Loading...
BCC Minutes 10/15/1996 R REGULAR MEETING OF OCTOBER 15, 1996 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 a.m. in REGULAR SESSION in Building of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: John C. Norris VICE-CHAIRMAN: Timothy L. Hancock Timothy J. Constantine Pamela S. Hac'Kie Bettye J. Matthews ALSO PRESENT: W. Neil Dorrill, County Manager Mike HcNees, Assistant County Manager David Weigel, County Attorney Item #3 AGENDA AND CONSENT AGENDA - APPROVED AND/OR ADOPTED WITH CHANGES CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Call the county commission meeting to order on the 15th of October 1996. Mr. Dotrill, could you please lead us in an invocation and a pledge, please. MR. DORRILL: Heavenly Father, we -- we thank you this morning, as we always do, for the opportunities which you have given to each one of us, whether as an elected official in the important weight and decision aspects that that brings to their job or a member of the support staff of this county government or a -- a citizen who chooses to participate in the government process. We thank you for the opportunities that you've given us today, and it's our prayer that you would give us the strength and the courage to do what is right and what is honest in your eyes and for the people of Collier County and always, Father, that you would bless our time here together this morning. We pray these things in your son's holy name. Amen. (The pledge of allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRMAN NORRIS: There are a few changes to our agenda this morning, Mr. Dotrill. MR. DORRILL: Yes, sir, there are. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners. And also for those of you who are Green Bay Packer or Atlanta Braves fans -- COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: Wake up, huh? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Green Bay is somewhat our sister city after last year, isn't it? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Are you going to be wearing a hat out here again this year? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, that would be -- that would be your fine chairman. MR. DORRILL: Mr. Chairman, I have three add-on items this morning. The first one will be 9(B); that's under the county attorney's report. It's a recommendation that the board consider the approval of a special counsel agreement. Item 9(C) is also an add-on. It's a recommendation that the board approve and accept a grant of easement for emergency vehicle access at Wyndemere. Item 10(C) under the Board of County Commissioners is a recommendation to consider a resolution of support for the jail and detention center referendum. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Who brought that issue forward, Mist -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I did. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: -- Mr. Dotrill? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I did. MR. DORRILL: I'm -- I'm sorry. We usually put those in parentheses. Item 8(A)(1) is a request to continue for one week a item concerning the final plat approval for Hilltop Estates. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Uh-huh. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm just curious. What is the elevation at Hilltop Estates? MR. DORRILL: Probably about 10 feet N.G. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It's low. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Okay. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Are we -- are we going to continue that item? MR. DORRILL: You -- you're probably going to need to discuss that because I'm recommending that it be continued. And Mr. Nelson is here, and he is going to vehemently ob -- object to that. And -- and I'll explain my rationale in just a moment. The other -- I -- I have one last-minute continuance item. I have a request by the Collier County Golf Authority that was handed to me on my way up here this morning that the item under the county attorney's report, I believe 9(A) -- yes, 9(A) be continued until November the 12th. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Why is that? MR. DORRILL: They have twofold -- I've -- having just been handed the letter, I'll tell you exactly what the nature of their request is. They've had some unanticipated scheduling conflicts for their financial representative, Mr. David Shaw, who could not be here today and whose schedule won't allow him to be here until the 12th. And No. 2 is that the golf authority has yet to receive the staff report and -- that the commissioners had requested be prepared with the copies to be forwarded to the golf authority for review incumbent -- prior to this item being scheduled for today's hearing. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: My recollection was that the board directed staff to put together an alternative bid as a courtesy of the folks who have been through this all the way along the line. I think it's right that we go ahead and hear what they have to say. And if we need to wait a couple weeks, that's fine; but I hope we won't wait -- our staff won't wait. And concurrent with them putting together their information, we can be putting together that bid. So if for so -- if everything works out November 12th, great. But if it doesn't, we'll be ready to immediately put that bid out. We won't lose any time in the process. If that's okay with the rest of the board -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm not exactly sure what you just requested. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Me neither. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Are you requesting that November 12th is fine, but we're not going to push it beyond that? Is that what I understood you to say? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah. But I'm also saying don't stop. I thought we had given staff -- COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Given staff some -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- direction to put together another bid. I'm saying let's not have them stop their work in the meantime. Let's make sure -- COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- they do their work concurrent. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I feel exactly that way, that -- that I want staff to move forward in putting the proposal together. I don't know what we're going to discuss on the 12th, but I -- I thought it was pretty clear that -- from Mr. Weigel that we need to rebid it. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, I -- I had a question about how this got on the agenda for this week anyway. Why was this even here to start with, because I -- I thought we had clearly said that deal is dead? We're moving forward with re -- you know, a whole new consideration of this process. MR. WEIGEL: I -- I'm happy to respond, Commissioner. The -- looking as close as we could at the minutes available and direction that we had -- notes that we had from the meeting two weeks ago, it said bring it back in two weeks. But there was some general direction given to the board -- to the staff, and that was to start the preparation to do a rebid. I believe Mr. Glass acknowledged that a rebid would go out and that Collier Golf Authority would be a part -- intended to be a part of that process. One thing I think that was a little unclear for staff was that there was some discussion had toward the end of the agenda item two weeks ago that the board may direct staff, as it prepares its rebid, to make some changes from the standard bid procedure which had been utilized previously. And the packet that was provided to the board at board direction since the -- the meeting two weeks ago provided a history of this particular transaction, which you can also look at some of the documents in the agenda. The -- one of the reasons that we have the a -- documents in the agenda that were there two weeks ago is because they're so valuable to show the interplay of staff at the Hay 21st meeting, the responses of Collier Golf Authority in April 17th to the original solicitation, and the initial solicitation language itself. And staff has -- is inquiring if there are to be any changes in the new solicitation that's to go out, such as moving from the previously practiced 20 percent down payment and tend -- that's tendered with the bid. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Can I -- can I -- forgive my interruption, but I -- but I think as you're talking, what -- what it sounds like to me is that we, as a board, have an item to discuss about the -- the -- the rebid and what its characteristics would be __ MR. WEIGEL: That, I think, is the essence -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: -- which is separate from the golf authority. So that even though they're not prepared to go forward today, we still need to have this item discussed today. MR. WEIGEL: Okay. And I believe that was the essence of what the board was looking for when it brought back -- brought this back today, was to have the -- as much information about it as it could so that it could make a -- a deter -- determination and direction for the staff in the prep -- preparation of the rebid to go out -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I'd like to go ahead and -- MR. WEIGEL: -- because there may be some changes. We have perpetuity. We have reverter. We have down payment or deposit lang -- language to talk about here. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I think we ought to talk about that today, and then we'll hear from Collier Golf Authority later after we've established what the parameters of the rebid would be. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: But it seems to me Mr. Weigel's talking about the issues we need to include and the new RFP, so -- COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Right. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: -- I -- I think we need to talk about it. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: So we can't go forward then. MR. DORRILL: Mr. Chairman, the only other item that I have is a request to withdraw due to a bid protest. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Uh-huh. MR. DORRILL: Item 8(B)(4), it's under public services -- public works, rather. Excuse me. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. MR. DORRILL: That was the renovation and improvements at the Marco Island Racquet Center. And the bid protest was timely and will be evaluated and rescheduled upon completion by the purchasing director of the bid protest. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: All right. MR. DORRILL: Back to Item 8(A)(1) for just a moment, there's been a little confusion on this. I'm going to ask Mr. Nelson to come and -- and tell you his side of the story. This was an item that was heard by the board several weeks ago. It involved subdividing two lots and making it into four lots with a little bisecting dead-end street. The -- the concern that I had -- the board voted 3 to 2, I believe, at that time not to approve the subdivision, and it was on the consent agenda. It was pulled off of the consent agenda, and there was some discussion that was held, and -- and people pro and con spoke. It's rescheduled today, and my understanding, it's because of a -- an interpretation that in the event of a denial of the subdivision, that you have to conduct a hearing and a concern as to whether or not an item appearing on the consent agenda but subsequently pulled and put on the regular agenda is a full notice of the hearing. The concern that I have this morning is that if the board is going to do anything other than confirm their prior action as part of the regular agenda, then you're going to need to follow your reconsideration policy that is set by ordinance and that you need to follow. In the event that you're going to reconsider the item, then I think we need to give proper notice because I don't know, frankly - _ while Mr. Nelson is here and is prepared to go forward, I don't know to what extent some of the people in the neighborhood think that this is or is not properly noticed for a reconsideration, if one is going to be held. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I guess I'd like to hear from Mr. Weigel the explanation on that. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And certainly if -- if that were the case, we would need to get that advice in a more timely fashion next time. MR. WEIGEL: I was afraid you'd ask that question. Looking at this item as it's before you today and looking right now, again -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let me just ask this question: Mr. Dotrill, have you had this conversation? Have you inquired of our legal department the question of whether it's not - _ whether it's necessary to reconsider, or is that simply your interpretation? MR. DORRILL: That's my interpretation having talked to the planning services director yesterday as to whether or not if -- if we're going to reconsider this, were we obligated to follow the reconsideration policy as opposed to just putting it back on the agenda. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I guess, considering what's required and -- and what's allowed the petitioner in this circumstance, my first stop would have been at the county attorney's office to get an interpretation. And -- and I guess I'm a little frustrated that here we are; petitioner is here. Mr. Weigel apparently hasn't heard this question up until now. It seems like that communication should have been there. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And -- and if I can just add to that, the initial question, separate from the -- should this be heard under reconsideration or not, is can we not have a negative vote on an item that's pulled from the consent agenda? I mean, if we did, if we -- if that was an effective vote, then -- then this question is moot. But if that's an ineffective vote, then we need to, either through reconsideration or some other method, hear this again. But you -- the board needs to know that those neighbors who packed this room last time heard about this. When I called Friday afternoon and said, Uh-oh, it's back on the agenda again; I don't know why. I don't think anything has changed. Let me see what I can find out, and spoke to them Monday morning, and they said, Do we have to be there? What do we do? So they didn't -- we may have had legal notice, but they didn't know this was coming back. And they don't need to have a fast one pulled on them. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm not so sure this needs to really involve the petitioner at this point. This is an internal legal question for Mr. Weigel to answer as to whether or not the vote taken by the board is, in fact, valid and what we conducted constitutes a public hearing. Is that the question you're really asking, Mr. Dotrill? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: That's my question. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That was my question. MR. DORRILL: The -- that's the legal question. My job is to interpret the reconsideration policy. And until I can get those answers, I was asking that it be continued for one week. Whether or not we previously had a properly constituted hearing is something that I can't advise you on. That's what David needs to -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. Weigel, clear it up for us. MR. WEIGEL: I think I can respond on -- respond initially. And I think with a little time, very little time, I can respond definitively here. I -- I know you want to wrap this up as quickly as is possible. But based on what's provided in the executive summary with this reference to our Land Development Code, Section 3.2.6.3.3, indicating if -- if stated here is correct, that it does absolutely require that the board hold a hearing if it's taken from the consent agenda. We obviously have to follow that code. The question -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: So, Mr. Weigel, when we pull something from the consent agenda, it's not a public hearing? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Can we, like, hear his complete explanation? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Sorry. I -- I -- that's -- that is the question, though. MR. WEIGEL: The question I want to answer to myself and to you very quickly -- and if someone has a copy of the code, we can perhaps do that -- is in holding the public hearing, does it require an advertised public hearing, because if there's not the word "advertised" in there, then it looks like moving to the regular agenda of the board would be sufficient. Perhaps Mr. Arnold has something to add. MR. ARNOLD: For the record, Wayne Arnold, planning services director. I think the language in question stems from the language in our subdivision requirements relative to final plat approvals. And in that discussion it talks about whether or not a __ a member of the board objects to it, pulls it from the consent agenda. It says that the item may be discussed or scheduled for subsequent hearing date, and it says after due notice of the hearing to the applicant, the BCC shall hold a hearing on the final subdivision plat. At that hearing the BCC shall hear recommendation, take evidence and testimony in regard to the plat, etc. And I think my recollection of that last meeting was that you did take (sic) the motion to deny the project. It failed __ the motion to deny was approved 3 to 2. Mr. Weigel, subsequent to that -- that motion, after reviewing that language, indicated that we should possibly bring this back at another hearing date to make sure that we were covering ourselves. I don't know. I think that is the question: whether or not pulling it from consent, placing it on the regular agenda, constitutes that due notice of a hearing. MR. WEIGEL: Okay. Well -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What you just read, it does not sound like we followed that procedure. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: That's what it sounded like. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I don't have any objection, if we need to go through the -- the hoops again. I do think you're right; the public needs to be here. We did that a few weeks ago with one other item where -- Livingston Woods where the public wasn't aware, and we weren't sure. I think we need to do the same thing here. And I'm sorry you're here and -- and have your -- MR. WEIGEL: Ult -- ultimately, we get to a point where there's the absolute legal requirement to either advertise, publicly notice, or -- or merely, as in this case it appears in a more restricted manner, make sure that the applicant has due notice as opposed to the board's broader vision, intention, and determination to give opportunity to the public. Now, I don't see the absolute requirement for the public to be involved here through an advertisement process, but it's always the board's prerogative. And I will explain that to Mr. Nelson -- he spoke to me briefly before the board meeting -- that legal requirements are one thing, but the board has a prerogative to -- to make its agenda work for it and its -- and its constituents as best it wishes to. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, I'm going to suggest we continue this until we can meet the -- the letter of the law of what Wayne's just read. I -- I don't think we have now -- I __ I think, whether it's required or not, it's a good idea for us to make sure the neighbors in the area are well noticed and able to participate in the process. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: In addition, Commissioner Constantine, I think we need to develop a policy for the county manager to follow on these same situations in the future because, obviously, this is not the norm and -- and difficult to deal with. So if we could incorporate that in the motion -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: This has happened the first time in what; six -- six years, seven years? So, I mean, it's -- it's not the norm, but it's not normal either. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'd agree with you. You can give that to the manager as part of the direction. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. So we'll just give direction then to advertise it as a public hearing and bring it back at some future date. MR. DORRILL: Yes. Yes, sir. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Next week? MR. WEIGEL: I -- I don't see that there's a requirement to advertise it as a public hearing, but the staff can follow your directive is what you may have to do. It doesn't look that it's legally required. There was a re -- requirement of notice to the applicant which you are, in effect, doing right now. As far as the public and the legal requirement to communicate with public or '- or residents, it doesn't look like there's an advertisement requirement, although certainly -- COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'll -- I'll take it upon myself to -- to go to the neighborhood and let them know, if they're not paying attention right now, that this will be heard a week from today. MR. WEIGEL: I'm beyond recommendation. MR. DORRILL: And we -- we apologize for the -- the awkwardness of this. It just -- it hadn't ever happened before, but I'll -- I'll assume responsibility for that. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. Then we'll hear this a week from today, and we need a motion on the agenda then. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, I'll make a motion to approve the agenda and the consent agenda as amended. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? (No response) Item #4 MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 17, 1996, AND BUDGET MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 18, 1996 - APPROVED AS PRESENTED We have some minutes. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Mr. Chairman, I make a motion that we approve the regular meeting minutes of September 17th and the budget meeting of September the 18th. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second to approve these minutes. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? (No response) Item #5A1 PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING OCTOBER 19, 1996, AS THE NAPLES BEACH HOTEL AND GOLF CLUB DAY - ADOPTED I have a proclamation here that I would like to read. It reads: Whereas, the Naples Beach Hotel -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: You want Mr. Watkins to come up? Mr. Watkins is here. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I know he's here. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Oh. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Excuse me. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I -- I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Whereas, the Naples Beach Hotel and Golf Club, located in Collier County, has been owned and operated by the Watkins family since 1946. And we have a member of the Watkins family here who I'd like to ask to come forward at this time so that we can get him on television while I read the balance of this proclamation. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Hand me that gavel. I'll just set it down. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: You need to come up here, Mr. Watkins MR. WATKINS: Absolutely. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: -- so they can see you on television there, right -- right back there. Right. Perfect. And -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Hi, mom. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: And, whereas, the Naples Beach Hotel and Golf Club has been a major employer in Collier County for 50 years; and Whereas, the Naples Beach Hotel and Golf Club has made many contributions to the citizens and organizations of Collier County; and Whereas, the Naples Beach Hotel and Golf Club consistently represents the best qualities of the business community in Collier County; and Whereas, the Naples Beach Hotel and Golf Club will be celebrating its 50th anniversary of continuous operation by the Watkins family on October 19, 1996; Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that October 19, 1996, be designated as the Naples Beach Hotel and Golf Club Day. Done and ordered this 15th day of October, 1996, by the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida. I believe it's correct, Mr. Watkins, is it not, that you have the oldest existing golf course in the county, although there was a -- there was a small golf course previously, but that's no longer there; is that correct? MR. WATKINS: That's correct. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: So your -- your golf course is the oldest one that's still here. MR. WATKINS: In the golf capital of the world. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: In the golf capital of the world. That's right. I'm sorry. I forgot that part. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Columbus played his first -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Anyway -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- round on their course. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Columbus played, yes, when he first came here and -- and enjoyed it very much. Board members, I'd like to make a motion that we accept this proclamation. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I'll second. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second for acceptance. All those in favor signify by saying aye. (Applause) CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Have you been there since its inception, the Beach Club? MR. WATKINS: My family's been there since then. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: If you'd like to say something, get a little advertising plug in, now's the time. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I want to let people know about the fund raiser this weekend, what that's going through. MR. WATKINS: Thank you all very much. We appreciate it. We -- we view our role in the community certainly in terms of our lodging facility and employment, but -- but also trying to make this community a better place for people to want to be and -- and live and recreate and do our best as a family and -- and -- and have tried over the years -- I know my father was a chairperson of the county commission for a number of years way back when and -- when the county seat was down in Everglades City and then when it moved up here to Naples. So we've tried our best to -- to do the right thing in -- in the community. This weekend we are having several events. We'll have a golf tournament on Friday, which is called the Hickory Stick Classic, which will require wooden clubs on two of the holes, and then a tennis tournament on Saturday morning, which is called the Woods and Whites Tournament, which requires wooden racquets and tennis whites and white tennis balls, that sort of thing. And then on Sun -- on Saturday evening we'll have The Beach Ball, which is our version of a beach party from 1946, to re-create the -- the year when my grandfather moved to Naples. And we'll be raising funds from these events for Cambier Park. We'll be initiating and establishing a junior tennis league program for Cambier Park's tennis courts and also raising, hopefully, $50,000 for a new playground in Cambier Park as part of its redevelopment. So we hope that we'll have a successful weekend; we'll keep that weather away. And we appreciate very much your support, and we look forward to working with you in the future. Thank you. (Applause) Item #5C1 CHECK FROM TAX COLLECTOR, GUY CARLTON, IN THE AMOUNT OF $2,071,869.10 - PRESENTED CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Well, we have a surprise visit this morning from our iljustrious tax collector. He's got a little something he wants to -- to share with us today. MR. CARLTON: Good morning. For the record I'm Guy Carlton, your friendly tax collector. Before I give you your money, I would like to thank the commissioners for the addition to (C)(1) and I'd like to compliment Neil Dotrill and his staff. And -- and what a positive thing their joint effort was, ahead of schedule and under cost. That is great. We appreciated it. And another thing, when you have your budget meetings and someone says that maybe I charge too much because I give back money, I will tell you that 90 percent of what we charge is regulated in Tallahassee with no local discretion. So if you could spread that word, I'd appreciate it. With the costs of remodeling -- and we tried to reach a goal of $2 million. Total fees turned back to taxpayers in Collier County, this year's $2,284,888.04; the board's share, which is always the lion's share, $2,071,869.10. Spend it well. (Applause) COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Not all -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Two million dollars. I think I could handle getting a $2 million check. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thanks, Guy. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: You misspelled my name. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: What turned back in the budget roll, Mr. Dotrill? MR. DORRILL: I'm sorry? COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: What -- what turned back in the budget roll? MR. DORRILL: It's a little bit less than this, from what I understand. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: A little bit less. MR. DORRILL: So it's -- he met his goal. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Good. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: That's no surprise. Item #8A2 CARNIVAL PERMIT 96-4 RE PETITION C-96-4, OUR LADY OF GUADALUPE CATHOLIC CHURCH, REQUESTING A PERMIT TO CONDUCT A CARNIVAL FROM NOVEMBER 27 THROUGH DECEMBER 1, 1996, ON THEIR CHURCH GROUNDS LOCATED AT 219 SOUTH 9TH STREET IN IMMOKALEE - ADOPTED CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. Our next item is Petition C-96-4. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a motion we approve Petition C-96-4. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Second. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Do we have any public speakers, Mr. Dotrill? MR. DORRILL: No, sir. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? (No response) Item #SB1 REPORT ON THE RESULTS AND RECOHMENDATIONS OF THE ANNUAL COUNTY-WIDE TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANT STUDIES AND TO REQUEST APPROVAL OF THE RECOHMENDED INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS - STAFF RECOHMENDATION APPROVED Next item, 8(B)(1), a report on countywide traffic signal warrant studies. Mr. Archibald. MR. ARCHIBALD: Good morning, board members. For the record, George Archibald, transportation director. Board members, Agenda Item 8(B)(1) is the annual report on traffic signal studies throughout the county, primarily focusing on over 80 intersections in the urban area. The results, as outlined in your agenda item, involve four categories of signal installations. The first that I wanted to outline were those that are warranted based upon primarily safety concerns, and the most important of which is the signal at the intersection of U.S. 41 and Pelican Bay Boulevard North. That's a project that your staff has been going after for -- in 1997 and I should mention is a developer commitment; so we would expect that both the design and construction would be subsidized by the developer of Pelican Bay. There are two others under that same category. They include some lane and signal improvements at 1-75 and Immokalee Road, and that's going to be driven by the FDOT, the Florida Department of Transportation, what can be worked out in regards to the signal design and also permitting. And keep in mind, one of the concerns that the state has expressed at Immokalee Road and 1-75 is the need to close up some of the existing median openings. So staff, as it negotiates with the state on what type of signal system to provide, will also be forced into looking at closing some turn lanes and also some median openings that currently exist there. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And we will be asking the FDOT share in the funding of those closings? MR. ARCHIBALD: Yes, we will. The last one we did at 1-seven -- seventy-five and Pine Ridge. At that location the state actually did the design and permitting, since it required a federal permit. And they supplied the materials, and the county did the installation. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. MR. ARCHIBALD: I would assume this would follow suit. The -- COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Mr. Archibald, when -- when would you expect agreement on that issue to -- MR. ARCHIBALD: I would hope -- COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: -- be accomplished? MR. ARCHIBALD: -- early in 1997. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Okay. MR. ARCHIBALD: Typically, we would be shooting for the installation, based upon federal permits, by midyear of 1997. The last item under that category is a signal system at Immokalee Road and the Greentree Center. We -- we've had a problem there for over two years. We've been working with the developer, again, to share in the cost of that. Our hard-nosed position at that location is that signal is going to take away capacity and delay traffic on Immokalee Road. The least that we should expect from the developer is a fair share of the cost of both design and construction. We're still following through and pursuing that. If we fail at that, the option that the board has is to go ahead and consider what we call median modifications. In this case it would be median partial closure, which would take away the exiting movement, northbound left, leaving the shopping center. That issue may come back to the board if, in fact, the staff is unable to return with a contribution agreement from the developer. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And the developer understands that is the end option if they do not participate, that that is a likelihood? MR. ARCHIBALD: Yes, they do. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: And you're talking about the main entrance to Greentree on Immokalee Road, not the -- not the o~e that's further to the west? MR. ARCHIBALD: Yes. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Okay. MR. ARCHIBALD: Again, we're recommending a signal because we recognize that if we do anything at that location, it's going to reflect at the intersection with Airport-Pulling Road and the Greentree Shopping Center and also Sam's Club. That's another sore point. We're continuing to look at that location. It may require some control in the future too. The next category are new signals that relate to new construction; and those include projects that are on our new Vanderbilt Beach Road corridor, on Rattlesnake Hammock, and on 951. There's a total of five that are listed in your agenda item. The third category involves school sites. In the upcoming year we've got two school sites where we're expecting to enter into agreements with the school board to share in the cost of signals. The first one would be on Goodlette-Frank Road and 22nd, and this would be a signal for the purposes of school hours, to get the traffic in and out of 22nd only during school hours. That would be in the morning and -- and the early afternoon. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: That's 22nd. MR. ARCHIBALD: The second location would be on Immokalee Road at the new high school site. And right now that's projected probably into the latter part of 1997, but we're including it with the expectation that we may do some of that work concurrently with the school board and that that work may occur at the very latter part of our financial year '96/'97. The fourth category involves flashing beacons. There's two locations where we're proposing flashing beacons. One is a carry-over from last year, and that's at the intersection of State Road 29 and State Road 82 just north of Immokalee. That one, again, is one in which we're asking the state to design, to provide the materials with the proposal that the county would install, operate, and maintain. Again, the state has not returned with a plan, but we would expect that, again, in early '97 we can get some response from the state. They recognize the need, and they're in favor of it. It's a matter of them also getting permits and budgeting for that. The final category involves locations where we would like to modify the intersection in lieu of putting up a signal system because of either spacing controls or because of the very recognition that as we put up signals, we end up slowing down traffic; we end up delaying traffic on our thoroughfare. There's two locations where we plan on undertaking what we call, again, median controls. The first one has been completed, for all practical purposes, and that's at the intersection of U.S. 41 East and Thomasson Drive. We've gone ahead and initially installed some traffic-control devices to develop what's called a directional lane control within the median. That's worked pretty well. We'll ask the state to funnel through with some curbing that will make a physical barrier and reinforce that traffic-control measure at that location. It should be noted that under the six-lane scenario, we're looking at closing that completely and, of course, rerouting the intersection of Thomasson Drive to Rattlesnake Hammock and the East Trail. The last item is Radio Road and Industrial Boulevard, and that location intersects with Donna Street. Again, instead of putting in a signal there, we're going to put in some median controls that will provide for directional movements only. And what we're proposing is to limit the northbound left out of Donna. There's no other alternatives for those movements, and that movement, apparently -- from what our studies indicate, if we can restrict that movement, we'll improve the safety of that intersection from the -- 75 percent. Again, all these items that are part of this report are funded in -- from 313. In addition to the funds for the signal improvements or the median work, there's also funding and some participation at the state level in regards to a closed-loop signal system for this county. And there will be a subsequent report to the board to outline not only the status of that study but also the capacity improvements. And, accordingly, the total dollar amount, which probably will exceed $5 million and which we're expecting and requesting the state to include in their work plan. With that, I'll be glad to address any questions the board has. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I -- I've got one quick question. At 951 and Immokalee Road, you're -- you're saying on here that -- not warranted at this time and recommending evaluation next year. But I -- I'm really concerned because we now have got -- we now have three schools or going to have three schools in that area, two of which already have turn signals operating in school hours or during school traffic periods and a flashing light at 951 and Immokalee Road. I'm wondering if we can have some sort of plan for those half-mile segments in all directions instead of some lights that operate sometime and a flashing beacon that operates all the time. MR. ARCHIBALD: Again, I'd ask the board to consider that the school signals that we've been installing and operating are really an exception to the rule. They're something that we've done, from a policy standpoint in the county, to support the safety of school children and school access. The problem that we have at Immokalee Road and 951 is -- is weighing the increase in accidents that we would expect versus that cost in delay. What we recommend in our report is during our peak season of 1997, which isn't that far away, that that study may very well indicate that a signal system of -- of a certain phasing would be appropriate. So I would ask the board to consider that option and recognize that within six months there would be a study; and if so directed, if it meets our warrant requirements by the county, then we would bring that immediately back to the board for funding. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Thank -- thank you. That's -- that's certainly appropriate. It -- it's just -- my concern, with all the schools there plus the to-work and home-from traffic is -- is going to create really rush-hour timing there that's incredible. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Archibald, we currently have a problem on Pine Ridge Road just east of Airport where the light is at the YHCA. Because of that distance, the timing is an issue there. Do you see any way, either through these actions or future actions, that we can resolve that, because, I mean, during the summer we had some backups, as you have mentioned, to Airport Road. I can only imagine during season that becoming worse. Are -- is there any solution in the works for that particular scenario? MR. ARCHIBALD: No. What we're doing right now is putting in different signal phasing and timing programs during different times of the day. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. MR. ARCHIBALD: I believe right now that there's special programs that are running at that location to -- to simply coordinate the through movement. The first thing we did when we had that problem of the backups into the major intersection of Airport-Pulling and Pine Ridge is to go ahead and reduce the time on the side street. What we found out was that not only are -- is our through movement a very large movement during the peak afternoon, but also the southbound left turning from Airport onto Pine Ridge is also a very heavy movement. The combination of those two didn't allow us any phasing that would provide clearance other than reducing the time. Those new programs, I think, have helped. What we may have to do, as an alternate solution, would be to carry the six-laning through that intersection. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Thank you. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I realize there are a number of criteria in order to meet warrants; perhaps the most serious is the accident history. You and I have had conversations about the corner of Radio Road and Devonshire and Countryside and that intersection at -- what -- the only part that meets warrants is the accident history on that. Can you tell me where we're at with accident activity currently and what we anticipate doing with that? MR. ARCHIBALD: One of the problems at that location, and -- and I'll have to take the blame for it, is that when the Berkshire development occurred, one of the neighborhood traffic planning efforts that put in -- were put into that project was to try and limit the interface of traffic in the subdivision with traffic in the shopping center. So on the very north side there's no connection between the exiting roadway and the shopping center. We think that if we go ahead and provide for some interconnection by working with the shopping center, then we're going to be removing some of the turning movements that are exiting out onto Radio Road going to the east and then entering the shopping center and conflicting with the exiting movements from Countryside. So we're looking at that as the first action to take. If that's not successful, then I think we recognize when we undertake our study again during the peak season of '97, very likely that we'll also Come back to the board with a recommendation to provide a signal. I do have to indicate, though, that if that's our recommendation, that those subdivisions that are adjacent, they've made commitments to subsidize that cost. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Any public speakers? MR. DORRILL: Yes, you have one. Mr. Anderson. MR. ANDERSON: Good morning, commissioners. For the record my name is Bruce Anderson. I'm here representing North Bay Associates. It is an affiliate of the Courtelis Company. They are the owners of the Pelican Bay Marketplace. Particularly, I wanted to address myself to the item in the staff report that calls for a signal at the intersection of Vanderbilt Beach Road and Hammock Oak Drive. I would -- I would point out to you that -- an attachment to the executive summary of all the considerations that are listed there for whether a traffic signal is warranted, such as minimum vehicle -- vehicular volume, interruption of continuous traffic, pedestrian volume, school crossing, and accident experience. All of those factors are either listed as "not applicable" or "no." I would also point out that it calls for the county to bear 100 percent of the cost of the signal at that location. Your adopted access management plan, which is a part of your Land Development Code, does not call for a signal at this location. We __ my client presently has underway a signal warrant study for a Corck~lon access point that presently exists between the Pelican Bay Marketplace and the Pavilion Shopping Center. The cost of a traffic signal at this location may have to be shared by the owners of the Pelican Bay Marketplace and the Pavilion, thereby saving tax dollars. I would ask the board not to authorize a signal at Vanderbilt Beach Road and Hammock Oak Drive at this time until a study can be presented to you as to the need and the cost-sharing responsibility to pay for a signal between the marketplace and the Pavilion. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: I would find it difficult, based on meetings I've had with Mr. Archibald and your client and Mr. VanArsdale and citizens in that area, for the county to share in the cost of a signal that violates its own access management guidelines to a severe degree. The proximity of that intersection to the proximity of Vanderbilt Beach Road and U.S. 41, that distance is -- is minimal at best. We just discussed the timing issue problem at the YMCA at Pine Ridge and Airport. There's a greater distance between those two signals than the one you are proposing, or the traffic signal they propose, and the one on 41. If we put that signal in, we preclude a future signal at Hammock Oak where the build-up population of Pelican Bay and the adjacent community to the north that uses that intersection are going to need to get out on that road. So it's -- it's not -- to me it's not a -- a -- you know, do we do one and save a few dollars now, or do we do the other and spend more money but a question of long term; what's in the best interest of the people who live and shop in that area. And I -- I can't see my way clear, based on the information Mr. Archibald's presented to me individually, to stop this in lieu of what the Courtelis Company is doing. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Hancock, you make a -- a very logical argument. Let me ask two questions: One, I haven't had the benefit of the -- knowing those distances at all, if -- if you'd share the distance with us. And also, why are we approving -- if, as Mr. Anderson has pointed out, that either "no" or "not applicable" has been given to each of the criteria here, why, then, are we suggesting we put that in now? MR. ANDERSON: Yes, sir. MR. ARCHIBALD: I think the real issue that I see is -- is the implications for access management. Currently the four- laning project is proceeding, and as part of the four-laning of that section of roadway that extends about a quarter of a mile to the west of U.S. 41, we're going to end up changing traffic patterns. And part of the change in the traffic patterns is recognizing that currently -- or we used to have a two-lane roadway where there was access in all directions. Now we're going to a four-lane divided roadway where we're controlling that access. And part of what we're doing is forcing movements to the intersection of Hammock Oak and Vanderbilt Beach Road. We're not only forcing the movements on the main thoroughfare, we're also forcing the movements in the shopping center. And, also, we would expect a substantial increase in traffic on Hammock Oak as a result of people in Pelican Bay having access to a signal that provides for safe turning movements. So your staff included in that project a signal because of the changes that are coming about, not only in regards to the physical condition of the intersection, but also because of our expectations of changes in travel movements. Once we put in a signal, in fact, that's going to attract people that are having a difficult time right now. In regards to the second question, I need to advise the board that Mr. Anderson has provided letters to the county to indicate that his client, the Marketplace Shopping Center on the south side, may, in fact, have some vested rights to -- not only access to the new roadway, but also may have vested rights to providing a intersection at some future point in time. Your staff is in the process of providing a report that will be made to the board very soon; I would like to think the very first part of November. And that report will indicate that although when you take a look at the activity center concept -- and keep in mind, everything that we're talking about is within the U.S. 41/Vanderbilt Beach Road activity center. We're trying to do things a little different there. And our recommendation at the staff level most likely will be to put the burden on the developers there to prove, one, that the signal system will provide some function at the proposed location that Mr. Anderson is proposing. And, again, that distance is about 450 feet to the west of U.S. 41, a very short distance. But there's been some studies done by the private sector that would indicate that a signal could be designed and could be phased to work there. But keep in mind, I think that control and that decision should be one that would remain with the county and remain with the board. So the staff will be coming back to the board with a response and report in regards to Mr. Anderson's request. And for the interim I would recommend that the staff be directed to proceed with the construction as approved, but give Mr. Anderson the consideration of doing a design and a study that may or may not show the pros and cons of a interim signal at the shopping center location. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you, Mr. Anderson. MR. ANDERSON: May I say a couple more things here? One, I just remind you there's no objective justification for the signal at this location. Number two, part of our study will be the timing and phasing of the -- of the light. Number three, the access management plan that you've adopted for this activity center calls for full access between those two shopping centers, and it -- and it would likely be safer to have it signalized rather than fully opened. And -- and lastly, what's the harm in -- in delaying this by a month or so? Thank you. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you. MR. DORRILL: That's all, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Motion? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I make a motion that we approve staff recommendation regarding the signal warrant study. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Including Mr. Archibald's comments on the record? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yes. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll second that. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? (No response) Thank you, Mr. Archibald. Item #8B2 CONTRACT FOR MEDIAN AND SELECTED PUBLIC AREA GROUNDS MAINTENANCE FOR THE LELY GOLF ESTATES BEAUTIFICATION M.S.T.U.; BID NO. 96-2569 TO COMMERCIAL LAND MAINTENANCE, INC. IN THE ANNUAL AMOUNT OF $36,544.80 - STAFF DIRECTED TO RE-BID CONTRACT COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Next item, Mr. Chairman, is just approving a bid. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Again, this is a bid for an MSTU, a beautification district, Item 8(B)(2), Lely Golf Estates Beautification District. MR. ARCHIBALD: Board members, Agenda Item 8(B)(2) is a recommendation for a contract award for median maintenance on St. Andtaws, roughly about three-quarters of a mile of median maintenance. And it's in accordance with the Lely Golf Estates Beautification Municipal Services Taxing Unit, and it's in accordance with Bid No. 96-2565. And, unfortunately, there's some issues here, and I need to just review those with the board very quickly. There were four bids that were received by the county that did, in fact, cover the work at hand. The low bid that was submitted was submitted by Rae's Greenspace (sic) in the amount of $25,245.48. This bid for a larger amount of median work is actually a few hundred dollars less than the current contract that Rae's Greenspace has with the county today. Unfortunately, the decision of both the staff and the beautification committee was to go ahead and terminate that contract and rabid the service. And, again, the low bid by Rae's Greenspace was initially an awfully good bid. Unfortunately, in the bid package that was submitted, there were a number of items that were not included by Rae's Greenspace, and those items that were not included involved the bidder's license, involved the bidder's work history, and involved some answers to questions that, unfortunately, were requirements of the bid. So from the staff's perspective, if -- the bid specifications are very direct and indicate if that information is not provided, then, in fact, that bid will have to be rejected. Accordingly, the staff is indicating and reporting to the board that that low bid is considered nonresponsive; and accordingly your staff would recommend going to the second low bid, which was submitted by Commercial Land Maintenance, a firm that's been doing work in the county for a number of years that has a number of our medians under contract and has a very good record. Their bid, unfortunately, is $36,544.80 which, unfortunately, is nearly $10,000 greater than the low bid. But, again, because of irregularities in the bid submitted by Rae's Greenspace, your staff is having to recommend the second low bid. The beautification committee did review this, and they wanted to recommend to the board that, in fact, the irregularities were just that. And they wanted to recommend that those regularities -- irregularities be waived and that the board consider a contract with Rae's Greenspace. Your staff still is of the opinion that that bid that was submitted was, in fact, nonresponsive and should be rejected. So we're creating that old dilemma of the low bid/second low bid scenario for the board to consider. Again, you've got the staff's recommendation, and you've got the recommendation of the committee. There's probably a third option that the board has, if they may want to consider it; and that third option is, of course, to reject all bids and rebid this project again. In fact, those are the three options that staff presents to the board for its consideration. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. Archibald, if Rae's Greenscape has the contract today and the work is satisfactory, did they offer any explanation of why they didn't make a responsive bid? MR. ARCHIBALD: It was my understanding that they put their back -- their -- their bid package together very quickly. And they were of the opinion that, one, they didn't either have the time to submit that information; or two, that information was already on file, neither of which are acceptable as you read the bid specifications. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: May I ask the question -- the final comment in -- in the county staff recommendation says, This recommendation may also represent the lowest cost since both staff and consultant time and administering the project were estimated to be lower with Commercial Land Maintenance v. Rae's Greenscapes (sic). You -- perhaps in your explanation that was there, but I -- I -- I missed it. Why -- why do we anticipate those costs to be lower? MR. ARCHIBALD: Okay. There -- there -- there's two items, when you take a look at their bid, that do reflect a big question on the part of staff. One of the items is on your page 5. I don't think there's any need to look it, but it -- it involves the annual tree trimming. On page 5 all of the bidders submitted bids that ran from over 3,000 to over 16,000 dollars for that work item. Rae's Greenspace submitted a bid of $299. So we recognize that, although that's a very small item, it does represent a discrepancy that may be reflected elsewhere in their real cost to do the work. Another item is on -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Suggesting that we would have to do the work instead or -- MR. ARCHIBALD: No, suggesting that, very likely, that cost could increase. Another item is on page 10 where, if we add mowing and edging functions, typically the cost is in terms of pennies per square yard; their price is 21 cents per square foot. So there's another area where the bid information that was included in the Rae Greenspace (sic) bid package may create a problem for both the county and the contractor in the future. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I guess perhaps after four years on the board, I shouldn't be as naive; but if -- if we enter on -- enter into a contract and someone says they'll trim trees for $299, why would we go back later and correct that? If they had an opportunity to bid whatever they wanted, if they take a loss, why would we correct that and pay them later -- more later? MR. ARCHIBALD: We -- we would not. And, again, I bring out those two issues in that if the board does consider the proposal by Rae's Greenspace, that, in fact, staff be given some latitude to confirm and solidify those numbers in the favor of the beautification committee. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Is there anyone here from the beautification committee that can speak on this item? MR. HcNEES: You have one registered speaker, a Charles Buckley. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Well, let's have the public speaker come forward then. MR. BUCKLEY: Mr. Chairman, members of the board, good morning. My name is Charles Buckley. I'm the vice-president, operations officer, and the licensee holder for Commercial Land Maintenance, Incorporated. We've been doing business in Collier County for approximately eight years. We've been doing work for Collier County government for approximately five years. I run a very successful business because I pay attention to detail, not only in paperwork, but into the service that we provide our customers. Dealing with this bid, there was -- a prebid conference was held on August 14th. I was the only landscape contractor to attend that conference. I believe that if you have a concern and have a desire to provide a service, you should obtain as much information as you can about the contract that you're about -- about to enter into. This particular prebid conference was very important because it included that when we're -- we were to put our numbers together, we were to anticipate that all the islands would be completely landscaped; that's what my numbers are based on. Currently eight of those islands are not landscaped; so my price is going to be reduced a portion until those islands are finished and landscaped. The only other thing I would bring up is that the items about the contractor's license and a -- a -- a list of projects similar in scope to be included. It says specifically "If the documentation noted above is not submitted with the bid proposal, such bid will not be considered." I don't see where there's any room for much interpretation there. You either submit it or you don't. And if you don't submit it, your bid is thrown out. Any questions? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I -- I got to agree with the gentleman. If -- if we send out a -- a request for bids and it has some particular rules and regulations in it and they're not followed, as much as I'm sure the beautification committee would like to save a buck, it appears that Rae's did not follow the criteria required. I think -- I think he's right; I don't know how much room we have to wiggle there. It's pretty black and white. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Well, the choice here for the board today is whether to rebid or to award the contract to the lowest responsive bidder so -- MR. BUCKLEY: My -- my only -- I'm sorry, sir. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you, sir. MR. BUCKLEY: Okay. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: If the two bids were a grand or two grand apart, I -- I can see throwing out the first one and going to the second. But we're dealing with a -- with a -- COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Substantial. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- a -- you know, 33 percent increase, roughly, in the cost. And I think we need to tread cautiously on that. My feeling is a -- a rebid may be necessary here to make sure we are getting the best cost for the residents because of the -- the spread between the first and second bid. And if it shows up again, so be it. But my feeling is a rebid is really in the residents' best interest rather than just slapping an $11,000 increase. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I'd like to see it rebid merely because we have an $11,000 difference between the two; and the -- the reasons for declaring Rae's nonresponsive are reasons that, from what I've heard, don't really affect the quality of the bid. It's -- it's background information. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: If the majority of the board wants to rebid, I -- I won't vote against that; but I -- I guess I feel bad. We put out a -- there's not only the effort of all the private entities who've responded, but staff time and the -- and the expense of administering a bid and so on. And I hate to do that again when there were one, two, three, four others who were able to provide the information. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. We -- we have done it in the past when there was a jump in -- in cost. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: As I said, I didn't -- if the majority of the board wants to do that, I won't argue. But I -- I just -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We need a motion. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- want to note that. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm going to move that we rebid the maintenance contract for the public area grounds maintenance for Lely Golf Estates Beautification HSTU. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I'll second. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second to rebid. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? (No response) MR. ARCHIBALD: Okay. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Thank you, Mr. Archibald. Item #883 RESOLUTION 96-472 AUTHORIZING THE ACQUISITION BY GIFT, PURCHASE OR CONDEMNATION OF A TEMPORARY DRAINAGE EASEMENT TO COMPLETE THE NAPLES PARK AREA DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENT MUNICIPAL SERVICE BENEFIT UNIT PROJECT AND APPROVE APPRAISAL CONTRACT WITH COAST APPRAISAL SERVICES - ADOPTED WITH ALL FOUR RECOHMENDATIONS AND STAFF DIRECTED TO HELP COLLIER ENTERPRISE OBTAIN DECLARATORY STATEMENT FROM SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT Next, Item 8(B)(3), a recommendation that the board adopt a resolution authorizing the acquisition by gift, purchase, or condemnation of a temporary drainage easement. MR. GONZALEZ: Good morning, Commissioners. For the record, Adolfo Gonzalez, capital projects management director. This item is to request that you -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah. MR. GONZALEZ: -- acquire by gift, purchase, or condemnation -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Anything unusual, strange, or fantastic about this, Mr. Gonzalez? MR. GONZALEZ: We are asking that you waive some of the purchasing policies regarding acquire -- getting an appraiser on board as quickly as possible to -- COHHISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. MR. GONZALEZ: -- take on this property. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. That would be Item No. 3 under staff recommendation? MR. GONZALEZ: Yes, sir. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Let's go to the public speakers. MR. HcNEES: You do have one registered speaker, Bruce Anderson. MR. ANDERSON: I just felt you had too short an agenda today. Good morning. For the record my name is Bruce Anderson. I want to present an informational item on behalf of Collier Enterprises, which is the owner of the property which is proposed and which is the subject of -- of this resolution. They are willing to negotiate the terms of an easement after the South Florida Water Management District issues a declaratory statement that Collier Enterprises will not have to provide pretreatment on its property of surface water and stormwater runoff from Naples Park before discharging it into the Cocohatchee River. As I'm sure you know, the Cocohatchee River was recently designated, or portions of it anyway, as an outstanding Florida water which requires a higher degree of pretreatment of runoff before it's discharged into the river. Collier Enterprises has previously received a letter from the head of the water management district's Fort Myers office that it would not have to provide pretreatment for Naples Park drainage, and it was on the basis of that letter that Collier Enterprises did not object to designating the Cocohatchee River as an outstanding Florida water. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. Anderson. MR. ANDERSON: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Our -- our issue here today is whether or not we're going to acquire some easements. Are you going to be able to relate what you're talking about to easements? MR. ANDERSON: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I hope so because that's what we're talking about. MR. ANDERSON: Yes. I -- I -- at the end of July Collier Enterprises did file for the declaratory statement. They anticipate receiving a response on that in the next 30 days. Any help that this commission or the staff can provide in getting the water management district to issue the expected declaratory statement sooner rather than later would be appreciated and would expedite negotiations for the temporary drainage easement. Our preference would be that you not adopt this resolution today in order to keep the pressure on the water management district to issue a timely response. We do have no objection -- have no objection to you declaring an emergency and hiring an appraiser. Thank you. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Anderson, has our staff been helpful to date in this area? MR. ANDERSON: I don't know the full background on that. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. The reason I ask is the Naples Park drainage system begins construction today. I understand the position of Collier Enterprises, and in no way do I want to harm or cause something upon Collier Enterprises that really isn't of their doing. By the same token, we've begun construction on a project that we have a time line on. I assume, Mr. Gonzalez, the reason this is in front of us today with an -- a request to declare an emergency is because we don't have a lot of time to get this in place; is that true? MR. GONZALEZ: Yes, that is correct. In fact, you're right; Mr. Anderson's clients have been most responsive with it. We have -- have had continuing conversations with them for quite some time. Unfortunately, this grandfathering issue has caused a delay in, as Mr. Anderson pointed out, granting the declaratory statement for Collier Enterprises and also granting the permit extension on our Naples Park permit, which was to have been approved September, a couple of days after your board action for doing the contract. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Let me try this approach. I'm going to make a motion -- motion that we approve staff recommendation, including all four listed on page 2 of our executive summary, with an addition that we direct our staff to assist Collier Enterprises in getting the decla -- declaratory statement from the South Florida Water Management District to the extent that it is -- is reasonable. Obviously, we're not going to become the sole advocate; but I think a letter from -- from the county saying that we feel this is -- is advantageous to our project and -- and so forth is -- is warranted. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Mr. Chairman, please. Mr. Weigel, do we have to separately declare an emer -- an emergency? MR. WEIGEL: I think that your statement of the record as a board as well as -- you -- you can do all of these things in following the recommendation of the -- of the executive summary. I appreciate your comment and addition there. And in regard to a letter that would issue from the county, we will determine -- any further direction you give us right now -- as to who may best send that letter, whether it be from pure administrative office, the legal office. May we reserve unto ourselves potentially composing a letter from the chairman in this regard? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: And I would ask that that -- that direction also be given; and I don't know where it should come from best. But these are two separate items that, in essence, the South Florida Water Management District is kind of holding one hostage while the others need something. And it -- we need to resolve that and do it collectively. MR. WEIGEL: Thank you. MR. ANDERSON: Thank you. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: A government agency holding somebody hostage. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I know. It's an unusual thought. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: No kidding. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Motion, please. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: That was the motion. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Second. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah. That was a second. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Aye. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We had one opposed? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Consistency. Item #8C1 LIBRARY MASTER PLAN CONCEPT - APPROVED CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. Next, Item 8(C)(1). COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It's amazing. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: The library master plan. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a motion to approve the item. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Let's -- let's have Mr. Jones come up and answer one question on the record, though. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What's your favorite color? CHAIRMAN NORRIS: No, not that. Mr. Jones, we're going to ask you one question on the record here. MR. JONES: After I've prepared this? CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Yes. Yes, sir, after you've prepared that -- that nice -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You were so persuasive -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: -- board. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- at the budget hearings that -- MR. JONES: Don Jones, public library. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: The question is in the public's mind there's been some misconception bandied about as to whether this master plan, if approved, will result in the elimination of some or all of the branch libraries. And I'd like for you to just clear the record up for us on that. MR. JONES: At present no plans exist to close, change, move. We may renovate existing libraries. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: But this is not going to eliminate branches. MR. JONES: No, sir. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We're just -- MR. JONES: No, sir. This addressed the if and when, if the population grows and if we have to build, how we're going to build, not -- it doesn't deal at all with what we have. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And I assume renovation would be an improvement to the existing branches rather than detrimental to them. No, I'm -- I'm serious. MR. JONES: I assume so, yes, sir. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I ask that only because of the -- the exact thing you raise, and that is there are some who are worrying that this is going to mean an abandonment of the current libraries. And I -- I don't think that's the intent at all. MR. JONES: No. No, sir. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Okay. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I would -- I would assume, as well, that expansion, renovation -- if we adopt this -- this program today, that existing branch libraries could well be improved to the point of being a regional library. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. We have a motion. Is there a second? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I seconded, yes. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: You'll second it again? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I -- I'll do it again. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. We have a motion and a resecond. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? (No response) Thank you for that brilliant presentation. We -- we appreciate it. MR. JONES: Would you like the cards I have prepared? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Please, I -- I would ask the Library Advisory Board take this, not as a hasty approach, but the fact that you folks have done your homework and communicated with US very effectively and the public effectively, and this is a great idea. MR. JONES: Thank you. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: What? Don't do it. Item #8El RESOLUTION 96-473 REQUESTING THE COLLIER COUNTY WATER AND WASTEWATER AUTHOIRTY TO RECONSIDERAN APPLICATION BY EAGLE CREEK UTILITY II, INC., FOR A 1995 PRICE INDEX RATE INCREASE IN ITS WASTEWATER RATES - ADOPTED; UTILITY AUTHORITY DIRECTED TO REVIEW THE 1995 RATE ADJUSTMENT CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. Next item is 8(E)(1), request for board to adopt the accompanying resolution requesting Collier County Water and Wastewater Authority to reconsider an application by Eagle Creek Utility to -- for a 1995 price index rate increase in its wastewater rates. First question, Mr. McNees, is this -- is this not more appropriately now going to the utility authority? MR. McNEES: I believe that's -- COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: That's where it's been. MR. McNEES: -- where it is. MR. WALLACE: Good day, Mr. Chairman. For the record, Bleu Wallace, utility regulation coordinator. Item 8(E)(1) is a -- is in response to Eagle Creek Utility's public petition of September 17th whereas they missed the boat on the 1995 price index whenever they applied to the Public Service Commission after Collier County resumed jurisdiction. We're bringing that back to you now. The county attorney's office has reviewed the ordinance and feel that the -- the -- Ordinance 96-6 is broad enough; it allows the board to intervene at any moment in any action before the authority and in this case requests the authority to reconsider the 1995 index application of Eagle Creek. And the accompanying resolution provides specific parameters to allow the authority to reconsider and do whatever's necessary to accommodate Eagle Creek. I do -- I received a letter by fax this morning from Mr. Siesky, that presented the public petition, whereas he does Concur with staff's recommendation to the board. And I have a letter here that we can put -- place in the record. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'd just like to know if the -- if -- we don't have a copy of Ordinance 96-6 in our packet. And my question was, does the county attorney agree with that interpretation, that it's broad enough for us to intervene and to take the action proposed? MR. WEIGEL: Is -- yes, on both counts. You wouldn't want that ordinance in your packets because it's so big, but -- COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thank you. MR. WEIGEL: -- the -- the fact is -- is that this is mere -- this resolution is merely a request to the authority. And that -- and that authority, in this board, is clearly provided for in the Ordinance 96-6. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. Thanks. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Public speakers? MR. McNEES: No, sir. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm going to move that we approve staff recommendation and direct the utility authority to review the 1995 rate adjustment. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Second. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Aye. I'm feeling contrary all of a sudden. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you, Mr. Wallace. Item #9A PROPOSED AGREEMENT FOR THE SALE OF THAT REAL PROPERTY F/K/A THE LANDFILL EXPANSION PROPERTY TO COLLIER GOLF AUTHORITY, INC. - STAFF DIRECTED TO RE-BID THE SALE OF THE PROPERTY WITH STIPULATIONS 9(A), report to the board of commissioners on the proposed agreement for sale of surplus real property. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: How real a property? VOICE: (Inaudible) MR. WEIGEL: Not yet. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Okay. Artificial property. MR. WEIGEL: Thank you. As mentioned at the beginning of our public meeting today, this matter was directed two weeks ago to be brought back to the board with staff having provided to the Board of County Commissioners information concerning previous sale of property that had been declared surplus by the county as well as Some background information and documents concerning this particular sale. Included in the packet provided to the board was a copy of advertisement. And within the agenda packet itself is the agenda executive summary from May 21st that re -- provided a staff report to the board as well as correspondence from Collier Golf Authority dated April 17th concerning this particular bid response. And I think, as I mentioned, staff is before you today to look to see if there are any further instructions concerning the resolicitation for bid for the potential sale of the landfill expansion property. MS. TAYLOR: Good day, Sandra Taylor for real property. I do have copies in the packets that were dated last Tuesday, if anybody needs them. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I -- I guess I'll -- I'll open up with a fundamental question, and that is as we're deciding what the parameters of the rebid should be, you won't be surprised to -- I don't think -- to hear me ask if it's appropriate for us to -- to even put this property out for sale until we have gotten further along in the landfill siting process and know what effect the sale of this property might have on the ability to permit a -- a future landfill site. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And you won't be surprised to hear my response which is, first of all, we've answered that question at least three times in the past and that the board has made, on at least three occasions in the past, a commitment not to expand on this property. And if we're not going to expand the landfill onto this property, we don't need to pretend we're going to hang onto it. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Moving right along, the specific direction on this today is to more or less accept the staff recommendation on this item? MS. TAYLOR: Well, what was provided in the October 8th packet -- we can start with the advertisement that was placed in the Naples Daily News and make changes to that. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Right. MS. TAYLOR: Or I did give you a, quote, fill-in-the-blank form that we can go per item. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. MS. TAYLOR: And you can direct staff to do whatever. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I'm just interested in hearing from the public on this subject. MR. HcNEES: We have two speakers. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Can we keep it to the topic at hand? And that is what we're going to put in the bid, not substance of -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- or besides that. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: The board has made -- and -- and, Commissioner Hac'Kie, you voiced it several times, that the board made a policy decision that we would not expand the landfill onto this acreage. And unless there is a motion out there to change that policy, the -- I think you have to accept that as a given. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I think that the -- the issue, though, is when I -- when I nodded in support of that policy, I didn't have all the information then that I have today. And I think some of the speakers today might provide us, I hope, some of the information that -- that I have acquired on my own that affects the -- the reasonableness of that decision. And -- and, yes, we have -- and I -- I do agree that we have all acknowledged previously that we do not want to expand the landfill in its present site. I think, however, that it's incumbent the board to get all the information possible before we make a decision to sell that property. And, frankly, I've been getting information lately that I hadn't previously had. And so I would encourage you to hear that so that you can, likewise, carefully consider, you know, a -- a -- the decision that's as important as this one is. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. We -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, I don't -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We need -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I don't know if that's the agenda item, though. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Yeah. The -- that is not the agenda item. And -- and if -- if we're to reopen the subject of -- of whether or not we're going to even consider this, then -- then we should put that on a future agenda and -- and discuss it, if that's the -- the desire of the board. The -- the agenda item today is simply what are we going to do with this bid. Are we going to award it or rebid it or -- or __ or what? That's a very narrow question. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: But the "or what," Hr. Chairman, it might be "or are we going to not submit it at all?" I mean, that's the "or what." Are we going to change it? Are we going to send it out the way we did the first time, or should we perhaps not send out this request for bid? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Hac'Kie, I -- I certainly appreciate and respect your willingness to stick to your guns on an issue as just demonstrated by my vote on the Naples Park image -- issue. I continue to vote consistently on that; however, you'll note, I did not sit and argue all the merits again and again and again. The last several times the Naples Park issue has come, I voted my conscience. However, I've had some respect that the rest of the board has made a decision on that issue, and I've simply stuck to my opinion. And -- and I think there comes a point where we need to ask you to do the same. I understand we have a disagreement on this. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Sure. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: But the board has set a direction. And -- and if you want to bring that up as a separate agenda item on some future thing to try to change that direction, that's fine. But today's agenda item is dealing specifically with the bid for this property and how -- how we want to go about that. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Can we hear the public speakers, please. MR. DORRILL: Yes, sir. There are two: Mr. Priddy and Ms. Passidomo. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: As you may have noticed, Mr. Priddy, the -- MR. PRIDDY: I'll -- I'll stick to the subject. For the record, Russell Priddy. I would -- would caution you that this, perhaps, is not excess land and maybe should not be bid again. Sitting on your Planning Commission for the last four years, recently we've -- the county has had a need to use some of this land for -- for some other purpose. There may be some public good for the rest of this land other than a landfill, and -- and we're not here to talk about the landfill. We may need, you know, expansion of some other services for the county. I do not feel like it is in the best interest of the citizens of the county for -- for you all to get rid of this land that we already own and -- at perhaps cheaper prices than what we might be able to buy lands for other public uses in the -- in the future. So I would ask you not to put out for bid the -- the sale of this land and for us to keep this land for other uses in -- in the county. Whether or not, you know, a golf course goes there or whether we need to steer a golf course, you know, some -- somewhere else to help us control densities elsewhere in the -- in the county is a -- is another subject. But I -- I submit to you that -- that, in fact, this land is not excess land. Granted, we may never use it for a landfill, but we may need it for other public benefit. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Priddy, can you give me an idea of those uses? MR. PRIDDY: Well, we might -- might need to ex -- expand the -- the county barn again in -- in ten years. We may need water plants, expansion of sewer plants. We may need to relocate dog pounds, just any number of things. We may -- may need a county park. You know, there's -- there's just any number of -- of things that that land can be used for, and -- and certainly there's no real burning desire from -- from the public to -- to get it out of the ownership of -- of the county. I mean, it's not like we're desperate for those $4,000 per acre that we might -- you know, might get out of the -- the property. And I just feel that it would be a -- irregardless of -- of the -- the future, you know, use for it that the county keep it. Thank you. MR. DORRILL: Ms. Passidomo. MS. PASSIDOMO: Morning, Commissioners. My name is Kathleen Passidomo. I represent the Collier family; the Lipman family; the Brown family; the Turner family; Florida Citrus Growers Association, which is a cooperative of many small growers in Collier County -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Excuse me, Ms. Passidomo. MS. PASSIDOMO: I am going to stick to the subject. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. MS. PASSIDOMO: But I did want to tell you who I represent -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. MS. PASSIDOMO: -- because some people think I don't have clients. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Well, you certainly put that to rest. MS. PASSIDOMO: Yes. I will stick to the subject. I, again, will -- would echo Mr. Priddy's words, which is you really need to look at the wisdom in selling this property. But I also looked at the details contained in your packet, and I'm a very -- I'm concerned about it. The language as proposed by the golf authority in -- the perpetuity language is going to put you in a real box. The original bid specs provided that the land was going to be held as a golf course in perpetuity. But it came back in an offer to purchase and in a letter from the petitioner's attorney basically indicating that, yeah, but that's only for three years or until the bonds expire. Now, the bonds are going to be in place from 3 to up to 20 years. And if this project does not succeed, then your perpetuity language is void and they can sell it. Now, they bought it at $4,000 an acre. And I have a lot of developer clients, and they would love to buy development land at $4,000 an acre. If you do decide to rebid it -- and, again, I don't think that's a good idea. But I caution you not to put a provision in there allowing it to -- the -- that perpetuity provision to be boid __ void because the purpose of this is county land for a golf course, if you decide to do that. The -- the -- there was a -- a discussion about a reverter clause. I think that's appropriate. Again, you're not selling this land for its fair market value; it is under market value. I went to the Industrial Development Authority meeting, and one of the -- one of the salient -- one of the big points that the bond representative had was that they were buying the land so cheaply that it could -- you know, they were trying to say that it was going to work. So you're selling this land very cheap. And if you -- if you'll -- if -- if it doesn't work and it gets sold for commercial, the county is going to look pretty foolish. So I -- I caution you all not to do that. Again, I -- I'm asking if -- if the board would consider revisiting the subject completely. There is no sense of urgency here. You don't have to sell the land. The golf course authority __ and we -- we -- we do support them in -- in their efforts, so this is not anything against the golf authority. But they've been waiting for ten years to do this, and another six, eight months isn't going to hurt them. And -- and so we're asking you to revisit your decision to rebid this and just let it sit and let the whole landfill issue be taken care of. Thank you. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you. MR. DORRILL: That's all, Mr. Chairman. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Looks like somebody's filling out a slip or -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Hurry up and make a motion. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I -- I've got to agree with Hiss Passidomo, while we're waiting, with the perpetuity part. And we had that discussion -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- a couple weeks ago, and I think that's actually what led us to looking at the rebid is -- COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Uh-huh. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- for that very reason. If -- if we're going to sell the property for use as a public golf course, we want to assure that it will be used as a public golf course. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Have them -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Basically -- COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Have it going forever. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Basically summarized our last discussion is what you did. Those were the two issues that were predominantly the reason for rebidding and reasons for not granting to the golf authority at that time. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Uh-huh. MR. DORRILL: Mr. Breeden. MR. BREEDEN: My name is Jack Breeden. I've lived here for 50 years in Collier County. I've heard the pros and the cons of the golf course. To start off with, this golf course is to be for the people, the people that put you in office. It's to be their golf course. It's not to have any -- any private membership, none whatsoever. You'll have as much right to play on it as I do. You'll have a five-day starting time. The $4,000 thing that came up is what the county paid for the property. Now, we are offering a little bit more for the property than the -- than the commissioners even asked for. Now, we've met many, many times on this thing. And it's gotten to a point now -- and I might as well be frank about it. The semipublic and the semiprivate golf courses do not want this public golf course for the simple reason that we will pull the people that want to play golf in the wintertime; we'll pull them to our golf course. And we're going to a low fee structure. We're going to have a nature trail. It's going to be the golf course for every public school in Collier County that has a girl or boy's golf team. We are proposing a nature trail on this property. All we are going to try to do is to pay our bond off. We don't have any idea of ever selling this thing for a profit. I don't care what these other people think. Money is not -- money is not our number one god; golf is and the people of Collier County. I can't afford to play golf in Collier County. I've heard people get up here this morning. Can you afford to pay $120 a round for 18 holes of golf, any of you people sitting on the board? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It's amazing how many free invitations for golf you get as a county commissioner. MR. BREEDEN: Pardon me? You, can you afford to pay $120 to play golf? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: They're coming to you. Refer them this way so -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I don't play golf. MR. BREEDEN: I don't know why anybody would be against this thing that lives and -- and works in Collier County. I haven't heard anybody against it except the wealthy -- the wealthy people that can afford to go to their own golf courses. Now, let me a -- let me tell you this: The developers, of who we have quite a few people here represent, do they think for one minute that they could sell a home in a development and then offer their -- their homeowners a $20,000 membership in their golf course if they could go over and play golf for $42? How many people do you think would join up to this thing? Any? You know -- well, you know who I'm looking at, and you know the people I'm talking about. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you, sir. MR. BREEDEN: Why is anybody against a public golf course on a piece of property that is only good for -- for a golf course or a public park or whatever? COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Mr. Breeden -- MR. BREEDEN: It's not going to cost the county one dime, not going to cost the county one dime. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Mr. Breeden, I think we're talking about a perpetuity clause in the deed. We're not going to MR. BREEDEN: We -- we will put it in the thing that it shall forever remain a public golf course. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: That's what we're asking you to do. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: That's what we're asking. MR. BREEDEN: What's wrong with that? CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Nothing. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Except your attorney says -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Why didn't you do it the first time? Why didn't you do what the bid asked you to do the first time? That's what we're asking. MR. BREEDEN: For the same reason that the people are protesting it: We just didn't think about it at that time. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Well, I think -- MR. BREEDEN: At one time, Mr. Norris, if you'll remember, when we first wanted this golf course, we were going to give it to the county after it was paid for to be run as a public parks and recreation; but that was turned down. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Uh-huh. MR. BREEDEN: That proposal was turned down. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Jack, I think Commissioner Norris's question -- MR. BREEDEN: I get a little upset about this thing, to be frank with you. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I think Commissioner Norris's question stems from the fact that a couple of weeks ago when Arnold and -- and your attorney were here, the question was raised; will you include perpetuity. And at that time the attorney -- your attorney said, no, we can't. And -- and so now you're saying, yes, you will. And I think there's some confusion. MR. BREEDEN: Well, let me -- let me ask you this one question: How many golf courses in Collier County have ever gone bankrupt? CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Several, actually. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yes. MR. BREEDEN: Ask -- ask them -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Several. MR. BREEDEN: Who? Only because their fee structure was so high that people couldn't afford to play on them. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. That -- Jack, your -- Jack, your point's well made, but the issue today is how to structure the rebidding of this. And that's what we need to confine our discussion to -- MR. BREEDEN: We will put -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- not the concept. MR. BREEDEN: We will put into the -- a -- into our proposal that it shall remain a public golf course as long as the property remains in Collier County. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Well, you'll get your chance on the rebid to do just that, and that's all -- MR. BREEDEN: And why we should have to rebid it -- everybody knows what we bid before. This puts us at a real disadvantage. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Well, the problem -- MR. BREEDEN: If you have some -- some group coming in and say, well, let's give them -- instead of 1,200,000 dollars for that property, let's give them 1,500,000 for it, well, that knocks us right out of the balipark anyway. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you, Mr. Breeden. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Mr. Breeden, the reason that I -- I'm looking for a rebid is -- is you were supposed to make a 20 percent down payment. According to the proposal, it wasn't made. MR. BREEDEN: If you've read the -- if you've read the thing, Ms. Matthews, you'll find out that this thing was knocked back and forth when we had the meeting before. MR. GLASS: Let me address that question. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. Glass, you're going to need to register if you're considering speaking. And -- and -- MR. GLASS: I'm one of the petitioners. Okay. Well, I'll just forward the material to you for you to look at from the minutes of that meeting. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you. MR. DORRILL: That's all, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Motion, please. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, I -- I'd like us to go ahead with the rebid, but I think we do need to include perpetuity. I think we need to stick with the 20 percent. And -- and, Sandy, we lost you there, but the alt -- alternatives -- you said you had -- in -- in here we have the fill in the blank. Other than those two items, are there anything -- anything I'm missing that we need to address? MS. TAYLOR: The deposit. I do want to clarify that the board made the motion to approve the bid upon IDA financing, so the deposit really wasn't officially due until that IDA approval was made. To clarify, I think that's what -- that's what he wanted to say. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: But the balance of the bid that was -- was presented to us did not include the golf course staying in perpetuity, which -- MS. TAYLOR: That's right. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- I hear everyone saying must be a part of the bid. The other element we discussed was an add alternate because we found that because of the fevertar clause -- in order to have a fevertar clause, there had to be -- you know, if there's a fevertar clause, there's no hard capital; and there's no property there for a financier to base their decision on. It's kind of like saying -- going and getting a mortgage for your house, but if you don't make the payment, it doesn't go to the bank; it goes to somebody else. That's going to create a problem. No one is going to finance a project with a strict fevertar clause like that. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Nonetheless, they've promised to do so, so let them do so. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And -- and what are our options as, you know, responsible stewards of the public trust? We can't sell something this cheap. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I think our options are to take the pockets dedicated to the golf course and the adjacent open space, separate that out from -- is this -- this was Commissioner Constantine's idea. Maybe 50 or 70 or 80 acres of the land is not subject to the fevertar clause, but the actual pockets of the golf course are so that it gives some basis for -- for financing. There is Some '- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- real land associated with it. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But, Commissioner Hancock, think about this. I mean, may -- maybe that's exactly what we ought to do, because I bet there will be a lot of developers who will line up to bid on that package because this is cheap land. I already know of a couple who are interested. And -- and maybe that will get us so much money, it will be worth selling this property. But that's a far cry from where we started. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I don't think the reverter clause is realistic for the entire property. But, you know, I mean, if you guys want to proceed with the bid and see -- in the reverter clause, see if it's there -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I think the idea of having the alternate is a great idea, and I think to suggest that if we have several bidders lining up is a bad thing -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I think that's great. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It's wonderful. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I mean, I hope we have that problem so -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Let's -- let's -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: If you want to craft that into a motion, I'll -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- be the second. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Why don't I move that we rebid the project with, one, stating that the -- the land utilized for a minimum 18-hole public golf course be held in perpetuity; that add alternates be allowed that show a development scenario outside of those parcels, if necessary. Is that consistent there? Agreeable? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Uh-huh. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Is this -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Is this land within the urban area, Miss Taylor? COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: No. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: No. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I -- I had one -- one question while you -- while you folks think about that. Mr. Weigel, what's the stick of the perpetuity clause, if we don't have a reverter clause? MR. WEIGEL: Well -- well, it reverts to -- I shouldn't say revert; that's another word, reverter. It becomes a stick through both the agreement as a contract upon which you can bring a lawsuit as well as the deed instrument itself, and so you've got actually two documents that provide for that. The -- the deed instrument, of course, is recorded in the public records. It's noticed to everyone even more than the normal records that we have that go through our meetings, like contracts. Mr. Hancock, in your motion I think what you had discussed so far in regard to a minimum 18-hole golf course was that be in perpetuity, but I did not hear the reverter word there. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: And that's what I was getting to, is the third item, is it -- that the land dedicated for the golf course and ancillary facilities be subject to a reverter clause, but not necessarily the entire parcel. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: All right. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I think that provides for the add alternate possibility. And then we may have the option of someone who has no development proposed in this scenario, but a golf course or even 27 holes, and we get to compare that against someone who's proposing 18 holes and development. COHHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Uh-huh. COHHISSIONER HANCOCK: And that seems like a pretty easy decision, but at least it may give us some options and -- and give us a -- a -- the ability to make a choice. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Are you proposing then to include in -- in the proposal the ability for the person winning the bid to propose residential development in this area? Is that what you're proposing? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Outside of the golf course, yes. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I -- I can't support that. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Is -- is that ironic or what? We can't expand the landfill because it's imposing a smell on existing residences, but people will be willing to build residences there. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah. Well -- COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: You will get bids -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- the flip -- COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- for building residential there. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Commissioner Hac'Kie, the flip side is -- forget the golf course. If we don't need all this land, what are we going to do with it? COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We do need it. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: For? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: For? COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, we needed some of it recently for expansion of the -- of the county barn. I'll tell you what I would do if I were -- if it were mine. I would move the dog pound from a very valuable piece of property on Airport Road out near the landfill, and I would fezone that piece of property to something marketable and sell it as excess for a price much higher than we're going to get for property next to the landfill. Let's put the -- let's put animal control out there. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, let -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: That -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- me point out a couple -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- creates -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- of things: One is solid waste paid for this land, not the general fund money; so anything we do with this is going to take general fund money being transferred into the solid waste account. So there's no free ride here. This isn't the county owning and can do whatever we want. We still got to pay for it either way. And -- and you mentioned the county barn facility. My understanding is what's planned there also includes option for expansion for years and years and years to come. The -- this isn't __ we're just filling today's, 1996, need. I have some reasonable confidence in our staff that they have the foresight to look and think, gosh, we're growing. We're going to need a bigger facility in the future. Let's plan for that, because I believe it's about 40 acres that's been set aside, which is four times the size of what we're currently using. We don't need something four times the size right now, but we will in the future. So I think Commissioner Hancock's question is valid: For what? And -- and we haven't come up with -- with a valid use for 330 acres. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. Why don't we -- why don't we work on Commissioner Hancock's motion. There's a motion on the floor. Do we have a second for that? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah. I'll second that. MS. TAYLOR: The only comment I do have is in my memorandum to you -- we do need to reserve that hundred foot to the south of the property for access or utilities or anything else to that county barn facility. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Okay. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: That -- that's part of the motion. MR. WEIGEL: And I'll add to that for the record, and that is so that the land that would be legally described for the rebid will take into account the appropriate access requirements that the county appears to have out there themselves. And we also are taking into account the potential access requirement for any purchaser of that property. We want to make sure that a purchaser has access also. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I -- I've got one more question for the motion maker. In -- in your mind in the proposal that probably will come as a result of this for residential property, are you -- are you willing to accept proposals for any densities or only for the ender -- underlying estates densities? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Oh, for God's sakes, they got to be consistent with the Growth Management Plan. Come on. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah. I -- I -- I -- that's what I was going to say, Commissioner Matthews. I have -- COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: They could come in as a PUD. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I understand -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And be consistent with the Growth Management Plan. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Matthews, I understand the concern you raised. Two thoughts: One is all that's been suggested here, if I understand the motion properly, is to allow that as a add alternate. It still allows us to turn it down. And __ and I -- the only reason I like the idea -- I don't -- I don't want to see homes there any more than you, but it allows a little creativity in the process. We may not like what that creativity comes up with, but it allows a little creativity in the process. Second is its own -- it's not in the urban area; so there's going to be a great limitation as to what you could do with homes there. Your density is going to be extremely low. So I'm not sure how viable it's going to be, but I -- I'm willing to let someone out there in the private sector take a stab at being creative with it. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: If you want the reverter clause, you're forced to look at the viability. So -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Right. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- if you -- if you don't want the reverter clause, fine. Forget it. I'll take the lang -- the - _ that part out of it, out of the motion. But if you want the reverter clause, you have to understand a minimal amount of financing for these types of projects. And with a reverter clause for the entire parcel, you're not going to get any bidders, period. So, you know -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. We have a motion and a second. If there's no further questions, all those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Aye. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Aye. Item #9B OUTSIDE COUNSEL FOR A COUNTY EMPLOYEE IN THE WADSWORTH V. COLLIER COUNTY - STAFF RECOMMENDATION APPROVED CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Next item, 9(B) -- MS. TAYLOR: Can I just ask one question? All other terms and conditions remain the same: deposit days, closing? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yes. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Absolutely. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: We're not going to change any of that. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Outside counsel issue. MR. MANALICH: Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners. For the record, Ramiro Manalich and Shirley Jean McEachern from county attorney. Thanks for considering this matter as an add-on. I'll try to be as brief as possible. You have an executive summary before you which outlines the history of this matter. This is a case that's been pending -- this is a case that's been pending in federal court for approximately a year and a half. Now, just recently, within the last month and a half, the county was able to obtain a favorable ruling on motions to dismiss the complaint in this action that had been filed. The Court allowed the plaintiff, Mr. Wadsworth -- and this stems from, by the way, a contractor licensing matter. It allowed Mr. Wadsworth to amend his complaint, come back -- we now owe responsive pleadings to this matter by the 31st of October. The Court also ordered mediation to take place on November 6th. This is here because of those time exigencies to request that you consider our recommendation to appoint outside counsel, under the unique circumstance of this case, for a county employee, Mr. Bartoe, who is one of the individual defendants in this case. Basically, the lawsuit is Mr. Wadsworth, who had his license revoked, versus the County, the City, Mr. Bartoe, Mr. Clark, and Mr. Uman. Mr. Uman is a city employee. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Mr. Hanalich, if I could just interrupt, the most responsive part of the memo that I read was that it's the interpretation that we have legal and ethical conflicts. We owe this man a representation, and our -- our county attorney's office can't do it because of legal and ethical conflicts. He's requested Mr. Bryant; I think that's -- makes perfect sense. So when it's appropriate I'll do a motion to approve. MR. HANALICH: You've seized right on the points that are involved. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I -- I don't have any objection. I agree wholeheartedly with what you're saying. One -- one question I have that's related -- Mr. Clark has mentioned in here as well. I realize Mr. Clark left our employ with some questions; however, those questions did not deal with this specific case. And this issue was raised, and I'm -- I'm wondering -- and I just want to -- want to be clear. I've got to assume, because he was employed at the time and because this case was not part of the confusion that eventually led to his resignation, that he has the same rights Mr. Bartoe has, to have the county just -- if -- if some case came against you, Mr. Hanalich, now, you left the -- the county three months from now, the county would still have some responsibility to defend you. And -- and I -- I'm wondering how we'll handle that with Mr. Clark as well. MR. HANALICH: I believe that's correct. I mean, I don't think that the ultimate consideration here on that decision is whether the employee has sub -- subsequently gone on to other employment. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Right. MR. HANALICH: The decision was made in our office originally, when this lawsuit came, not to represent Mr. Clark. The reason for that was not whether he was employed or not at the time; it was the issue that under these civil rights cases, you can have essentially three levels, at least, of liability. You can have individual, like an employee, liability; you can have the entity being liable; or you could have supervisory liability. Now, in this particular case, the situation we're dealing with is Mr. Clark in a supervisory position for this matter. Because of the circumstances -- of which I am voicing no opinion of any way one or the other. But because of circumstances you alluded to in Mr. Clark's departure, we believe that it was in the best interest of the county as the entity not to take on that representation and only to tell Mr. Clark that he would be entitled to reimbursement if he were to be exonerated and prevail in this lawsuit. We felt that was what best protected the interests of the county, given all of the circumstances surrounding his situation. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So you're saying we are still upholding the same responsibility, but it -- it will be in the form of reimbursement as opposed to up front. MR. MANALICH: Correct, for reasonable attorney fees. And, you know, these are judgmental-type decisions. They're not easy. You have to analyze each case on its own merits and all of the individual circumstances. And, again, I am not -- as a matter of fact, I've stated in this summary that our preliminary inquiry into this matter refutes or -- you know, we have substantial reason to believe that the allegations against all of the defendants here, including Mr. Bartoe and Mr. Clark, are not founded. However, as you know, this has to go through a process of, you know, litigation. So I'm not -- I don't want to be misinterpreted that we're in doubt on that, but I believe because of the circumstances surrounding Mr. Clark, that he was in a different position than Mr. Bartoe, and that -- our recommendation is as to him to only have the minimum reimbursement responsibility if he were to prevail. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I -- I apologize to the board for going off, but I thought that was an important point. With that I'll make a motion, if you haven't already, we follow staff recommendation and provide representation for Mr. Bartoe in the way of attorney David E. Bryant. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Second. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Second. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: A motion and a second by Commissioner Hac'kie first, I believe. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? (No response) Thank you, Mr. Hanalich. Item #9C ACCEPTANCE OF A GRANT OF EASEMENT FOR INGRESS AND EGRESS FOR EMERGENCY VEHICLES ON THE NORTH 13 FEET OF LOT 34, WILLA FLORESTA, AT WYNDEHERE, PHASE 2 - APPROVED Our next one is EHS access issue. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Mr. Chairman, she's been going about two hours. She's -- the court reporter, she's been going for about two hours. If it's not a problem, we should break soon. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Break -- you want a break? THE COURT REPORTER: If it's not too much trouble. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. We'll -- we'll take a five-minute break then. (A short break was held.) CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We'll reconvene, and we're ready for Item 9(C), EHS access, emergency access, through Wyndemere, an easement. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: While he's coming up, can I apologize to the members of the board who -- who I offended with my freak-off comment? I did not mean to imply that anybody's doing anything they shouldn't be doing. And sometimes in my lightheartedness I forget that people will -- will make implications that were not intended. So I -- I do apologize for that. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Accepted. Who has this issue? MR. WEIGEL: I do. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. MR. WEIGEL: Mr. Chairman, thank you. David Weigel. I appreciate that we could be allowed to have, in fact, two add-on items, which certainly isn't our bent normally. This one concerns a matter that was before the board early this year about an ingress-egress emergency vehicle -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Excuse me. If I may interrupt, Mr. Weigel. MR. WEIGEL: Yes. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Have there been any material changes in this since the last time the board approved it? MR. WEIGEL: No, none. The documents are in order. We're very pleased with the assistance we've had with Mr. Viggiani and Attorney Tom Haloney for Wyndemere Farms. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: With that grateful acknowledgment, I'll make a motion to approve. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Second. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: A motion and a second by Commissioner Matthews. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? (No response) MR. WEIGEL: Thank you. Item #10A RESOLUTION 96-474 APPOINTING MICHAEL BRUET AND DONALD YORK TO THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMHISSION - ADOPTED CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Next item is 10(A), appointment of two members to the Collier County Planning Commission from District 2. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Two at the same time? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: We have -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: That's what it says. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah. Well, as you may remember, Mr. Bruet is fulfilling -- COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Oh, that's right. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- a term. So I'd like to make the reappointment of Michael Bruet and Donald York. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll second that. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second. All those in favor signify by saying are. (All of the commissioners responded.) CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Excuse me, not "are." Don't say "are"; say "aye." COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Are. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: What was that? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Is that an invalid vote now? No one said are. We can say are. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I didn't mean to say are. Item #10B RESOLUTION 96-475 APPOINTING JOHN THOMPSON AND THOMAS FRANCHINO TO THE HISTORICAL/ARCHAEOLOGICAL PRESERVATION BOARD - ADOPTED Appointment of members to the Historical Archeological Preservation Board. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, I will -- COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Mr. Chairman, we've got two applications, two appointments to make. I move that we appoint John W. Thompson and Thomas W. Franchino. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Sec -- I'll just second the motion. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: A motion and a second. All those in favor signify by saying -- COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That was rotten. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: -- aye. Opposed? (No response) Item #10C RESOLUTION 96-476 ENCOURAGING THE PUBLIC TO CONSIDER FUTURE NEEDS AND LOOK FAVORABLY UPON THE JAIL AND DETENTION CENTER REFERENDUM - ADOPTED Next item, 10(C), resolution of support for the jail expansion referendum. MR. DORRILL: Mr. Chairman, I had asked that this be put on the agenda as an add-on request to the commission. And also the __ the one group that is sponsoring the support and political action activities for this, they're looking for you to reserve a resolution number. But they're going to petition you for your support today on the -- the jail and work release center. Bond -- I keep saying bond referendum; it's not correct -- sales tax referendum, and that is scheduled in November. I do have two speakers. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, I just want to raise the question, if it's appropriate for this board as a body, to be making recommendations to the public on how they should vote. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Well, we -- we have not -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Let -- let me comment on that one. There's a distinction here between this one and any other referendum that may be on the -- the ballot. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Because you supported it. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: The -- the distinction is very simply that the county commission brought this one forward. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Right. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I think the -- this is an issue that we, as the board, have to deal with directly probably in the very near future, depending on what the State of Florida does to us concerning our jail space. And the reason that we brought this forward is because it's much more palatable, on the surface at least, to the board of commissioners here to suggest that the public consider paying for this through the sales tax referendum which, seemingly, would last for a period of less than two years rather than have to put it on property taxes for a period of perhaps twenty years under a bond issue. But the choice is not whether or not we're going to have to expand the jail at some point; it's how do we pay for it. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: And I -- I have to say that one of the main reasons I like seeing this on our agenda is because the __ the other tax is -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Property tax? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- is getting a lot of airplay. It's become the dominant of the two for discussion purposes, call- in shows, radio shows, and so forth. And I think what is probably more important, in my opinion, to the future of this community is whether or not we have a place to put the criminals and whether or not we have a place to rehabilitate those that are -- are candidates for that. And this work restitution center, which is such an integral part of this, is being lost in the -- the mallay (phonetic) of everything else that's being discussed. So by this board taking a position on this item, I would hope to unanimous consent, would probably send a message that this is a valid item for the voters to consider. And I think that's getting lost in the discussion. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And -- and as I understand it, and -- you have to turn to the very last page to find this. And so I agree with this airplay issue, that we need to get as much public attention on this as we possibly can so people will know how important it is and that it can get that far. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I think it's inappropriate that the board of commissioners tell the public how to vote. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: That's the way I feel about it too. I don't -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. Well, it looks like we're going to have a 3-to-2 vote then. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: You got your three votes. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Let's just go forward and -- and have our public speakers. MR. DORRILL: Ms. Passidomo. MS. PASSIDOMO: I'm going to defer to Ned Putzel because you already had your fill of me today; so I'll sit out. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm still hungry. MR. DORRILL: And we also have a Victor Neiditz. You'll follow Ned. MR. PUTZEL: Good morning. Thanks for the opportunity to do -- my name is Ned Putzel, citizen of the City of Naples. And I appreciate very much this opportunity, once again, to speak to this august body with respect to this matter. As I'm sure you all know, Ted -- Judge Ted Brousseau and I and -- and Captain Smith have appeared before this board and previous boards on many occasions concerning the work release problem. The jail situation, the chairman spoke to most eloquently. But as -- as regards the work release aspect of it, this is something that is tremendously important, something that all of you and previous boards told us you supported in principle a number of times. And, again, you were good enough to put it on the ballot by your -- your approving the referendum item. As has been said by members of this board, we are very concerned that the public at large in Collier County is not aware of the tremendous benefits, not only to the criminals involved and to their families, but to all of the citizenry of Collier County that will accrue from the adoption of -- of -- of this very short, large sales -- sales tax, which will en -- enable us to go forward. And I would -- with all due respect to my good friend, Commissioner Constantine, for whom I do have respect and regard, I would submit that this is in the county's interest. It is in the interest of the welfare and the safety of the people of this county. And with -- without the support of this group and with -- with its being buried, if you would, at the end of what I'm told are eight or more pages on the ballot, I would think that all of us are going to live to regret it if we don't at least indicate an endorsement of the principle that's behind our desire to go forward. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you, sir. That's it, Mr. Dotrill? MR. DORRILL: No. There's Mr. -- I believe it's Neiditz. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Neiditz. MR. NEIDITZ: Neil, I have copies. MR. DORRILL: Certainly. MR. NEIDITZ: Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Commissioners. I feel somewhat at a disadvantage following the veteran politician, Mayor Putzel. But -- and this is my first time appearing before you folks, so bear with me, please. I -- I'm a resident of Naples living in Park Shore, and I'm speaking for the Taxpayer Action Group. I think I mentioned my name. If I didn't, I'll re -- repeat it. It's Vic Neiditz. Our aversion to criminals should not stampede us into supporting the one-half cent increase in the sales tax to fund and expand the jail; nor should our ability to shift some portion of the capital cost to tourists and -- and visitors stampede us into supporting the project without considering its need and the existence of alternative measures, which can resolve the problem with no increase or a smaller increase in taxes. Let me -- let us be objective and dispassionate in our approach and not rush into raising taxes because it's only a half penny. The fact is that the cost is $27 million, not a half penny. The project consists of two parts which should be considered separately. The smaller part involves construction of a work release center, something new to Collier County, providing for 110 beds at a cost of $2.6 million. Its purpose is to give the presiding judge an opportunity to sentence a nonviolent, rehabilitable offender to something between imprisonment and probation. This is an interesting proposal and deserves thoughtful consideration prior to a vote on its funding. The larger part of the project involves expansion of the Collier County Jail by 256 beds and the provision of additional office space, all for the sum of 24.4 million dollars, including about 6 million for office space. It is in this area we have critical questions and comments. According to the -- one, according to the jail management, about 80 percent of the roughly 550 prisoners in the county jail are awaiting trial or -- or sentencing, making the jail primarily a pipeline in the judicial process. Question: Why are we not able to accelerate the trial and sentencing process through additional court employees or overtime payments and, thereby, reduce the number of prisoners in the pipeline? Wouldn't this be less costly than expanding the jail? Point two, we know that Sheriff Hunter tries to keep the jail full, either with Collier County prisoners or with prisoners from other counties for which the sheriff receives per diem payments. This practice tends to optimize jail cost, and the sheriff should be commended for it. But it also camouflages the real need for prison beds and should not justify expanding the jail so that we can rent beds to other count -- to other counties. Item 3, the proponents of the jail expansion project admit that there is no need for additional beds today. They claim the need will hit us in the future on the basis of historical growth rates. Have these people no confidence in the anticrime, get-tough measures now being initiated federally and locally to make criminal to deter -- I re -- I emphasize deter criminal activity? CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Excuse me, sir. That's -- that's -- MR. NEIDITZ: Pardon? CHAIRMAN NORRIS: That's your time, please. Your time is up. Excuse me, sir. MR. NEIDITZ: Could I have another moment? CHAIRMAN NORRIS: No, sir. MR. NEIDITZ: Well, let me conclude by saying that on the ba -- on this basis we feel that the -- the proposition should be defeated. We feel it is not necessary. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you. MR. DORRILL: Mr. Chairman, I have two others. Captain Smith. MR. NEIDITZ: Thank you. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: In fairness to people we've had on other issues here, we're not going to get into a political debate here today. Now, we were courteous with Mr. Neiditz and let him get in his opponent's side of it, but I don't want to get into a political debate here on this question. I mean, we're -- we're discussing whether or not we're going to pass a resolution here this morning, and I don't want to extend the debate on this. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I have a question specific to the resolution. Mr. Dotrill, assuming the voters approve this -- the half-penny sales tax -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I didn't think -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- the actual final plans, the construction plans, in proceeding with the jail or the work center would come back to this board before becoming a reality; is that correct? MR. DORRILL: We -- we would need to -- to size the project and bring back to the board -- given a project of -- of this size, I would like the board to actually see the plans that are contemplated for both facilities. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: So the public would have the ability and the opportunity to comment at that time as to whether or not the jail expansion, the associated administrative offices, or the work center are necessary. MR. DORRILL: Certainly. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. MR. DORRILL: And -- and then subsequent through the bid process before you award a construction contract. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: So at least two opportunities for public comment. With that, I -- you said there were two registered speakers. Other than getting into a debate on the tax itself, there -- is the second of these two -- MR. DORRILL: Mr. Erlichman. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. Erlichman, we don't want to run a political campaign here for your -- if that's your intention, would you please -- MR. ERLICHMAN: May I -- may I continue with Mr. Neiditz's remarks and finish them, please? CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. Erlichman, we don't want to run a political campaign here and -- MR. ERLICHMAN: It's not a political campaign. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Yes, it is, sir. Your -- your -- MR. ERLICHMAN: I beg to differ. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: We have his comments in writing, you know. What I'd like to do is I'd like to go ahead and put a motion on the floor. It's a three-part motion. The first part of the motion is to encourage the public to consider the future needs of our community regarding jail space and the merits of the work and restitution center. The second part of the motion is to encourage the citizens of Collier County to look favorably upon the half-penny sales tax for jail expansion as a superior option versus funding the necessary expansion solely from ad valorem taxes. The third element of the motion is to inform members of the public that the actual construction of the county jail and work center must receive final approval from the Board of County Commissioners. Those are the three parts of the motion. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: The -- the third part, it seems to me, could -- could confuse people. It's -- I mean, could make them wonder if the money has to be spent on a jail. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, what's the third part again? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: The third part was that I'd like the members of the public to know that the actual construction -- before proceeding, construction of a jail or work center, that this board would have review and approval of that. In other words, it's not a -- by approving the tax, you're not giving a blank check to the sheriff's office to say build what you want how you want when you want. There will be public opportunity to comment on the nature of the expansion and the size of the expansion and that this board has a voice in that. COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I'll second that. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I -- I'm going to vote against it and -- and -- but I want to clarify. I -- I've supported Mayor Putzel and Greg and -- and everyone in this effort. My vote against it isn't necessarily against the project as much as it is I have trouble with the board making endorsements on one side of an issue or another. I -- I don't know that it's appropriate for us to be suggesting how the public should vote on something. It's a -- I want to clarify that for the record. It's not opposed to the issue as much as it is opposed to us telling them how to do it. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I feel the same way. I'm -- I'm going to vote against it also, not that I don't support the -- the jail issue; I certainly do. But I -- I just don't think it's this board's place to be advising the voters, who are infinitely more wisdom -- more wise than we are, how they should vote. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, likewise, in the battle of sound bites, I think this is a form of information that is not being disseminated right now, and that's the reason for making the motion and supporting it is to get the information out. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. With that, we have a motion and a second. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Aye. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Aye. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: That motion passed successfully. Do we have any -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Can we have a recount? PUBLIC COMMENT - GIL ERLICHMAN AND TY AGOSTIN REGARDING THE LAND ACQUISITION ADVISORY COMMITTEE ORDINANCE 96-62 CHAIRMAN NORRIS: -- public comment today? MR. DORRILL: Yes, sir. I've got two. Mr. Erlichman. He'll read his thing in. MR. ERLICHHAN: Good morning, commissioners. My name is Gil -- Gilbert Erlichman. I reside in East Naples, and I'm speaking for myself. Last week, October the 8th, on the Agenda Item 12 -- 12(C)(1) I addressed this board concerning a few issues on -- on the item -- the agenda item under discussion which was -- pardon me -- a 96-34. But there was -- the agenda item concerned either an amended ordinance or a new ordinance. And as of this date, the new ordinance that was done on October 8th was 96-62, which at present is up in Tal -- Tallahassee being approved. And I have a copy of it here which I obtained this morning from the clerk of courts upstairs on the fourth floor. And the -- according to this -- this 96-62, on which I had ~o knowledge when I cast my -- as I said, the -- last week I cast my absentee ballot. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: The motion was -- MR. ERLICHHAN: I was -- did not have any knowledge of what was in this 96-62. And a statement by Mr. Hancock, after I had made my presentation and when he was proposing the a -- the adoption of this ordinance, which will be -- would be approved if the ball - if the ballot was approved by the -- by the electors, he said, The people who have submitted their absentee ballots to date -- and that was October 8th -- did so without knowing one thing about how this is implemented. You voted yes or no without knowing how your money is going to be spent at all, period. Those are his exact words because I -- I -- I taped this -- the session on my home VCR, and I played it to myself, and I got the words. Well, according to this statement by Mr. Hancock, when I voted I didn't know what I was voting on or I didn't have the '- or I didn't have the information, which is absolutely true because I don't have the information on 96-62. So I -- in my opinion, I think that what the board -- the action that the board took last week is something that's going to cloud or will -- is clouding the -- the issue of that particular ballot because the ballot question states ninety -- ninety-six, dash, thirty-four. It does not state anything about 96-62. And if I could afford it, I would -- I would hire an attorney and bring a class action suit against the commission for passing that. Mr. Constantine and Mr. Norris did not vote for it. They were against passing that motion to accept this 96-62, and they wanted to wait until after the election. But the other three commissioners, Mr. Hancock, Miss Hac'kie, and Miss Matthews, voted for it. So this is the only way I can voice my objection to what happened last week, under public comment. And I'm sorry to say this is one of my reasons that I do not trust my government, either federal state or local government, down here. It makes me very, very suspicious as to what hap -- what is happening to -- to me and to the rest of the voters who voted their absentee ballots. Thank you. MR. DORRILL: Mr. Agoston. MR. AGOSTON: Good morning, Commissioners. My name is Ty Agoston. I live in Golden Gate Estates, and I guess I'm representing two of my local grandsons whose lives, essentially, you directly affect. This green tax proposal has received special consideration from its inception. You waived the 10 percent signature that's required normally to place something on the referendum, and at that time there was no explanation found. And there are a lot of lawyers in this country. You can always find an explanation for any side any given time. As the presentation of this proposal progressed, there were changes. There were changes all the time. I lived in New York City for a hundred and some-odd years and very experienced with the various shell games that's being played in New York City, and this almost made me homesick. It came across that every time you wanted to evaluate the proposal, things have changed. The -- there was never a time where you could come up against an issue without it being changed by the next meeting. Now, the working public has very little time or energy to analyze the various proposals, counterproposals, and the various private understandings that apparently gets into this process; and I want to voice my opposition. There are a couple of things I have problem with this in a -- very broad terms. One of them is, I don't understand how could a group that is comprised, primarily people practicing environmental work in the county, for money, can be part of the -- the agenda promoting additional business flowing into their industry. Obviously, they will get a benefit out of it. Mr. Hancock used to work for one of these companies. I would think that he would have to recuse himself from participating in a situation like that, but I -- you know, I have no particular knowledge of your business up here. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Or the law. MR. AGOSTON: You know -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Apparently, you don't understand the law either, Ty. Okay. MR. AGOSTON: The next issue I like to bring up is the way this is being promoted by the -- the other members. As I can see it, there is nobody in Immokalee or Golden Gate Estates or Everglades City or anybody from the other side of 951 who will get any benefit out of this. Those are, essentially, the poor people in the county. Are you guys going to tax these people to pay for the convenience of the much better material of people who live nearer to the beach? I mean, I don't -- I'm not a believer of taking money away from the rich to give it to the poor, but I'm sure as hell not a believer of taking money from the poor to give it to the rich either. The other issue is the composition of the board. There are eight environmentalists on the board that can essentially run the board because, as I understand, the majority compromise -- is at eight. So they don't need any citizen participation, and they can make any decision for whatever unspoken agenda that appears to be in this whole proposal. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you. MR. DORRILL: That's all, Mr. Chairman. Item #14A DISTRICT 5 COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICANTS - TO BE CONSIDERED ON NOVEMBER 5, 1996 CHAIRMAN NORRIS: That's all? Okay. That concludes our morning agenda, and we'll go straight to board communications. Commissioner Matthews? COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Yeah. I -- I have one question. Mr. Weigel, on Janes Scenic Drive when -- when are we going to see those agreements before this board? MR. WEIGEL: Gosh, I -- I think they're all but ready right now. I'll get right back with you because I think we're ready to bring them to the board. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Okay. Thank you. I -- I'd appreciate that, if -- if we can see those rather soon. MR. WEIGEL: Yes, ma'am. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: And, Miss Filson, you had told me earlier today that you have all the applications in for the District 5 CCPC. MS. FILSON: Yes. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: And you had asked if November the 12th would -- would be a -- a good day to hear those. I think I'd like to hear them sooner, if -- if -- if that's possible. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It's the Planning Commission? COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Uh-huh. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Is that what you're saying? COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Planning Commission appointments. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Any particular reason why there's a specific day? COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Well, Ms. Filson was asking if November the 12th was -- was okay. It's certainly okay, but -- but I think because we extended the terms of the existing commission only one month, we should probably do that sooner, not -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Hmm. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: -- not later. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: And so I -- I would like to see November the 5th. Allowing next week is probably not really reasonable. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I certainly have no objection. That makes sense since we extended for a month. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: When were they extended through? Did we have a particular date? MS. FILSON: November 1st. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: When does the Planning Commission meet in -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: November the 7th. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Sounds like we better do it on the 5th. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: If -- if we can -- if we can hear that November the 5th, I'd appreciate it. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: The 5th it is then. Anyone object to the 5th? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No. No. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Commissioner Hancock? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: No, sir. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Commissioner MAc'kie? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No, sir. Thank you. Item #14B BACK LOG OF CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD CASES - DISCUSSED CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Commissioner Constantine? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: One question. Mr. Cautero is here. He may be able to help me with this. But I -- I've heard on two or three occasions -- actually, far more than two or three occasions -- items that are scheduled for our Code Enforcement Board that there is a great backlog of cases and that it takes months to get to the Code Enforcement Board. A, is that accurate; B, if that's the case -- (Commissioner Hancock exited the boardroom.) COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- why doesn't the Code Enforcement Board meet more often in order to catch up; or C, and/or have longer meetings? It just seems to me rather than say, gosh, there's a backlog, it's slow, what are we doing? If there's a backlog, what are we doing to remedy that situation? MR. CAUTERO: Your first question I would answer in the affirmative. There is a backlog. I had a talk with Linda Sullivan, our code enforcement director, about that yesterday. And the reason that she gives me is the Code Enforcement Board has directed staff or I should say requested that staff does not put more than two or three items on a given agenda because some of these cases are taking three and four hours in length. And going beyond the time frame that they may have set would be acceptable to staff, certainly, but maybe not to the board. So I'm in a position now where I'm going to make a request of the Code Enforcement Board chair to possibly look at more meetings per month or extending the meetings out or loading up more items on their agenda. The reason is the Code Enforcement Board has seen some cases go for long periods of time. Lely Barefoot Beach is an anomaly. But we are having some cases take three to four hours in length, and that one took about six. So my goal is to put more on their agenda so we can have more cases finalized quicker. I will submit to you, though, Commissioners, that if -- that if the chair and the board is not amenable to that, I may be coming to you for some relief. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It seems to me the Code Enforcement Board is there to do a particular job. And if the current method isn't working for them to fulfill those duties, then we need to correct that. So if -- if they're not open to that, then I -- I hope you will immediately bring it back to the board, and we'll give direction. Because, I mean, it's just not acceptable that you have a code enforcement case that takes six months before it even is heard. The only other thing is there will be an organizational meeting of the "Save the Carrotwood Group" tonight at seven o'clock at my home. CHAI~ NORRIS: I somehow think that was -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: BYOB? COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Are you having carrot cake? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Are you having carrot cake? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Carrot cake will be available. Item #15B MEETING SCHEDULED FOR 12:30 P.M. WITH DIVISION ADMINISTRATORS AND EMERGENCY SERVICES STAFF REGARDING CURRENT TRACK OF HURRICANE OFF THE COAST OF MEXICO CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. Dorrill, I think you have a couple of important issues for us. MR. DORRILL: I have one. I was notified during your recess that there is a hurricane that has formed down off the coast between Nicaragua and Mexico, and the current track has it passing somewhere between Fort Myers and Naples apparently on Friday. So we've convened a meeting of your division administrators and emergency service people at 12:30 in order to preplan for a conference call from the hurricane center at 3. And only in the event that we think that we need you -- to call you back this evening, I -- I would. Otherwise, you should probably expect to hear from us tomorrow unless the track changes, but I'll be very sensitive to your timing. The board had also asked us -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'd go ahead and make a motion we change the track. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: You think it will listen? Item #15A TIMEKEEPER'S SOFTWARE PROGRAM - DISCUSSED MR. DORRILL: The board had asked us about a month ago, and specifically Mr. Hancock, to -- to come back and tell you what we can do in the way of a time tracking software system. And since he's not here, I don't know whether we should proceed other than you had told us to come back and give you a brief update. We -- we can do that -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, we've got a memo. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: We've got a memo. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We got a memo on it that I thought was -- was very informative and sounded like you're going exactly down the track that I had hoped. MR. DORRILL: Rather than belabor it, I was going to say if -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's probably -- MR. DORRILL: -- if you have some questions, I'm prepared to have this -- to answer your questions. If you want a more formalized presentation, I'm prepared to do that as part of a regular agenda. But you -- you asked us to do this in advance of today, and so we're prepared to answer your questions, if you have any. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I -- I just have really one question -- and you don't have to answer it now; you can -- you can send me a memo -- is that once the information is in the timekeeper, what are we going to do with it and who's going to analyze it? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Do you know -- MR. CAUTERO: Vince Cautero for the record. What we hoped to do with that is to try to show some relationship between the time spent and the fee for the particular permit that someone is applying for. And that analysis will come with a revised fee schedule sometime -- not the current one they were working on for the fee adjustment that's needed, but next year in -- in accordance with the Development Services Advisory Committee's work, which they do yearly. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I -- I -- I do have to say -- and I'm -- I'm sure Miss MAc'Kie's aware of it too -- that our businesses use timekeeper systems, because that's all we have to sell is time. And I must say that for only three people in our office at this time, we spend a day or a day and a half reviewing and analyzing time slips each month. And if -- you know, for a year's time all at one time, you -- you're talking about a lot of analysis. MR. CAUTERO: You're correct. It will take some time to do that. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Okay. MR. DORRILL: That's all that I have, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. Weigel? MR. WEIGEL: Nothing. Thank you. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Miss Filson? MS. FILSON: Nothing. Thank you. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We're adjourned. ***** Commissioner Constantine moved, seconded by Commissioner Hancock, and carried unanimously, that the following items under the consent agenda be approved and/or adopted: Item #16A1 RECORDING OF THE FINAL PLAT OF "WILSHIRE PINES" O.R. Book Pages Item #16A2 AGREEMENT FOR THE FLORIDA DEPARTHENT OF ENVIRONHENTAL PROTECTION ARTIFICIAL REEF GRANT FOR THE ARTIFICIAL REEF PROGRAM OF COLLIER COUNTY - IN THE AMOUNT OF $25,000.00 Item #16A3 RECORDING OF THE FINAL PLAT OF "HIDDEN SANCTUARY VILLAGE AT THE VERANDAS AT TIGER ISLAND" - WITH CASH BOND AS SECURITY, CONSTRUCTION & MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT AND STIPULATIONS Item #16A4 WATER AND SEWER FACILITIES ACCEPTANCE FOR NORTH COLLIER HOSPITAL O.B. EXPANSION - WITH PERFORMANCE BOND AND STIPULATIONS O.R. Book Pages Item #16A5 WATER FACILITIES ACCEPTANCE FOR BAY COLONY GOLF CLUB MAINTENANCE FACILITY - WITH CASH BOND AS SECURITY AND STIPULATIONS O.R. Book Pages Item #16B1 - This item has been deleted Item #1682 BUDGET AMENDMENT RECOGNIZING CARRY FORWARD FROM FY 1996 FOR FUND 589, OFFICE OF CAPITAL PROJECTS MANAGEMENT - IN THE AMOUNT OF $30,000.00 Item #1683 RECOGNITION AND APPROPRIATION OF PRIOR YEAR CDD APPLICATION FEE REVENUE TO FUND COHMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT APPLICATION PROCESSING COSTS Item #1684 STIPULATED FINAL JUDGMENT FOR PARCEL NO. 101, COLLIER COUNTY V. LAMAR GABLE, TRUSTEE, ET AL, CASE NO. 94-2130-CA-01-TB, EMINENT DOMAIN CASE FOR C.R. 941 ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY, CIE NOS. 10 AND 11 AND ASSOCIATED FEES AND COSTS - IN THE AMOUNT OF $12,126.84 Item #1685 RESOLUTION 96-465 AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF A HIGHWAY SWEEPING MAINTENANCE MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT WITH THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION; RESOLUTION 96-466 AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF A HIGHWAY MOWING MAINTENANCE MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT WITH THE STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Item #1686 BID #96-2570 AWARDED TO VARIOUS VENDORS LISTED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY, IN THE ESTIMATED A_MOUNT OF $1,183,579.00, FOR CHEMICALS FOR THE PUBLIC WORKS DIVISION Item #1687 REAPPROPRIATION OF TOURIST DEVELOPMENT TAX FUNDING, IN THE A_MOUNT OF $926,172.00, FOR CATEGORY "A" PROJECTS DURING FY 96/97 Item #1688 AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO THE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH METCALF & EDDY FOR THE NCRWTP8-HGD EXPANSION PROJECT Item #16C1 RESOLUTION 96-467 AMENDING THE COLLIER COUNTY PARKS AND RECREATION FACILITIES LICENSE AND FEE POLICY NO. 96-364 Item #16C2 BUDGET AMENDMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF $15,000.00, RECOGNIZING PRIVATE DONATIONS MADE TO MADE TO COLLIER COUNTY IN SUPPORT OF SALARY COST OF A VEGETABLE AGENT'S POSITION Item #16C3 AGREEMENT FOR THE 1996-97 FUNDING CONTRIBUTION, IN THE AMOUNT OF $710,400.00, TO THE DAVID LAWRENCE MENTAL HEALTH CENTER, INC. Item #16D1 BUDGET AMENDMENTS RECOGNIZING PROJECTED CARRY FORWARD IN THE AMOUNT OF $34,170.00, FOR PROJECTS IN FUND 301 Item #16El RESOLUTION 96-468 GRANTING A GRANDFATHER CERTIFICATE TO EAGLE CREEK, UTILITY II, INC., FOR THE PROVISION OF WASTEWATER SERVICE IN SPECIFIC UNINCORPORATED AREAS OF COLLIER COUNTY, CONSISTENT WITH THE CERTIFICATE PREVIOUSLY GRANTED BY THE FLORIDA PUBLIC SERVICE COHMISSION Item #16E2 RESOLUTION 96-469 GRANTING A GRANDFATHER CERTIFICATE TO ROOKERY BAY UTILITY FOR THE PROVISION OF WASTEWATER SERVICE TO ITS ESTABLISHED SERVICE AREA, CONSISTENT WITH THE CERTIFICATE PREVIOUSLY GRANTED BY THE FLORIDA PUBLIC SERVICE COHMISSION Item #16E3 RESOLUTION 96-470 GRANTING A GRANDFATHER CERTIFICATE TO ORANGE TREE UTILITY COMPANY OF THE PROVISION OF WATER SERVICE TO ITS SERVICE AREA, CONSISTENT WITH THE CERTIFICATE PREVIOUSLY GRANTED BY THE FLORIDA PUBLIC SERVICE COHMISSION Item #16E4 RESOLUTION 96-471 GRANTING A GRANDFATHER CERTIFICATE TO ORANGE TREE UTILITY COMPANY FOR THE PROVISION OF WASTEWATER SERVICE TO ITS WASTEWATER SERVICE AREA, CONSISTENT WITH THE CERTIFICATE PREVIOUSLY GRANTED BY THE FLORIDA PUBLIC SERVICE COHMISSION Item #16E5 BUDGET AMENDMENT NOS. 97-003 AND 97-004 Item #16G1 CERTIFICATE OF CORRECTION TO THE TAX ROLLS AS PRESENTED BY THE PROPERTY APPRAISER'S OFFICE 1993 Real Property No. Dated 249 10/01/96 1995 Real Property No. Dated 255 09/30/96 Item #1662 SATISFACTION OF LIEN FOR SERVICES OF THE PUBLIC DEFENDER Item #1663 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: There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 11:41 a.m. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS CONTROL JOHN L. NORRIS, CHAIRMAN ATTEST: DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK These minutes approved by the Board on as presented or as corrected TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF DONOVAN COURT REPORTING BY: Helissa Hilligan