Loading...
BCC Minutes 12/01/1998 RDecember 1, 1998 Page TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMHISSIONERS Naples, Florida, December 1, 1998 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, 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 9:00 a.m. in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRPERSON: Barbara B. Berry Pamela S. Hac'Kie John C. Norris Timothy J. Constantine James D. Carter ALSO PRESENT: Item #3 Robert Fernandez, County Administrator David Weigel, County Attorney AGENDA, CONSENT AGENDAAND SUMMARY AGENDA - APPROVED AND/OR ADOPTED WITH CHANGES CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Good morning. I'd like to call to order the December 1st meeting of the Collier County Board of Commissioners. We're pleased to have with us this morning the Reverend David Woemet of the East Methodist Church. If you would rise for the invocation and remain standing for the pledge of allegiance. REVEREND WOERNER: 'O mighty God, we invite thy divine presence as we deliberate the business of Collier County. We thank You for our forefathers who helped to develop this great county, and who have preserved it for our welfare. We ask for your guidance in each matter before this commission. Hay the commissioners be guided by the welfare of their constituents. Help them be fair and honest in all matters before them. And we thank You for this great country and those who have chosen to serve us in the political arena. Hay your blessings remain. Amen. (Pledge of allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you, Reverend Woemet. Mr. Fernandez, do we have any changes to our agenda this morning, please? MR. FERNANDEZ: Yes, Madam Chairman, we do. Good morning, commissioners. First change is to add item 5(C)(1), which is a presentation by John Yonkosky, of the commercial paper rebate. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: A brief presentation by John Yonkosky? MR. FERNANDEZ: Very brief. He's going to present to you a check of the rebate amount that we received in Tallahassee. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We already spent it. MR. FERNANDEZ: The next is to add item 10(A), reconsideration of Lely guardhouse issue. County attorney's request. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Is that just to vote on whether to reconsider or not? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I think we already did that, didn't we? MR. FERNANDEZ: Yes, you already voted to reconsider. This is the reconsideration -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Oh, I'm sorry, I'm reading the wrong item. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Yeah, that needs to be on a printed agenda. MR. FERNANDEZ: Okay. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Considering the public nature of that, Madam Chairman, I think Commissioner Hac'Kie is probably right, that needs to be advertised. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: That's fine with me. MR. FERNANDEZ: Okay, the next item is to add item 10(B), consideration -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Just for clarification. I'm sorry, but on that, will that be on next week's agenda, the Lely guardhouse issue? Is it too late for that -- MR. FERNANDEZ: Yes, we'll be able to get it on the printed agenda for next week. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Because it -- just for people who are here that it hadn't -- there's no -- we don't think there's been adequate public notice, since it wasn't in the printed agenda. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The concern being as public as this has been, we don't want anybody from either side of the issue to think we're sneaking something through. MR. FERNANDEZ: Okay. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: And I was unaware until I walked in this morning, so I think it's best that we continue this. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: 'Til when? COHMISSIONER CARTER: Prior to the -- MR. FERNANDEZ: Okay, next one, Madam Chairman, is add item 10(B). This is a request for consideration of the motion to reconsider the agenda item ll(A)(2) from the November 24th board meeting. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: This was actually the one I was going to ask the question on. MR. FERNANDEZ: Yes. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: This is just -- are we voting yea or nay to reconsider, or are we actually reconsidering? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: You have to vote yea or nay to reconsider first. MR. FERNANDEZ: And only that. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: And only that. MR. FERNANDEZ: Only whether or not to reconsider. If the vote is positive, it will be placed on the agenda in two weeks. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: And we'll -- and you'll hear why the concerns are what they are. HR. FERNANDEZ: Next item is to move 5(A)(1) to 5(C)(2). This is presentation of outstanding public interest project award from the Department of Environmental Protection, Bureau of Mine Reclamation for the State Road 951 Burrow Pit at the entrance to Fiddler's Creek development. Staff's request. Next is to move item 16(H)(2) to ll(A)(1). This is a transfer of monies from the general fund so that the county probation department can start and maintain a residential electronic monitoring program. County attorney's request. And the final change is to move item 17(A) to 12(C)(1). This is the summary agenda item. The recommendation to adopt an ordinance amending ordinance number 90-60 relating to the levy of two percent tourist development tax and an additional one percent tax throughout Collier County pursuant to the Local Option Tourist Development Act, providing for development to section III -- I'm sorry, providing for amendment to section III concerning the use of tax revenue to expand category to include shoreline protection, enhancement, cleanup, restoration of inland lakes and rivers to which there is public access. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That was my request, and it's only -- you all know I have a concern about changing the tourist tax ordinance in any way. That's so I can record that vote, not -- I promise not to have a long debate on it or anything. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Fernandez, I apologize, could you repeat the item just before that one? MR. FERNANDEZ: Item just before that was item -- to move item 16(H)(2) to ll(A)(1). That's the transfer of monies from the general fund so that the probation department can start and maintain a residential electronic monitoring program. Request of the county attorney. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay, thank you. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay, is that all, Mr. Fernandez? MR. FERNANDEZ: That is all. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Hac'Kie, any changes? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No, ma'am. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Norris? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I will have one short item under 10 -- I guess that would be 10(C)? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: 10(C), okay. And it is? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: It concerns yet another letter to the Marco City Council. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We ought to get a red phone for you, Commissioner Norris, a direct line. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. Commissioner Constantine? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I have no changes. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Carter? COMMISSIONER CARTER: No changes. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Nor do I have any. Do I have a motion? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I'll move approval of the agenda, the consent agenda and the summary agenda as amended. COHMISSIONER CARTER: CHAIRPERSON BERRY: All in favor? Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Item #5B1 I'll second. Okay, we have a motion and a second. Hotion carries five-zero. EHPLOYEE SERVICE AWARDS - PRESENTED ***Since item 5(A) has been moved to 5(C)(2), our first award this morning, we have a service award. Is Mr. Ron Nino here? We're rewarding Ron this morning for 10 years in the planning services department. (Applause.) Item #5C1 PRESENTATION BY JOHN YONKOSKY REGARADING THE COHMERCIAL PAPER REBATE - CHECK PRESENTED IN THE AMOUNT OF $11,458.59 CHAIRPERSON BERRY: ***And the next item on our agenda is Hr. John Yonkosky with the commercial paper rebate. MR. YONKOSKY: Good morning, Chairman, commissioners. Commissioner Constantine, I heard what you said, so I will be brief. But I would like to give you a brief update this morning, in addition to the rebate check, on commercial paper program. This Board of County Commissioners was -- in April of 1991 created, along with four other counties, the commercial paper program. It's commonly -- well, it's the local government finance commission program is the formal name, but it's commonly known as the commercial paper program. This program is administered on your behalf by the Florida Association of Counties. And the program has been very, very successful. Over the last seven and a half years, this program has provided over 600 million dollars worth of low interest capital improvement loans to various cities and counties throughout the State of Florida. In fact, there's been 14 counties participating, two cities, one school board and one port authority has borrowed money through this program. The -- initially the costs were set at $4,000 per million dollars, the actual issuance cost. That's come down over the years to, because of the success of the program, to approximately $2,000 per million dollars issued. And that's one of the major purposes I'm here today. The commission, your commission, has initiated a policy to rebate to those people who have borrowed money at the $4,000 per million to eventually -- that rebate program will bring those entities down to the $2,000 per million. Therefore, I have a mockup of a check here today for $11,458.59. And eventually, the county will receive back $40,000, because that's the total amount that the county started out with at paying the $4,000. So I would like -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So you'll bring back three more of these. MR. YONKOSKY: Yes, sir, I sure will. I'll be back in the future, near future, I hope, with the rest of them. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you. (Applause.) CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We received this at the Florida Association of Counties' meeting up in Tallahassee a couple weeks ago. That money has been spent. We had a great time. COHMISSIONER CARTER: Biggest challenge is Barbara getting the check back in the plane. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: That's the reason we gave that job to John, so he could bring it back. Item #5C2 PRESENTATION OF AN OUTSTANDING PUBLIC INTEREST PROJECT AWARD FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION BUREAU OF MINE RECLAMATION FOR THE STATE ROAD 951 BORROW PIT AT THE ENTRANCE TO THE FIDDLER'S CREEK DEVELOPMENT Anyway, our next item is the outstanding public interest award. Outstanding public interest award. MR. HULLER: Good morning, Commissioners. For the record, my name is Russ Mullet, and I'm an engineer with your transportation services department. On October 13th, 1998, the Department of Environmental Protection, Bureau of Mine Reclamation, awarded an outstanding public interest project award to Collier County for a burrow pit project located at the entrance of Fiddler's Creek development on State Road 951. The Transportation Services Department permitted that project, the State DOT received the fill material for their 951 project, and Fiddler's Creek restored and beautified the lakes. I would like to thank the Fiddler's Creek development participants, Mark Strain (Phonetic) and Jack HcKenna, who received this award on behalf of Collier County from the Board of County Commissioners at the National Association of State Land Reclamationists in Jacksonville, Florida. I would also like to thank George Archibald, the former transportation services director, for the genesis of this partnership. On behalf of the Transportation Services Department, I would like to present this award to the Board of County Commissioners. Thank you. (Applause.) CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you very much. Certainly a nice plaque, and I think probably the best place, Russ, that this ought to go over into the transportation department to be displayed over there. So we'll let you take this back with you. Thank you ever so much. MR. HULLER: Thank you. Item #7A LARRY BRADLEY REPRESENTING HAYFLOWER CONGREGATIONAL UNITED CHURCH REQUESTING A REFUND OF WATER AND SEWER IMPACT FEES - STAFF TO BRING BACK AS A REGULAR AGENDA ITEM IN TWO WEEKS CHAIRPERSON BERRY: The next item is a public petition brought forward by Mr. Larry Bradley, representing the Mayflower Congregational United Church. Mr. Bradley, you have 10 minutes. I think -- are you familiar with the public petition process? MR. BRADLEY: Well, not really, but this shouldn't take 10 minutes. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. Well, you have 10 minutes to -- MR. BRADLEY: Thank you. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- plead your case. MR. BRADLEY: Perhaps the best thing would be to read the letter that I read -- sent to Mr. Fernandez. My name's Larry Bradley, and I'm a member of the Mayflower Congregational United Church of Christ. And I requested this appointment with the public petition process to appeal a decision by the water and sewer department to deny our request for a refund of $6,300 that were paid in 1993. Please let me explain. Since 1990, a small group of Mayflower Church members have been meeting weekly in rented quarters at the Lely Elementary School. In 1993, the members decided to build a church on property that was purchased on the corner of County Road 951 and Lely Cultural Boulevard. On Hay 28th, 1993, we made $7,926.22 for a building permit and miscellaneous fees, plus $6,300 to the water and sewer department for impact fees. The property consisted of approximately seven and a half acres, and the congregation became aware that a prior environmental study found red cockaded woodpeckers on the immediately adjacent property, and the wetlands on our property. Four of the acres would not -- could not be used for building and had been placed in a conversation (sic) area. That left us with only three and a half acres on which to build. We had to abandon our plans and to look for new property. It was our understanding all along that most or all of these fees for the -- would be applied to our new building when another property was located. We finally found property on County Barn Road, which is directly across from the equipment shed that you have, and spent almost a year going through the permitting process. In August, 1998, we applied for transfer or refund of these fees, but the water and sewer fund -- refund was denied and we were advised that we should have applied for the refund by March, 1994 to qualify. The building permit and road impact fees were promptly repaid. Please understand that our congregation, now under the leadership of Reverend Robert E. Townsend, consists mainly of retirees, and there is a constant change of leadership as age and infirmities and death take their toll. None of the current building committee members were aware that there was a time restriction for this refund. Nothing was done on that original property by the water and sewer department. No sewers were dug, no meters were installed, and the property sits there today as pristine and undeveloped as it was when we gave it up in 1993. We are currently building our first building on County Barn Road, and it should be completed early next year. Not surprisingly, our small congregation, we're less than 150 members, has taken on a large debt load, and the $6,300 represents a considerable amount for us to live with. The water and sewer department has had the use of our money, interest free, for five years, and we respectfully ask that the commissioners authorize a refund so that it may be applied to God's work and to the betterment of our community. And I thank you. Are there any questions? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Any questions of Mr. Bradley? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Questions for staff. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. MR. BRADLEY: Okay, thank you. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you. MR. ILSCHNER: Good morning, Madam Chairman. Ed Ilschner, for the record. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Ilschner -- MR. ILSCHNER: Yes, sir. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: -- did Mr. Bradley accurately describe the situation? MR. ILSCHNER: Yes, he did, sir. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. I believe I understood him to say that his road impact fees and some other impact fees were refunded but not the water and sewer. Is there a difference in the ordinance between the two? MR. ILSCHNER: Yes, sir, there is, Commissioner Norris. The transportation road impact fee ordinance allows for it to be reimbursed if the property -- a building permit is not exercised. Under the utility ordinance, a 90-day period is allowed, and if you don't exercise your building permit after that period, then the fee paid under that ordinance is retained with the individual property for which the building permit was taken out. It stays with the property. The reason for that is when we were developing a utility system, they did not want to have these fees become volatile. They had to have the money available. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I understand. I guess then for our county attorney, do we have -- does the Board of County Commissioners have the ability then to refund this fee? MR. WEIGEL: My staff review indicates that you do. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: That we do. MR. WEIGEL: You do. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Then I'll make a motion that we bring this back at a -- within two weeks to hear it before the board. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll second that. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Yeah, it sounds like that it's just a glitch, an oversight. I'd like to work with them on it. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I think so as well. Perhaps if there was change in leadership and so forth -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Right. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- they didn't realize that one road -- or the road impact fee was certainly different than the water/sewer. And so we need to, I think, take that into consideration. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And just for clarification, my second will be contingent upon recognition of the unique circumstances regarding -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Ditto. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Absolutely. Commissioner Carter? COHMISSIONER CARTER: It would seem to me, perhaps if we could do something with the ordinance to get it in sync with the road impact fee ordinance. Is there a way that we could avoid this in the future? I don't know if this was a unique situation, but it seems to me this is a decision that could have been made by staff if it was already in sync with what we do with the road impact fees. We would not have had the glitch that we're going through this morning. MR. ILSCHNER: Staff has discussed this and we feel this particular provision is outmoded at this point in time, and that I certainly would recommend to the board that at your direction staff would modify to bring it in line with the road impact fee ordinance with respect to the reimbursement provision. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I think that's fair. And I think if the -- if we have a consensus here from the board, I think that that is something we'd certainly like to take a look at -- COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Madam Chair? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- at the same time. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I would like to look at that, but I'd like to know the rationale, why it was different in the first place. I assume it's because it goes with the property. Even if it's undeveloped, we may have gone ahead and put water and sewer in. Or -- MR. ILSCHNER: I think the rationale was we were a growing infant utility system and had to depend upon those revenue sources. That's not the case today. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. MR. ILSCHNER: That's the big change. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. It just certainly needs to be reviewed and another -- okay, Mr. Bradley, it looks like we're going to be reviewing this, and I think we can make some -- take some considerations here. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Yeah, I made a -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We may have a Christmas gift for you. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: -- formal motion, but I suppose that we could just give staff direction to bring it back in two weeks rather than -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We'll do whatever. If you want to make it in a motion, that's -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I already did. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: You did? And we have a second for it. We can vote on that. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: All in favor? Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRPERSON BERRY: It will come back in two weeks. Motion carries. Item #SA1 TERRANCE KEPPLE REPRESENTING BOY SCOUTS OF AMERICA, TROOP 274, REQUESTING A WAIVER OF A TEMPORARY USE PERMIT FEE FOR AN ANTIQUE AND CLASSIC CAR SHOW TO BE HELD ON DECEMBER 12, 1998 AT 2550 IMMOKALEE ROAD - APPROVED Okay, moving on then. Next item, this is a very difficult one. This has to do with the annual car show, I believe, up at -- is this up at Sam's? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Motion to approve. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay, we have a motion and a second for approval of waiving the permit fee. Any discussion? Any public speakers on this item? MR. FERNANDEZ: No. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: All right. I'll call the question. All in favor? Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries five-zero. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Terry, just make sure there's a couple of late Sixties era Buicks there for me. Item #8A2 OPTIONS FOR THE CREATION OF A PLAN OF DEVELOPMENT FOR THE AREA OF NORTH NAPLES LOCATED EAST OF U.S. 41, SOUTH OF THE COLLIER-LEE COUNTY LINE, WEST OF INTERSTATE 75, AND NORTH OF IMMOKALEE ROAD, AND TO PROVIDE A COMPLETION SCHEDULE FOR EACH OF THE OPTIONS PROPOSED - REPORT PRESENTED AND DIRECTION TO MOVE FORWARD WITH OPTION 2 CHAIRPERSON BERRY: The next item, the creation of a plan of development for the area of North Naples, located east of U.S. 41, south of the Lee/Collier line, north of Immokalee Road and west of 1-75. MR. MULHERE: Thank you -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Mr. Mulhere. MR. MULHERE: -- for the record, Bob Mulhere, planning director. The purpose of this agenda item is to provide the board with staff recommendations relative to the creation of this plan for development of this area of North Naples and to receive some additional direction from the board. As you are aware, on November the 10th, then Commissioner Hancock made a presentation to the board, at which time the board did direct staff to work on the development of this plan, and staff felt that we needed a little further direction and clarification with respect to the direction to take on the development of this plan. We've provided in the executive summary three options, and our recommendation is for the creation of an overlay district in the Land Development Code. We have in the past amended the comprehensive plan and placed the overlay district -- an overlay district that was a similar fashion into the comprehensive plan, but staff is not of the opinion that that is necessary. And in addition, the time frame for that type of activity is approximately two years. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And Bob, can I just interrupt you -- MR. MULHERE: Yes. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- to remind the board that this is sort of the same discussion that we've had about the Gateway Triangle redevelopment and other areas where I thought it was already sort of established as a policy of the board that we would not give the state a stick to beat us with in the comp. plan, if we could avoid that, and that overlays were a much more efficient way of going about it. It's the way that we hope to do the redevelopment plan for the Gateway Triangle and probably Bayshore and other parts of East Naples. Seems to me that it just doesn't even bear much discussion that an overlay is the way to go. MR. MULHERE: And I think the only additional information that I'd like to just get on the record is that there are some issues relative to the density reduction efforts that will be related to this task and need to be intertwined. And also, that I think it's important to be aware that some of the property owners up there have already taken significant steps in developing their property. Dynabel and Livingston Road Country Club, Bonita Bay Properties, are in the process of acquiring jurisdictional permits and working with the region, and they've indicated to me that they would be submitting plans for development in the very near future. So it's important that we begin to work with those property owners, and that's why I bring it to the board's attention. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. In this second option, does this give the board still the flexibility in the development of commercial centers, or is this going to make us not in compliance with our Growth Management Plan? MR. HULHERE: No, Commissioner Berry, I believe that by developing an overlay we can structure that such that it would be consistent with the Growth Management Plan and would still provide flexibility for locating the commercial development within each project or perhaps even comprehensively. Now, I can't really answer that until I see the structure. There may -- there may be a requirement for a comprehensive plan amendment, but our efforts would be to avoid that, to develop something in working with the property owners where that is not necessary. COHMISSIONER CARTER: If I'm tracking you, this is -- we're looking at the part of our urban development plan, this -- we've had some discussion about this. Is this fitting into that process, and will you be involving the Second District as public forum or as a public hearing so where they can have an opportunity to participate in this process? MR. HULHERE: Yes, Commissioner Carter. We'll have several public hearings. And, in fact, if -- we can make an effort, an additional effort, to work with the Second District Association and any other associations, public associa -- or civic associations in North Naples which -- who wish to participate in the development of this process, that would be no problem. COHMISSIONER CARTER: Okay. Because I'm concerned about uniformity here in the things that we're doing. We're having some things developed in -- particularly along 41, on out-parcels that are not enhancing the community. We have projects that start, they look good and they do a great job. And then the out-parcels, it seems like yes, they're meeting the codes, they are working with our commercial design standards, but they're just doing a minimum effort on this thing. And we're getting what I call neon creep along 41. We're getting these people that are beginning to do things and start a Ruby Tuesday, and then we've got a water thing up there, and then we -- Villa Victoria decides they've got to have a neon sign, and now we've got a Longhorn Steakhouse that's got neon signs all over it. And I'm really concerned that whatever we're doing here, that we can maintain control of this. We may have to change some codes and we may have to change some standards. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You have just turned tomorrow's Naples Daily quote of the day, neon creep. COHMISSIONER CARTER: Neon creep. Well, thank you, Commissioner. MR. HULHERE: Commissioner Carter, I would suggest that there are probably a number of different ways to address that issue. But -- for example, tomorrow evening in the Land Development Code, the initial Land Development Code hearing, there will be -- there are some amendments to the architectural standards. I'm not sure that those get to the issues that you've raised here, but that perhaps would be a good opportunity for the board to provide some additional direction to staff in that respect, if that's the board's desire. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Well, looking at all of this and what you're proposing to us, I don't have a problem with it. I want to make sure that we get at what we want to look like and we don't want some of these things to happen. And I'm sure if it's happening in North Naples, it's happening in other parts of the county. And I'm very concerned about that. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Well, I think one of the things on this particular item, that has to do with this traditional neighborhood design and kind of our interest in going in that direction. And the main thing, too, if we can create something similar to this, or something that looks like this that will help reduce traffic, I mean, I think that is my biggest interest is trying to -- with the short trips -- obviously we're going to have the long trips, people going to work and so forth, but if we can somehow cut down on the short trips by having the commercial -- some commercial located within some of these areas, it will cut down on the short trips, which hopefully will help in our infrastructure. COMMISSIONER CARTER: And are we looking at designs that get more to the -- I'm going to say the more open communities, less gated communities, more open to the neighborhood so we have this free flow? MR. MULHERE: Yes, Commissioner Carter. That's one of the -- one of the issues that we'll be discussing shortly as part of the recommendations for the density reduction initiative. But as well, that's one of the issues that is included in this development of this plan from North Naples in terms of reducing the traffic impacts. One of the ways that you can do that, obviously, is by having a community that's either accessible -- that's accessible both from a pedestrian perspective but as well vehicular. And those would be -- and exactly how we accomplish that, whether it's through an overriding regulation or through an incentive is what we need to work on here to develop a plan that would in fact cause that to happen. And keeping in mind the private property rights, we need to develop something that will cause that to happen. And as Commissioner Berry said, the traffic impact reduction initiatives, there are several things that we are looking at with the board's direction. As you may recall, one of those is looking at locating the commercial activity so it's accessible both from the exterior and the interior of the project, and also, looking for opportunities to allow for occupational opportunities within the development itself that would cause the trips to be lowered. And those elements are all included in what we will bring back to you. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay, any other questions? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: No. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Do we have any other public speakers on this item? MR. FERNANDEZ: No, Madam Chairman. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: That was report only, right? MR. MULHERE: That was, thank you. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Thank you. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. And I think staff has our concerns or questions, so you know what we're thinking. Maybe you know what we're thinking. MR. MULHERE: No, I think I do, clearly, thank you. COHHISSIONER CARTER: So we're really moving to go with our option two, is that what they're recommending that we pursue? MR. HULHERE: That's what we're recommending. It's probably the most -- the least time -- it's the most time sensitive. We feel that we can accomplish that in approximately one year. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: As opposed to two plus. MR. MULHERE: As opposed to two plus, correct. COMMISSIONER CARTER: or we just say -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: COMMISSIONER NORRIS: COMMISSIONER CARTER: COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: overlay. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Does that require any motion on our part, Direction to staff. Just a report for today. Okay. And direction to go forward with the Exactly. Item #9A REPORT TO THE BOARD WITH RESPECT TO THE LAWSUIT ENTITLED LAVERNE BLANFORD V. COLLIER COUNTY, ET AL., CASE NO. 97-209-CIV-FTH-26D/DIRECTION - STAFF TO OFFER SETTLEMENT UP TO $10,000 WITH PREJUDICE; IF NO SETTLEMENT ACCEPTED THEN STAFF TO PROCEED TO COURT Okay, the next item then is item 9(A), report to the board with respect to the lawsuit, case number 97-209. MR. PIVACEK: Good morning, board. Larry Pivacek, outside counsel for Collier County in this matter. As you can see from the memo that I've written, this is a report to the board on the status of this case. At this point in time, this case is just about ready for trial. It was actually on the December trial docket in Tampa. It's been moved to Fort Myers, it is my understanding, and will probably be tried in January or February. So at this point in time what myself and staff are looking for are -- first of all, I need to tell you where the plaintiff is with respect to settlement of this lawsuit, whether or not you want to accept or reject that offer. At this point in time they're in the neighborhood of $40,000 to resolve the lawsuit. What I'm advising the board is that if you wanted to accept that amount of money, the case would almost definitely be settled. In the alternative, you can authorize me to give some amount of range or money with respect to how much money the board would be willing to settle the lawsuit for, and at that point in time I would counteroffer to the plaintiff's attorney, or the board can simply direct me to go ahead and prosecute the defense of this case with respect to a trial. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner -- MR. PIVACEK: And that's it. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- Constantine? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: How much are we likely to spend, if any, in case we go to trial? MR. PIVACEK: My estimate at this point in time, based on the fact that outside counsel for the co-defendants have been released because the co-defendants have been dropped from the case, is in the neighborhood of 10 to $15,000. COMMISSIONER CARTER: How much do we have in the case? MR. PIVACEK: I don't know. MR. OLLIFF: Between 30 and $35,000. MR. PIVACEK: Between 30 and $35,000. And Commissioner Carter, what I'd remind to the board is that pursuant to county resolution, when co-defendants were named in their individual capacity, former county employees, we had -- the board had to assign them outside counsel, and so that's the reason for the rather large expense at this point in time. But we're 30 or $35,000 to date. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I frankly would much rather pay you the 10 or $15,000 that it's going to take to litigate the case than to fold here. Because it appears to me, based on the facts, that it isn't a good case for the plaintiff. But considering the fact that if we were to pursue the case, we'd spend 10 or 15 on you and then if by some fluke we lost, we'd also -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Add more. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- you know, would pay damages, we'd pay the other side's attorneys fees, as I understand it. It seems to me it would be prudent to authorize you to negotiate a settlement up to $10,000, but otherwise, to go forward. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I agree. As distasteful as that is, if the choices are $10,000 and be done with it or $10,000 and still have a risk of exposure, well, the choice is obvious. I don't like that, but I think it's the better of the two options. COMMISSIONER CARTER: What have we offered in the past? I mean, I agree with that. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Forty. COMMISSIONER CARTER: It's -- this is legalized extortion. But anyhow, what do we -- what have we offered them and what have they rejected? MR. PIVACEK: Commissioner Carter, at the mediation we offered a nominal sum of money, 2,500 to $3,000, to settle the case. We didn't feel we had the authority to offer more money than that without coming to the board and asking you about this. The only thing the board needs to realize about this type of case is this is a federal lawsuit, it's pursued under the constitution and federal statutes. Commissioner Mac'Kie is right, if we lose this lawsuit in even a very minimal amount, you know, $1,000, $10,000, we are going to be liable for the other side's attorneys fees, plus the cost of defense. And additionally, the board just needs to recognize, as a federal lawsuit, there are no sovereign immunity caps of $100,000. So the board just needs to understand that. As the decision goes, those are the exposures that the county faces. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The case you described to us in chambers -- I assume you had the same conversation with the other four commissioners -- sounds as though it's very strong in our favor, very weak on the plaintiff's part. I don't know if you want to make that a motion, Commissioner Mac'Kie '- COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: It's a motion. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- I'll second that. COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: It's a motion to authorize up to $10,000 as a settlement and otherwise to go forward with the litigation, with the trial. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. We have a motion and we have a second. I don't -- I assume we have no public speakers on this. MR. FERNANDEZ: No speakers. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Norris? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Yeah, just one final thing. MR. PIVACEK: Yes, sir. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: The settlement would be with prejudice? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Oh, yeah. MR. PIVACEK: With? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: With. MR. PIVACEK: With prejudice, yes. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Of course. MR. PIVACEK: This would completely and finally end the lawsuit, should we settle for that mount of money. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: All right. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay, we have a motion and a second. All in favor? Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries five-zero. MR. PIVACEK: Thank you, board. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you. Item #10B CONSIDERATION OF MOTION TO RECONSIDER AGENDA ITEM #11A2 OF NOVEMBER 24, 1998 MEETING "DISCUSSION WITH THE BCC AND THE CLERK OF COURTS RE BOND REFINANCING - BOARD TO RECONSIDER IN TWO WEEKS Next item on the agenda is the reconsideration for support for the bond refinancing. I placed this on the agenda after learning that perhaps we may have jeopardized our bonding ability, and I am very concerned about this, how this is being viewed, not only locally but throughout the state and nationally now. And I think we have some problems, and I would like to have these problems brought forward and then the board take a vote on whether they want to reconsider the action that was taken last week. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Madam Chairman, I think each of us have heard some concerns. I would say let's go ahead and -- there's no harm in hearing all those issues and hearing the discussions on them and then deciding what to do. So if the question is do we bring this back in a week or in two weeks and reconsider it, I don't have any problem with that, regardless of what we end up doing. I think if more information needs to be aired, we ought to go ahead and do that. And I don't need to hear a whole explanation trying to convince me that we need to hear more information. COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Because I'd like to just be clear. I mean, what we did last week, what I understood that we did last week, is we said dear clerk, if you have -- if everything you've told us is true, this sounds like something that should be pursued and we will support your pursuit of it. We, however, need more information. We ask your staff to come back in two weeks to give us a report on whether or not we would join in the lawsuit. I kind of feel like that's where we still are. We still need information to know whether or not we join the lawsuit. The clerk has filed a lawsuit, it's filed, there's nothing -- you know, we don't get to decide whether or not he files a lawsuit. He's done that already. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: No, I understand that. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And -- but it is worth clarifying -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We're scheduled to hear that for next week, is it? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Well, I guess -- is it next week we're going to get that report? MR. FERNANDEZ: Next week will be the staff report. If you vote to reconsider, that issue will come back up on the following week, which will be the 15th. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Well, couldn't we '- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Is there any way we can do it simultaneously? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: See, I don't understand the whole reconsideration vote, frankly. I mean, I'm happy to reconsider it, but what we did is we said we want more information before we decide if we're going to join in this lawsuit. I think that's still how we feel. And whether we reconsider last week's vote or we don't or whatever we do -- and I'll bow to the parliamentary procedure, but -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'd also ask, Mr. Weigel, if we're going to hear more information next week, there's nothing that prohibits us -- if -- I happen to have the same recollection as Commissioner Hac'Kie, but if that recollection is flawed and we did more than that, is there anything that prohibits us when we get that information next week from altering what our motion was for changing that direction, if we choose to? MR. WEIGEL: That's a good question. In regard to a reconsideration of a specific agenda item and board action or statement, part of -- I think the concept of reconsideration is similar to like an expungement, a removal of the previous policy decision made, which under the reconsideration ordinance has a hang time of becoming permanent if a commissioner voting with majority brings it back and the board approves to bring it back and reconsider and actually does change the decision. It's a bit of a kind of a technical and a recordkeeping change, not withstanding the fact that I would -- Bob says never say always -- but nearly always advise the board that you can always make policy determinations and redeterminations, and can you make statements about past decisions made by the board. It doesn't necessarily change the previous agenda item. And this previous agenda item was -- action of the board was more in the line of an endorsement. It was not a joining -- giving permission to have the county join in as a party plaintiff on a lawsuit, the defendants of which we did not know. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: But David, it was an endorsement, but subject to further information from staff. COHMISSIONER CARTER: The way I understand it -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: That's true, but the concern is of how this is being viewed, and if this has jeopardized Collier County's standing. And this is my big concern. We can sit here and talk about joining in the lawsuit, not joining in the lawsuit. That's another issue. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: If it's perceived. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: If it's perceived that we are endorsing this concept. And the clerk doesn't need our endorsement. The clerk can act without our endorsement. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Here's the -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: The problem is -- I mean, and I understand it, you know, nobody wants to do anything that jeopardizes the public and all those kinds of things. Nor do I want to jeopardize Collier County's ability and good name that they have had in the past. And that's -- unfortunately, this is the way it's being perceived out in the business world right now. And I have a strong concern about that. If it is viewed publicly that Collier County Board of Commissioners wholeheartedly endorses this lawsuit, what situation does this put Collier County in in terms of bonding? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: The bottom line for me, and I wish -- I don't know to whom to direct this question. But the bottom line to me was if Collier County might recover $250,000 without any risk, then do we want to pursue that? Yes. But what I'm afraid happened -- and I don't know if this is a question for Dwight or for whom, but I think you're probably the best person, Dwight -- is we took the position to try to recover $250,000 and put at risk two and a half million dollars. Because on the same day that we discussed this, we also did that bond refi -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Exactly. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- and now apparently that deal is in jeopardy, and we may cost ourselves two and a half million dollars in the hope of getting $250,000, and that's just the first one of others to come. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: If everyone wants to go through this today, I -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I don't. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- certainly have no objection. However, it is scheduled to be on our agenda for next week, at which time staff will have a full presentation for us. I assume Dwight and Mr. Grady will be prepared at that same point to answer some of these questions. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Then the question I wonder -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It will also give us some time in between. Individually, I have some specific questions, I'd like to sit down with you. And then if -- what we could do is go ahead and vote for reconsideration. If next week we find ourselves -- that's rendered moot, then we don't have to hear it in two weeks, but it keeps that option open, so that if we do want to, as Mr. Weigel has phrased it, expunge that from the record, at least we have that option. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And my only question is -- and maybe it's Mr. Reagan who I should be asking this question -- is there a chance that we can save the two and a half million dollar deal by some action we take today? If there's something we could do to save that today, I want to do it. If there's not, then I accept that. MR. FERNANDEZ: Madam Chairman? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Mr. Fernandez. MR. FERNANDEZ: I believe that's my primary reason for supporting this request. Because in my discussions with Mr. Reagan, in his attempts to try to move forward with this plan refunding, a reconsideration of this motion will only help. It may not help, but it could only help in his efforts to try and move forward with that deal. His advice to us is that the arrangements for that financing have currently stalled, and his attempts to try and move forward with it may be assisted by the board reconsidering this motion. Is that accurate? MR. REAGAN: Yes. COHHISSIONER HAC'KIE: Identify for the record. MR. REAGAN: Yes, Bill Reagan, senior vice president with William R. Huff Service, the county's financial advisor. Commissioners, this is a sensitive subject, so I don't want to get into the lawsuit end. I'm only going to be very specific on what you requested. We are going forth. And I know the clerk is very sensitive about this delay, because he doesn't want to be embarrassed or be blamed or even accused of losing a transaction. I mean, that's open when we discussed it yesterday. What we have now is litigation that must be disclosed. Bond counsel has told us yesterday, and met with some of you, that that issue must be disclosed in a prospectus or official statement. Your county attorney has to give his opinion on the litigation. Until those disclosures are done, we can't print an official statement. Are we going to lose two and a half million dollars? I certainly hope so. Because you pay me on closing transactions and I'm standing talking before you. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: We certainly hope not. MR. REAGAN: The only thing that we have right now is that they're market sensitive. Interest rates are where they are. We hope that when we go into this market that the interest rates will be where they are today. That's the tightness of the schedule. We knew the tightness of the schedule when we went into it. And it may be there, and you know what, it could be better. So I don't want anybody to think -- and the worst thing that I could do is kind of create some concern about these bonds. Your bonds are wonderful. There is no problem to have any concern. We expect to be in the market with this transaction. But first and foremost, I've known Mr. Grady and I've known Mr. Brock for a long time. They would agree, we have to have it disclosed. It's not even up to me to tell you that, it's up to your bond counsel. That issue. And it may say there is nothing material, but we must disclose the litigation, and that's all -- and that takes some time. Before we get an opinion from your bond counsel or your county attorney, it takes some time for them to go through that process. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Would it be helpful in your trying to place this issue now if we passed a motion today to reconsider our earlier action? MR. REAGAN: You know, I'm not sure, Commissioner. I really am not sure. I can't give you a yes or no answer, purely because the lawsuit has been filed. You know, when people look at the board and look at the clerk, I think I probably, other than the clerk, truly and intimately understand the duties and responsibilities of that office. I don't know if they will separate them. I was asked that question this morning. I'm not sure. And, you understand, I'm not worried about the investors right now, I'm more concerned about the insurance company, describing to those people in the agencies, you know, who manages the county, who controls the finances. I don't know if there's a difference. There might be. I mean, I think if I went to an insurance (sic), said listen, there's litigation that's been filed, it has material effect on this transaction. We don't care whether you're in it or not, that's going to bother you. If we go to them and say it has no material effect, I'm not sure it makes any difference whether you're there or not there. I'm more concerned about the material effect that -- a transaction. And at this point, just so we can clear the air, there's nothing that leads me to believe that there's any material effect on this transaction. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Again, Commissioner Hac'Kie, I think if we go ahead with Commissioner Berry's request -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: It can't hurt. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- it can't harm us and it leaves some options open that we might otherwise close up. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I'll make a motion to reconsider this in two weeks. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll second that motion. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We have a motion -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Consider it in one week, or does it have to be in two? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I think Mr. Weigel said -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I think it has to be two. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: -- two weeks. It has to be two. COHMISSIONER CARTER: Two weeks. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And who knows, maybe after our discussion next week they'll render it all moot. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Exactly. Okay, we have a motion and a second. All in favor? Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries five-zero. Thank you. Item #10C LETTER TO MARCO CITY COUNCIL - CHAIRMAN BERRY TO SEND A LETTER SUMMARIZING PREVIOUS ACTION And the next item, Commissioner Norris. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Next item is mine. Very briefly, Councilman Day asked -- you remember the letter that you wrote to the City Council last week? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Yes. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: He just asked if it would -- you would write another letter just reiterating the County Commission's actions previously where we agreed to do -- transfer all these certain things that we agreed to, road right-of-way and so forth that we had talked about before, just put it in a letter and send it to him. And then he said he would be supportive then of next Monday night, I think at their council meeting, of discussing the sheriff's budget issue. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just clarifying all those actions the board has taken, not summarizing? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Just summarizing. Yes, just a letter to summarize it from Commissioner Berry -- Chairman Berry to Chairman Brandt. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I see no harm in that, if it will help. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Just help move the -- COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Seems like their staff should be able to tell them what we've already told them, but if they can't, we'll tell them. COHHISSIONER NORRIS: Well, rather than try to dig it out of the minutes piecemeal, I think just a letter -- COHMISSIONER CARTER: Probably better if we put it in writing. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Yeah, just a letter. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Should it come from -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Mr. Fernandez, if you would encapsulate all that information in a short epistle -- MR. FERNANDEZ: Madam Chairman -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- we'll be more than happy to forward it to the Marco Island City Council. MR. FERNANDEZ: -- last week we did send a letter from me to the city manager, Mr. Moss, that essentially outlined all those points. What we'll do is take essentially the text of that same letter and transmit it from the chairman to Mr. Brandt. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: If the copy of the letter that I got from you is the one that you're referring to, it did not mention these different points that we had previously approved at the County Commission level. And by that, the transfer of the road right-of-way, for example -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just three weeks ago we had an executive summary -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Right. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- that had all those -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: The one that has the executive summary that we have probably -- COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Right. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- is the one that needs to be done. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Had cable fees and whatnot. There was four or five items -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Yeah, let's just march through the little list and -- MR. FERNANDEZ: Would you summarize the executive summary? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Yeah. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Everything. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: That ought to do it. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Summarize the summary, I love that. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Summarize the summary, and just tell them that -- Item #11A1 RESOLUTION 98-480 TRANSFERRING HONIES FROH THE GENERAL FUND SO THAT THE COUNTY PROBATION DEPARTMENT CAN START AND MAINTAIN A RESIDENTIAL ELECTRONIC MONITORING PROGRAM - ADOPTED CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. Hoving on then. Item 11 (A) (1) . MR. HANALICH: Good morning, Madam Chairman, commissioners. For the record, Ramiro Hanalich, chief assistant county attorney. County attorney asked for this to be moved just briefly for informative purposes. I was under the impression Mr. Drobinski was going to be here, but apparently cannot make it at this moment. But just very briefly, this is a request from the county probation, court administration to transfer monies, $25,200, to support the electronic monitoring program that they have. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Ramiro, why did we need to move this? MR. HANALICH: Basically for a couple of reasons. The main one is that we wanted you -- this summary that went on consent agenda did not mention potentially liability exposure for the board. And we just wanted you to consider that in approving this item. We're not saying it's a bar to your approval, but simply that as things now stand, my understanding was in the past we had a private company doing this. At this point we're going to have, as I understand it, the court administration, county probation staff monitoring this program. In the event that there was some type of claim that arose from that monitoring, some type of negligent monitoring of some type, our only concern would be that there would not appear -- we would most likely be a named defendant in any such lawsuit. That, to my knowledge, has not occurred in the past. I'm not saying I can't predict if it's likely in the future. It's just an exposure that's out there. Without a contracting private entity that would indemnify defendant hold as harmless, we may be stuck with that liability, if it's proven, if it arises. You know, the other thing is we researched here whether there was any specific legal authority authorizing the board to do as requested here, which is to set the fees per so-called inmate for this monitoring. We did not find any specific authority saying that the board was the entity that sets that, but we didn't find the authority prohibiting that, either. So we don't believe that's a bar either. But my understanding is this is a new direction which is being taken with this program. Lee County is not apparently doing exactly in the same way. You can see from the summary that there's a number of positives which, according to administration staff, is identified in terms of reducing jail space, et cetera. So we're certainly not opposed to the merits of the program, we just want you to be aware that without someone to seek contribution from the private entity doing this monitoring, we may have an exposure if there's some type of negligent or other monitoring alleged that occurred. All that being said, being informed you may choose to say well, we're willing to live with that risk. COHMISSIONER CARTER: What's the option? (At which time, Commissioner Norris exits the boardroom.) MR. HANALICH: Well, the only option that I could think of was some type of indemnification arrangement with the 20th Judicial Circuit. But I'm not sure that that's even feasible, if they are an entity that could even provide that. And I would not want to hold this up for you today on that basis. I would only say perhaps you could give direction for approval with direction to county attorney to explore that possibility. My only concern being that we've had lawsuits with the sheriff, for example, before where we are named for activities that occurred, whether they are proven or not, within the Sheriff's entity for which they supervise. Our people have no supervision -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: But there's nothing we can do about that. That's the nature of government. You know, if the Sheriff gets sued, they join Collier County. If the state gets sued, they're going to join Collier County. We could ask the state to indemnify us. And frankly, I appreciate that you're bringing to our attention that this has liability with it -- MR. HANALICH: It's actually -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: -- and if you could negotiate something from the state to indemnify us, then I think you should get an award and be -- and somehow -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll make a motion to approve the item and ask Ramiro to make a token effort to do that. And if they're -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Second. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- warm to it, great. And if they're not, don't use a lot of time. MR. HANALICH: I mean, our main concern today was not to say do not pass this, it was simply to inform you that there is a remote exposure out there. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Point well taken. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Absolutely. But -- second. COHMISSIONER CARTER: Well, I will second that. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay, we have a motion and a second for the approval of this item, and also to pursue perhaps indemnification. All in favor? Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries four-zero. MR. HANALICH: Madam Chairman, just for clarification, that would also include as a request that -- the resolution for the eight dollar fee for the monitoring? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Yes. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Oh, no. Yeah. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Yes, it is. MR. HANALICH: All right, thank you. We'll prepare that. (Commissioner Norris enters boardroom.) CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. And our next item is the item 12-C, the tourist development amendment. Item #lib COHMENTS MADE BY DAVID SHEALY REGARDING TOURIST TAX HR. FERNANDEZ: Public comment, Hadam Chairman. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: On which one? MR. FERNANDEZ: ll(B). COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: General. MR. FERNANDEZ: General -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Oh, I'm sorry. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Ty's here. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Excuse me, public comment. Oh, my gosh. COHMISSIONER CARTER: Public comment. MR. FERNANDEZ: And Mr. David Shealy -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. MR. FERNANDEZ: -- wants to speak. MR. SHEALY: Hello. My name's Dave Shealy, and I'm here to talk to you all this morning about this. I was hoping that we would discuss the tourist tax beforehand, but that's okay. Public comment. I've read the missions statement of the TDC, the tourist tax, and in my opinion, they had me in mind. I'm right there in every way, shape and form. There is a process that I'm going to have to go through in order to make this work, and I understand that. And while I'm here, just a few minutes to let you know what's going on. Last week I did seven radio shows in the State of Florida, in Orlando, Tampa, St. Petersburg, Fort Myers. I probably missed a couple of television shows by now. Unsolved Mysteries is going to air in about 30 days. If my phone's not hooked up at that time, I'll probably miss major international media attention. I hope that when my application comes before this Board of County Commissioners, that they take a good look at it and do the right thing. And I'm sure you will. I haven't seen any incidents yet in the tourist tax where you all haven't done the right thing. I appreciate you letting me come here and see you about this this morning. And I'll be speaking in just a little bit on the amendment to the tourist tax. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. Thank you. MR. FERNANDEZ: That's all, Madam Chairman. Item #12C1 ORDINANCE 98-111 A_MENDING ORDINANCE 96-60 RELATING TO THE LEVY OF A 2e TOURIST DEVELOPMENT TAX AND ADDITIONAL le TAX THROUGHOUT COLLIER COUNTY PURSUANT TO THE LOCAL OPTION TOURIST DEVELOPMENT ACT PROVIDING FOR AMENDMENT TO SECTION THREE CONCERNING THE USE OF TAX REVENUES TO EXPAND CATEGORY A TO INCLUDE SHORELINE PROTECTION, ENHANCEMENT, CLEAN-UP OR RESTORATION OF INLAND LAKES AND RIVERS TO WHICH THERE IS PUBLIC ACCESS - ADOPTED CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay, then moving on then to the public hearing section. The tourist development tax amendment. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Madam Chairman, just one real brief comment. I think we're all pretty familiar with it. The only reason I pulled it off summary agenda is the Lake Trafford project's a wonderful deserving project. However, I just -- I need to stay consistent. I don't know in the six years that I've ever voted to alter the vote or approve tourist tax for the reasoning that I don't want to tinker with that continually, because we end up with something completely different than what the voters had approved. So I appreciate where we're trying to go at Lake Trafford, I just need to stay consistent on my vote. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: So you just want to vote against this today? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Correct. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: He's going to vote against it. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. I have one little item, too, that I -- that relates to the tourist development tax, I think. Could you -- Mr. Mihalic, could you refresh me on -- are we still paying to a film commission, and does that come through the TDC? MR. MIHALIC: It does come through the TDC, but it's allocated as a portion of the advertising and promotion money, B-i, and we are not making any payments after October 1st -- or September 31st, 1998. So we have directed staff internally to pick up some of those functions. The tourism alliance has picked up some of those functions within the hotel community, and that's what's been going on right now. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: You mean we are not going to fund that operation any longer? MR. MIHALIC: We are not funding it at present, Commissioner. There may be proposals in the future that some organization may bring forward to you. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. And the reason I brought this up is I saw a copy of a letter that came from the Visit Naples people that said that they wanted to take over the operation of that. But I wasn't clear on whether or not that meant they would shift county funding to Visit Naples, because it didn't make it clear in this letter. But since you say that we're not funding it in the '99 fiscal year then, it's not a concern. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. Any speakers regarding this particular amendment? MR. FERNANDEZ: Yes, Madam Chairman. The only speaker you have is David Shealy. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. MR. FERNANDEZ: Open public hearing. MR. SHEALY: Dave Shealy. I can appreciate this Board of County Commissioners going what I perceive to be totally out of their way to restore a lake in Immokalee. And I think that ultimately it's a good thing. I think that those people up there need that. I think that we need a lake where people can go bass fishing. A lot of people here in Naples would love to go up there and catch a few bass. And I think it would be good for everybody. But it's a lot of money. Okay. My only concern with this is I just wanted to make sure that it's not gonna affect -- let me find it -- the B-1 and B-2. B-1 and B-2. And I don't think it will. Okay. It's disembursement (sic) guidelines for advertising and promotion. On a B-1 it states, eligible applicants. Any governmental or not-for-profit entity is eligible for funding. On a B-2, it's a little bit different. It says any governmental, not-for-profit or for-profit entity is eligible for funding. There's several references back and forth through this. I can't make heads or tails out of it. I could if I wanted to, but I just -- it would take a long time. And I wanted to ask the attorney if this is going to affect anything on the B-2 status if this passes. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Go ahead. MR. WEIGEL: I do not believe that it will. MR. SHEALY: Okay. Thank you very much. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Motion to approve. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: This is a public hearing, isn't it? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: That's right. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I have to close the public hearing, Mr. Norris. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I jumped the gun on you, didn't I? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Go ahead. I closed it. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: You sure you want me to do it now? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Oh, yes. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Motion to approve. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Motion to approve. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We have a motion. And a second? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay, we have a motion and a second to approve this amendment. All in favor? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Aye. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Aye. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Aye. Opposed? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Aye. it? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries four-one. All right. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We did it, Fred. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: It's all done. You want to talk us out of MR. THOMAS: I just want to thank you. COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Thank you. It's the right thing. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Let the record reflect, that was Mr. Fred Thomas thanking us. Mr. Weigel, do you have anything to say to us this morning? MR. WEIGEL: Nothing, thank you. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. Mr. Fernandez? MR. FERNANDEZ: Nothing to add, Madam Chairman, thank you. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Hac'Kie? COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: No, ma'am. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Norris? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Just wanted to point out that you came within 45 minutes of setting a record. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Is that right? Commissioner Constantine? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Carter? COMMISSIONER CARTER: No. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Nor do I. With that, meeting is adjourned. Don't forget to go down to the parade tonight on Fifth Avenue for the 75th birthday. **** Commissioner Norris moved, seconded by Commissioner Carter and carried unanimously, that the following items under the Consent and Summary Agenda be approved and/or Adopted with changes ***** Item #16A1 SATISFACTION OF LIEN FOR PUBLIC NUISANCE RESOLUTION 97-109, AS RECORDED ON MARCH 27, 1997, RE SCOTT HERRING AND DEBORAH HERRING Item #16A2 FINAL PLAT OF TROON LAKES AND APPROVAL OF THE PERFORMANCE SECURITY - WITH LETTER OF CREDIT, CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT AND STIPULATION Item #16A3 FINAL PLAT OF "L'ERHITAGE AT GREY OAKS - WITH CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT AND PERFORMANCE BOND Item #16A4 FINAL PLAT OF "GREY OAKS UNIT THIRTEEN" - WITH CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT AND PERFORMANCE BOND Item #16B1 PETITION TH-98-05, FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PROGRAM (NTHP) TO INSTALL ADDITIONAL TRAFFIC CALMING MEASURES ON KINGS WAY WITHIN THE FOXFIRE COMMUNITY Item #1682 BUDGET AMENDMENTS RECOGNIZING CARRY FORWARD FUNDS FOR THE AIRPORT- PULLING ROAD BRIDGE CONSTRUCTION PROJECT (BID NO. 98-2830) IN THE AMOUNT OF $979,897.22 Item #1683 HOLIDAYS FOR SOLID WASTE COLLECTION AND LANDFILL OPERATIONS CONTRACTORS - DELETION OF THE NEW CHANGE IN THE DESIGNATED YEAR'S DAY HOLIDAY AND THE ADDITION OF THE 4TH OF JULY HOLIDAY, EFFECTIVE JANUARY 1, 1999 Item #1684 - Continued to 12/15/98 LIVINGSTON ROAD UTILITY FACILITIES REIMBURSEMENT AND CONTRIBUTION AGREEMENT Item #1685 BID 98-2874 TO CONSTRUCT REUSE WATER SYSTEM SERVICE CONNECTION - AWARDED TO MITCHELL AND START CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC. IN THE AMOUNT OF $476,570.00 Item #16C1 WORK ORDER VC-98-26 TO REPAIR THE DOCK AND SEA WALL AT CAXAMBAS PARK - AWARDED TO VARIAN CONSTRUCTION CO. IN THE AMOUNT OF $60,840.00 Item #16D1 TOWER OPTION AND LEASE AGREEMENT BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY AND BELLSOUTH MOBILITY, INC. Item #16D2 BID #98-2877 FOR ON CALL MECHANICAL CONTRACTING - AWARDED TO UNITED MECHANICAL AND B & I CONTRACTORS Item #16D3 RESOLUTION 98-478 RATIFYING SPECIFIC EXPENDITURES FOR TRAINING SESSIONS, JOB FAIRS AND OPEN HOUSES, ORIENTATION SESSIONS, KICK-OFF MEETINGS AND PLANNING WORKSHOPS AS SERVING A VALID PUBLIC PURPOSE Item #16D4 SHORT LIST OF CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT AT RISK FIRMS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE 4TH FLOOR OF THE COURTHOUSE AND IHMOKALEE AND NAPLES JAIL FACILITIES - STAFF TO NEGOTIATE A CONTRACT WITH KRAFT CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC., THE TOP SEATED FIRM Item #16El BUDGET AMENDMENT 99-059 Item #16G1 MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE - FILED AND/OR REFERRED The following miscellaneous correspondence as presented by the Board of County Commissioners, has been directed to the various departments as indicated: Item #16H1 SECOND AMENDMENT TO LEASE AGREEMENT BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY AND JEANNE L. NOE, AS TRUSTEE OF THE JAMES R. NOE II REVOCABLE TRUST Item #16H2 Moved to Item #11A1 Item #1611 RESOLUTION 98-479, AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE AND SALE OF REVENUE BONDS BY THE COLLIER COUNTY HEALTH FACILITIES AUTHORITY TO BE USED TO FINANCE HEALTHCARE FACILITIES FOR THE CLEVELAND CLINIC Item #17A - Moved to Item #12C1 There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 10:04 a.m. BOARD OF COUNTY COHMISSIONERS BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS CONTROL BARBARA B. BERRY, CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK These minutes approved by the Board on as presented or as corrected TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING SERVICE, INC., BY CHERIE' R. LEONE, NOTARY PUBLIC