a motion to approve the awarding of this bid -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Second. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: -- this contract. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Does that motion include adopting the resolution to waive the noise ordinance, or do you want to do that in a separate -- COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Can we do that as one motion, Mr. Weigel? MR. WEIGEL: If you adopt the staff's recommendation, you have done it all. MR. NORRIS: Okay. Then I'll amend my motion to reflect that the motion is to approve staff's recommendations. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second amends. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. We have a motion and a second to adopt staff's recommendation that's included in this executive summary regarding bid number 95-2425. Any other discussion? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: One last thing. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Norris. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Harry, let's make sure that we have those reverse buzzers deactivated. MR. HUBER: Yes, sir. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We'll try. MR. HUBER: One -- one more item. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Also pay the OSHA fine. MR. HUBER: One more item I'd like to discuss, and it's not necessarily required as part of your action, but with respect to the financing of the project, I know back on September 7th you approved a financing plan, but at that time we didn't know what the bids were going to come in. I'm trying to determine what the procedures are at this point in -- in finalizing that financing plan and how much is -- will be borrowed. MR. DORRILL: That will be referred to Mr. HcNees and have the finance committee actually process whatever paperwork is necessary for the closing associated with that. And we'll handle that administratively and bring it back if necessary. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. We have a motion and a second. All those in favor, please say aye. Opposed? Motion passes five to zero. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Huber, if I could ask, before the construction begins in certain sections of the beach, would you let -- as far as Vanderbilt and north county goes, could you let me know? I'd like to have meetings between you and the property owners up there to tell them what to expect, what's going to happen, you know, just to try to give them some advance warning, and it may reduce some of the problems we have. MR. HUBER: Absolutely. And I think we're intending to put a daily press release in the paper to indicate where we are and how -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: With your help we'll put a personal touch on that, too. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Huber. Item #885 REPORT TO THE BOARD ON THE STATUS OF 1-75 EHERGENCY SERVICE CROSSOVERS - PRESENTATION ACCEPTED Next item on the agenda is 8(B)(5), a report to the board on the status of the 1-75 crossovers. Mr. Archibald. MR. ARCHIBALD: Good morning, board members, again. Item 8(B)(5) is a summary report in regards to the issue of 1-75 emergency meeting crossovers. The agenda item is a follow-up to a county, state, and federal meeting on 28th, August. And it outlines plan C that has been submitted. This particular agenda item, again, in outlining plan C, resolves the problems of median crossovers between 29 and 951, that critical segment. It does not resolve all of the issues relative to median crossovers between 29 and the Broward County line, but it does set forth some parameters for addressing access and median crossovers as a result of future recreational area construction by the state. This agenda item has been delayed a couple of weeks in anticipation of run -- some response from the FHWA in Tallahassee. Unfortunately, we still haven't received that response. And I would just simply advise the board that when we do receive that response, that we will immediately transmit that to the board members. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. Commissioner Hancock. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Archibald, when we attended the meeting that Commissioner Norris and I attended up in Fort Myers, weren't we at eight crossovers? And now we're at seven. I assume it's that last nine miles before the Broward line that we didn't pick up the one we wanted; is that correct? MR. ARCHIBALD: Yes. We started out at seven, and now we're at eight. And there's an ability to incorporate some changes in the future recreational areas that will increase it back to 11 if those can be worked out. In the interim the state has indicated that the temporary crossovers that currently exist, those will, in fact, be maintained until the recreational areas are constructed. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: COHMISSIONER NORRIS: CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Hotion to approve -- Hotion to accept -- -- accept the board report. -- report. Second. There's a motion and a second to accept the report. All those in favor, please say aye. Opposed? There being none, motion passes five to zero. Thanks a lot. Mr. Archibald. Next item on the agenda is 8(B)(6), a staff report on the purchase negotiation of the Bathey property. Mr. Clemons. Anybody need a break yet? Item #886 STAFF REPORT PRESENTED ON PURCHASE NEOGOTIATIONS OF THE BATHEY PROPERTY - STAFF DIRECTED TO NEOGOTIATE PURCHASE CONTRACT WITH STIPULATIONS MR. CLEMONS: Good morning, Commissioners. For the record, Tim Clemons, wastewater director. The item, 8(B)(6), back before you this morning is a staff report on the continued negotiations on the Bathey property. If you recall, we were here a couple weeks ago. We brought this item before you. And the report at that date mainly centered around the negotiations on the property versus the -- the cost of installing a second deep injection well. At the end of that meeting, the board directed us to go back, negotiate further with the Hubschman family and to come back to you again. Since that time we have met with them. We have continued to negotiate the purchase price and at this point in time have actually been able to reduce the purchase price for the property by approximately one million dollars. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: From where we were last time? Because last time it was already down -- I mean, is this additional from two weeks ago? MR. CLEMONS: From the time we -- in addition to two weeks ago. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. MR. CLEMONS: The -- actually, if you'll turn to page 2 in your executive summary, we gave a quick cost breakdown between the purchase of the property and the construction of the second deep injection well. We did not show the park cost in that. We pulled that out so you could look at it separately. And at a cost of $32,000 per acre for the property that the utilities would use for lakes, add to it some reimbursement for legal fees and hard costs and for some easements that we've got to purchase on a leased price -- or leased site, -- the total of 5,280,677, that in comparison to 5,200,000 that we estimate would be the cost of installing that deep injection well. And that would be the cost of the well, the temporary effluent ponds for a million dollars, and an estimated cost from the county attorneys of 1.2 million for litigation. So the two numbers have come a lot closer together from the two weeks that we were here last within about $9,000. In addition, the park site cost is still a million dollars, as we discussed before, plus the $277,500 for fill material that will be placed on that site. And that's a separate item. The -- actually staff feels that we've come close enough together on this that we would recommend that the board proceed with the purchase of this. It not only buys a park and takes care of a lot of the effluent disposal we need, it also gets rid of pending litigation on some other issues. The county attorneys are here. If they need to speak to the pending litigation, they can do that. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: My question probably does relate to that. May I? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Sure. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Reimbursement for legal fees, $164,000. Why -- why would we reimburse $164,000 of legal fees? MR. CLEMONS: Well, it's not all legal fees. And I should have shown it as both legal and engineering. It's some of the hard costs that they've incurred to date in working permits and construction for those ponds. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Are these related, though, to the litigation, or -- and maybe there are -- if we -- here's my question. If we -- are these fees that if we lost the lawsuit we'd have to pay, or are these fees that are associated with design of the -- of the purchase property? MR. CLEMONS: I believe these fees are towards the design of the ponds and stuff. My understanding is there's nothing on the other. MR. BRYANT: Good morning, Commissioner. They're also part of the prorated amount, if you would, of what we anticipate we'll have to pay in fees for the loss of the lawsuit on the effluent ponds at Santa Barbara also. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: What kind of a percentage of -- are we paying every penny they asked for, or have they -- MR. BRYANT: No, ma'am. In fact, when we first started negotiating with them, we were looking at a -- an amount that they thought they were entitled to as a premium of almost $200,000, and that's been totally dropped out of the discussion. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I was looking for that. Okay. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Any other questions? I have one for Mr. Bryant. This proposal before us today, this report, whether we act on it or not, includes settlement of all the legal issues? MR. BRYANT: Yes, ma'am. In fact, that was one of the conditions that we set out at the very beginning of our discussion with Mr. Hubschman and Mr. Siesky, that we would settle every issue we had with them, and that's what this document does. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: So this document makes all the -- all the pending litigation go away? MR. BRYANT: Yes, ma'am. And I'm sure Mr. Hubschman would tell the board that as he stands here today. MR. HUBSCHMAN: Harrison Hubschman. I agree with Mr. Bryant. It settles everything, and the -- his analogy of the situation is -- is correct. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I've got one more question, Mr. Hubschman. The last time we talked on this a couple weeks ago you had concern about a zoning issue that you didn't want to take it upon yourself to produce the zoning -- MR. HUBSCHMAN: Yes. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: -- for this? MR. HUBSCHMAN: Yes. Originally in the document Mr. Bryant wanted us to acquire the zoning for the park and for the -- and for the ponds. And because of the closing of the park early and the possibility that the other property if it's not permitted by Army Corps -- the ponds themselves, if they cannot be permitted by Army Corps later on, then you would not be required to purchase those. In other words, if you can't use them, you're not going to have to buy them. The situation then is, you know, if you as a board decide not to zone the property, you could kill the deal, you know, by not giving the proper zoning to the property. So we basically have like put that in your lap, so to speak, saying that, you know, if you want it to be used for this, then you're going to have to zone it for that too. In other words, you're buying it unzoned, and then it's up to you to zone it. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: So you want to make this contract then contingent on permitting, but not on zoning? MR. HUBSCHMAN: Yes. Which the permitting is much harder to get than the zoning. I mean, you have the control over zoning, you know, here at the board level, whereas the permitting is at the state level. MR. BRYANT: I think one of the concerns that Mr. Hubschman had was that the board might hold him hostage on the zoning issue since this board would totally make that determination. And we thought that by the Hubschmans being responsible for all environmental permitting, that that would give the board the comfort level it needed to go forward, because if they can't get the permits and we can't use the property for what we anticipate using it for, the deal is off. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: And there's no point in rezoning it either. MR. BRYANT: Yes, ma'am. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Norris. MR. HUBSCHHAN: We're giving up our lawsuits now and -- you know, and for that we're asking that you be responsible for the zoning. I'm sorry. Go ahead. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Beyrent, one of the other issues that we discussed at one point was that if -- if for some reason we weren't able to permit the effluent storage sites, if -- if the lawsuits would still be abandoned if we were not able to use that property. MR. BRYANT: They're going to dismiss their lawsuits as soon as this document is executed. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: With prejudice? MR. BRYANT: Yes, sir. And I think Mr. Siesky would give you that statement. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. MR. SIESKY: That's correct. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: All right. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I think I'd like to have that statement. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: The other issue that we had discussed that I had some concern about was the timing on the construction of the effluent storage areas and what -- what does the contract say about that? When does that have to be done? Is there a performance measurement? How -- what actually does the contract say relating to the timing? MR. CLEHONS: I need to look for a minute, Commissioner. I believe there's a 12-month time period in there. Mr. Siesky gave us revised agreements this morning, and we're still doing some revisions to those agreements. I'll let him speak to that for just a minute, but I know that we have had that in there. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Siesky, if -- is it a 12 month MR. SIESKY: Jim Siesky, Commissioner. There were two questions asked. I'll answer yours first. There's nothing in the contract right now, nor was there ever that had a 12-month provision. I don't believe my client has a problem with adding that to the contract. The first time it was really raised was this morning. The answer to the chairman's question is the contract already provides that the suits would be dismissed upon the closing of the purchase of the park site, which is by contract a week from today. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Any other questions? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, I still haven't really gotten closure on my -- my concern here. And that is, are -- do we have some sort of performance measure here, or is it just going to be open-ended when they can do the construction work? MR. CLEHONS: No, sir, it cannot be open-ended. I'm sorry. MR. BRYANT: I think what the 12-month consideration was, Commissioner, was that we had agreed to lease the old ponds for a period of time for them to get the permitting for the new ponds, and that was going to be for a 12-month period. I think that's where the 12 months comes in. But there is a provision that says that they have a certain -- or they've got to do everything they've got to get the permits. If they don't, then the contract is over, and we have the ability to do whatever we want. But there is not an end date. But it's my understanding that Mr. Hubschman doesn't mind putting that in. COMHISSIONER NORRIS: If -- if -- if you wouldn't mind putting it in, I'd prefer that you did. MR. SIESKY: I'll just ask my client. MR. HUBSCHMAN: As far as putting a deadline, you know, for the construction, is that what you're referring to? COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Well, I just would like some assurances that this can't go on for ten years or something. MR. HUBSCHMAN: Right. Well, we want to be able to have enough time, you know, to get the permits done. You know how that can be with Army Corps, and they can drag this on for quite awhile. COMHISSIONER NORRIS: I understand. But I'm just looking for a reasonable commitment from your side that these will be built in an expedient matter. And I understand the permitting difficulties and the time involved. MR. HUBSCHMAN: If I could have a minute to confer, I'll get back -- give you -- MR. McNEES: We do have one registered speaker when you ever care to hear them. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. McNees, I had a question. On the fiscal impact for the parks and recreation department, if we were to move forward with this, they indicate that they would either have to put off some capital projects or borrow the money to pay the 1.2 million dollars for the park site. Is that question going to be answered administratively or -- I'm -- if you've got to put park sites off, I want to know which one, and I hope it's not Golden Gate. MR. CLEMONS: No, actually the one million for the park site is already there. It's the utilities side that we're going to have to defer capital projects on or borrow money. My understanding from Mr. Olliff is the money for his purchase is there and available. The -- the others on the utilities site we would either need to defer some of our capital projects or borrow money. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Oh, I'm sorry. I read that wrong. I read public works versus public services, and I got confused. MR. CLEMONS: I think public services has their money set for that. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I'm sorry. MR. CADENHEAD: Bobby Cadenhead for the record again. On the permitting issue at this present time -- in June 28th of this year we submitted to the Army Corps for permitting of the wetlands that are on the property. We also submitted to the DEP for permitting. We -- at this time we have a permit in hand for pond C to construct it. The park has to be put back in through the parks department as far as doing a permit to do the park through water management. Our permitting -- in the contract right now there is -- once permits are attained, we will be completed within 180 days of construction, so it's not a long-going deal. But as any other thing that you're dealing with the fate of other agencies and as -- we're -- we're to the point this week that the green sheets are being typed in Tallahassee as far as the corps permit, so we have 30 days there. DEP has assured us that within approximately 21 days that we will have the permit for that. So -- and probably in -- in two weeks we would have the permit for the pipeline and for pond C to be installed immediately. So it's -- it's not a long-going deal, but the total assurance is 180 days once permits are received from the different agencies. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Norris, would -- would you want to see a 12-month construction period and then a possible extension of that period if needed based on the circumstances? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, my -- my only concern is that I think the point needs to be addressed somewhere in the contract. MR. HUBSCHMAN: Like I said, we've discussed it and -- you know, we -- the construction is minimal as far as time. That's 180 days. You know, from the time the permits are received it will be, you know, pretty -- pretty much complete. We feel that 18 months is not unreasonable when you're talking about Army Corps, and we could put something in there that would limit it to 18 months that we have that time period to get the permits. We feel certain that we're going to receive the permits before the end of the year, but -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. But you never know. MR. HUBSCHMAN: -- you never know what the state is going to do to you and what hoops they're going to make you jump through. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: As I understand it you're telling us here today that you agree to put in an 18-month stipulation? MR. HUBSCHMAN: Yes. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: That being the case, I'll make a motion to approve. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second to approve -- we don't have anything here to approve. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, actually the motion will be to direct staff to negotiate a contract based on what's contained in the staff report. MR. CLEMONS: Right. We do have -- as I said, Mr. Siesky gave us some revised agreements this morning. We've got some changes still to make to those. Most of those are minor housekeeping changes, but they still need to be done. We also need an approval of a budget amendment today for 194,000 to pay those associated hard costs, and then we'll have to come back to you with the rest of the financing at a later date. MR. McNEES: And, MAdam Chairman, you do have the one speaker. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I thought that was the one speaker. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Let's hear from the one speaker, and then we'll get a clarification on the motion. MR. McNEES: Garrett Beyrent. MR. BEYRENT: For the record my name is Garrett Beyrent, and I'm here, and I'm very mad. Do you know why I'm mad? Because in 1987 the Board of County Commissioners sued me. They sued me over the condemnation of a little piece of land that I owned with my ex-partners and my ex-lawyers back here, okay. And I paid my ex-lawyer thousands of dollars, all right. And guess what? I finally got a date in court, November the 28th, all right. And what happens? Two weeks ago my ex-lawyer, right, he goes before a judge and claims I don't have any interest in this lawsuit, right, after how many years; right? Well, I filed a complaint with the bar association against Mr. Siesky because that's totally unethical for your own attorney to turn against you two months before your trial date; right? I'm a little upset. I have this thing about constitutional rights. Back in 1987 you -- of course, none of you people were here, but this board sued me, okay, and I spent a lot of money defending myself about a little stupid piece of property, okay, that didn't amount to a hill of beans over a utility issue, okay. But I had to defend myself against the board, and it cost me a lot of money, okay. What I'm upset about is that after this board met last time in that two-week period, my ex-attorney brought me in front of Judge Ellis, and he claimed that Judge Carlton had removed my rights regarding this lawsuit. Well, that's really interesting because there's no record of Judge Carlton ever taking away my rights, okay. It wasn't a big issue. He held -- Mr. Siesky, however, convinced Judge Ellis that that actually occurred. He also told Judge Ellis that when she asked where David Bryant was, the assistant county attorney, Mr. Siesky said he wasn't supposed to be there. That's really interesting, okay. So to go on, Judge Ellis says, well, I guess I have no choice. I'm going to have to remove you from this lawsuit, take away your interests, which she did. And, of course, I had my attorney request a rehearing, which is still pending. So of these three lawsuits that are going to be settled, the only guy in one of the lawsuits that doesn't know what's going on apparently is me. So I'm here to ask David Bryant to explain what's going on, because I've got this thing about a constitutional right. I had a right when you condemned my property back in 1987, and that's frozen in time. That right's frozen, okay. And I'll argue that to the supreme court. But when my rights are taken away by my own attorney, I've got -- I have to question the ethics of everything that's going on here, and I hope David Bryant can explain something. Thank you very much. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Constantine. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let me just make sure I understand. Judge Ellis has stated from a legal perspective that you are not party to this? MR. BEYRENT: Now, we asked for a rehearing. So there was no final ruling regarding one of these lawsuits, okay. The one that I'm in -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The answer to my question is yes? MR. BEYRENT: I don't know. You have to ask David Bryant because he was -- he was requested to come to the rehearing, so I really -- I'm in the dark. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Beyrent, I'm asking a very simple question, and I'd appreciate it if you'd answer it. You just stated that Mr. Bryant wasn't there, so I'm not going to ask him because he wasn't there. You were there. Judge Ellis has said you are no longer a party -- MR. BEYRENT: Well, no -- okay, I see what you're saying COHHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Beyrent, it's a yes or no question. MR. BEYRENT: I have no idea. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Excuse me, Mr. Beyrent, one at a time. You're talking over him. MR. BEYRENT: Go right ahead. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It's a yes or no question. You just stated and I'm asking you to reiterate the statement, to clarify the statement, Judge Ellis has stated you are not a party to this. MR. BEYRENT: I should say I'm not sure. And that's the honest truth. David Bryant could probably explain it better than me, because I don't know. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Hay I make -- MR. BEYRENT: From what I could understand what's going on, I'm not an attorney. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Let me suggest -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Norris. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: -- Mr. Beyrent and Mr. Bryant have a discussion outside of these chambers because this appears to not be -- have any bearing on this case at this moment. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, unless -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That was the point of my question. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Unless -- I mean, I need to know is he or isn't he involved in the lawsuit that we are now saying we're going to settle in accordance with the proposal we've gotten. And if he's -- if he's in, then he has to be a participant. If he's out, then he has legal remedies that I'm sure he'll pursue. MR. BEYRENT: I appreciate that. Thank you. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So we need to know if he's in or out, Mr. Bryant. MR. BRYANT: That's a good question, Commissioner. I was not at the hearing because I was not notified of the hearing. This was the case I mentioned to you earlier where we were represented by outside counsel. This is the problem. We have outside counsel. We don't know what's going on. And if they don't have close coordination with our office, we have these types of issues. That's why we always need to be managing our outside counsel, and we were not doing it in this case. So I wasn't at the hearing. It's my understanding from looking at the order that Judge Ellis ruled, based upon Judge Carlton's earlier ruling in Mr. Beyrent's divorce case with Tartell (phonetic) Hubschman Beyrent, Mr. Hubschman's sister, that Mr. Beyrent had no interest in this property. Now, I was concerned about that from the very beginning because I was concerned that Mr. Beyrent might raise these issues. I specifically had the seller put a provision in our contract that they would defend, hold us harmless, pay our attorney's fees, do whatever it takes to make sure they take care of their problems, because it doesn't have, as far as we're concerned, anything to do with this contract. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So if Mr. Beyrent has a continuing interest in this -- one of these lawsuits, the Hubschman family is going to defend the county from any claims that Mr. Beyrent may have. So you're not getting cut off from your claims. You're just going to have to fight them with the Hubschman family instead of with the Board of County Commissioners. MR. BEYRENT: Thank you very much. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But it sounds like we do have a clear field here to be able to -- to make a settlement. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: It sounds like Mr. Bryant has adequately included in the contract what was needed. Commissioner Norris, do you want to restate your motion? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Let's start over with the motion. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I make a motion that we direct staff to -- to go ahead with this contract as discussed here today and to make the necessary budget amendments to go forward as soon as possible. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Does that motion include everything you need, Mr. Clemons? MR. CLEMONS: Yes, ma'am, I think so. I think that covers it for now. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Fine. We have a motion and a second to direct staff to complete this contract and make the appropriate budget amendments. Any further discussion? All in favor, please say aye. Opposed? Motion passes five to zero. MR. CLEMONS: Thank you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. MR. HUBSCHMAN: Thank you, Commissioners. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Hubschman. Item #8B7 NEGOTIATED PURCHASE AGREEMENT PRICE WITH MARTIN EQUIPMENT, INC. FOR A WATER TRUCK FOR THE MARCO ISLAND BEAUTIFICATION HSTU - APPROVED AND PURCHASE TO TAKE PLACE IN CURRENT FISCAL YEAR Next item on the agenda is 8(B)(7), a recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approve a negotiated purchase agreement. Mr. Archibald. MR. ARCHIBALD: Board members, agenda 8(B)(7) is in follow-up to the board's direction of 5 September. The staff is presenting its recommendation to purchase a 1987 Ford water truck from Martin Equipment Company in the total amount of $40,000. The one recommendation that staff has is to determine whether or not we can proceed, and we would like board direction to, in fact, proceed with the acquisition in the current year if at all possible. There are sufficient reserves to purchase this truck recognizing that it is in the budget that's beginning in October 1st. But if at all possible to acquire it during this year, we would like that possibility. If not, we would acquire it the very first part of the new year October 1st. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Norris. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I'd like to make a motion that we approve the purchase of this truck and authorize the staff to try to make the purchase within this budgetary year. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second to authorize staff to move forward with the negotiated purchase of this water truck and to try to do it in the current fiscal year as opposed to the next fiscal year. Any discussion? All those in favor, please say aye. Opposed? There being none, motion passes five to zero. Thank you. Let's take a -- a quick break till 25 of. (A short break was held.) Item #888 DISCUSSION REGARDING NAPLES PARK DRAINAGE - PRESENTED CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Reconvene the board of commissioners' meeting for September 26th, 1995. The next item on the agenda is item 8(B)(8). It's a Naples Park update. Hr. Boldt. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Boldt, I'm going to preface your comments and try to frame it, and then you can step in. The reason I've asked the board to hear this brief item today is because at one point we approved a methodology. As you remember, we sat here, and I made revisions to it and so forth, and we approved the methodology and assigned a benefit factor to individuals in Naples Park and Pavilion Club and Beachwalk and so forth. What has happened since then is the engineers have looked at those benefit factors in an attempt to back them up so that they are legally, I guess, defensible. They've had to be changed. Now, we, in fact, as we've moved along have accepted those changes, but what is occurring now is we're looking at the financial impact of them. And the estimates for this job have increased well over the 3.8 million that we had originally looked at. Now, that's not unusual for an engineering estimate to be sometimes as much as 20 percent higher than the actual or proposed cost of the project. We don't know whether it's going to come in at what it's proposed or whether it's going to come in 20 or 30 percent lower. The concern I have is that under the -- the current methodology that the project engineers have proposed, at least on the current cost estimate where we approved the typical lot in Naples Park at approximately $700 each for a 50-foot lot, it now would be almost eleven hundred dollars for each of those lots. That, in my -- if -- if for my vote is unacceptable. But we don't have the bottom-line cost on this yet. But I thought it's important that this board knew where we were now as we go to bids. If the bids come in low enough that it brings that cost back down, then we're back where we thought we would be. If it does not, then we have a decision to make then. That's the purpose of this. And, Mr. Boldt, I'll let you add whatever you feel is appropriate. MR. BOLDT: Okay. For the record, Sam Boldt, your storm water management director. I think the official action by this board is going to be on October 24th at which time you'll have an opportunity to approve this tentative assessment role. There's a first-class mailing going out to all property owners next Monday. We're in the process of printing that, the mailing that will notify the property owners of what their tentative assessments going to be. As Commissioner Hancock says, it's going to be $1,070 for one of those typical 50-foot lots. We plan to prepare some sort of a press release to come out about the same time as the letter explaining just basically what you heard; the cost had gone up, why they've gone up. You need to know also that this $1,070 figure includes some financing costs in it that if a person decides to not finance it and pay it up front, that cost would be reduced by about 10 percent. But if they were to want to finance it for seven to ten years, there would be about 20 to 25 percent higher than this. So that could be adjusted according to whether they want to pay it up front or not. That figure is about 50 percent higher than the board approved at that workshop earlier. The reasons are, real quickly, the engineer, Agnoli, Barber, and Brundage, increased the cost of the construction estimate by 29 percent. They figure the cost of aluminum pipe has gone up in the last couple years. The general increase in public works projects like this -- they checked around with different contractors -- have gone up. And also they've come up with a more conservative figure just to make sure that when we open these bids, that the engineer's estimates, not the low bid, and everything is higher than that, which means that the tentative assessments would have to be higher, which means we'd have to drop back in our process and start all over again through some of these legal notices and things you've been going through the last couple of months. We'd have to repeat those with the lower figure, and that would set us back a full year. We have full expectations, or at least hopes at this point in time, that the bids are going to come in at a lower price than what we were estimating. We're hoping to catch the contractors at a low ebb when they're anxious to get work and they want to keep their crews busy and that the prices will come in at lower prices. My suggestion is at this time that we proceed cautiously, that we're at a critical level at this cost per lot. Let's go through the bidding process, open the bids, make it clear to the contractors up front that when we do bid the work that we're concerned about the cost and that if they exceed a certain figure, the board's going to reserve the right to cancel the project or modify it or whatever. Our time schedule is such we hope to go out for bids sometime during November, have them received in December, and be back to you with an official recommendation for award of a contract in late December or very early January, so we can get our construction window. Dry season in January through April is our critical time. So that's the time line we're on. And with that I'll answer any questions. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Are there questions? Commissioner Hancock? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: The one thing I do want to state to kind of wrap this up and be very, very clear about it, is that what we originally approved was, in essence, on the edge of any sense of comfort I could have with this project. If you see any substantial increases over that, just to let my colleagues know, I'll be the first to shelf this thing. So if this thing comes back at $1,000 for a 50-foot lot, 1,000, 900, 850, I'm not comfortable, and you'll see a motion from me to shelf it. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So the present -- the numbers that we were working with -- all right, you anticipate an $800 -- I mean, it sounds like -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: If we were looking at -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm afraid that we're going to frighten people who aren't going to understand what we're talking about today, because I'm, frankly, a little confused myself. We were looking at assessments in the range of blank, please fill in, and you're concerned now that the assessments could be higher than that? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: We were looking for the typical lot in Naples Park at $705 was the last number that we -- we -- was presented to us, and we said, okay, we're moving ahead, 705. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And when we sell that, we knew we were basing it on some old estimates and that it might go up. But you're saying if it goes up too much -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I think it's reasonable to expect maybe as much as a 10 percent fluctuation. You know, you're not going to be -- it's not an exact science, and I think my comfort level -- when I arrived at 700 being in any way acceptable was based on the value of homes in Naples Park block by block, the level of income in Naples Park, and people's ability to pay over a financing period of $700. When you start getting to -- we're talking people have to finance -- financing a base amount of $1,100, that no longer is feasible, in my opinion. So there certainly is somewhere in between that may be acceptable. But I think rather than scaring people, I think this is more or less a caution that if this project gets, you know, out of control beyond what we originally approved, I'm going to be taking a very critical look at it, and I'm assume we all will. And that was the purpose for this update. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I know I will. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Pass the syrup, please. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Boldt. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: The syrup is well deserved, pal. Item #8C1 RESOLUTION 95-548 AMENDING THE COLLIER COUNTY PARKS AND RECREATION FACILITIES LICENSE AND FEE POLICY AND TO SUPERSEDE COUNTY RESOLUTION 94-848 - ADOPTED CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Next item on the agenda is item 8(C)(1). This was an item that was removed from the consent agenda and deals with parks and recreation fee schedules. And I understand that we have some changes to what was in the agenda in order to address the problem -- MR. SMITH: Yes, Commissioner. My name -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: -- which -- problem -- and let me explain why I asked to move this off was that we were talking about a five-dollar-an-hour fee schedule, and in many instances in the parks and recreation community centers nonprofit groups use those, and they don't have the wherewithal in their budgets to be paying five dollars an hour to rent community centers for their meetings. So -- and I think we have some language that will remedy that. MR. SMITH: Yes. Good morning, Commissioners. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Smith. MR. SMITH: My name is Hurdo Smith. I'm here to present the annual update of the license and fee policy. We bring this back to the board every year at about this time so that the board can approve our charges and fees for the coming year. Basically we have a few changes in there, and I'd like to go over the changes. What Commissioner Matthews was talking about, Mr. Brinkman just handed to you some updated wording on the not-for-profit groups. We had originally recommended that not-for-profit groups be charged a $5 rental fee. However, we had some questions about it, and we talked with the county attorney, and he came up with some additional wording that we, with the board's approval, will put that into the fee policy. Other changes that we have are non-Collier County parks and recreation sponsored leagues, participant fee will go from $5 to $8 for youth, from $20 to $23 for -- for adults. The fee for Collier County sponsored leagues would raise -- increase from $22 to 25. We also have included -- we'd like to reduce the aquatic facility's daily attend -- or admittance fees by 6 percent. We've also included the fitness center fees for both Immokalee and Naples. We've included a corporate discount for the aquatic and fitness centers. We've also included a beach parking fee at $3 a day for noncounty residents and a boat parking fee of $3 a day at the various boat ramps and beaches. And there's also an annual permit for $60 that's included in the fee. We've listed this year the summer camp recreation program in Immokalee and Naples, and rates are there as listed. And also we've listed the after-school camp in Immokalee and in Naples for the board's review. The revenue from this is the boat ramps and beach parking is approximately $938,000. We were anticipating approximately $8,000 from the nonprofit groups, and the other increases have already been included in the budgeted items, and that's about $60,000 for this year. Do you have any questions or -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Any questions? This handout that Mr. Brinkman gave us excepting 501-C groups and then other -- three other categories of groups from this $5 fee is going to be incorporated into the -- MR. SMITH: Yes, ma'am. I also have one other change that I would like to include. For boat and beach parking fees we have a $3 fee. That should include tax. The $3 should include the tax. In the fee policy it does not state that, but I have to make that change so it include taxes. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: So we're going to back the tax out and properly state it? MR. SMITH: Yes. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I took this item off of the consent agenda, and I guess if it's appropriate I will move approval with the appropriate changes that have been discussed. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second. If there's no further discussion, all in favor please say aye. Opposed? There being none, motion passes five to zero. Thank you, Mr. Smith. Item #SD1 RECOMMENDATION TO COMPLETE THE LAST PHASE OF RENOVATIONS OF THE ADMINISTRATION BUILDING - APPROVED Next item on the agenda is item 8(D)(1), a recommendation to complete the last phase of renovations on this building. MR. CAMP: Good morning, Commissioners. For the record, Skip Camp, your facilities management director. This building was renovated in phases. The first phase was this very room, the offices on this floor, second floor, and we've done some minor renovations to the first floor. The final phase is the renovation of the fifth and the fourth floor, the fifth floor being relatively minor for support services. The fourth floor is for -- about 25 percent of that floor will be for risk management. The majority of the floor will be for the clerk of the courts and his functions that include marriage and passports, recording, indexing, official records, and board minutes and records. We were planning to come to you earlier this summer with this, but a lot of our contractors do a lot of school work, and they were real busy trying to get those projects done before September 1st so '- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Skip, do we really want to admit that? MR. CAMP: Try to be up front here. So that's why we're -- we're actually coming to you about six weeks later than we anticipated. We have, though -- the good news is we've been able to negotiate some good prices. We got three good contractors, three competitive prices, and we're recommending award to the lowest responsive bidder. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Constantine. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm just looking at a couple of things here. Furniture, a hundred thousand bucks, 97,000 bucks. MR. CAMP: That's because we have the open office plan so we keep partitions down so it's less when it comes to air conditioning and air quality and those kinds of things. Most of our construction now is furniture related, so we try to keep the hard construction down. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So that will be -- MR. CAMP: The work stations. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: All $100,000 of that will be for walls and such? MR. CAMP: Yes. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: There won't be new desks, new chairs. I just hate to see -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: That's partitions. MR. CAMP: These are work -- everything we do is flexible work stations so that they can be moved around at little expense. MR. DORRILL: And those are for the existing departments of the clerk that are on the fourth floor? MR. CAMP: That's correct. MR. DORRILL: Okay. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Motion to approve. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Second. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second to approve the recommendation to complete the last phase of renovations on the administration building. Any other discussion? There being none, all in favor, please say aye. Opposed? Motion passes five to zero. MR. CAMP: Thank you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Camp. Item #9A SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT RELATING TO LOT 14, BLOCK 1, HIDEAWAY BEACH (GIBSON PROPERTY) ADDRESING ISSUES RELATED TO SETBACKS, LITIGATION, COSTS AND RELATED MATTERS - APPROVED Next item on the agenda is item 9(A), a discussion and board consideration of a proposed settlement agreement. MR. CUYLER: Good morning, Madam Chairman. The way that we're going to handle this in order to give the board a full overview, is Reinders -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Excuse me, Mr. Cuyler. This is your last meeting; is that correct? MR. CUYLER: That is correct. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: What an item to end on, Ken. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I know. It's a good one, though, to get it settled. MR. CUYLER: I'm hoping this goes well, as a matter of fact. Reinders of Royal Marco Development is going to give you an overview of the plan that all parties have agreed to resolve all of the issues. Mr. Doyle is then going to make a short presentation, and Mr. Goodlette is going to make a short presentation. As I indicated in my memo to you last Friday -- and we're also going to have some public speakers that are going to include representatives of some of the other property owners as well, including Mr. Pickworth. The memo that I -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: $5,000 worth of suits here. MR. CUYLER: -- conveyed in the settlement agreement, I indicated there may be some changes that were going on. You've just been handed out a document. Any changes in that will be explained, although the county -- any changes relating to the county have been very minor. In fact, there's been one sentence that I asked to be put in. At this time since you have a general understanding of what we are talking about, I'm going to ask Mr. Reinders at this point to approach the podium and give you an overview of what the resolution is. MR. REINDERS: Good morning, Commissioners. My name is Jim Reinders. I am the president and managing partner of Royal Marco Development, which is the successor declarant or current developer of Hideaway Beach, if you will. The various parties asked me to make just a few brief comments in terms of how this proposed settlement agreement comes before you. As you know, there has been considerable discussion and debate and a number of hearings and some associated litigation regarding this question of beachfront setbacks at Hideaway Beach. These have been very real problems, very real issues. It's not simply a matter of a debate between a couple of adjoining homeowners. We have issues here that affect very significant properties up and down Hideaway Beach consisting in total of about 27 home sites. The parties have been working diligently the past several weeks to craft an agreement among them that adequately and fairly addresses their respective interests. Those efforts have culminated in this draft agreement which is in front of you. This agreement is intended to involve all of the parties. It is intended to resolve all of the litigation and result in releases by and between all of the affected parties. It's intended to establish fixed setbacks for all of the home sites, both for primary and accessory structures. It is in a form with minor comment that we believe is fully satisfactory to the board of directors or the master homeowners' association for Hideaway Beach. We think it adequately addresses your staff's concerns with the adequacy of setbacks and any associated issues about vegetation and so forth. It certainly preserves adequate buildability for currently unimproved lots. It does so in a manner that I think meets the relative considerations of each adjoining homeowner in all of this. It also serves to, in effect, grandfather any existing improvements that would not otherwise comply with current staff interpretations as they are set forth. It's -- it fundamentally divides these beachfront home lots into three groups; the so-called central lots where in effect what -- what we're proposing is that staff's current interpretation continue to apply. It takes what will, in effect, be three lots, I think, in the final analysis, lots 9 through 12 of block 2, and creates a 30-foot primary setback and a 20-foot accessory setback from the erosion control line, which again is a fixed and platted line for future reference, which I think is an adequate setback from staff's position on all of this matter. And then it takes as a final group lots 14, 15, 16, and 17 of block 1, which is where a lot of the current controversy has focused and which also involves Mr. Gibson's current efforts and construction permit and has been the focus of the most immediate debate. It sets out specific setbacks and uses and -- and other restrictions with respect to those four home sites, again, in a manner that we believe is satisfactory to all of the parties. Part of the manner in which we were able to achieve that -- because when we are dealing with lots 14, 15, 16, and 17 to a greater, lesser degree, we start to end up in areas where we had the most sensitivity as to what the setbacks should be combined with the fact that we had lots that were not all that deep. So we were -- we were fighting a balancing act between buildability and adequate setbacks and -- and something satisfactory to the neighbors. Part of how we hoped to or planned to address this matter is to shift the paved portion of the right of way, the Royal Marco Way, about 15 feet landward from these particular home sites. This is a matter subject to future engineering design and whatever adequate -- or whatever required approvals are -- are necessary. It becomes ultimately a condition of this agreement, but one which on investigation and inquiry to date does not seem to be a problem other than actually getting it done. So with that coupled with the fact that each of these parties is willing to make a significant contribution to the ultimate resolution of this issue, monetary contributions, which will help compensate Gibson for relocating the improvements he has made under his existing building permit, plus fund these -- this relocation of the paved portion of Royal Marco Way, we can take care of the respective concerns on these four particular lots. In quick summary, all I'm -- all I'm suggesting to you is that while it has been a long and difficult process, I think these parties have worked together. We've all worked together in good faith. I think we have a solution that takes care of everyone's legitimate concerns here. It does contemplate for your consideration a contribution by the county as well, but part of the end result of all of this is a complete finalization or release of any issues, liabilities, litigation, and the ability to all go forward without further controversy on this matter. If I can answer any specific questions, I'll be happy to. I know each of the other parties will be pleased to tell you anything that they feel is on their mind or that they feel is appropriate or answer any questions you may have of them. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Thank you. Commissioner Norris. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Reinders, you mentioned a minute ago, I think, lots 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11 or something like that. That's not a part of the agreement that we're here discussing today. Is that -- MR. REINDERS: No. Basically I think what we're here to talk about today is just the fundamental settlement agreement. This settlement agreement ultimately requires obviously undertakings by the various parties to help contribute monetarily to the solution. That, I think, is the primary issue before you in that regard. There will be two subsequent things that come to pass in order to effectuate this agreement, which will be subject to the future processes and requirements of the county, which is the ultimate result of the PUD amendment which you'll -- you'll -- you'll deliberate on and do what you will do come October the 25th and the ability to actually relocate this paved portion of Royal MArco Way. Those are only conditions. They will either come to pass, or they will not. What we're specifically trying to round out here is the fact that subject to those conditions we -- we have an understanding that works for everybody and an adequate financing vehicle to make all of this happen. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Thank you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Any other questions for Reinders? MR. REINDERS: I thank you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. MR. CUYLER: Mr. Doyle would like to address the board next. MR. DOYLE: MAdam Chairman, Commissioners, Robert Doyle of the law firm of Quarles and Brady. I represent Bill and Nadine Gibson who are parties to the agreement that is in front of you, and we are here today to advise you that our clients have agreed to the terms set forth in this agreement and to urge your acceptance of the settlement. I think that if you read through what all of the parties are to do in this settlement, that you find that no one escapes unscathed. Every party to this agreement is being asked to contribute financially to the cost of what is occurring here, including the county. And I think that probably, like most good settlement agreements, it doesn't leave anybody completely happy, but that probably indicates that it is -- it is a good settlement. We would point out that really what is here before you today to do is to approve the payment by the county of the $60,000, which contributes to the overall cost of the solution to the problem that Reinders outlined. Now, I think we probably owe Reinders a thank you for being the person, who whenever one of the parties would go off on a tangent or something, could jerk them back to reality and try to solve the problem here. And I think that the developer did a very good job of attempting to do that. The reason that we believe this is a reasonable settlement for the county is, as you know, there is litigation involving not only your interpretation of the setback requirements there, but litigation involving Mr. and Mrs. Gibson's rights to develop, as it has now been interpreted by you. You'll recall that the county issued a building permit with a zero-foot setback, and your later interpretation indicated that the prop -- the building would have to be moved back some 50 feet as a result of that interpretation of the code. Therefore, there's going to be a substantial cost associated with that. The amount that the county is being asked to pay is only a fraction and a small fraction of the total cost of construction that's going to be incurred on this project. So we believe that it is a fair and reasonable settlement, not only for the landowners involved, but for the county also. I would be happy to ask -- answer any questions that you have about the litigation. And Mr. Goodlette would also like to comment on the agreement. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Questions of Mr. Doyle? Thank you. MR. DOYLE: Thank you. MR. GOODLETTE: Thank you, Madam Chairman, members of the commission. Dudley Goodlette with the firm of Cummings and Lockwood together with Kim Patrick Kobza of Treiser, Kobza, and Volpe representing Sandra and Roger Vasey, the owners of lots 12 and 13, block 1, Hideaway Beach, share the sentiments expressed by my predecessor, Mr. Doyle. We do appreciate the involvement of the developer through Reinders. I think he did an excellent job of summarizing succinctly for you what is contemplated by the agreement that's in front of you. Again, merely to say that -- that this is an agreement that Mr. and Mrs. Vasey have -- are -- are -- it is acceptable to them, and it is one that contemplates that they are going to be paying $60,000, which is the same sum that the county is being asked to pay, and the other -- some of the other -- all of the other people who are impacted by this are likewise making a contribution. So I merely wanted to point out to you because we've appeared in this forum before you in the past in an adversarial posture with the neighbors and some of the others, and this -- this agreement, we think, is a fair and amicable settlement of the differences that exist. And in addition to the monetary contributions that are -- that are being made by the parties, there are -- and I think it's important to point out -- releases that people will be executing so that -- so that the folks in the Hideaway Beach area can -- can go forward, and the county can go forward living in harmony. That's -- those are our comments and, again, I'd be happy to answer any questions. And I don't know whether any of the other parties are going to comment, Madam Chair. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Questions for Mr. Goodlette? Thank you. Mr. Cuyler, are there other speakers? MR. CUYLER: There are two other speakers. MR. DORRILL: Mr. Pickworth. Then I believe Mr. -- is it Somers? MR. PICKWORTH: Good morning, Commissioners. I'm Don Pickworth. I represent two affected property owners here, the owners of lots 15 and 16. I also have been in fairly constant contact with the architect for the owner of lot 17, but I do not want to say I am representing lot 17, although the -- his architect who has acted as his representative throughout this understands what we are doing here. What -- what we're doing here today culminates an objective that we have had from the start, which we have felt from day one was the only way to resolve this issue, which is through a settlement from the standpoint of my clients who, regardless of how the county interpretation changed, were clearly innocent purchasers at the time they bought. They checked with all of the appropriate county departments on the rules and regulations for buildability and were assured that they would be buildable at that time. As you know, subsequently the interpretation is changed, and they were rendered essentially unbuildable. And our objective from the very start has been a settlement which would allow them to move forward with certainty that they can develop. And for that reason we have from the very start informed the other parties to this dispute that we wanted to be part of these discussions, and we were more than ready to pay our fair share of this to -- to participate and to make this happen. So I would simply echo the words of everyone else. I think what's before you today is fair and reasonable and achieves certainty and an end to this dispute, and I think those are all the objectives we ought to be seeking. Again, I have -- I'll answer questions if you have any. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Questions? Thank you, Mr. Pickworth. MR. DORRILL: That leaves Mr. Somers. MR. SOMERS: My name is David Somers. I'm the general manager at Hideaway Beach, and just regarding this PUD issue before you today. The board in the past has considered favorably the issues that are raised in the PUD that is being presented to you today. And I have really no reason to believe that there will be any objections on behalf of our board to this agreement. Conceptually I have talked to the board members, and the majority of the board members have no problem in moving the road, which I think is one of the aspects that's considered. So as far as the board of Hideaway Beach is concerned, I think you have the full support to end this lengthy situation. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. MR. CUYLER: Briefly in conclusion, MAdam Chairman, you'll notice that the agreement indicates that you will have a PUD process obviously pursuant to this agreement. That -- that will be an upcoming PUD. The total contribution by the county is $60,000. That's on page 7 in paragraph 9(A). There's a sentence in here that says that is the total county contribution, and there is no other contribution. The only other item I want to point out is fairly minor, but the Gibsons have paid their appropriate application -- permit application and permit fees, and there will be no additional fees as a result of the removal of the slab and the reconstruction of the slab. That's on page 11 in paragraph 14. That's a new sentence to clarify that, and I just wanted to bring that to your attention. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. Is there further discussion by members of the board? Is there a motion? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Madam Chairman, I'll make a motion to approve the agreement. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second to approve the settlement agreement offered to us. Is there further discussion? All in favor, please say aye. Opposed? Motion passes five to zero. Thank you, gentlemen, for all your diligent work. And, Mr. Cuyler, thank you very much. MR. CUYLER: Yes, ma'am. Thank you. Item #10A RESOLUTION 95-549 APPOINTING ROBERT SHULMAN TO THE COUNCIL OF ECONOMIC ADVISORS - ADOPTED CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Next item on the agenda is 10(A), appointment of a member to the Council of Economic Advisors. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Madam Chairman, it appears that the council has recommended Mr. Robert Shulman, so I'll make a motion to accept their recommendation and appoint Mr. Robert Shulman to the Council of Economic Advisors. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll second that. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second to appoint Robert Shulman to the Council of Economic Advisors. All in favor, please say aye. Opposed? Motion passes five to zero. Item #10B RESOLUTION 95-550 APPOINTING GARY F. HAYES TO THE CONTRACTORS' LICENSING BOARD - ADOPTED Next item, 10(B), appointment of a member to the Contractor's Licensing Board. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Madam Chairman, this is kind of unique in that there is now actually two openings, is that correct, Miss Filson? MS. FILSON: That's correct. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: They're requesting someone with experience in roofing, which since we're going to have to advertise for an additional position, someone could probably fill that slot at a future point. And we have two people that have submitted applications to sit on the committee, so I would like us to consider these two for one of the vacant spots and let the -- anyone who is interested in the roofing aspect come at the next slot. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I'll nominate Gary Hayes. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll second that. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second to nominate -- to appoint Gary Hayes to the contractor's licensing board. Is there any discussion? All those in favor, please -- Mr. Weigel. MR. WEIGEL: Pardon me. Dave Weigel, assistant county attorney. Just one question, the second position that has become available has become available rather recently, and it's my understanding there has not been any solicitation for the second vacancy that has been created; is that correct? MS. FILSON: That's correct. MR. WEIGEL: Okay. Commissioners, I would advise you inasmuch as the -- this particular board exercises quasi-judicial functions, that to use the words of Mr. Cuyler, from time to time in an abundance of caution it may be appropriate to -- in regard to the positions before you -- the applicants that are before you today to either accept them for the position that's open, taking into account their qualifications and the -- the directive, but not mandatory requirement of -- to look for roofing expertise for this particular position, or to reject them altogether and go out for a double solicitation for the vacancies. It's my understanding there's no problem in meeting quorum in the meantime. But by virtue of the fact that this board does exercise delegated quasi-judicial authority, I would believe that we would be best served if we actually had a solicitation for a vacancy as opposed to moving someone who has applied for a different vacant position today to be substituted for a vacant position that has not been solicited yet. It may -- it may slow things up for awhile, although you do have a couple of choices you would make today. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Constantine. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I think that's what the motion was, which was for one particular person to fill the one vacancy. I think in order to remain consistent with what we have done in the past is that when we advertised, if there are people who qualify -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Qualify. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- then we choose from that. And if something else becomes available in the meantime, again, to remain consistent, then we do advertise for that position. MR. WEIGEL: So you will be advertising for the other vacancy that's coming up? COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: That's correct. MR. WEIGEL: Oh, very good. Thank you very much. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We are only appointing one, and Mr. Hayes, Miss Filson, does satisfy the requirements to be appointed to this board? MS. FILSON: Well, the two vacancies -- one is in the roofing category and one is in the architect category. But, yes, he is qualified to serve on this board. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: He is qualified to serve on this board? MS. FILSON: Yes. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. We have a motion and a second to appoint Gary F. Hayes to the Contractor's Licensing Board. If there's no further discussion, all in favor please say aye. Opposed? Motion passes five to zero. Item #10C RESOLUTION 95-551 APPOINTING BLAIN A. FOLEY TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY BOARD - ADOPTED Next item on the agenda is a appointment of a member to the Environmental Advisory Board. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Nominate Mr. Foley. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: The appointment -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yes, that is the recommendation from the Environmental Advisory Board also. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second to reappoint Blair A. Foley to the Environmental Advisory Board. there discussion? Being none, all those in favor, please say aye. Opposed? Motion passes five to zero. Is Item #10D RESOLUTION 95-552 ADOPTING A REVISED INVESTMENT POLICY - ADOPTED WITH STIPULATIONS A recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners adopt a revised investment policy. This has been continued a couple of times, and I think we're only down to one or two issues. Who's going to lead it? MR. WEIGEL: I may not lead, but I'll certainly start. Kathy Hankins, on behalf of the clerk's office, will be at one podium, and we have Mr. Arthur Ziev of Raymond James, the county's financial advisor, here at the other podium. You have had distributed to you copies of the revised draft investment policy that has come into being since last Tuesday's meeting. I have additional copies here for the commissioners if they -- it would facilitate them to review if they do not have other copies with them. I also have copies of a memo from the clerk to which has been provided the commissioners separately prior to this meeting and copies of a memo from the county manager's office to the board and to each of the parties here. So if any commissioner or -- I am available to pass those out for facilitation, if you would like to have those before you, I have them here to pass out. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I think the purpose in the -- in the board deciding to put this discussion off one more week last week was to try to get our financial advisor and the representatives from the clerk's office and all the people advised -- involved in the development of this policy to come to an agreement on what the policy should contain. And based on the information that Mr. Dotrill shared with me the other day, I think there are only two issues remaining that we need to decide today. MR. ZIEV: Actually we're down to one. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: One now. Good. MR. ZIEV: Arthur Ziev. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: And you're representing -- MR. ZIEV: Raymond James and Associates. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Us. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: He's our representative in this discussion. Do you want to tell us what the one remaining issue is? MR. ZIEV: Certainly. I can go right to that. Let me just tell you there were three original issues that had been unresolved. And let me tell you the two that have been where the working group has reached a consensus. The one item, which is under unauthorized investment institutions and dealers on page 5, was the type of information that a dealer would have to provide to the county. And after doing some more research and talking to other folks, the working group reached a consensus that each dealer would be -- would provide their written markup schedule and guidelines to the county and that each firm would be required to disclose to the county prior to any trade if they were going to exceed that markup. That was the consensus of the group. While the other -- just for point of discussion, while the other was, on the one hand, very appropriate to have the firms disclose all this information to them, I think conversations with a number of firms by both the clerk's office and our representations was that that was probably impractical and not the type of information that a firm would be forthcoming with, but it is important that they have these written guidelines on how much they mark up their securities. The other point of discussion where there has been some agreement reached is on page 6, which is the bid requirement. And we had talked about a method that would permit the chief financial officer or whoever would be handling the investments to use a method other than a competitive method by using a benchmark, on-line real-time benchmark. But after further discussion I think everybody agreed that perhaps the best route to go is to just use competitive pricing at competitive bids for that process as well so that the only -- so that point of discussion now is just totally eliminated. There are, however -- there were four exceptions listed on here. Item three, which was a securities unique to a single dealer, our recommendation is that be struck as well. So there now are three exceptions, very limited exceptions, which everyone feels is appropriate. You never want to box yourself in too tight. There are certain circumstances where the county may want to take advantage of that. But in general almost everything that the county does will be competitively bid under this policy. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hancock. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: So on that item it's your opinion that those securities that, in essence, require real-time response are not going to be hindered by the -- by the investment policy? MR. ZIEV: Right. Let me explain. There is a system out there where you can get on the screen information that will tell you where the prices -- and that's not the price that you can buy at. It tells you where the market is. So what -- what the staff would have to do is call up, get a price, and if it was in keeping with what's on the screen, that would be appropriate. Now, we've said, no, let's just competitively bid them all out. That takes me to the one point where there is yet some discussion. And if you're looking at the policy that is on page 4 under authorized investment institutions and dealers -- and in an effort to -- it has to deal with should there be limitations on the amount of business that any one dealer can get from the county. And the two positions are as follows. The one position is that no dealer or institution can have more than -- can do more than 30 percent of the county's business in terms of dollar volume in any single calendar year regardless of whether it is a competitive bid or a noncompetitive bid. The other position says that that 30 percent limitation should only apply to transactions that are not competitively bid. I think you have documents from both county staff and the clerk staff expressing their position and the two points -- I think it's clearly a policy decision. I'll just leave it to your discretion. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Discussion? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Hmm. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Norris. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: You're -- you're telling us -- I'm having a little trouble following your page numbers. I'm not sure I have the same document that you do. MR. ZIEV: Okay. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: But you said as it stands right now, the -- the proposal is to limit any one dealer to 30 percent? MR. ZIEV: Well, the question is, is do you limit -- we have both competitive offerings and perhaps not -- some that might qualify as noncompetitive. And the question is whether or not that -- everyone feels there should be a limitation, but the -- of the 30 percent to any one dealer, but the question is should the 30 percent apply to all transactions, competitive and not competitive, or only to the ones that are not competitive. The argument for saying that it would only apply to noncompetitive is that if some firm out there has -- is just able to do a wonderful job and give the county the best price, should they be restricted to -- limited to 30 percent. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: And that's a very good point. Why -- if they consistently will outbid any other firm, why not take advantage of it? MR. ZIEV: Well, I think in one of the documents you have, the other position was -- and I'm just laying them out for you -- is that the county may desire to spread some business, around or alternatively there might be a public perception problem, even though it was competitively bid, that one firm was to win a lot. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I just can't help but think if we have the appropriate competitive bid documents, what difference does it make. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Right. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I prefer to spread it around to those that do the best job for us, if it's one or ten, so be it. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: There is no other area in the county in which we do that. If there is a competitive bid process and a company wins out in the bid, then -- COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Uh-huh. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- we don't say, well, gosh you've done too much for us in the past. You're too good. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Now, noncompetitive bidding is a different story. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yes. Now, that we may want to limit. MR. ZIEV: Right. And under this -- on page number 4, based on what I'm hearing, the consensus, you can do whatever you do, it would be number 1. It would say if there are at least ten trades executed in a single year -- then we would insert on a noncompetitive basis -- no more than 30 percent of those noncompetitive can go to any single firm. So that prevents, you know, one firm getting all the business and any right or wrong perception that someone got too much business. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Is 30 percent the right number on noncompetitive? I mean, should it be lower than that? MR. ZIEV: Really when you get down to that, I mean, it could be 20 percent, it could be 25 percent, it could be 30 percent. I think, you know, a third -- it seemed like a reasonable number to us. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Why don't we ask Hiss Hankins what the rationale was on the 30 percent, how -- how the percentage was arrived at. MS. HANKINS: The percentage was arrived at from a review of different policies in other county governments. Several of them had set a benchmark at 30 percent. That was strictly where it came from. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Are any of those counties in default? MS. HANKINS: No. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I have another question on a different subject. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Norris. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: It's on my page 3. I'm looking at authorized investments. MR. ZIEV: Okay. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Number 7 is fixed income mutual funds. Tell me what type of mutual fund that relates to. What exactly are we talking about? MR. ZIEV: We are talking about -- there are some short-term mutual funds that are fully collateralized with U.S. -- either government securities or -- or federal agencies. And basically I think it might operate similar to -- first of all, the maturity of the securities is limited to one year, so it is a very, very short-term fund. Something that might be included in this is -- there's a fund operated by the county, the Florida Association of Counties, and this might fall into that. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. That -- I didn't see it specified as to what -- what kind of mutual funds it was. If it was some of the commercial packages of government securities funds, I'm not sure that's what we would want to be in at all because of the wide fluctuations in asset value that they typically have. Is this -- the type of fund you're talking about is one that is -- is more geared towards a stable net asset value rather -- at the expense of yield? MR. ZIEV: Absolutely, and that's why -- you know, a lot of this is interrelated. So in another point in the document it says that, A, it has to be fully collateralized and, B, the securities have to be of a final maturity of less than a year. So that by its very nature will reduce the volatility in the net asset value. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Uh-huh. Okay. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Any other questions for either '- I'm sorry. I didn't get your name -- MR. ZIEV: Arthur Ziev. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: -- for either Mr. Ziev or Hiss Hankins? Is there a motion? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I'll make a motion that we accept this -- this revised investment policy or adopt it with the discussion that we had concerning limitations on percentages that a -- any certain firm could have -- that being on a competitive basis that there is no limitation and on a noncompetitive basis it would be 30 percent to any given firm in a calendar year. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: So we're adopting -- your motion includes the adoption of option number one in that category then? It says there -- if there is at least ten trades executed in a single year, no more than 30 percent of the total dollar amount of sales in trades executed through other than a competitive bid process can be conducted with a single dealer? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Hiss Hankins, you're comfortable with that motion? MS. HANKINS: Yes. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Is that what the motion includes? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Option number one deals with competitive bid process, and the motion was not to limit any firm on competitive bid basis. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: It says other than competitive bid. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Oh, other -- I'm sorry, yes. Okay, that's right then. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Option number one. And the second understands that? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yes. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Good. If there's no further discussion, all those in favor, please say aye. Opposed? Motion passes five to zero. I want to thank all the groups involved in this for making this much easier than it started out a month or so ago. MR. WEIGEL: Madam Chairman, thank you. I would request that the record reflect that your adoption of this policy today will be incorporated in a resolution, that a resolution number be set aside, and that a resolution has, in fact, been adopted pursuant to Ordinance 87-65. And within that resolution the record will show and the resolution shall show that the previous resolution, which is a 1987 resolution, will be superceded by the adoption of this resolution. It's a continuous policy in place, but from today and forward the new policy is adopted. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. MR. WEIGEL: Thank you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you for clarifying that. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I would like to add I've heard from several people very good comments about your involvement, Mr. Ziev. On behalf of the board, thank you. Your level of professionalism was noted by the clerk to me, and I just wanted to say thank you. MR. ZIEV: Thank you very much. Item #10E DISCUSSION REGARDING COUNTY ATTORNEY'S CONTRACT - APPROVED CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Next item on the agenda is item 10(E). This is an add on. Each of you received probably yesterday a memorandum from me that included a draft employment agreement with Mr. Weigel. This agreement is essentially the same as the existing agreement with Mr. Cuyler with the exception of two clauses; one, the salary is somewhat lower than Mr. Cuyler's and number -- COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I don't seem to have my copy out here. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Number two is -- here, you can have mine. I've read it enough. And the second area where it differs is that it is a one-year contract with a two-year extension option. And if at the end of that one year either the board or Mr. Weigel decides not to exercise that option, Mr. Weigel will have the opportunity to return to the chief assistant position. Commissioner Hancock. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: One question, Mr. Weigel's proposed salary, does that put anyone working for Mr. Weigel at a higher salary than he is? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: No, not at all. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: I was very pleased with what I saw and thought it -- it was a wonderful work and that we're very lucky to have Mr. Weigel, and I'd like to make a motion to approve the contract. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll second that. MR. McNEES: You have one registered speaker, George Keller. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: One speaker? MR. McNEES: George Keller. MR. KELLER: George Keller, concerned citizen. I'm not going to argue about this. I think you're doing a good job. I think of Mr. Weigel and thank him for offering his service. And I also would like the general public to thank Ken Cuyler for the wonderful job he's done since he's had -- had the job. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Keller, and I'm sure we all appreciate those words, especially Mr. Weigel and Mr. Cuyler. We have a motion and a second to accept the employment -- the employment agreement with Mr. Weigel. All in favor, please say aye. Opposed? There being none, motion passes five to zero. MR. WEIGEL: Thank you. Item #10F RENTAL AGREEMENT OF APARTMENT IN TALLAHASSEE AND ASSOCAITED EXPENSES FOR THE TRI-COUNTY LOBBYING COALITION - APPROVED WITH STIPULATIONS Next item on the agenda is item 10(F). This again is an add-on item. It deals with the lobby coalition. In June at our tri-county meeting the three counties agreed to continue their efforts to lobby during the legislative session for 1996. And this is an executive summary prepared by Miss Filson to authorize the board to enter into lease agreements for a one-bedroom apartment and for fax machines, phones, and computers. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Madam Chairman -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Looks like the same prices as last year. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: That was my question. Is there any increase over last year? MS. FILSON: Not for the apartment. He faxed me the information, and it will remain the same. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Motion to approve. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's subject to the other two counties participating? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yes, I'll make the motion subject. MS. FILSON: Yes. I have contacted them, and they are going to approve it by their boards and send me -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll second the motion. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: So our motion is subject to the approval of the other two counties involved in this? We don't want to get out there on our own? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: That's correct. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. And the second accepts that. We have a motion and a second to accept the recommendation to enter into the lobby coalition subject to the other two counties involved in this with us. All those in favor, please say aye. Opposed? Motion passes five to zero. Item #10G UPDATE RE FIRE CONSOLIDATION COMMITTEE - COMMISSIONER HANCOCK TO PROPOSE COMMITTEE MEMBERS Next item on the agenda is 10(H). This deals with community transportation or the transportation disadvantage. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Madam Chairman, 10(G) is fire consolidation. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Oh, you're absolutely right. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I normally whisper those changes. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I don't even have G. I mean, I don't know my alphabet. I don't have G written down. Fire consolidation, Commissioner Hancock. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yes. Three weeks ago I volunteered to try and put together a committee that will eventually bring back a ballot question to this board to answer some of the questions we had regarding that same item. Between phone calls, correspondence, and -- and just general discussion with a number of people over the past three weeks, it culminated last night in a meeting of approximately 35 people where I just really acted as facilitator to put together a type of committee and what its preliminary goals are. I handed out to you today a copy of what I am proposing, and I'll just go ahead and run through that now. The committee will consist of, if this board sees fit, 15 members. Six will be fire commissioners, one appointed from each of the independent districts by the -- the commissioners themselves; six citizens at large, one from each independent district -- and this is something we may want to discuss. I put in there appointed by me, and I'll explain that in a second. One fire chief has to be elected -- hang on, questions at the end. One fire chief to be elected by the fire chiefs; one representative from EMS, I assume either Dr. Tober or Miss Flagg; and one firefighter to be elected by the firefighters at a meeting that they're having tomorrow night. I guess the first comment is this is weighted towards the, quote, unquote, fire side, and that's where I wanted to make a discussion. The ballot question that was brought to us dealt with consolidation of the fire departments. We talked extensively last night about whether EMS should be included or shouldn't. Also, although I think it's premature to really look at that, I think we need to deal first with the fire consolidation issue, and the result of that will determine whether or not EMS can be folded into or combined at some later date. It was the general consensus of most folks there that to combine the two now would probably create a more cumbersome process than we're looking to deal with and just in the fact that it's outside of the ballot question that was proposed to us initially anyway. So the goals of this committee are simply to formulate a specific ballot question that indicates the type of fire consolidation, i.e., is it a government-run district or -- or department, or is it a single independent district, and the most appropriate funding mechanism for the purpose of forming just that, a specific ballot question. And I have additional parameters on here. The reason I put the citizens at large, and I -- again, I have to tell you, last night I -- I didn't, in essence, determine the meeting. I just tried to open it to discussion, and there was reasonable concern that each of us up here may have our own individual feelings about either consolidation or independent districts. And we need citizen involvement on this committee outside of the fire service and outside of EMS. My concern is that what happens if we each appointed an individual is that individual becomes a reflection of our personal feelings on the matter. And what I am seeking in this committee, whether they be fire commissioners or citizens, are people that are not necessarily clearly identifiable with strong consolidation efforts or strong independent districts. I think we need to put a workable group together, and I used some examples in the meeting last night, and I won't mention them for everyone to hear, but there are people that you can clearly identify at one end of the spectrum or the other. And to put those people on a committee who have a goal of working together towards a ballot question is probably going to cause more problems than benefits. And by having the ability to appoint those individuals or the citizens, at least, it would allow me to at least get questionnaires out to them, find out what their individual goals are, and try and appoint people that are, in essence, focused on resolving this issue as opposed to being clearly identified with either end of the spectrum. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I guess I take a little offense to the suggestion that you have the ability to objectively select people, and perhaps the other four commissioners don't. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, I'm sorry you made -- you believe I'm telling you that, but I'm not. I'm telling you what 35 people said last night, not what I'm saying. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Okay. That's not how you said it. What you said a moment ago is you believe that our appointments might be a reflection on what we already feel, and even if it is, I don't know that that's necessarily bad as long as we have a variety. But if that's the case, then six appointments from you might be six reflections on what you feel. I don't think that's necessarily the case, but I don't think that's the case with any of the five. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: And your solution is? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That perhaps each of the commissioners should have some sort of voice in appointing citizens rather than making it the Hancock commission. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. And -- you're welcome to structure that any way this board feels but, again, I'm not telling you what I'm bringing to you. I'm telling you what 35 people brought to you from last night. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Who was -- I mean, were the 35 a broad -- my concern would be that if the 35 who were there were all fire chiefs or fire employees, that that might have been a slanted perspective. I have no idea. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: There was about two-thirds folks that are involved in the fire, whether they be fire commissioners, fire chiefs, or so forth. And the other third were generally -- let's see, two, four, five EMS people and approximately ten people that are not really affiliated with the fire service. So, again, you know, I take no exception to anything this board wishes to suggest as a format. But -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let me just make sure I understand. So those 35 people stood up and said we don't think the majority of the board can make objective decisions, but we think you can? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Commissioner Constantine, I'm not going to get into this with you for the simple reason that I am not trying to be offensive, nor am I being accusatory. I'm telling you what was discussed last night, what a general conclusion that was made from a group of 35 people was, and you have the absolute right to agree or disagree with that, and I'm not going to argue it with you. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And I'm not asking you to. I'm simply asking you to explain it. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And I have. I proposed that -- I asked a group of 35 people how should we go about this, and I presented two scenarios to them. One is that the commissioners of each appoint someone, which there's only five of us, so it leaves a sixth district out there to be represented by a citizen that, I believe, Commissioner Matthews probably has the overlap of the two independent districts of Immokalee and Corkscrew. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Immokalee, Corkscrew, North Naples, Golden Gate -- Ochopee is not independent. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Again, there's overlap there. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: And probably parts of East Naples as well. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Overlap there. I said there are two scenarios. One is the commissioners appoint them. Okay, we discussed whether that had the potential to become political or not. I didn't lead that discussion. Okay, that was the discussion. The other is that I appoint it. I told them that for me to appoint people, that means that you have to believe that I am -- I do not have a personal agenda. I do not have a desired result other than a committee that works together to determine a fair question. And if -- if you believe that, then that's -- and then that's fine. And of those two scenarios, that's the way most people went. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Let me -- let me ask some simple questions, at least I think they're simple. Was it the belief of the committee last night to include the city in this ballot question? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: No. As a matter of fact, that's something that's listed down here. The specific ballot question will affect only the unincorporated areas of Collier County. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: That was one question that was on my mind that we -- that we not include the city in this unless they specifically asked to be included. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: They don't. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I haven't heard from them. And, Mr. Weigel, this committee, if we form it, is it going to be subject to the Sunshine Law? Whether -- whether Commissioner Hancock appoint these six representatives and form an ad hoc committee or whether the board as a whole does, is it still going to be subject to the Sunshine Law? MR. WEIGEL: Yes, it is. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Either way? MR. WEIGEL: Either way. And one question is whether it will be less than one year or more than one year, which just gets into the formality of the creation of the committee in the first place. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Oh, please, less than one. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I want to make one thing clear. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Oh, please. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: You know, I've gotten it to this point. If someone else on this board wants to take it and make the appointments, I don't care who on this board makes the appointments. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I don't think anybody wants to. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: You know, it's not a situation of me wishing to have an extreme level of control here. It's just a situation of trying to be fair, get a committee that's -- that is workable, and have somebody who can, in essence, put these people together, and that's -- that's really the basis for the attempt so -- COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let me ask one other question on here. It says one fire chief, and I'm just curious why. I don't necessarily disagree, but why only one as opposed to input from more than one of the chiefs? COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Because we put one down last night, and it seemed to make sense. We wanted the technical perspective from a fire chief, but the concern here was always, you know, how is this going to be weighted. And the weighting itself -- I started off with ten or eleven people, and I didn't want to get too high and too large and too unwieldy but, you know, the weighting is why we went to the six commissioners and six at large, and then if we started adding two or three fire chiefs and the size got larger -- so we're looking for someone to give a technical perspective from the fire chief. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: A chief we're comfortable with -- COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Yes. And there were quite a few fire chiefs there. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Mac'Kie. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Two questions. I didn't understand why we would include an EMS rep. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: There is -- it's more as, I guess, a trading information perspective than -- than pure involvement. The fire -- the folks that are there from the fire side really didn't have a problem with EMS. As a matter of fact, EMS initially wanted to have more involvement as if there was an assumption that this was going to be involved -- EMS being consolidated. After a lot of discussion last night, we felt that we would have tough -- we need to get the first question resolved before the second. So EMS, again, is a technical perspective of -- since approximately -- and I'm throwing numbers -- 60 percent of the calls involve both EMS and fire -- or actually let me rephrase that -- a hundred percent of the calls. Fire doesn't go and EMS doesn't show -- COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Right. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: -- unless fire is there. Since they do work together, we thought, again, it's a technical perspective just for information purposes. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: My -- okay, and I'm not sure I think that that person should be a voting member. Maybe they just ought to be advisory. That's just a comment, not something I feel real strongly about but -- COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: I am very -- my thoughts are similar. But, again, last night I wasn't trying to steer anything. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: I understand. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: I was just trying to facilitate. The one thing that isn't on here, and I don't know if I put it on the bottom, there will be two ad hoc members, nonvoting members, one from Ochopee and one from Isles of Capri. They will be impacted by this, so they will sit on the committee, but they would not be voting members, and that seemed to be okay with everyone last night. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: My other question was, I understand that you're walking a fine line to try to depoliticize a very political issue and that maybe the way to do that is -- is not to have every -- each of us appoint members or something. But were you -- do you have a list in mind? Do you want to tell us who that might be? Would you tell us how you would solicit them? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: That might be the way to solve this, is to have him recommend -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: There may be a solution in bringing it back to this board for approval, and at that point you can withdraw and supplant. But what I expected to do is I do have people that have called and said I want to be part of this or written and said that. In addition to that I would probably put a press release out asking for all people who are interested to respond to the office, give their name and address instead, and send out a questionnaire just asking them a couple of basic questions, you know, what is your goal if you were to sit on this committee, do you have any predisposed positions, are you related in any way to someone within the fire service or something like that, just -- just to try and get a general feel of the individual and what they're trying to accomplish and use that as a basis. I would also look for people that are involved in the community to a point that they have contacts and -- and are in a position to talk to several people on a regular basis. I think the less isolated each person is the better their contribution would be to the committee. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I wonder if there might be a way -- and, again, I see two possible solutions. One is that you bring back the list of the six and the board ratify it as a whole -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And let me say I didn't anticipate making appointments without bringing it to this board. I'm not looking to run rough shod on this. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Another possibility, and maybe it would just be something you would incorporate in trying to select the members, is I'd like to see it with a broad base. I mean, it seems to me that there might even be six identifiable community associations that should have representation or, you know, something like that so that we have somebody who's going back and filtering information out to the community at large would be a goal. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah. I'm open to how these six are chosen and where they come from. And I apologize for being somewhat defensive, Commissioner Constantine, but I wasn't bringing you my thoughts. In essence, I was, you know -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: There's 35 who don't trust us. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It's a little troubling. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Maybe only 18 of the 35. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Norris has been trying to get a word in edgewise on this. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, I'm just not sure what we are going to accomplish with this whole exercise. We've -- we've gone through it twice since I've been on the board now. The first time back in 1993 we had the staff generate an analysis of whether the county could operate it and save any money. And it was determined that we couldn't, and this board voted unanimously at that time not to pursue it. I don't know. If the committee wants to relook at that, we can give them the information, and they can see for themselves that it's not going to save any money to have the county operate it. That leaves a single independent district. In the interim two years, the fire departments have been moving towards functional consolidation on their own. I'm really not -- I know there's a few citizens that are very active in it and -- and would like to see it go forward, but I certainly, from my perspective, have never seen any ground swell of citizen uprising wanting to have the fire departments consolidated. So I'll make a motion that we abandon the project at this point. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion. Is there a second? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, to get the motion on the floor, I'll second that. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: You must not be hungry. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second to abandon further consideration of developing the committee Commissioner Hancock has brought forward. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I do have discussion before we vote on it, though. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: You do have discussion? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I think the motion warrants discussion. That's why I seconded it. Commissioner Hancock, as I read, this what you are looking to do as part of this is to formulate a specific question. Once that question has been formulated, do you anticipate asking our staff to research cost issues and all, or are we looking to put that straight to the ballot or maybe do the two together? I'm not sure where we go from there. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, the cost issue has got to be a part of the information before this goes to a ballot question, because if citizen X can't determine what it's going to cost them for a consolidated district, whether it be independent or county operated, then they can't make an informed decision on what's in their own best interest. And that was the problem I had with the initial ballot question is it didn't specify the type of consolidation and the funding mechanism, although it did specify that. And as you'll notice down here, I've asked that the Board of County Commissioners commit the appropriate administrative support in the area of recording meeting minutes and committing analytical ability where available within the county. So I do anticipate that you can't just determine if it's going to be independent district through ad valorem. Here we go. You have to have some idea of cost. So that's got to be a part of the process. And although I -- I agree with Commissioner Norris's comments -- and I explained last night, I have had no phone calls that my fire service is bad and no phone calls that the EMS is bad. There may not be any desire out there to change anything. But, you know, every year we say that, you know. We -- we find ourselves answering the same question the next year. If we put this out to a vote finally and it overwhelmingly is rejected, we're done with it, shelf it, okay, until ten years from now someone else -- someone forgets how -- how bad it was beaten. So I just get -- I'm getting to the point that we need to put this out to a question with appropriate information so we can either put it to rest or move ahead with it. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: As much as I agree with Commissioner Norris, and I suspect we are not going to come up with something that's going to provide the same or better service at less cost, I think you're right. We need to answer -- or let the public have the opportunity to answer that. So I'll -- I'll let our motion go forward, but I'm going to vote against it. syrup. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: what that means. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: COHMISSIONER NORRIS: we don't have the second now. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Let the record reflect pass the COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Pass the syrup. Somebody has got to explain to me I'll withdraw the motion. You withdraw the motion? I'll withdraw the motion because Well, you have the second. He's just going to vote against it. We've got a motion -- the motion maker has withdrawn the motion. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll make a motion to go ahead with Commissioner Hancock's plan and request he bring back the -- his list of six citizens in whatever time frame that is for approval by the board. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And I'll bring back the entire pool and give you at least a week's review time on the entire pool with my six recommendations. Is that sufficient? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Will there also be when -- once those choices are made, a proposed calendar for when you hope to achieve -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: This will be the first job of the committee. And I told them last month that I would like to see an aggressive calendar of six months. We have so much information put together from three and a half years of one committee and so much time of another, that once we determine the type of consolidation we're looking for -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: folks have jobs, too. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: It's been ten years. -- the information is out there. Is aggressive six months? Well, you have to remember these Okay. Maybe, you know, if they can do it in less than six months, great. But you read in the paper three years, which I don't know where that came from, but I just want it to be clear that there's no anticipation that this is a year- or two-year study. It's not a study. It's a ballot question. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: second? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: logical second. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion. Is there a I'll second. I was going to say -- Yeah. I guess I would be the We have a motion and a second to authorize Commissioner Hancock to move forward with his fire consolidation committee and to bring back to us a pool of applicants with a recommendation of six. Any further discussion? All those in favor, please signify by saying aye. Opposed? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Aye. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Motion passes four to one, Commissioner Norris being in the opposition. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm not going to say thank you, but you know what I mean. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: You've got a lot of work on your hands. I'll congratulate you for even wanting to undertake it. Item #10H DISCUSSION REGARDING COMMUNITY TRANSPORTATION - COMMUNITY TRANSPORTATION DIRECTION TO PRIORITIZE ACTIVITIES OF SPECIAL OLYMPICS Next item on the agenda now is item 10(H), community transportation and transportation disadvantage. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah. I put this on, and Mr. Lawson is here. He may be able to answer some of this. But our community transportation items, we're running into some funding shortfalls and financial trouble because many of the grants which we have been receiving are either being cut by other governmental agencies or by whomever, just money -- money is getting to be a problem. And in the big picture I realize that in the next couple of months both the transportation disadvantage board and this board are going to need to address those issues. I have a specific item, however, falling under this. And that is in the past couple of weeks Special Olympics has been told their various activities are considered recreational and so that they will not be able to get transportation, or they are at the bottom of the transportation priority list. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Told by? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: By the administrative people running this thing. And John can explain some of that in a minute. But let me finish my thoughts. My understanding is there is a order, as there should be, an order of priorities for whom we address first. We provide transportation for medical first and employment situations second and the nutritional, educational, and some others, and then recreational is at the bottom of the list. I just want to argue. I don't think for the people who participate in Special Olympics this is recreational. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: It's educational to me. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It's educational. Frankly, it's medical. It's some of the only physical activity many of these individuals get. A lot of what they do as far as physical activity they require because of their special needs, some supervision. And unless they have the money to go to some expensive therapy-type things, this is the only physical activity. So it's a medical thing as well. In my mind this is absolutely essential, both from a physical and mental standpoint for these individuals. The -- one of the nice things is -- also hitting on the list -- is after frequent and regular activity in Special Olympics, it eventually leads to employment for many of these people. So I think by essentially stopping or prohibiting this or by classifying it recreational and, in essence, until we correct the funding, prohibiting them from any of these physical activities and the mental stimulation along with it, we're hitting almost all of us, medical, employment, educational. And so I realize in the big picture we need to address the money issue with transportation disadvantage. But I'm just asking the board to help me a little bit here and pass some word on to our administrative folks that in this case that is not recreational, should not be considered recreational. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I think I can agree with that, but the funding mechanism, because I know every time they make a trip it costs money. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: And they're undergoing -- I believe Mr. Lawson sent me a list about a week ago -- of some $155,000 worth of funding cuts that community transportation is looking at in Medicare, United Way, and whatever other methods that he's being cut in. But I agree with you that I would like them to look at this as something more than simply recreational. But keeping that in mind, we're going to have to find a way to fund it. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Any objection from the board on that? COHHISSIONER MAC'KIE: No, strongly support. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I don't object. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Strong support. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We want to have a motion to direct our community transportation to consider this as more than recreational? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll make a motion -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Make it educational. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- that we consider it educational and medical and prioritize it accordingly and obviously that we come back once TD -- TD board has had an opportunity to move as quickly as it can to address it in the big picture. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Because as much as I agree with that, you know, we can't -- we're going to have to seriously address the funding issues. We can't say that somebody's heart surgery -- you know, they don't get transportation. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No, no, obvious those -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Interestingly enough, in the facts that Mr. Lawson sent me -- and I haven't yet shared it with the county manager to develop some background to bring it to this board -- it seems to me he's only looking for an additional $25,000 from the county to fund this $155,000 shortfall. So he's doing some creative stuff out there, but we -- I would anticipate to have that to the board within a couple of weeks to -- COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Do you need a second for Commissioner's Constantine's motion? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We need a second. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I second it. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second to direct our contractor for transportation disadvantage to consider the Special Olympics project both educational and medical and prioritize it accordingly. Is there further discussion? All those in favor, please say aye. Opposed? Motion passes five to zero. Mr. Lawson, I presume you'll do that, and we'll talk about the budget amendments in a couple of weeks. MR. LAWSON: Thank you very much. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. PUBLIC COMMENT That concludes our morning agenda. We're at public comment. Is there anyone on public comment, Mr. HcNees? MR. HcNEES: No, ma'am. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. Why don't we adjourn until about quarter after one for lunch, and we'll reconvene at quarter after one. (A lunch break was held between 12:05 p.m. to 1:20 p.m.) Item #12C1 RESOLUTION 95-553 RE PETITION SNR-95-2 RENAMING A PORTION OF THE FORMER ALIGNMENT OF LOGAN BOULEVARD TO LOGAN COURT WHICH IS LOCATED IN GOLDEN GATE ESTATES, UNIT 34, OFF GREEN BOULEVARD, EAST OF SANTA BARBARA BOULEVARD - ADOPTED CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We'll reconvene the Board of County Commission meeting for September 26, 1995. The next item on the agenda -- I'm going to ask the commissioners if they're willing to set 12(B)(1), (C)(2) and (C)(3) aside until we have the fifth member and move on with the agenda. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: COMMISSIONER NORRIS: COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Please. Is that appropriate? That's fine. That's fine. Okay. Next item on the agenda is -- does SNR-95-2 require five or four votes? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Renaming the street? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Let's go with that one. MR. HULHERE: This is a request -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Move approval. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and second to -- HR. HULHERE: Street signs are already up. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We heard that two weeks ago. We have a motion and second to approve street name change to Logan Court for that small segment. No discussion? All in favor please say aye. Motion passes four to zero, Commissioner Constantine being absent. Item #12C5 ORDINANCE 95-51 REPEALING ORDINANCE 89-22 ABOLISHING THE COLLIER COUNTY HOMELESS ADVISORY COHMITTEE - ADOPTED Next item is resolution of the Board of County Commissioners determining revision to -- oh, that's 12(C)(2). COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: committee. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: requested itself to be -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: 12(C)(5). Disbanding the homeless Yes. And that would be -- This is the committee that They've been pretty inactive, and they really don't feel like they have much of a mission to continue it. They just are not doing anything, and it's by their own request that we abolish the committee. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Then I move that we do that. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: To honor their request, I'll second that. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second to honor the request of the homeless advisory committee and disband it, repealing Ordinance 89-22. Any further discussion? All in favor please say aye. Opposed? There being none, motion passes four to zero. Next item on the agenda -- next items are conditional uses. Do we need four or five votes for that? MS. STUDENT: Madam Chairman, these are conditional use extensions, and we only need three votes for an extension. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Oh, we can go back now to 12 -- whatever. (Commissioner Constantine arrived and was seated with the board.) COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Nobody even noticed you weren't here. Item #12B1 ORDINANCE 95-50 RE PETITION PUD-94-9 1) ALAN REYNOLDS, AICP, OF WILSON, MILLER, BARTON, & PEEK, INC., REPRESENTING WCI COMMUNITIES LIMITED PARTNERSHIP FOR THE PURPOSE OF AMENDING THE PELICAN MARSH PUD BY DELETING 8.7 ACRES AND REZONING THAT LAND TO RURAL AGRICULTURAL, AND BY ADDING 9.5 ACRES AND REZONING THAT LAND "PUD" AND REPLACING THE MASTER PLAN TO REFLECT THIS CHANGE FOR PROPERTY LOCATED ALONG THE NORTH BOUNDARY OF THE PELICAN MARSH PUD LYING BETWEEN U.S. 41 NORTH AND GOODLETTE-FRANK ROAD (COMPANION TO ITEM #12C2 AND #12C3) - ADOPTED CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: 12(B)(1), and we will hear 12(B)(1) in conjunction with 12(C)(2) and 12(C)(3). Mr. Weigel, do we need separate votes on each one of them? MR. WEIGEL: I would recommend that, yes. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Thank you. Mr. Nino. MR. NINO: Ron Nino for the record. The petitions before you have the effect of withdrawing from the Pelican Marsh PUD 8.7 acres of land and adding to the Pelican Marsh PUD 9.5 acres of land. The land to be added is zoned agricultural, which puts us into an agricultural PUD rezoning action and the action of deleting the PUD to agricultural, going back to what it was originally zoned. The effect of that action, however, is that the legal descriptions in the development orders as they now stand obviously need to be replaced with a new legal description. And because it's a map change, we end up with the effect of these two development orders replacing the legal description and replacing the map. Since it's a DRI-related rezoning action, we have to amend the DRI development order and the zoning development order. And because it's a DRI, we need a ruling that the change has been substantial -- or it isn't substantial. So we need separate actions to amend the development order in line with my description of a legal correction and replacement of the master plan PUD and a resolution saying -- acknowledging that this is an insubstantial amendment. I've been in touch with both the Regional Planning Council, the DCA, and I have on file letters acknowledging the insubstantialness of this amendment petition. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hancock, you have some questions? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Just one. Mr. Nino, is any benefit incurred to the petitioner other than the opportunity for a different design in this petition? MR. NINO: None at all. The development parameters remain -- remain constant. The land taken out was in golf course open-space water management. The land being added is golf course, open-space land, water management related. It doesn't contribute anything to increasing the development intensity of the project. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Could you point out for me on the map where these two parcels are? MR. NINO: Yes. We're dealing with the addition -- you can see this gerrymandered line (indicating). This is basically the additional area, as opposed to what was once a straight line And then the deletion of, again, a gerrymandered configuration as outlined on this map. That will become the new map. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Any other questions? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Madam Chairman, the petitioner may want to get something on the record. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Reynolds, do you need to get anything on the record? MR. REYNOLDS: Good afternoon, Madam chairman, members of the board. My name is Alan Reynolds, Barton and Peek. We're representing WCI Communities Limited Partnership today on all three of these related items. I think staff really has covered the petitions adequately. We're happy to respond to questions. As he indicated, this has been reviewed by all your appropriate review agencies, including the RPC, and there have been no issues that have been identified. So we would ask your approval. And the only thing I just want to point out for the record on the executive summary for the resolution relevant to the finding of a substantial deviation, there's a citation of a development order that I don't believe is correct, just the numbering of the development order, just for your information. I believe that development order number should be 95-1. MR. NINO: That's right. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We need to change that for the public record. Mr. HcNees, are there public speakers? MR. HcNEES: No ma'am. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Motion to approve the item. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Is this a motion to approve PUD-94-97 COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yes. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. We have a motion and a second to approve petition PUD-94-1(1). Any further discussion? All in favor please say aye. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Madam Chairman, dash nine, sub one? aye. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Dash nine, sub one. Thank you. Sorry. All in favor please say Opposed? There being none, motion passes five to zero. Item #12C2 RESOLUTION 95-554 DETERMINING THAT REVISIONS TO THE PELICAN MARSH DEVELOPMENT ORDER DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A SUBSTANTIAL DEVIATION REQUIRING FURTHER DEVELOPMENT OF REGIONAL IMPACT REVIEW (COMPANION TO #12B1 AND #12C3 - ADOPTED Is there a motion on 12(C)(2)? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I'll make a motion that we adopt the resolution determining that revisions to the Pelican Marsh development order does not constitute a substantial deviation. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second. This is still a public hearing. Well, we've closed it for all three of them. MR. WEIGEL: You've closed it for them all. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: If there's no further discussion, all in favor please say aye. Opposed? There being none, motion passes five to zero. Item #12C3 DO-95-5 AND RESOLUTION 95-555 RE PETITION DOA-95-2, ALAN REYNOLDS, AICP, OF WILSON, MILLER, BARTON AND PEEK, INC., REPRESENTING WCI COHMUNITIES LIMITED PARTNERSHIP FOR THE PURPOSE OF AMENDING THE PELICAN HARSH (DRI) DEVELOPMENT ORDER 95-1 TO ACCOUNT FOR A REVISION TO THE NORTH BOUNDARY LINE LYING BETWEEN U.S. 41 AND GOODLETTE-FRANK ROAD. (COMPANION TO ITEM #12B1 and #12C2 - ADOPTED Motion on 12(C)(3)? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Madam Chairman, motion to approve Petition DOA-95-2. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Is there a second? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Sure. Second. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second to approve Petition DOA-95-2. If there's no further discussion, all those in favor please say aye. Opposed? Motion passes five to zero. Mr. Weigel, on the issue on Logan Court, that was a public hearing. We did not close the public hearing before the motion and a vote. What do we need to do? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We should probably review and get all five votes. MR. WEIGEL: There's no reason to reconsider. There were no speakers present. No one was shortchanged, but it's fine to clear the record to show that there had been. You just cleared the record. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I just cleared the record. Okay. Thank you. MR. WEIGEL: Thank you. Item #13B1 RESOLUTION 95-556 RE PETITION CU-94-13 MARGARET PERRY OF WILSON, MILLER, BARTON & PEEK, INC., REPRESENTING BONITA BAY PROPERTIES, INC., REUQESTING AN EXTENSION OF A CONDITIONAL USE FOR GOLF COURSES AND EARTH MINING THAT HAS PREVIOUSLY RECEIVED CONDITIONAL USE APPROVAL, FOR PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE IHMOKALEE ROAD, APPROXIMATELY 2 MILES EAST OF C.R. 951 - ADOPTED CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Next item on the agenda is -- it looks like 13(B)(1), Petition CU-94-13. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: 13(B)(2). Oh, it's (2). I'm sorry. MR. BELLOWS: For the record my name is Ray Bellows, current planning staff. Margaret Perry of Wilson, Miller, Barton and Peek, Incorporated, representing Bonita Bay Properties, Incorporated. The petitioner's requesting the first of three one-year extensions for conditional use 1 and 16 of the agricultural district for golf course and earth mining. The petitioner states that the construction of the phase 1 has not started at this time. However -- yes. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: This is for an extension we approved last year? MR. BELLOWS: I visited the site. Nothing has changed from the previous conditions. It's consistent with the growth management plan. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. HcNees, are there public speakers? MR. HcNEES: None other than the petitioner is here if you have questions. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: anything on the record? COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Petitioner doesn't need to get Move approval. Second. I'll close the public hearing. We have a motion and a second to approve petition CU-94-13, an extension of conditional use. Any further discussion? All in favor please say aye. Opposed? There being none, motion passes five to zero. Item #1382 RESOLUTION 95-557 RE PETITION CU-94-7, RICH HCCORHICK OF WILKISON AND ASSOCIATES, REPRESENTING JAMES P. LENNANE REQUESTING AN EXTENSION OF CONDITIONAL USE FOR CjustER HOUSING THAT HAS PREVIOUSLY RECEIVED CONDITIONAL USE APPROVAL FOR PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF BAYSHORE DRIVE AND THOMASSON DRIVE - ADOPTED CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Next item is 13(B)(2), petition CU-94-7, another extension of conditional use. Anything different on that that we need to know about, Mr. Bellows? MR. BELLOWS: No. It's the same project, just requesting a conditional use until they get their monetary -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Are there speakers, Mr. HcNees? MR. HcNEES: No ma'am. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I'll close the public hearing. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Motion to approve. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Motion and second to approve Petition CU-94-7, extension of conditional use. No further discussion? All in favor please say aye. Opposed? Motion passes five to zero. Item #14 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' COMMUNICATIONS That concludes the afternoon agenda. We are now at Board of County Commissioners' communications. Commissioner Norris? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: MAc'Kie? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: All for today. Commissioner Hancock? Oh, no, said enough. Said enough? Commissioner No ma'am. Commissioner Constantine? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: January 23 is a Tuesday. I'm going to ask if the board would be so kind as to keep the agenda light that day as I'll be on my honeymoon. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Constantine. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Is this a declaration of intent? Congratulations. Let's hear it for Commissioner And our blessing. We're sure you're going to be fine. We're concerned about her. Congratulations. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thanks. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's great. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: The other communication I had that I wanted to remark on was to thank Mr. Cuyler for the many years of work, but he's not here. We'll have to do that Monday afternoon, so we will -- we will do that Monday afternoon. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Continue his thanks. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Motion to table our thanks. Item #15A DISCUSSION OF THE COUNTY MANAGER'S WEEKLY OPERATIONS REPORT CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. McNees, I believe there was a communication item. MR. McNEES: Yes, MAdam Chairman. We had one item in discussion of the county manager's weekly operations report, the intent being to solicit comments or suggestions from the board on what is in that report that you don't care to see or what we might add or how we might improve it. The only intent of that report is to provide you with weekly information, and I think we're just asking you, as this process continues, as we revise it and make changes, to please let us know how it serves you and how it doesn't so we can make the changes and adapt it so that it serves you and we get the most out of that weekly effort that we can. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: My compliments on the format. It's very easy to read, and it's -- even though it's -- it's thorough in its conciseness. How's that? MR. McNEES: I'll take that on behalf of Mr. Hargett, who did a lot of work on the report. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: The one comment that I had, and I had shared it with Mr. Dorrill on Friday afternoon, is that occasionally there are numbers in here saying X numbers of something happened. And I don't know about my fellow members, but unless that's compared to something else, it has very little value to me. MR. HcNEES: We've already discussed it. We're going to give you statistics. We need to put them in some sort of a frame or reference so that it means something, whether that's high or low. We've already talked about that, so we'll try to work that in a little bit better. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: And I agree. I think the new format is substantially better than the original one, and I appreciate the work. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah. It's an evolving product, and I appreciate it. Mr. Weigel, do you have anything? MR. WEIGEL: Just brief. I suspect Mr. Cuyler is monitoring in the safety of his office, and I thank him for his support and my ability to work with him for ten years now. It's been a very good ten years with him. And I thank you for your confidence today in the contract and, of course, the previous courtesies you've shown me. I look forward to working with you as we go forward. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: We're just one big happy family up here. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: forward to working with you. Mr. Cuyler the best of luck. Sue, are we finished? MS. FILSON: We are. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Today. I think we all look I feel confident that all of us wish We're adjourned. ***** Commissioner Constantine moved, seconded by Commissioner Norris, and carried unanimously, that the following items under the Consent Agenda be approved and/or adopted: ***** Item #16A1 ACCEPTANCE OF WATER FACILITIES FOR SAPPHIRE LAKES, UNIT 2, PHASE II - SUBJECT TO STIPULATIONS AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Item #16A2 - Continued to 10/3/95 Item #16A3 ACCEPTANCE OF WATER FACILITIES FOR TALL OAKS OF NAPLES, PHASE 2-B - SUBJECT TO STIPULATIONS AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Item #16A4 RESOLUTION 95-542, AUTHORIZING THE ACCEPTANCE OF PELICAN MARSH UNIT TEN A REPLAT OF A PORTION OF A PREVIOUSLY RECORDED PLAT KNOWN AS PELICAN MARSH UNIT NINE See Pages Item #16A5 WORK ORDER SC-4, TO SURETY CONSTRUCTION COHPANY FOR THE ATOHIC ABSORPTION LAB LOCATED ON THE THIRD FLOOR OF COHMUNITY AND HEALTH SERVICES BUILDING See Pages Item #16B1 CHANGE ORDER TO P & H CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION FOR ADDITIONAL SERVICES AT THE GOLDEN GATE AQUATIC FACILITY SHADE STRUCTURE PROJECT - IN THE AMOUNT OF $3,O44.00 Item #16B2 EMERGENCY PURCHASE WITH SURETY CONSTRUCTION COMPANY TO CORRECT EROSION DAMAGE TO CELLS #3 AND #4 AT THE NAPLES LANDFILL CAUSED BY TROPICAL STORM "JERRY" Item #16B3 SELECTION OF FIVE ENGINEERING FIRMS AND AWARD AGREEMENTS WITH SAID FIRMS FOR PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING SERVICES (RFP-95-2422) Item #16C1 COMPETITIVE BID PROCESS WAIVED; PURCHASE OF BEACH FEE PARKING PROJECT METERS FROM SCHLUMBERGER TECHNOLOGIES, INC. AND ASSOCIATED COIN CHANGER MACHINES FROM LEE AND ASSOCIATES Item #16C2 AGREEMENT FOR 1995-96 FUNDING CONTRIBUTION TO DAVID LAWRENCE MENTAL HEALTH CENTER, INC. - IN THE AMOUNT OF $710,400 See Pages Item #16C3 APPLICATION FOR FY 1996 LIBRARY OPERATING GRANT (STATE AID TO LIBRARIES), ADMINISTERED BY THE STATE LIBRARY OF FLORIDA See Pages Item #16C4 - Moved to Item #8C1 Item #16C5 RESOLUTION 95-543, AFFIRMING, ESTABLISHING AND IMPLEMENTING VEHICLE PARKING FEES AT COUNTY BEACH FACILITIES See Pages Item #16D1 ONE YEAR EXTENDED WARRANTY MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT WITH NATIONAL COMPUTER SYSTEMS - IN THE AMOUNT OF $980.00 See Pages Item #16D2 RESOLUTION 95-544, AUTHORIZING THIRTEEN NEW POSITIONS TO THE PAY PLAN See Pages Item #16D3 RENEWAL OF THE PROPERTY & CASUALTY INSURANCE PROGRAM - AS OUTLINED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Item #16D4 PURCHASE OF MICRO-COMPUTER EQUIPMENT FOR INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY DEPARTMENT START UP - IN THE APPROXIMATE AMOUNT OF $72,900.00 Item #16D5 TRANSFER OF BILLING, COLLECTION, AND MAINTENANCE OF THE SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS FROM THE CLERK OF COURTS' FINANCE DEPARTMENT TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COHMISSIONERS DOR AND AUTHORIZATION FOR ONE ADDITIONAL EMPLOYEE Item #16El BUDGET AMENDHENTS 95-531; 95-540; 95-543/544; 95-546/547 Item #16G 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 #16G1 CERTIFICATES OF CORRECTION TO THE TAX ROLLS AS PRESENTED BY THE PROPERTY APPRAISER'S OFFICE 1991 REAL PROPERTY No. Dated 283/284 09/12 & 09/13/95 203/204 226/228 1992 REAL PROPERTY 1993 REAL PROPERTY 1994 REAL PROPERTY 182/184 Item #16H1 09/12 a 09/13/95 09/11 - 09/13/95 09/11 - 09/13/95 SATISFACTION OF LIEN DOCUHENTS FOR NUISANCE ABATEHENTS ON VARIOUS PROPERTIES AS INDICATED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY See Pages Item #16H2 TRANSFER OF $40,000 FROM CIRCUIT COURT COSTS TO COURTROOM OPERATIONS FOR REQUIRED OPERATING EXPENSES Item #1611 RESOLUTION 95-545, REPEALING RESOLUTION 91-382 TO DISSOLVE AND ELIMINATE THE ARCHITECTURAL OVERLAY DISTRICT CITIZENS AD HOC ADVISORY COHMITTEE FOR THE GOLDEN GATE PARKWAY PROFESSIONAL OFFICE COHMERCIAL DISTRICT See Pages Item #1612 - Continued to 10/3/95 Item #1613 AUTHORIZATION FOR THE VICE-CHAIRMAN TO FORWARD A LETTER OF APPRECIATION TO POINT MARCO DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION FOR CONTRIBUTION OF PARKING LOT PROPERTY TO THE COUNTY See Pages There being no further business for the Good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by Order of the Chair at 1:40 p.m. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS CONTROL BETTYE J. MATTHEWS, CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK These minutes approved by the Board on as presented or as corrected TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF DONOVAN COURT REPORTING BY: Barbara A. Donovan and Anjonette K. Baum