Loading...
BCC Minutes 01/13/1999 W (Tourist Development Program) January 13, 1999 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE TOURIST DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM WORKSHOP Naples, Florida, January 13, 1999 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 WORKSHOP SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRPERSON: Pamela S. Mac'Kie Barbara B. Berry John C. Norris Timothy J. Constantine James D. Carter ALSO PRESENT: Robert Fernandez, County Administrator David Weigel, County Attorney Page 1 REVISED COLLIER COUNTY TOURIST DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM WORKSHOP MEETING AGENDA WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 13, 1999 9:00-12:00 COUNTY COMPLEX, BUILDING "F", 3rd FLOOR 1. Call to order 2. Discussxon on overall Tourist Development Program Design 3. Discussion on Category A-(Beach Renoufishment) Funds 4. Discussion on Category B 1-(Advertising / Promotions) Funds 5. Discusston on Category B2-(Special Events) Funds 6. Discussion on Category C-(Museums) Funds 7. Discussion on Category D-(Fishing Piers) Funds 8. Discussxon on the continuation and allocation of the 1% additional tax due to expire on December 31, 1999 9. Discussion on Incorporation Statute 10. Discussion on change of State Ethics Law 11. Wrap-up AGENDA CHANGES COLLIER COUNTY TOURIST DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM WORKSHOP JANUARY 13, 1999 ADD: - DISCUSSION ON INCORPORATION STATUTE - DISCUSSION ON CHANGE OF STATE ETHICS LAW January 13, 1999 CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: We'll call to order this workshop of the Collier County Tourist Development Program. We have kind of a loose agenda today, so what I thought we'd do is instead of having speakers register and the Board's kind of flying by the seat of our pants here because we don't have much by the way of preparation materials, Mr. Fernandez, which is troubling to me, because we all got here and sort of looked around to see what is our backup. But Greg Mihalic told me to bring this, so I did. MR. FERNANDEZ: Yes, that's your backup. CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: Since we don't have a minister here today to open with a prayer, II'l take the privilege of the chair and do that, and then we'll stand for the pledge of allegiance. Stand and pray with me, please. Heavenly Father, we thank you so much for this gathering of people who care about their community. We thank you so much for this county commission and for the work that they do hard for this community. We thank you, Lord, for all the blessings that you've given us, but especially we thank you today for the blessing of the beauty of this community that brings so many people to us. And we hope, Lord, that you will give us the discretion to know how to preserve and protect it to your honor. We pray it in your name, in Jesus, Amen. (Pledge of allegiance was recited in unison.) MR. FERNANDEZ: Madam Chairman? CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: Yes. MR. FERNANDEZ: As the first order of business -- CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: I'm sorry, excuse me? MR. FERNANDEZ: As the first order of business, you may wish to consider the order of your agenda. The two items that you asked that we add, we put at the end of the agenda, you may want to take those first. CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: Well, I just wanted to ask the Board if they want to discuss those items. The newspaper quite generously said that we postponed the discussion of our legislative agenda, when, in fact, I merely forgot to bring it up at the end of the meeting yesterday. I don't know if the Board wants to, if we have, in fact, a legislative agenda. I had asked you to preserve the right to speak on a couple of issues, one being potential changes in the ethics law, and the other being, what I would call, a glitch amendment in the legislation regarding incorporation that allows for charters to be written so that cities don't necessarily have to provide for their own police protection or contract for police services. In other words, the problem we came up against with the Marco Charter. So that was one I wanted to talk about, if you are willing to entertain that, and if their board has a position on that issue. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Do you think it might be best to wait to see if we get -- we've got a number of discussions. Let's see how the time goes. CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: Well, the time would be real important, Page 2 January 13, 1999 except for the delegation meeting is this afternoon. So if this is important to the Board, we're going to have to make time for it this morning or we won't get to have the discussion. If it's too complicated and the Board, you know, doesn't want to do it, then I will defer to the majority, of course, but I didn't want to let it go without at least bringing it up. COMMISSIONER BERRY: I think that in terms of the incorporation issue and the lack of language in the -- particularly the one we're most familiar with, the Marco Charter, the fact that the language is not there addressing police protection, when, in fact, the state statute speaks to police protection. And I see that this is a real glitch, because there's somebody -- I don't know how it got overlooked and how the charter ever got through without taking that into account. I'm not so sure but what we don't need to just inform our legislative delegation that they need to look at that very closely when any charter comes on. As long as the state statute speaks to it, make sure that the language is in any charter. Whether it's from Collier County or whatever county, other 66 counties in the state, make sure that language is in their charter. CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: My thought was just that if the Board authorized me, I would go to the legislative delegation this afternoon and bring this to their attention and ask them if it is something that requires a change, or if there was just a mistake this time in the Marco Charter approval, or if, in fact, the statute needs to be made more specific. COMMISSIONER BERRY: I would like to know why and how -- what their thinking was. And since Senator Saunders, I believe, would have been the only one, other than Representative Rojas, those would have been the only two that are repeating, coming back before us as a delegation, ask them what their thinking was, or do they remember what the thinking was at the time that this went through when it was passed. Maybe they can clarify the issue. CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: So does the majority of the Board wish for me to go to the legislative delegation this afternoon and ask -- COMMISSIONER BERRY: Absolutely. CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: -- and raise that question? COMMISSIONER CARTER: Yes. CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: Thank you. That's about the incorporation of charter problems about police protection. I know everybody's going to have opinions about what on ethics might need to be changed, but the limited question that I personally have is that -- what I brought to you today is just a printout of some of what's on the ethics commission's web page. It tells -- it's basically how do you file a complaint, what is the role of the ethics commission. And as you are already well aware, the ethics commission doesn't have any investigatory powers. They only have the power to respond to complaints. And it's my thought that that is one of the many problems with the ethics legislation, that it politicizes the process even more than it necessarily is. By virtue of the fact that the ethics Page 3 January 13, 1999 commission cannot just notice, cannot just become aware that there is a potential ethics problem. They only have the right to look at it if, in fact, a complaint is filed. And it seems to me that if we wanted to allow the ethics commission to have some real authority and some real ability to do -- to enforce the laws, then they should have the right to investigate. That's something also I would like to bring to the legislative delegation this afternoon, if a majority of the Board agrees with that. Commissioner Constantine? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Couldn't agree with you more. I was a little disappointed to read Senator Saunders' comments in the paper the other day, because I can't believe that nowhere in the state do people worry about what their elected officials do or don't do except in Collier County. And that just seems like a no-brainer. If they're looking at investigating one item and happen to come across another item right now, they ignore that. And that just doesn't make any sense at all. And so if we're looking to best serve the public, I think that's a no-brainer. CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: Any other thoughts on the Board? COMMISSIONER CARTER: No, I would agree with Commissioner Constantine, I think, and with your comments, Commissioner Mac'Kie. I think we need to encourage them to do what you have just spoken to this morning. CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: Are there other ethics statutory changes that the Board would like for me to bring to the legislation? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Have you considered anything concerning time delays? CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: I would love to register our disappointment, our discontent with the amount of time. And frankly, my read on that is that it takes too long, because they don't have enough people to do the investigations. That seems to me to be a budgetary issue. I would like to ask the delegation to add more staff to the ethics commission investigatory division. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Well, this is what makes no sense. If no other county in the state has a problem, then why does it take so long? If Collier's the only one that has the problem, then they should be able to address the issues immediately. CHAIRPERSON FLAC'KIE: I would suggest -- COMMISSIONER BERRY: So that's a bunch of -- I'm sorry, but that's a bunch of baloney, okay? I don't buy that at all. CF_AIRPERSON MAC'KIE: There's no doubt that our case was more complicated, or I was advised by my investigation team that my complaint was delayed by the fact that there were criminal investigations ongoing related to my complaint. Not of me, but related to. And that they suspend their investigation pending the completion of the related criminal investigation. In other words, the ethics commission investigators didn't do anything until the state attorney people were done. That's the simple way of saying it. Page 4 January 13, 1999 COMMISSIONER BERRY: So us coming out and saying that we want the state attorney then to investigate is not helping the time frame at all. CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: No, it may not. COMMISSIONER BERRY: I think that's pretty obvious, because it comes back -- obviously that has delayed you getting an opinion. CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: Yes, ma'am. It did. COMMISSIONER BERRY: We've complicated things. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Sure did. CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: So is there a consensus of the group that we would suggest that the commission is under funded and under staffed, and, therefore, unable to move quickly enough, and ask the delegation to address that as well? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, I don't think it's simply a matter of that either. I mean, this long delay, it's been 18 months now. That's not fair to any of us individually, and it's certainly not fair to the commission as a whole -- CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: Or to the community. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: -- or to the community. I would like to see us say you're not going to get it done within X amount of time, forget it. Either do it or don't do it, but don't leave it hanging for two years. CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: I couldn't agree with you more personally on that, I'll tell you. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Well, maybe they need to streamline their process. I mean, it seems to me that whatever is going on there, it takes way too long. So they ought to revisit the whole process about how they do it, how they investigate, and how they bring it to closure. And perhaps there's some procedural processes in there that could be accelerated. And I don't know the ins and outs of how it functions, other than I heard their director speak at I guess it was at the League of Women's Voters. And it was just to me like such a bureaucratic process to get through the simplest of all complaints, that it was incredible. So I think they've got a lot of work to do. CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: So is there consensus on the Board I communicate those two items to the delegation this afternoon? COMMISSIONER BERRY: Yes. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yes. CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: I apologize to the group that's here for having that discussion when you came for an entirely set of issues. But it's we were out of time. If we didn't do it now, we didn't have it this afternoon. Yes, sir. MR. FERNANDEZ: Madam Chairman, there's one quick additional item, if you'll permit me. CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: Uh-huh. MR. FERNANDEZ: We're aware of a piece of legislation that may be introduced this afternoon that deals with the authority of the county to issue certificates of public convenience and necessity for Page 5 January 13, 1999 ambulance service. Since you are going before them, you may want to mention the fact that we would appreciate the delegation's support of the existing statute that designates the Board of County Commissioners as the sole agency responsible for issuance of such certificates. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Absolutely. CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: Is there agreement on that? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Absolutely. CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: I certainly agree. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Last thing we want to do is create a hodgepodge or any disarray when we are talking about ambulance service. COMMISSIONER BERRY: In this particular area, I don't think I want Tallahassee making that decision. If there's any question or decision, it should be made in Collier County, not in Tallahassee. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: By the voters. COMMISSIONER CARTER: I would agree. COMMISSIONER BERRY: By the voters. CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: I'll communicate all three of those items then. Thank you for your -- COMMISSIONER BERRY: Clearly. And I think there will be several people speaking in regard to that issue in regard -- CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: Oh, good. So I won't be alone. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Why don't we do this. That's a very important issue. Why don't I make a motion that we officially, as a commission, present that point of view to the delegation today? CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: I'd be glad to entertain that motion. I was hoping that I was going to officially, on behalf of the commission, present all three of those issues. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, I'm just trying to add a little emphasize to this particular one. CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: Okay. Well, that's for the Board. Is there a second to that motion? COMMISSIONER BERRY: I'll second that. CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: Okay. Any discussion on the motion? Okay. All in favor, please signify by saying aye. Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: Okay. So that particular one will come -- I'm a little confused about how to communicate that to the legislative delegation. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Just tell them that we were very strongly in favor of retaining the existing legislation. CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: And only moderately in favor of changes in the other two? I don't know how to communicate that. MR. FERNANDEZ: Madam Chair, you may wish to ask for a motion on the others. CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: I was about to make one of my own, unless I got one. COMMISSIONER CARTER: I so move on the other. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Second. Page 6 January 13, 1999 CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: Thanks. Motion, second. All in favor, say aye, please. Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: Motion passes five-oh. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: That just means those are official positions -- CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: I appreciate that. Now, to the business at hand. And I apologize again to the audience. Mr. Mihalic, will you get us started on our agenda. MR. MIHALIC: Good morning, Commissioners. For the record, I'm Greg Mihalic, Director of Housing and Urban Improvement. We have a couple of extra copies of the study. If any of you need an extra copy to look at, please let us know. CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: I think we've got them. MR. MIHALIC: Well, Commissioners, we're here to talk about the tourist development program and what you'd like to do. We discussed this when the report was presented on November 17th at the Board of County Commissioners' meeting. And from my notes, we arrived at several consensus agreements among the Board at that time. The first one was that the Board felt there should be one marketing entity for the advertising and promotion activities, using the Tourist Development Council funds. The second is that the special events funding should be under the marketing and promotion area, the B-1 category. And the third was that there were broadened uses should be approved under state statutes for what's allowed within each category of funding under the Tourist Development Council. CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: Can we pause there for a second and just see if the Board agrees with that recollection, that those are items that we've all agreed on to this point. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Yes, that was my understanding. CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Mihalic. MR. MIHALIC: Yes, Commissioners. If we go down our agenda, I guess we're open to discussion now about the overall Tourist Development Program design. And what staff was recommending is that we look to change our program to a once-a-year application period, to roll it into the standard county budget. So that, essentially, the money would be allocated once a year and not four times a year, quarterly, as it's done now. What we find is that is there is a chase for the money that's out there every quarter, four times a year. And it doesn't allow for a very broad program design, because everybody is chasing the dollars that are available in any particular quarter. What we recommended from staff is that we integrate it into the budget, we have tourist development meetings that are essentially listening to the applicants in the first quarter of the calendar year, so that by approximately April, that program design is done. It then is integrated into the normal county budget for the next Page 7 January 13, 1999 year's fiscal activities for the tourist development tax expenditures, and that would be a separate budgetary area that you would approve for your normal budget hearings for the next fiscal year. So all the contracts would come around to be October 1st through September 30th contracts, and we would not hear applications for funds every quarter like we do now. That would be front-end loaded into the first four or five months of the year, whatever we have to do to back up into the county's budgetary cycle. We think that would give everybody better advanced planning, we could integrate our programs together better, and you would know what you approved for an overall design for tourist development over the next year. CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: Yes, ma'am? COMMISSIONER BERRY: I have a question in regard to the core group of the tourist development group. Number one, I'm just going to ask some questions, because I've got some things that I'm -- I just am not sure about. Number one, do we have to have a TDC? MR. MIHALIC: Yes. The attorney is here, but if I can speak for it. Yes, you do, under the state statutes. If you want to collect and distribute tourist development funds, the state statutes are clear over how many members you need and what configuration of those members you have to have. COMMISSIONER BERRY: It tells you how many members you have to have? MR. MIPLALIC: Yes, it does. CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: And what their particular roles are? COMMISSIONER BERRY: Heidi? MS. ASHTON: For the record, Heidi Ashton, Assistant County Attorney. What Mr. Mihalic has told you so far is correct. The statute is very strict on the members to be appointed and the fact that they're to advise the Board and either recommend yes or no for each use of the funds, of the TDC funds. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Okay. I guess my question was, if you were to develop a CVB, could any of the people who currently sit on the TDC be members of that CVB? MS. ASHTON: Probably, if the Convention Visitors Bureau is a not-for-profit organization. There probably wouldn't be a problem if it's another governmental entity or board, then there's a potential for a problem under our ordinance. COMMISSIONER BERRY: But the members, you do have to keep a separate group? In other words, there would be -- for the most part, there would be a separate group, if it was a government entity. CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: Well, we could -- let me see if I understand your question. We could make the CVB, as long as it met the statutory requirements of who has to be on the TDC, they could be the same thing. COMMISSIONER BERRY: That is precisely where I'm going. The fact that we have got the existing TDC now, it seems to me that that would be a great core group of people to be the CVB. If you want to Page 8 January 13, 1999 increase the numbers to form a CVB, pick up other individuals in the industry. I think we were told at one time, I think in the report that we got, there was some suggestion of like a 21-member CVB. If you use the current number of people that sit on our TDC board and incorporate and then fill up the other slots with other individuals, and I think it was broken down at a time like seven people in the industry, seven people government, I think, or something like that, and seven county wide or whatever. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And the purpose of the CVB, as you envision it then, is what? COMMISSIONER BERRY: To -- in other words, this group is the one that when people want to -- in other words, this once-a-year thing that Greg has talked about, once a year this group would entertain any activities, and they would analyze these activities to see in the off-season if these best promote Collier County. In other words, as I sat up here this last year, it seemed like we -- the things were so fragmented, that any of the groups that came before us, we maybe gave them a little jump start, but we never really did anything -- it wasn't that their activity wasn't a great thing that they had planned, but it was never enough to really do what I think we were all looking for, and perhaps some of the people in the community were looking for. And I thought by having a CVB, a group that consisted partly of the TDC people, and then filled up with other individuals, that this group would sit down and say okay, what -- is this the best way, these activities, the best thing to do to promote Collier County in the off-season, be it three events, four events, whatever? What are they? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I agree with the once a year and the one plan and so on, because we have been fragmented. My question was just why CVB, instead of letting the TDC do that. And you're saying so we can have more input, more people? COMMISSIONER BERRY: Absolutely. And let them sit down and analyze their people in the -- you know, you are going to get -- as I said, if you've got seven people in the industry, and you've got seven regular folks out there looking at this that may be related, and seven people that are connected in somehow government or whatever, let them sit down and analyze this and say okay, what's best for Collier County, what activities, what events are best going to promote. And then direct your efforts in that particular area. But this little $2,500 here and all that stuff. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What would the role of the TDC then become? CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: I have a question for Heidi. Can the TDC be bigger than it currently is? I mean, if the need is to expand the participation, could we make the TDC larger than it currently is? MS. ASHTON: The TDC sets the statute governing -- the Tourist Development Council does set the number of voting members. In the past we have addressed that by appointing nonvoting members, such as the technical expert. Page 9 January 13, 1999 CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: But it has a maximum number of voting members? MS. ASHTON: I believe so. CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: Will you double check that? Because that would be an important question for me. Mr. Carter? COMMISSIONER CARTER: Can we back up just a moment, just a moment. The Palm Beach and the Sarasota models have a TDC, they have a Convention Visitors Bureau, and they have the -- they use the Convention Visitors Bureau. They write an annual contract with the Convention Visitors Bureau to -- it's primarily the marketing aspect of everything that they want to do, but they are two separate entities. There is a TDC board, there is a CVB. So, I think we need to look at how we want to structure -- and Greg, you did a lot of research on this. And it seems to me that the Sarasota and Palm Beach models did an excellent job of giving a structure of which to make all of this flow, but they were two separate entities, two separate boards, and the makeups, I don't know. But maybe you can help us with that. MR. MIHALIC: That's correct, Commissioner Carter. That was where we were leading to, to the one broad based representative board, which we said was a nonprofit board, who would handle the recommendations for the marketing and the tourism and promotions that go on under the B-1 category. CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: Just, I need to be sure, I think everybody agrees -- I think this is not an issue, but just to be sure. We're not discussing the beach dollars. The beach dollars are sacrosanct. There are not going -- COMMISSIONER CARTER: How you break out the money, that's a separate process. But what they had was the structure up front, so it was fairly easy for them to -- CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: I wanted to be sure, though, that we're only talking about giving some authority over -- we will decide what's the right amount of money that stays separated out for beach dollars, but that our beaches are not part of the CVB or anybody else's discussion. They are separate and not a -- we're just talking about the marketing dollars at this point. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Right. MR. MIHALIC: The allegation of the monies is by your ordinance amendments. You will choose how you would like the money to be allocated by a supermajority vote of the Board. CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: I just wanted to be sure about that, that we're just talking about the marketing monies at this point. COMMISSIONER CARTER: And the TDC, as I understand it, in these other models, really are policymakers in terms of looking at these allocations. Ultimately, the Board of Commissioners in those counties make those decisions. And we would really be policymakers more than anything else. The mechanics and everything is driven through the TDC and CVB processes in those counties, with the Convention Visitors Bureau being Page 10 January 13, 1999 the marketing arm, where those dollars are allocated. And I believe in both of those models, they get into the special events areas because they've done some breakouts on that. They have made a very simplistic process. MR. MIHALIC: In both Palm Beach and in Sarasota, the TDC is the overriding policy recommender to the Board of County Commissioners, and they both make recommendations on how the money should be allocated, and then follow up with the reports of how its doing, how these different programs are doing, and there's reports back to the TDC to see how effective the allocation of the monies have been. CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: Mr. Weigel is wanting to get in here. MR. WEIGEL: Thank you. I just wanted to mention that the tourist development tax statute, Section 125.104, specifically provides for a nine-member Tourist Development Council. And among those nine members, it specifies certain allocations of expertise that should be -- or they should be on there. COMMISSIONER BERRY: And I'm not arguing, you know, one way or the other. I was just trying to streamline this situation so we don't have so many layers of -- going through. But one -- MR. WEIGEL: Beyond that, though, if I may, I think it will just assist the discussion, although the information may be a little difficult, is that if you had a CVB operating with TDC members on it, arguably, I think quite arguably the Sunshine Law would apply to the fact that we've got TDC members on the CVB, and so the operations of the CVB, as long as it had two members present or more, would also -- COMMISSIONER BERRY: So it's better to keep it simple. CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: We all know how much fun that is. COMMISSIONER CARTER: I understand clearly on the separation, but again, the CVB's driving force is marketing made up of hoteliers and people related to the tourist industry, as I read of those other two models that Greg had put together. CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: So maybe, are we -- Greg, are we kind of getting into your presentation before you got farther along on it? MR. MIHALIC: No, I did not plan to go through the whole presentation again, commissioners, unless you'd like me to. I mean, I was going to sort of hit the highlights of each section and tell you the direction that staff was going in and see if that was the direction the Board wanted to move in, and the program design. That's our major recommendation. CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: Okay. Do you have other recommendations you want to present to us at this time? MR. MIHALIC: In other areas, absolutely. Commissioners, I think we should step back and say that your charge to us was, look at how other communities do this. And we did that in several ways. We looked at how the 41 counties in the State of Florida allocate their funds. Then we looked at how the coastal counties in Southwest Florida allocate their funds. Then we chose two models, which were Palm Beach County and Sarasota County, to look and see how well-run models that seemed to work without problems operate. And that's sort of the charge that we had, and that's what we came Page 11 January 13, 1999 back to discuss with you. CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: Commissioner Carter? COMMISSIONER CARTER: Well, that's why I keep going back to the Sarasota and Palm Beach models. It seemed to me of everything that you put together, these were very well-run processes. And, you know, why recreate the wheel? Why not learn from those who are doing it well? MR. MIHALIC: Well, it is a local decision, but those models seem to be well and they seem to work without controversy and they seem to allow people to have a multiyear system where they can develop their programs and analyze the results. CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: So what's the pleasure of the Board? There's a lot of people here who, obviously, have opinions, and well-informed and educated opinions on these issues. I wonder if we want to hear from them on an issue-by-issue basis as we go through this, or do we want to go ahead with the rest of our agenda about category A, B-l, B-2, C, D, and then hear from the public? COMMISSIONER CARTER: Well, perhaps, Madam Chair, we need to -- as we have the presentations made, we need to look at if we're talking structure, or are we talking categories, because there's various opinions on how money should be spent in categories, so I'd -- CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: I think that's good. COMMISSIONER CARTER: -- like to keep that separate as we go through this so that we don't mix everything up. That will help me personally. CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: Thank you. I think that's a good idea. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, it's always been the policy of the County Commission to not have public input at workshops. If the commission wants to do that today, I think it would probably be best to do it category by category as we have it on our agenda. That way there may be people that have a specific item they want to chat about and could go on home after that. CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: I think that's what Mr. Carter just said. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Once again, we have, as a matter of policy, not taken public input in the past on workshops. CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: I'd like to hear from the public on this, but let the majority of the Board control that question. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Well, I'm a new kid on the street, but I'd like to hear from the public. CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: I need one more opinion on this subject. COMMISSIONER BERRY: I'll hear it. CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: So I'd like to hear from the public. Maybe just -- should we do registration forms? Do you have any? MR. FERNANDEZ: Madam Chairman, we have six. Three of the six have been specific in identifying a category that they would like to speak to. Three are not specific. CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: So if you do want to speak on any of the issues, there are speaker forms out in the hallway if you would get one and fill them out and try to identify the specific category, if you can. And we'll start with the speakers that you have now, Mr. Page 12 January 13, 1999 Fernandez. MR. FERNANDEZ: The first speaker is Barbara Schiering. CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: Is this the topic you wanted to discuss? MS. SCHIERING: Actually, it was Item 3. CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: Okay. Do you mind if we call you then later? MS. SCHIERING: No, not at all. CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: Okay. MR. FERNANDEZ: The next is Patricia Birkeland, Category A. MS. BIRKELAND: Item 3. CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: Item 3 for her. Thank you. MR. FERNANDEZ: And then Frank Blanchard, Category A. MR. BLANCHARD: Category 3, yes. MR. FERNANDEZ: Dick Lydon. CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: I bet he's on the beaches. COMMISSIONER BERRY: He's on 3. MR. FERNANDEZ: Okay. The next is Ron Pennington. CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: He's also, I'm betting, on 3. MR. PENNINGTON: 3-A and B. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: This is kind of a wacky thought here, but if all our public speakers are on the beach, maybe we ought to handle that item first. CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: You bet we will. Do we have any others? MR. FERNANDEZ: Bonnie MacKenzie is the other one, and Jerry Williams. COMMISSIONER BERRY: I don't see Ms. MacKenzie. Are you on the beaches, ma'am? MS. MacKENZIE: Of course. CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: I thought so. MR. FERNANDEZ: And then there is Jerry Williams. CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: And Jerry Williams. What are you speaking on, Jerry? MR. WILLIANS: Tourism. 2, I believe. CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: Okay. You're up. COMMISSIONER BERRY: The program design? CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: Come on down. If there's anybody else who wants to speak on this overall concept of how the program should be designed, please register quickly, because we're going to move on to the beach question. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Bonnie, are you speaking on the beaches? MS. MacKENZIE: Yes. CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: Jerry, if you will identify yourself for the record, please. MR. WILLIAMS: My name is Jerry Williams. I'm here today representing -- I'm a board member of the Naples Chamber of Commerce, but I'm also representing today multiple other business organizations, industry groups, and other local chambers. As you're probably aware, the Naples Chamber over a year ago began a review of the tourism picture in Collier County. Out of this Page 13 January 13, 1999 review came an in-depth report funded by the Chamber for recommendations and best options on how Collier County should proceed with its Tourist Development program. Then came the county staff report, which we would like to commend the staff for such a thorough study. After receiving these two reports, representatives from the many organizations held discussions in order to get everyone working together, and in order to generate a consensus and help eliminate the multiple situations that have occurred in the past. I'm pleased to report that we have reached a consensus, and our comments and suggestions are included in this position paper for your review. CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: If you'd give that to Mr. Weigel, he'll distribute it to us. MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you very much. CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: Thank you. Any other comments on this first topic about the overall design of the program? Jon, do I assume you're rising to comment on that subject? For the record. MR. STAIGER: For the record, Jon Staiger, Natural Resources Manager, City of Naples. From the standpoint of all of the projects that are under the beach end of things, I don't see any problem at all with having all those applications go to TDC once per year. The caution is that in an area such as the coast that is so dynamic, we have money in that program that is in there with an estimate for what's needed to keep the beaches clean and repair damage on an annual basis. A storm like Mitch or Georges can throw that whole thing a kilter, the way it did with that seagrass mess we had. A similar storm two years down the road might eliminate Coconut Island, which would basically destroy Hideaway Beach. CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: Can I just interrupt you for just a second? I don't think anybody on the Board is suggesting that the TDC couldn't meet on the beach funding questions as necessary. So -- MR. STAIGER: That was what I wondered, because you're, you know CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: Any question about that? MR. STAIGER: -- there may be a need for reimbursement after the fact. CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: Strictly marketing is what we are talking about on an annual basis. Thanks. MR. STAIGER: Thank you. CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: Let's hear the staff report on Item 3, which is the discussion on Category A, beach renourishment funds. MR. MIHALIC: Yes, Commissioner. Again, we looked at all the areas in the state that use money for beach renourishment, and what we found is that Collier County is really unique. We used the largest percentage and the largest amount of funds of any county in the state for our beach renourishment. In fact, we used 25 percent of all the Page 14 January 13, 1999 TDC money used in the state for beach renourishment. So we are really unique in that area. What we were recommending within our report, and one of the issues we have dealt with already, is expand the uses for the beach renourishment funds to include all authorized uses allowed under the state statutes. And this includes beach improvement and renourishment, beach erosion control, beach maintenance and cleanup, the restoration of inland lakes, beach park facilities and improvements including pier, parking facilities, concession stands and restroom facilities. And that goes along the line with what you had discussed on November 17th. We also recommend that the TDC funds only be used in an area where there is public access for residents and tourists. And this is required under the state statutes. It's a local decision that we make to define that, but that is required under the state TDC statutes. We would require a five-year plan to be formulated and updated on an annual basis. And the beach committee has that and we think that that's a good step to showing where we're leading in this area. And we should mention that we looked at the debt service requirements that are there for Marco Island, and, essentially, what the extra penny was put out there for. Presently -- when we did this report, there was about 5.4 million dollars in reserve in Category A in the beach renourishment area. And in 1998 and 1999, the bonds for the debt service for Marco Island beach renourishment were paid up on January 1st, 1998. There's an additional commercial paper loan for 1.34 million dollars that would be paid off and has a balloon payment on January 1st -- I'm sorry, December 31st, 1999. But when we look at the Category A funds that have been collected in 1998 and will be collected in 1999, and take off the remaining debt service, there's been approximately an additional four million dollars in Category A for projects that was not there before, because of the debt service that was required to pay back for the Marco Island beach renourishment. So there's approximately four million dollars more in '98 and '99 than was there before for beach renourishment activities. Although the overall dollar amount would stay the same, the money is no longer going for debt service but now would be available for additional projects or activities. And then our report -- I know it's at the end -- we do recommend that the additional one percent tax be continued. And to the extent possible after analyzing the beach renourishment needs, the Board consider reallocating that to another area. And we recommended B-l, the advertising and marketing and promotion category. Because when we looked at that category it was substantially less than what other communities were spending as a percentage on their activities. And I guess we'll defer that discussion until later in the day. So those were our recommendations under beach renourishment. CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: If I could just ask, if I understood, we have 4 million dollars in new money, basically, by virtue of the old Page 15 January 13, 1999 money, unencumbered money, by virtue of the fact that the Marco debt doesn't exist. If the penny were taken out of that category, how would it affect that 4 million dollars as projected in the future? MR. MIHALIC: Well, there's actually 2.6 million dollars a year, multiplied by whatever the growth rate is for that additional penny. We're saying in 1998 and 1999, before the penny would expire, there's an additional 4 million dollars for projects in that category. CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: But going forward, as we've expanded, what's included in that beach category '- MR. MIHALIC: Yes. CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: -- how much money would be available if we moved the third penny to B-l? MR. MIHALIC: Well, there would probably be ~- depending on your -- it depends on how you look at the reserves. Again you have 5.4 million dollars now. You probably have an additional 2.5 to 3 million dollars by the end of 1999. So you probably have a reserve of about 8 million dollars at that time. If you cut off the penny from the beach renourishment activities, you would go from 5.4 down to about 3, 3.4 million dollars, depending on growth a year in that category. CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: And so if we would have 3.4 million dollars a year in that category, how does that compare to the budget for the current beach activities? MR. MIHALIC: Well, the beach -- depends how you look at the reserves. Category A does not spend the money that they have allocated. The money that's collected in that category is not being expended. CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: But that's anticipated because of the need to have reserves because of the nature of beach erosion and storms and et cetera. MR. MIHALIC: Right. CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: So assuming the same level of reserves, same percentage of reserves going forward. Because I want to look at this as that one penny, that one category, is the only thing that's not broken about our tourist tax. So, for my opinion, if I don't want anything to change about that category, and you take the third penny out, keep the same allocation of reserves percentage-wise, how does the 3.4 million that's currently -- or that would be available, compare to the budget needs for the uses that we currently have? And then my next question, obviously, is going to be, and as we expand that with Lake Trafford and other uses of the money, how are we affecting the beach fund? MR. MIHALIC: We would not be affecting the dollar amount, but I can't project what new projects or what continuing projects they will come up with at what funding levels. I can't project what the dollar amounts for any expanded uses the Board decides to use that money for will be. So I can't make that projection. MR. FERNANDEZ: Madam Chair? CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: Yes. MR. FERNANDEZ: But we did look at how the funding availability Page 16 January 13, 1999 would relate to the known projects, the existing projects. MR. MIHALIC: Yes. CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: That's my question right now. MR. FERNANDEZ: And we do know that there would be sufficient funding to continue the existing projects and complete them. CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: Without that penny. Even after that penny MR. MIHALIC: Well, the beach renourishment has shifted from this, we'll take care of a disaster when it occurs, the 15-year renourishment of the beaches, to the incremental beach renourishment, which you approved yesterday, which should make it easier to not have that big hit. The question then becomes, how much of a reserve do you need for the big hit? And I think the question is whether -- if the big hit comes for whatever reason, we need to look at our TDC funds to replenish whatever occurs, or whether other agencies will step in to assist us and we have to pay for a portion of that, like what happened after Hurricane Georges where -- CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: Like FEMA. MR. MIHALIC: The FEMA. We paid, essentially, a large proportion of the million dollars in cleanup costs that were accrued from that. And that's a decision the Board has to make and there is certainly a difference of opinion on the beach renourishment committee on that. CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: Other comments from the Board. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Mihalic, our third cent is scheduled to be eliminated at the end of this year? MR. MIHALIC: No, 1999, Commissioner. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: 1999. This is 1999. MR. MIHALIC: Excuse me, I apologize. Wrong year. Yes, Commissioner. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Time flies when you're having fun. Is the debt service on that -- on our beach renourishment project completed? Are we done with that? MR. MIHALIC: Right now we're done with the bond issue that was issued. We still have this outstanding note that will be finished by that time, Commissioner. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: That's 1. -- What was it? CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: 34. MR. MIHALIC: 1.34 million. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: And obviously we have the reserves to pay that off, just write the check. MR. MIHALIC: Yes. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Now, after we write that check, we will have, if I understood your figures correct, approximately 7 million dollars left in reserves at the end of this year, subtracting that 1.3 out. MR. MIHALIC: By my estimates, yes, Commissioner. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. So going forward, if we go ahead and sunset the third penny, then we'll go forward with the two and a half or three and a half million a year, did you say? What was it? Page 17 January 13, 1999 MR. MIHALIC: 5.7, 4.7. About 3.3 million dollars a year -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: 3.3 million dollars. MR. MIHALIC: -- in the Category A funding, times -- plus appreciation that we have in that fund, Commissioner. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: So anything that we don't use on that, obviously, we'll add to reserves -- to our 7 million dollar reserve that we'll already have, if we don't use that in any given year, we'll be adding that to the 7 million dollar reserve. Sounds like we're in exactly the position we tried to get ourselves in when we put on that third cent, to me, to build up a nice bank account and pay cash-and-carry on all of our projects as we go forward. CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: Is that -- because I didn't understand that before. If we eliminate the third cent or if we applied it to some other category, we would continue to accrue 3.4 million dollars per year in Category A, in addition to the 7 million we currently have? MR. MIHALIC: Yes, Commissioner. And that's growing at about 7 to 8 percent a year, or more. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Remember, though, now, you have to subtract whatever project you have -~ CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: That was my next question -- COMMISSION NORRIS: -- from the 3.3. CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: -- is, the maintenance budget is how much per year? How much of the 3.4 we will be spending every year? Because we can't count that as reserves, because we're going to be spending it for what we did yesterday. MR. MIHALIC: I would like Mr. Huber to speak to that five-year plan and what he sees for the maintenance portion of that, versus the new project portion. CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: Is this discussion going the way the Board would like to get any information you want? Okay. Mr. Huber. MR. HUBER: Good morning, Commissioners. For the record, Harry Huber, Public Works Engineering Department. First of all, I'd like to clarify a little bit relative to the figures that have been thrown around. My spreadsheet, where we've projected the expenditures on all the projects we currently have through the year, fiscal year 2002. Actually for this fiscal year that we're in right now, my estimates show, after we account for all the expenditures on the projects, and that also includes the debt service of the 1.34 million dollars, I show a reserve of 5 million 2. CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: So that as opposed to the 7 million? MR. HUBER: Right. Then -- and that's -- you know, including the extra penny that we have right now. Then starting next year, I agree that 3.3 million will be the amount. If the third penny is sunsetted and doesn't continue, we will have 3.3 million. But the bottom line next year, the reserves that we have available after taking into account all the expenditures for the Page 18 January 13, 1999 projects, drops down to 2 million, because -- primarily because of the reduction in the revenue. And so then at the end of fiscal year 2002, I'm showing a reserve of 3 million 7. So it's not quite as rosy as what has been indicated up to this point. CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: So at the end of 1999 you show, after budgeted expenditures, a reserve of what? MR. HUBER: At the end of fiscal year -- that would be in the end of September of this year, 5 million 2. CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: But then next year, at the end of the next -- of 2000 fiscal, you show us with only a 2 million dollar reserve. MR. HUBER: Right. CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: And then a 3.7 in 20017 MR. HUBER: In 2001, I'm still showing 2 million, and then 2002, 3 million 7. CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: So that isn't quite as comfortable as 7 million, plus 3 million a year, we've gotten 10 million to feel safe with. MR. HUBER: The reason for that, primarily, we've got a couple of large projects here we're going to be implementing in the next couple of years, and I'm showing expenditures in fiscal year '99 and fiscal year 2000, each year of over 6 million dollars in project costs. CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: Mr. Carter? COMMISSIONER CARTER: That's why I'm an advocate of keeping the third cent. The question of how much we put to the beach and how much we put to promotion is all part of this discussion. But it seems, even on the position paper, it seems by the other models, that everybody that has a third cent, no matter where they are, are taking a percentage of that and applying it to their beaches. After all, the greatest asset we have here are beaches, so I think we would be wise to build the reserves. Have you modeled, if we keep the third cent and we kept a percentage of that, whether it's 40 or 50 or 60 percent of that to the beaches, have you modeled that out to tell us what we have in these ensuing years? MR. HUBER: No, I haven't. Although, I think the chairman of the beach renourishment maintenance committee has looked at some of those figures, might have some figures that he can provide. CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: Maybe that's the perfect time for us to go to public speakers. COMMISSIONER BERRY: I think Mr. Lydon has something. CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: Mr. Lydon, if we could take him out of order, if he has the answer to that particular question. MR. MIHALIC: May I respond to some of Harry's comments, in that we looked at the expending levels that they are now. We don't know what they're projecting in new projects over the next several years. And I think that the difference that we have here. CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: I understand. MR. MIHALIC: We also worked on a cash -- we worked on a basis of what the Board has approved, encumbered at this time, and not going Page 19 January 13, 1999 out with new projects. I think that's the difference in numbers that we are looking at. CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: Understood. Mr. Lydon? MR. LYDON: Good morning. Dick Lydon, chairman of the beach renourishment committee. Mr. Mihalic, there's an old adage, if you can't convince them, confuse them. You're doing a great job along those lines. I propose to talk about Item No. 3 and Item No. 8. And yes, I do have some answers to your questions. CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: Great. MR. LYDON: Relevant to Item No. 8, if you're considering that, and we think you should, bear in mind some of these statistics. The approximate cost of renourishment of Vanderbilt, Park Shore and Naples Beach, 1995-96 was 12 million dollars. Those represent about two-thirds of our county beaches. The rest of it being Marco. It follows that a major storm necessitating the renourishment of all beaches in fiscal year 2002 would cost about 18 million dollars. Based on an increase of 5 percent per year, which seems to me to be reasonable, we're looking at a number of 25 million dollars. Based on the committee recommendation, and you all have a letter from the beach committee, which suggests 80 percent, 20 percent. 80 percent beach, 20 percent for tourism/other. And of the 80 percent, we split out 25 percent of that for some of the Lake Trafford type of thing. But that would get us at the end, by keeping the cent, at the end of fiscal year 2002, we would have $9,259,000. Category A-l, which I'm calling it, which is that 25 percent, would have a total income in those three years of a 1 million 8. We don't think that keeping a base of 35 percent of the needed 25 million dollar potential is outlandish. We hope that that would provide sufficient capital so that we would go out, and as we did in this last one, borrow the money, rather than bond the money. And we all, I think, will agree that bonding is the very, very most expensive way to get your hot little hands on money. Should our efforts to obtain state monies, and which we plan to regress from the legislative delegation this afternoon, or federal funding, our needs could be reduced. We are not optimistic in this regard, since the Corps of Engineers has already indicated that they're not going to help us with Gordon Pass. And our previous efforts at the state level have been fruitless. Given the present chaos in Washington, we're not even comfortable that we can depend on FEMA for help. Projections have also been compiled using percentages other than the ones that I just gave you. Your favorable consideration of the division of monies, this division, 80/20, will continue to insure our community of world-class beaches. Thank you very much. I'll answer any questions. I have some numbers that I've been crunching for a week or so. CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: I just wonder if you have copies of any of Page 20 January 13, 1999 those numbers, if you've got any spreadsheets worked out that we can MR. LYDON: No, I can give them to you real quickly, though, if you have your pencil. CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: I've got mine. MR. LYDON: You have the 80/20 number? CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: Right. MR. LYDON: At 60/40, Category A at the end -- now, we're all talking about the year 2002, the reserve would be 7,888,000. In A-1 you would get 1371 as a total income, 1,371,000. CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: That's a total over the three years. MR. LYDON: Three years, right. If you split it 50/50, the beach renourishment comes out with 7 million 2. And Category 1 drops down to a 1 million 1. In a worst case scenario, at 46, beach comes out with a reserve of 6,300,000, and the A-1 category drops down to $856,000. Hardly enough to be getting much help in the Lake Trafford area and that sort of thing. Any other questions? I'll be glad to answer them. CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: Board members? Anybody? Okay. MR. LYDON: I think there are some other folk who would like to chat about this beach thing as well. CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: I bet there are. Thank you, Mr. Lydon. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: While the next speaker is coming up, Mr. Mihalic, our third cent right now is dedicated solely to Category A; is that correct? MR. MIHALIC: Yes, Commissioner. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I understand we started talking about splitting that. CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: No, no, no. Right now, we're talking about splitting it if we continue -- if we don't sunset it. If we keep the third penny, might we spend it on something other than 100 percent beaches, is what I understand the discussion to be. COMMISSIONER CARTER: That's how I understand it. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Do we have to go to another referendum for that extra cent or can we just go ahead with it? MR. MIHALIC: No. CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: No, we can do it. MR. MIHALIC: You have to pass an ordinance by a supermajority vote. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Okay. CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: Mr. Fernandez? I'm sorry, Tim? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We don't legally have to do that. I guess one of my concern there is when government says we're going to sunset a tax, nobody ever believes it. And this would be one more time where we say, this will be in place, and we can say, okay, well, it's only tourist tax and the locals don't pay it. But -- COMMISSIONER BERRY: Don't say it. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I know, I know. Page 21 January 13, 1999 COMMISSIONER BERRY: Even to clarify a point, don't say it. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: But it's -- I think there's a very real concern there that if we say, boy, we're going to sunset it. And it comes to that time and we say, well, we found more ways to spend that money, we're not really going to sunset it. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I know that's my concern. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The public has a real concern. CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: So we go to public speakers. MR. FERNANDEZ: Okay. Next speaker is Barbara Schiering, and then Patricia Birkeland. COMMISSIONER BERRY: The only thing, while Ms. Schiering is coming up here, the only thing is if you sunset that tax, do the taxpayers in Collier County want to pick up the cost of renourishment of the beaches? That's the other side of it. And that's what I think the public needs to think about that. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I bet if you had a valid issue on it and had even just basic information out there, it would pass overwhelmingly. But I just would feel more -- COMMISSIONER BERRY: I understand. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- comfortable with us doing it that way. CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: Bonnie, if you would catch the Mayor. If he needs to speak out of order, we'd certainly -- MR. FERNANDEZ: Madam Chairman, he indicated to me that his comments were made by Mr. Lydon and he didn't need to speak, and asked to withdraw his name. CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: Okay. I just didn't want you to have wasted your time. Would you like to address us for just a moment since you have -- thank you. MR. FERNANDEZ: That's twice that we have called her up here and sent her back. MAYOR BARNETT: A brief moment. CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: You're an awfully nice person. And I apologize for calling you and appreciate it. MAYOR BARNETT: Yes, you are. Thank you. Madam Chairman, Commissioners, thank you. I think Mr. Lydon basically said what I wanted to say. But I would say to you, I have -- and Commissioner Berry said it very succinctly at the beginning of the meeting about the TDC. I've been on the TDC for three years now, and it seems to me that we make a lot of recommendations. The bottom line still comes down to the county commission, and you do what you want to do anyway, and that's fine. But getting to the beaches, I would sincerely hope that you leave it 80/20. Don't mess with it. There are only two counties, Collier County and, I believe, Indian River, that spend that kind of money on their beaches. But I think they see the big picture. And I think all of you do also. Do whatever you want with anything else, I could care less really, but leave that alone. And thanks a lot. CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. And now, our very patient speaker. Page 22 January 13, 1999 MR. FERNANDEZ: Barbara Schiering. MS. SCHIERING: Barbara Schiering, for the record, right? I do have something I'd like to get clarified, if I could ask the gentleman over here. CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: Mr. Mihalic? MR. MIHALIC: Yes. MS. SCHIERING: When you were talking about, you were specifying particular beach fronts that would not be included, what were you -- MR. MIHALIC: No, we didn't specify any particular beach fronts. We just say that all areas where we use the TDC's for beach renourishment should be accessible to the public and to tourists. That was our only statement. We didn't specify -- I mean, we're not the experts and we think the experts should define where those places are. MS. SCHIERING: From what I unders -- at least from what I know personally, I know that it seems that most of our shorelines are accessible at least by water, if not by land. So it kind of includes all of them. I really strongly urge the Commissioners to continue and to emphasize that the TDC funds be utilized for the beach. Because I agree with your last speaker, I mean, that's the big picture. If we don't have our beaches, we don't have anything to advertise about. We don't have anything to bring tourism, which is our industry here. That's our major industry. The reason why our homes and our property values are what they are and why we enjoy the lifestyle that we do, and with Florida's unique environment. And just ask that you keep that in consideration. Commissioner Mac'Kie, I see what you're saying about the Lake Trafford thing. I'm a little concerned about that myself. I'm concerned that money spent for something like that might leave us short for the beaches, which are really where I see the tourism. Not necessarily the lakes, but it doesn't mean I don't support -- I just don't want to see the beaches shorted. And that's it. CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: Okay. Thank you very much. MR. FERNANDEZ: Next speaker is Patricia Birkeland, and then Frank Blanchard. MS. BIRKELAND: Good morning. I'm Pat Birkeland. And on Friday, January 8th, the Naples paper brought to my attention the amount of TDC funds. In that figure, I hoped you could see your way to supply a beach cleaning machine for Marco Island beaches. At the present time, we share a county machine with other beaches, which is greatly unsatisfactory, as the beach needs to be cleaned, depending upon what the tide brings in. In sharing the machine, Marco often loses the opportunity to clear the beach of debris, which after it is carried into the Gulf again and again, making the water distasteful and the beach unattractive. And we all know the beach is our greatest natural tourist attraction. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: Thank you. MR. FERNANDEZ: Next speaker is Frank Blanchard, and then Jon Page 23 January 13, 1999 Staiger. Do you want to speak again? MR. STAIGER: Yes, please. MR. BLANCHARD: Good morning. CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: Good morning, Frank. MR. BLANCHARD: For the record, my name is Frank Blanchard. I'm the chairman of the Marco Island Beach Advisory Board. I've been associated with beaches for a few years. I've got two items that I want to talk to specifically. That the TD ordinance that you're talking about was, I believe, voted on by all of the voters in Collier County seven years ago. And I would hope that you would continue to use this ordinance in an equitable fashion, as the words in that ordinance stated. We hope that you do not try to expand the one dollar to cover items that really are not included in this ordinance. The ordinance was voter approved. Now, you've thrown Marco Island a curve by statements that beach funds will go to beaches that are only accessible by walkways and parking areas, and I find that to be a rather unusual kind of statement to now include in your ground rules. We've gone through bond counsel. We went through Collier County Circuit Court to see whether Collier TDC funds can be used to pay off the balance of the beach bonds for Marco Island. Never have I heard this kind of thing. If that's what you want, you want to use that as your stricter, well, then you've just excluded Marco Island for being interested in participating in that kind of TDC. Where did this thing -- where did this notion come from? It's not included in any legal interpretation that I'm aware of. CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: Would you -- Mr. Mihalic, I think you referred to that as being part of the state statute. MR. MIHALIC: It's in the state statutes for the use the TDC funds, it talks about public access for residents and tourists. And we are recommending that you just analyze that in areas that you do beach renourishment. And look at all the other areas you use the money for also. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Frank, let me ask you, though, why is that a problem for you? I mean, I think -- MR. BLANCHARD: Well, you just told me -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Can I finish my question before you answer it? I think if you look at your properties on Marco, the vast majorities -- there aren't any long stretches of a mile, two miles where you can't do that. You have hotels, you have other things where you do have access to the beach. So I don't understand why you have the concern. MR. BLANCHARD: You surprise me because you're emphasizing, your spokesman is emphasizing this. We went into Collier Circuit Court, as I recall, in January of 1998. They approved the use of TDC funds to pay off that bond balance. If there were any kind of restrictions on Page 24 January 13, 1999 not being able to use TDC funds '- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Frank, that's not my question. MR. BLANCHARD: -- for Marco Island projects, I don't understand this. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Great. That's not my question. Specifically, where on Marco Island are you concerned that the beaches will not be taken care of? MR. BLANCHARD: Well, I'm trying to react to this general statement. Look, Marco Island has access to beaches pretty much every mile. And any attempt that we've tried to make, for example, to improve the dry sand access to Hideaway Beach from Tiger Tail, has been resented or objected to by, apparently, some of your staff. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: My point is that you do indeed have access pretty much every mile, so -- MR. BLANCHARD: We do have access. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- it will not be -- it's not going to cause you a problem on Marco Island. I don't understand your objection or your concern. CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: May I just say, Frank, because I think you can take great comfort in the fact that you have already had judicial interpretation of the statute. So if our attorney looks at the statute and says we need to determine where this money can be applied, one of the things he would look at would be the judicial interpretation of the statute. And certainly, our county attorney's going to be reticent to overrule a judge. Judge has already told you that you don't have a problem with this issue on Marco Island, is the way I hear it. MR. MIHALIC: Chairman, these are local decisions. MR. BLANCHARD: I don't know why this subject is being emphasized, you see. I want to get that clarified. Your county attorney is fully aware of the circuit court interpretation for the balance of the Marco Beach bonds in January of 1998. We had bond counsel out of Tampa to go through the same thing. So I really -- if this is not going to apply to the funds for Marco Island beaches, I'll keep quiet. But this thing is being emphasized by your spokesperson, and I don't understand it. CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: Okay. I think he just mentioned it, instead of emphasized it. But your point is well made and certainly received. COMMISSIONER CARTER: I think he mentioned it because it's a part of the state statute in which the guideline in which we have to follow, and we're certainly not trying to isolate any part of our county and remove it by that statement. That's not what I hear Mr. Mihalic say. I appreciate your concerns but I don't want to see any of our areas eliminated on this basis. I think we're just trying to follow the state statute. MR. BLANCHARD: I have a copy of the state statute here. Why emphasize that now, is the reason I'm raising the issue. The state statute is a little more than that one sentence. CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: Okay. That point is made. Do you have Page 25 January 13, 1999 others for us this morning? MR. BLANCHARD: I just want to be careful that you follow what was voted on by the voters seven years ago. CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: Yes, sir. Thank you. MR. FERNANDEZ: Jon Staiger, and then Ron Pennington. MR. STAIGER: Again, for the record, Jon Staiger, Natural Resources Manager, City of Naples. I'd like to just make a couple of points. I don't want to take away from the people who follow the beach committee. The one big component, in fact, these projects that are going to take so much money in the next fiscal year, are inland management projects. And Collier County is unique. As Greg pointed out in the beginning, we are unique in that we have no federal projects. The counties that don't need a lot of TDC money for beach management have, in some cases, 10, 15, 20 million dollars in Corps of Engineers' projects; Broward, Dade, Palm Beach, Pinellas. And these projects are ongoing. So even though the Corps is not funding new projects, they are continuing to maintain the ones that they've already got, because they're 50-year lifetime projects. We also have a whole lot of inlets. And one of the -- I know in the City of Naples, a great deal of support for the tourist tax came out of The Moorings Bay area and in the north county from the Wiggins Pass area, from people who saw that as a means of maintaining these inlets. And you all know, Wiggins has to be dredged every year, practically. Gordon, we're going to be dredging because the Corps won't any more, in probably the year 2000. We have applied for a major piece of this thing, which is the state's 10-year beach management plan. We have applied for funding within this program. And if we get that state money, fine. We've been penalized in the past by the state because the legislature didn't fund the projects that didn't have a federal cost share. And we approached them and said, if we're putting up the federal share locally, what difference does it make? Well, it seemed to make some difference. We could never find out why, but we didn't get federal or state money. And we've applied for it religiously on an annual basis. So perhaps we have a different playing field now in Tallahassee. But at this point, these funds are all allocated, and we're trying to coordinate within the county to do things like Wiggins, Doctors, and Gordon Pass in one year so that we can reduce the mobilization cost and have a single contractor, hopefully, to do all three passes to keep the costs down. But what that does, is that puts a big chunk of money in one year's budget. And then two years down the road, it's a little less. And then another four years, it's a big chunk again. So that we've had a plan now that Harry's spreadsheets actually go out ten years because of the duration of the project. And it's -- you know, this money -- I think the committee has done a wonderful job of shepherding this -- stewarding -- stewardship of this funding, I think has been very good. They've been very careful of how it gets spent. And I don't think anybody on the committee objects to the idea of Page 26 January 13, 1999 using a piece of that third cent for such projects as Lake Trafford and others. Those are things that are, you know, need to be done. And that's a logical place to get the money to do it. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: Thank you. MR. FERNANDEZ: Next speaker is Ron Pennington, and then Tom Olliff. MR. PENNINGTON: Good morning, Commissioners. It's been awhile. Ron Pennington, City of Naples. Seven years ago this month I appeared before the then county commission as the chairman of the beach renourishment committee. It happened to be the day that Mike Volpe assumed the chairmanship of the commission, so we spent ten minutes debating about whether or not I was going to speak. But, ultimately, I was permitted to do so. CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: Ain't bureaucracy fun? MR. PENNINGTON: So we have five different people here now. But at that time, I presented to them in the presentation, first citing the need for beach renourishment, the condition of our beaches, because, believe it or not, at that time not all the commissioners felt that we had concerns about beaches. In retrospect, it's hard to see how that was the case, but it certainly was. So I presented to them a planned program that we, in the beach committee, had developed and cited funding options that could be used. And the funding options were primarily of a sales tax which had been previously been turned down by the voters and was still a nasty word, or a tourist tax, or combination thereof. So, ultimately, the tourist tax was that selected to be presented to the voters. So then I was on the streets speaking to anyone that would listen and to groups and such and citing again the need to get our beaches renourished, and that the tourist tax was the way to do this. And so, ultimately, the voters did overwhelmingly approve that and the tourist tax is a little easy, since it doesn't hit the pocketbook of the average voter. So that worked out well. But the ultimate approval, though, of the program was quite limited. And in talking with other people, most agreed, yes, we'd like to do this for the beaches. But there were a lot of people out there that weren't enthusiastic about trying to attract more tourists to the area. So this was pointed out that these funds would be utilized for shoulder-season and the off-season to make more viable some of the businesses that had problems surviving through that period. So it was generally accepted there. But the program was rather limited to beach renourishment and beach maintenance with prohibitions against a lot of the things that some of which we're now talking about. And as we progressed toward the program, we saw the long-term financing that was going to be involved because we were looking at a 16 million dollar program, and then we were early in collection of taxes. So then the discussion came out about adding a third cent. Hoteliers, in general, were very opposed to that third cent being Page 27 January 13, 1999 added. So then I was on the street talking with hoteliers, such people as Mike Watkins and Joe Frenny (phonetic). And the name escapes me from the Edge Water. CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: John Ayres. MR. PENNINGTON: John Ayres, yes. Very much so. So we had a lot of discussion about this. And, ultimately, Joe Frenny came back to me, and says, okay, he says, I will agree to do this if it is done with a -- just to be terminated then when the financing is completed, when that's paid off. And then also, that we may look at reapportionment of this. Because perhaps by then the whole 60 percent of what we were looking at then might not be required for beaches. So that was the way we moved forward. In fact, at that time, that's how the beach committee proposed that, you know, this be added for the duration of the financing. So I share Commissioner Constantine's concern on this. And this is for me, personally, that I think government, when it makes a commitment, it should insure that it be kept. So I would suggest in that regard, though, that perhaps the hoteliers at this point would not object to the third cent being continued. So I would say if you are to pursue that, I would strongly suggest that you see if the hoteliers would be in accord with that, and with the proposed utilization of that third cent. But I feel, personally -- I helped to make that commitment, and the commissioners -- and I think probably three of you were on the commission at the time that third cent was passed, I think, weren't you? CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: No. Just two. MR. PENNINGTON: I'm not sure. I think Pam was on there then. But I think there was a very strong commitment on that. So although the beach committee right now may not feel that that should be rescinded, I think it should only be continued under those circumstances. Now, additionally, there have been a lot of new items to be proposed to be utilized out of the beach monies. And I think all of those certainly have an advantage that they are -- those kinds of things that help with our tourism and all. But I would suggest to you, the core of this and what was approved and desired by the people was the beach renourishment and maintenance. And I emphasize the maintenance aspect, because now they're using the periodic renourishment. And that certainly is an advantage. So I would urge you then, those things, keep it to insure that our beaches are maintained and with a lot of concern about continuation of the third cent. And I thank you. CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: I appreciate that history, Ron. Thank you. MR. FERNANDEZ: The next speaker is Tom Olliff, and then Lee Weeks. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: How many more speakers do we have? MR. FERNANDEZ: Two more after Mr. Weeks. MR. OLLIFF: Good morning. For the record, Tom Olliff, and I'm the county's public services administrator. And in 15 years, it's the Page 28 January 13, 1999 first time I can remember signing a speaker slip. I don't remember having done that. I'm only here for one reason, and I wanted to make sure that the Board keeps in mind that with its major investment in its beach renourishment projects and the reserves that it's trying to establish that you also, several months ago, directed your staff to go back and look at including in your Growth Management Plan level of service standards some beach parking and beach access issues. And it is important to keep in mind that the vast majority of the residents and, probably in this case, more importantly, the tourists who are paying the tax that we're talking about, cannot access the beach without some public access facilities. And we have a beach and boat ramp report that's working its way towards you. And I have seen a rough draft of it. And frankly, the options that are there to be able to increase or improve the existing beach accesses are extremely limited. Outside of that, they start getting really creative. And in both cases, they're extremely expensive. TDC funds are one of the options, I think, that we just want to make sure that you keep in mind is available, and perhaps you ought to start considering when you think about your beach program, that beach access, beach parking, and those types of issues should go hand in hand with that. Whenever you make those decisions in terms of the final funding mix, we hope that you would just keep that in mind in the direction that you've given us previously. And perhaps that we could be a portion of that A Category funding mix. CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: Thank you, Tom. That's a really important point. MR. FERNANDEZ: Lee Weeks, and then Dr. Michael Stephen. MR. WEEKS: Madam Chairperson, honored Commissioners. My name is Lee Weeks, for the record, and I'm the general manager of the LaPlaya Beach Resort. I just want to make a couple of comments. First of all, it's the proverbial chicken or the egg. If you don't have the tourists, you're not going to have the tourist tax dollars. We are currently suffering from decreased occupancy. And it's a point that I don't think a lot of people are bringing to light. When you see that the funds are actually rising, you're seeing that due to rate going up, it's certainly not due to occupancy. Occupancy is going down. There's major competition out there for the market share of our tourism sector, and we need to understand that, and we need to go after individuals to come to Naples with every bit of zealousness that we can. All of the tourism individuals, including the hoteliers, certainly recognize the importance of the beaches. There's no doubt about that. They're the major attraction. And so, certainly, we would never want to see the monies go away or the beaches not be renourished. So we recognize that. Page 29 January 13, 1999 Our position paper that we've submitted to you earlier with Jerry from the chamber, offers a compromise and a split. And I would hope that regardless of what numbers are submitted to you, that you actually have someone investigate through an accounting process exactly what are the needs, have the figures worked out, and then let's make a business educated decision on how the split should go. Because certainly 100 percent toward beaches may not be the best recommendation and certainly 100 percent toward tourism wouldn't be the best recommendation. So we're talking about a compromise here, an educated compromise with split. Even the hoteliers, Commissioner Constantine, want to keep the penny, alluding back to the previous speaker. And there's no reason to let it sunset. We believe that we should keep the money in the community. We should use it to our best purposes. I don't think you'll have a lot of people thinking that you didn't live up to your promises if you left this penny -- if you don't make this penny sunset. That's even the hoteliers' personal opinion, if I may speak for them. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you. CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: Thank you for clarifying that point. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: All due respect, I'll know that I didn't keep my promise. MR. FERNANDEZ: Next speaker is Dr. Michael Stephen, and then Bonnie MacKenzie. DR. STEPHEN: Good morning, Commissioners. Michael Stephen, for the record. I reside at 374 South Gulf Drive, in Naples, Florida. Just really a brief point relating to a question raised by one of the other speakers pursuant to public access in the limitation of utilization of funds. I have -- we are active in developing and reviewing and helping the county prepare eligibility criteria for the use of erosion control funds at the state level. And occasionally we get a little bit of money for dune restoration now and then. But the point that I want to make is that in the Statute 161, Florida Statutes, a hotel and a motel are generally defined as public lodging establishments that are appropriately licensed. And they're also defined in the eligibility criteria as quasi-public beach access. And in fact, the ~- up to 50 percent of the length of the frontage of any hotel/motel establishment on the shoreline qualifies as public access under the funding guidelines of the State of Florida. So I don't know if that's been a part of the discussion, but certainly they're the entities that are collecting the tax. They have the tourists. They do provide a significant access opportunity. And that was recognized by the State of Florida several years ago. So I hope that answers or addresses that question. CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: That should be given some additional comfort to Mr. Blanchard on his comments. DR. STEPHEN: Thank you very much. MR. FERNANDEZ: Final speaker is Bonnie MacKenzie. MS. MacKENZIE: Good morning. And congratulations, Pam. Page 30 January 13, 1999 CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: Thank you. For the record. MS. MacKENZIE: For the record, my name is Bonnie MacKenzie. And in going through Mr. Mihalic's report, Mr. Leidner and Mr. Huber have pointed out a couple of anomalies. I would like to point out a couple of others. He would like us to produce a five-year annual report. We actually produce a ten-year one that's revised quarterly, and would have been delighted to share it with him. He also points out that Collier County, and quite accurately so, dedicates 73 percent of its TDC revenues to our beaches; whereas, other counties on an average give about 12 percent. And then he goes further, highlighting Palm Beach County and Sarasota County as models to iljustrate his points; however, some of the information, I think, is flawed. If you read the report thoroughly, you'll find out that Palm Beach County really is not comparable. They have very different needs and priorities. In fact, they enacted their ordinance in order to reduce their debt service on sports arenas and convention centers to a significant degree. Collier County has absolutely none of that debt at this time. They also wanted to raise their hotel occupancy rate. Their goal for this year was 69 percent as a year-round average. Collier County's is already at 73 percent, despite the downturn this year, because of the rather bad news, as I'm sure you remember, with the Orlando floods that mistakenly were brought to our area, and certainly the reports on Hurricane Georges. However, the most telling statistic with Palm Beach County shows that although they allocated only 1.4 million dollars out of their TDC revenues for beach renourishment, they actually spent and budgeted 9.7 million. If, in fact, you use that as a percentage of their TDC revenues, it would equal 69 percent, which is a lot closer to our 73 percent than is reflected in the figures. Sarasota County also was not a true comparable, although they appear to be on the surface. They have no inlet or past management funds or costs to underwrite. Collier County has seven. Most of the figures in the report are for fiscal year 1997-1998. However, the figures used for Sarasota in the report are two years old, not just one. And part of the reason why that's an anomaly is that last year Sarasota County enacted a third penny, 70 percent of which is dedicated to beach and beach related expenditures, which raises their percentage to 57 percent of their TDC money dedicated to beaches. In short, Greg has really prepared an outstanding up-to-date review of what other counties do with their tourist tax money. His conclusions and his recommendations are perfectly understandable. However, all of this information was researched and known at the time that Collier County enacted its tourist tax ordinance. We chose to emphasize where we were going to put our money very differently from what other counties do. We wanted to keep our beaches in pristine condition, not only for our tourists but for our Page 31 January 13, 1999 residents. We wanted to keep them our number one attraction. And over the years we have been proven right. Other counties have seen the wisdom of our decision and are following our lead. Your beach renourishment committee has worked long and hard to understand the problems, be fiscally responsible and prudent in developing a ten-year plan and a budget for beach and inlet management that accurately anticipates what the needs are going to be, when they need to be done, and how we're going to pay for them. We've also tried to accommodate your special requests, such as Lake Trafford. I can appreciate the pressures on you. I'm sure they're very strong. However, I sincerely believe that if you follow what Mr. Mihalic has not said today, but what is in his report, that we reduce the tourist tax funding for the beaches and make up the shortfall in one of three ways: By increasing the tax burden by bonding the beach projects, by taxing waterfront property owners to a much heavier degree, MSTBU's, and by relying on FEMA reimbursements for your disaster relief plan. Then I think that you will have opened a pandora's box of troubles. You don't want to go there. Thank you very much. CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: Thank you. I had a request for a 10-minute break. If the Board agrees with that, we'll be adjourned temporarily. Be back in 10 minutes. (Brief recess.) CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: Okay. Let's get started again. I'll call the meeting back to order, and ask everybody to take their seat so we can get started again. Thank you. Well, I guess we need to pick up with some resolution on the Category A issues. Is that where you'd like to go, Board? Let's discuss them one at that time as we did on the first one. Commissioner Constantine? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I just ask -- I think what I've heard from comments that each of us has said, nobody on this board is suggesting anything that the beaches are top priority. CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: It's certainly what I'm saying. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: When we talk about whether we're going to cut the amount of money going to the beaches or whether we are going to do those things, I didn't think anybody is suggesting that. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I don't think so. COMMISSIONER BERRY: No, I think we're suggesting that we're not going to take away the penny. Are we suggesting that? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I'm suggesting that. COMMISSIONER BERRY: You want to take away that third cent. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: As committed. CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: No, sir. COMMISSIONER BERRY: I made no commitment, I wasn't here. CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: Me either, I'm glad to say. And even if I had, I think it's ~- COMMISSIONER CARTER: I'll go on the record, I want to keep the third penny. CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: While we're going on the record, I want to Page 32 January 13, 1999 keep the third penny. And in keeping with what Commissioner Constantine has just said about keeping the beaches as the top priority, we keep the third penny and we stay with the 80/20 overall kind of split that we've had and keep the 80 percent of that penny going toward beach projects for now, until we see if it's necessary to do something more. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Is there no interest in putting that third penny to referendum? CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: Not by me. It's a waste of money. COMMISSIONER CARTER: I think we're a bargain, Commissioner Constantine. I'm not sure -- and I understand your position, and I really believe we do have a commitment to the public. But I also believe that we have on the other side of that a commitment that says we are a bargain to come to Collier County. A 3 percent tourist tax is a bargain from every place that I've ever been. And I'm not sure that the citizens would fault us for keeping that and then taking a percentage of that back to our beaches, whether it's 80/20, whether it's 60/40, which it is in the other areas. I'm open to that. But I really think we ought to keep it. And I don't think that we will be chastised for protecting our community. And for the people who come here and use our resources, that they're expected to pay their way. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I agree with you that it's a bargain. And I certainly, on a personal level, support the third cent and the idea of that. It's not going to drive anyone away and there is a great deal of benefit. I just have a problem having made the commitment that we would sunset it and now turning my back on that commitment. So I think we're all in support of the issue. It's just a matter of how we go about that. And if I'm in the minority, that's fine. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: And there's a little more to that particular issue than just the commitment that we made at that time. If my memory is correct, when we started the beach renourishment project, we had very little, if any, in reserves at the time, and the idea of the third cent was to pay debt service to pay for that project as much as we could on a cash-and-carry basis, and not have to bond it out on a long-term basis. So my original thought, and the reason that I went along with the third cent at the time, is simply that if we have some money in reserves, which we heard that we would have by 2002, at least 3.7 million dollars, which is a lot more than we had when we started the beach renourishment project in the first place, if we need to go in with another major project for some unforeseen event, like a storm event or something, that we could simply reimpose the third cent. That's what we used it for in the first place. So it's a little -- the issue goes a little more in depth than just simply the commitment that the county commission made to the citizens at that time. CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: I would -- my position is already clear, but I'm looking for the county attorney or for the assistant county attorney to ask the question about process. Do we have to have four Page 33 January 13, 1999 votes to keep the third penny in place without a referendum? And I hope they'll be on their way to answer that question in a minute. MR. FERNANDEZ: They'll be here in a moment. COMMISSIONER BERRY: I personally favor keeping the third penny. I just favor keeping the third penny. CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: Without -- COMMISSIONER CARTER: Could you be clear? COMMISSIONER BERRY: I've learned the less you say, the better off you are. And that's real hard for me. Because don't tell it like it is, because that's not how it's going to be portrayed. COMMISSIONER CARTER: For the record, Commissioner Berry wants the third penny. CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: Well, maybe while we're waiting for the question from -- the answer from the county attorney, we could talk about if we kept the third penny, either by virtue of a referendum or by vote of the Board, I'd like to see the allocation -- I said 80/20, but I think it's been 73 percent to the beaches and that it should continue to be 73 percent of that third penny should stay to the beaches and the balance for, what Mr. Lydon called A-1 categories. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just to throw an extra curve into the discussion -- CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: Good. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- if we go to referendum and we're to talk about, okay, what are the appropriate percentages, what can be spent on, what can't be spent on, I know some of the hotel/motel industry has talked about being comfortable with something even greater than three pennies. So if you ended up with three and a half or three or four or something -- CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: Seven. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- does that open it up to us if we do it -- yeah, at seven. That wasn't me. CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: If we're going to the voters, let's -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You know, what does that open it up for us to do? Does that take care of -- the gentleman from LaPlaya talked about the numbers being down this year. And does that take care of some of the advertising needs, and at the same time take care of the beach reserves that we're all, I think, most concerned about. COMMISSIONER CARTER: If you broadened that discussion and that avenue, Commissioner, going back to what Commissioner Norris presented us at one of our meetings about development of a physical convention center or meeting facility. If you raise the percentages and then you take those dollars and begin to use that as a way to pay off your debt service on bonding for a convention center, I mean, it opens all kinds of avenues to address that. So -- but, maybe that's more than we want to bite off here this morning. CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: Oh, it's not, though, Mr. Carter. For my vote, if we're going to a referendum, I absolutely want the convention center question put to the voters. And the convention center that's been proposed in the Gateway Triangle. There's some lawyers. Page 34 January 13, 1999 COMMISSIONER NORRIS: All the lawyers are coming -- COMMISSIONER CARTER: All the lawyers, get back here to the meeting. COMMISSIONER BERRY: The suits. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Stop lawyering in the hall. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Seems like we're contemplating voting today? This is a workshop. We're not going to vote, are we? CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: No, no. We can't vote today, but we can certainly get some ideas. Mr. Weigel, can you tell us, can we keep the third penny without referendum, by what vote of this County Commission is that necessary? COMMISSIONER BERRY: By supermajority or simple majority? MS. ASHTON: It's a supermajority vote. CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: So we need four votes to do it without a referendum? MS. ASHTON: That's correct. CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: Okay. Unless anybody's changing their mind, it looks like we have three votes. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Well, unless we go to referendum and expand and include a convention center, then I think we have four votes. COMMISSIONER BERRY: I think you've got to be very careful what you put on -- you can put something on there that's very distasteful to the public. And I would rather have some of you people out there lobbying if you think that third cent is important. You know where three of the votes are, and you better start lobbying for that fourth vote. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I would think if we were going to go to referendum, and particularly, if we're going to look at something greater than 3 percent, what we would want to do is lay out -- spend a great deal of time laying out what that would include. But then when we make up our mind, make that it. And if we have four votes for it, stop bickering after that. And I think back to the Gordon River bridge issue or any number of referendums where the Board or the City Council or combinations of both have been still talking about the details and trying to figure those out literally 10 days before the vote. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Yeah, that's no good. CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: Green space. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah. And we've got to let the voters have a very clear picture and make sure it's worded very carefully. And I think if we do a good product, they're going to approve it. CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: John? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: The other thing about a referendum is, if you have multiple items contained within the body of one referendum, obviously, people are going to support or oppose those items individually. And the chance of success on a referendum diminishes as the number of items increases, because you're going to have somebody that will support A, B, and C but not D, or B and F, but not G. So they're going to vote against it for various number of reasons, and that's all depended on how many items you put forward. So the simpler Page 35 January 13, 1999 the better. COMMISSIONER BERRY: That's going to the constitutional amendments. There were several items that in each amendment that sounded pretty good, but there were two or three others that really were awful, but look what happened. CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: Is there -- is there any room on the Board for reconsideration about whether or not referendum -- I guess we're not making that decision today. And I guess you're right, Commissioner Berry, the lobbying objects are clear. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: It only takes three votes to put a referendum on. CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: No, but it takes four to avoid it. I sure wish we could keep that third penny without a referendum. COMMISSIONER BERRY: What's a referendum cost? CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: Last time I asked, it was 30 to $50,000 if you did it in a regular vote. COMMISSIONER BERRY: In the election year. CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: Right. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Which is -- I don't mean that's not a lot of money, but compared to the kind of money we're looking to collect if we do this to go toward the beaches and toward advertising, promotion, and perhaps towards a conference or convention center, is a very, very tiny percentage. CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: But, guys, considering the risk of what we have to lose if the voters should turn down that third penny and we need it so desperately, absolutely positively need that third penny, I think we would be really shirking our responsibility if we sent that question to the voters. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll tell you, I don't think we're shirking our responsibility at all. It's a matter of my integrity and my keeping my word. And my promise to the public was that we would sunset this. So I will go out -- if we put it on a referendum and it has the right components, I'll go out and campaign for it and support for it. I don't have any problem doing that. But I'm not going to compromise my word to the public in the meantime. When you are talking about doing a disservice to the voters, to tell them I'm going to do one thing and do something else, that is a disservice to the voters. CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: I would agree with you, unless as a part of your function on this Board, you become aware that things change, information presents itself to you that requires you in your -- in the best interest of the community to consider that new information in making your decision at the time. But that's -- we will agree to disagree. We've done that before. Any further discussion on the Category A dollars? Are you ready to go forward with the next item on the agenda, or -- COMMISSIONER BERRY: I think we've explored all kinds of angles with the Category A. I think, from my point of view, I think we're ready to go on. We'll have to make a decision at some point in time. Page 36 January 13, 1999 But I think if you go to referendum over Category A, I think you stand a good chance of -- unless there is some heavy-duty campaigning, I think you stand to lose that penny. Because in spite of what I said, people still do not understand the penny. They don't know who pays it. Many of them still think that they pay it. They think it comes out of their ad valorem tax dollars. In spite of whatever is said, they still think that they're paying it. You've got a segment of the population, and a rather large segment of the population, who wouldn't care if another tourist ever set foot in Collier County again. And they don't care if the beaches are maintained or not maintained. Number one, they don't go there, and number two, if it's a tourist attraction, God knows, don't attract people. Never mind that they moved here, but they don't want anybody else here, tourist or otherwise. CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: Not only that, but -- COMMISSIONER BERRY: It's a fact. CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: -- the confusion that exists in the community about the tourist tax because of golf tournaments and problems that we've had, how hard it will be to overcome the misconception in the public mind that you would be approving this penny to allow us to do more, you know, golf tournament debacles. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I don't think that would be hard at all. I think if you can word a question on the ballot, crisp, concise, then people will understand it. I think one of the frustrating things Commissioner Berry just referenced, the Constitutional Amendments, they're written in such a manner as your average bear looks at them and shakes his head and has to read it three times to figure it out. And it's not impossible, and it is not illegal to write a ballot item that actually is crisp, concise and makes sense to the voter. And I think you're not giving the voter a lot of credit. If the majority of the people don't want tourism and don't want beaches and don't want those things, then we shouldn't be doing it anyway. I happen to think the majority do want beaches. And I think that it's very appealing to the people to think, gee, the guy who comes down here and stays at Super 8 is paying for that beach instead of me. And I think we can deliver that message in a crisp, concise ballot. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Tim, I would tend to agree with you. But after all these years that this tourist tax has been in place, I can't believe the number of people out there that still do not understand the tourist tax. They don't understand it. I mean, and I'll guarantee you, the people that wrote those Constitutional Amendments, they thought they were just as clear as could be. CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: Ask Pat Barton. They worked hard on those. COMMISSIONER BERRY: They were very clear. They thought they were very concise. I didn't happen to agree, but that's all right. Average person, I didn't happen to agree. I thought they were very confusing. I mean, I wanted parts of one and some of nothing else. But that's the thing that I'm afraid is going to hurt us. If we throw too much into a referendum, I'm afraid that they're going to Page 37 January 13, 1999 say, I don't want a convention center -- if that happened to be one of the items -- but I don't mind the one cent tax. Now, which is lesser of the two evils? Well, I'll just vote against it, period, because I just don't want this convention center, if that happens to be their itch. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: That was my point a while ago. Let me say just one final thing: Your opinion is that we desperately need the third cent and that we would be shirking our responsibility if we don't have it. But I don't hold the same opinion. Because we've heard from our staff that over time our reserves at the 2 percent original will be increasing, and that we would end up three years from now with 3.7 million dollars, for example. And from there, I don't know, because we didn't go any further with the spreadsheet. But assumedly that we would continue to build our reserves. So I don't share your thought that we desperately need it. I don't think that any time we're running in the black, I don't think we desperately need more tax money. CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: We don't desperately need more tax money, but unless if there's a 20, 30 million dollar expenditure for which we have a 3 million dollar reserve, that's when it becomes desperate, and that's what my worry is. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: At that point we could reimpose the third cent. And that's exactly what we did on this last beach renourishment project. So I don't share your concern that it's a matter of desperation. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I don't think we're going to convince any one of them. CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: So on this particular issue, it sounds like we have at least jelled the questions, and that's the purpose of the workshop. So we've narrowed this down to the question of whether or not we go forward with the referendum on the third penny, with a subset of a question of an additional penny for a convention center. And I guess we're ready to move on to Category B. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Well, Madam Commissioner, we have a position paper in front of us, I think, that's going to help with a lot of this. Because if people understood structure and how it was going to work and it was going to work well, maybe some of the controversy around how we funded would not be as much of a lightning rod. So I hope we don't lose sight of the work that's put into this position paper as we begin to move through this process, which really says, this is how you structure, this is how monies are spent, and these are the people who make the recommendations on the way it should be done. CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: And that's basically an item that we discussed as No. 2 here. And now I hope we've completed discussion of item No. 3 and can move on to discussion Category B-l, advertising and promotions funds. Mr. Mihalic? MR. MIHALIC: Yes, Commissioners. Our recommendation for Page 38 January 13, 1999 Category B-I, advertising and promotion, is that all the Category B-1 funds shall be administered by one not-for-profit, broad-based tourist development agency. In discussion with the Board in November, there was some difference of opinion on that, whether it should be nonprofit or whether for-profit entities should be able to be involved in that contract. The reason we recommended nonprofit is because we think it's important for all the chambers and all the tourism entities to be involved in part of this group to jointly make the recommendations to the TDC of how the advertising and promotion dollars should be expended in all categories throughout the community. CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: Are there continuing opinions on that on the Board? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: What we're really referring to is our CVB? MR. MIHALIC: Whatever you call it, Commissioner, yes. A broad-based tourism industry marketing group. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: This would be a subset of the TDC, which is a subset of the county commission. So it would be in a direct chain, is that the way I understand it? MR. MIHALIC: We would have a contract between Collier County and this group, whatever the group is called, to do the advertising and promotion, and possibly the special events for the year. They would have that budget to be able to expend for the next year. And we recommend that they have a three-year plan and that be able to be rolled over for several years so there's continuity of the processes. CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: His question, I think is, Greg, that CVB would make a recommendation to TDC, who would make a recommendation to the county commission -- COMMISSIONER BERRY: That's right. CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: -- on the B-1 and possibly B-27 MR. MIHALIC: I just didn't want to get hung up on this CVB name because there are like six people who are CVB's in recognition of the State of Florida in Collier County, or six organizations that carry that nomenclature. COMMISSIONER BERRY: And then there would also be accounting procedures in place from that group, if they're -- whatever that group is, in administering these events or whatever. There's an accounting procedure back, too, that they once a year, whatever it is, come to the Board of County Commissioners and account to us how the monies have been -- how they've been used, and also, what the effect has been. You know, has it been good, bad, or indifferent. COMMISSIONER CARTER: I think Sarasota has put together a model that shows us how procedurally you do that process. I'm not saying that they're the nth degree. But at least it's a good model to tell you how to do that. And I like your three-year plan, but the contract is annual. MR. MIHALIC: Yes, it is. COMMISSIONER CARTER: If they don't do it, they're out of business. Page 39 January 13, 1999 MR. MIHALIC: We recommend quarterly reports back to the TDC on the effectiveness of whatever the campaign is. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I have a little different suggestion and that is: Rather than have these 17 folks from all these various special interest groups try to put together a plan, and have a hired person to administer that, as was suggested in our thing, which, in essence, becomes either another layer, another administrative layer, that you're spending some of the money on, or could potentially be another government office, neither of which are appealing to me. I would like to see this tourism bureau or CVB, or whatever we're referring to it as now, take proposals. And perhaps much like you do when you decide what you're going to do for engineering work or for any other work we do in the county, we may have a board, advisory board, who are experts in that field who review the various proposals that come forward to us. And they may tinker with those before the -- when they select one, they may tinker with that before it comes to us in its final form. But I would think in order to keep it fresh and to have the best marketing available out there, let these people judge proposals that come from anybody on the planet. And if somebody comes up with a great idea and this group of 17 loves that, that's fine. And let them then work with that plan and bring it forward through the other two. But I don't think then you need to have a layer of administration that you would otherwise. I think if you looked at a contract -- again referring to some of the engineering firms, you have a primary when you award a proposal. Somebody makes a proposal, you award a contract to them. They have a primary that works with the county and is responsible for the day-to-day administration and making sure those things happen. Somebody at the county then makes sure -- like right now, we have a coordinator for TDC things, make sure the bills are appropriate, make sure they're paid, and so on. But that primary plays the role of administrator, rather than -- and that's all part of the contract. They take that. And then you can have, whether that's three years or five years as suggested here, that they have the opportunity to lay out a long-term marketing plan. If you find a year or two in that either they're not doing their job or it's not working effectively, you go and look at proposals again. But you have a fresh chance. And I just fear if you have your 17 bodies trying to put that plan together and one year it doesn't work, then you have the same 17 bodies, essentially, you may have some changes, but trying to make changes the next year, okay, what do we do, and reacting. I like the idea of those people participating and having a big voice in the process. But I think we ought to open it up to anybody to make proposals and make suggestions and let those people judge those suggestions, rather than create them. CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: Commissioner Norris? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: If I understand what you're suggesting, you're suggesting that ultimately we bid out to a commercial advertising agency the whole package after it's been assimilated and Page 40 January 13, 1999 built through this group, whatever we're going to call the group. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah, and it could be an advertising agency, it could be Visit Naples, Inc., it could be the chamber, it could be anybody who wants to put in a proposal. And it may be a coalition of people that are local industry people who create some sort of not-for-profit agency that does that. But I wouldn't rule out advertising agencies just because they're a for-profit agency, as long as they can do the same or better job at no more cost. I don't care if somebody makes a profit, as long as Collier County benefits from it. But I think still including your CVB judging those, then you have people from all corners of the county and all parts of industry interested in that, having a look at that. I just think it just opens us up to look at all the alternatives, all kinds of ideas for marketing. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Is this going to include the special events as well? CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: That's the next subject on our agenda, but I'm hoping so. COMMISSIONER BERRY: But you see, I'm looking at it as inclusive. CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: Me, too. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Because I believe -- I think that you're going to get more bang for the buck if you're doing it that way. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You remember my suggestion, we talked about this before, was to have perhaps a maximum percentage, you could spend up to whatever that is, 8 percent, 10 percent -- I don't know what the number is -- on special events, but not require it. So that if one year you have a great amount of special events or one big special event or something that fits into that overall marketing plan that allows them to do that, but if another year you don't have much, they shouldn't be required to set that money aside. CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: Or find something stupid to spend it on. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah, not just spend it for the sake of it. CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: I agree with that point. But the part that I'm confused about here and what you're describing here, I'm trying to understand how it's different from what's proposed in the position paper we got from the chamber rep. And that is, I don't want -- well, in the position paper from the chamber, what makes us think that anybody in the whole wide world can't present their fresh ideas to this 17-member group? COMMISSIONER CARTER: Yeah, because I'm with you, Commissioner Mac'Kie, I see this as a broad-based group that allows everybody to participate. It takes it away from very narrow interest groups. CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: Right. COMMISSIONER CARTER: I don't care what you call it, whether it's a CVB or county-wide tourism bureau, or reference that Greg made in his report, but it gives the blanket, it gets everybody to participate, and it also then picks up the special events stuff. And they look at that. And they've got some guidelines on how they deal with that. It makes it a much cleaner operation. You don't get those Page 41 January 13, 1999 things run to us periodically to see if this is a good thing to do it or not. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I share that exact concern. And that's where my suggestion comes from is, you have these 17 people then judging all those things that come to them. So if there is a body who comes forward and has a narrow scope or something that is self-serving, you've got an extra layer here of professionals who are looking at that saying it doesn't meet our need. But I bet you would have an overwhelming response of groups, both profit and not-for-profit, who would lay out some different plans and run it through the professionals. And again, much like we do with engineering things. We do some tweaking after the fact once the best firm is selected. And I would think these 17 folks, if it was in this format, would have that authority. The concern -- you asked specifically about the sheet. And the concern is, it sounds like these 17 people make a plan, and it sounds like a governmental office, or quasi-governmental office. COMMISSIONER BERRY: No, no. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The tourism bureau administrator would report them. And that person isn't in the private sector, really, they're just responding to the tourism bureau. So that's quasi-governmental. If you have a plan that isn't working that well, after a year, you turn around, and who are you going to? That same group again who formed it. And you're not getting the fresh ideas, you're not getting something. You're saying, okay, that didn't work, how can I react? It could have the same ~- the likelihood of us reappointing, I think, is pretty slim. And I just -- I don't like that idea of having, really, what essentially is a quasi-governmental office, even if it's not housed in this building. If their sole purpose is doing this, it is a governmental office. CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: Commissioner Berry? COMMISSIONER BERRY: I think that it's probably -- I like what I see on here, but I would like -- I don't know if it's -- Jerry, come on back up here so we can get you on the record. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Like a game show. CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: Come on down. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Would you go through this and kind of -- I mean, what you have on here is fine. But kind of reflect if you were -- be a little more concise in terms of what the feeling of the group was when this was compiled. MR. WILLIAMS: A couple of things that I can clear up, Commissioner Constantine. You're correct about the board. The idea would be probably similar today with Visit Naples where they go to third parties to provide input on the marketing. It would be the same thing. Those third parties would be engaged by the 17-member board to provide the plans for the coming year. You know, they would go out to different third parties and look at that and then engage one of them. So it wouldn't be that 17-member board actually developing the Page 42 January 13, 1999 plan, other than choosing probably the plans submitted between how many experts that they decide to engage with. COMMISSIONER CARTER: How do you differ between a convention and a visitors bureau? I mean, is this the same kind of animal with a different name? MR. WILLIAMS: Well, the thought process was when we went through with trying to get all the professionals involved, is they did not like the word "convention." They feel that's very negative. In our survey that we paid for, we didn't find a lot of support for a convention bureau. They think that's very negative. They said, we need to do away with the CVB. Let's call it anything but convention. We don't get the kinds of conventions that a Fort Lauderdale or a Miami -- those people aren't coming here. And we probably don't want that type of tourist. So that's why we stayed away from that. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Okay. So you're framing it in a different way to get to the objective by eliminating -- MR. WILLIAMS: Right. Which is marketing tourism but not marketing to that type of business. CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: So a tourism board instead of a CVB. MR. WILLIAMS: Yes. COMMISSIONER BERRY: CTB, which stands for county-wide tourism board, or bureau, or whatever you want to call it. MR. WILLIAMS: Anything, they said, but convention. Also, that would cover the issue about the referendum, when you were talking about a convention facility. I can just tell you from our studies and talking to the hotellets and the different groups, there wasn't a lot of interest in having that. I'm not a tourism expert, I'm just telling you what those studies came back and said. CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: Thank you. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: If the idea is, as you said, to go out and look, then we're in complete agreement. The only thing I want to make sure is there is some sort of process, if we create this, some sort of bidding procedure or something, because of all the controversy that has surrounded tourism dollars in the past. I want to make sure at no point is there even a perception that, okay, we appoint these 17 and they give the account to their buddy. And I'm not suggesting that's the intent. MR. WILLIAMS: No, I understand. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I don't want your perception to ever be that because of the trouble that's been along the way. So as long as there's some sort of procedure to go through to do that, then we're saying the same thing. And I apologize if I misunderstood before. MR. WILLIAMS: Well, what we felt like would happen, and we intentionally did not discuss a tremendous amount of operational issues. What we felt like would happen is the process would be if you formed the board, that tourism board reports directly to the TDC. TDC reports directly to the County Commission. The tourism board would be responsible for making up those bylaws, those having to be approved, their operational constraints and restraints. They will make those up. Those don't have to be started Page 43 January 13, 1999 at the county commission level or the TDC. They will have to be approved. But you should -- I would charge that board with going out and doing that work, and then it has to be approved. They'll set up their own standards and guidelines, and you'll have enough people there. Once again, I think what's important here is to understand that we've got 17 or 18 different groups together, representation from the entire county. That's unheard of, to get all these people in a room and to agree. That was not an easy thing to get done. There's been a lot of mitigation back and forth. Once again, when you talk about funds -- when we were talking about the amount of funds, we did not ~- everyone fully supported the beach funds, no question there. The only question is how much money do we need to adequately market this county. That's what it came down to. We don't care if the beaches get a -- you know, five times what they're receiving today. We're talking about where it comes from. CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: Jerry, another question from Commissioner Constantine. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just the other question on the one paper that you presented. The tourism bureau would appoint an administrator who would report to the tourism bureau. Explain to me what that person would do, who they would report to, how they get paid, how the staff working for them would get paid. MR. WILLIAMS: Well, once again, one of the concerns that we had early on was, if you do not increase the funding of this to an acceptable level, you probably don't want to do this. Because today a lot of the staffing is paid personally by the hoteliers, by Visit Naples, by that group funding. They said that if you keep the funding the same level -- and I think everybody feels that that's inadequate, obviously, compared to what the other counties receive -- if you keep the funding the same level, then you're going to be paying salaries out of that. You're actually going to have less dollars to do marketing advertising with than what we have today. So, first we said you have to increase the funding to an acceptable -- to a fair level, according to where the other counties are. Second, you need a professional marketing person, professional marketing person which is probably deemed that administrator. The ideas kicked around in our room. That person would coordinate. We were also concerned that it doesn't become, obviously, a big bureaucracy like we have seen some other counties. All of a sudden they have 15-member staffs. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Would there be any objection to, as I said before, having -- when you do select who that marketing entity is that puts your package together, to having someone from them play the role of that administrator? That's where I was talking about in engineering, they'll have a primary that Wilson-Miller assigns to work solely on the new sewer plant you're building, or whatever it is their three-year project is, and they are, in essence, in charge of that one. And it just seems like it might make sense, I think you do need to have somebody Page 44 January 13, 1999 administrating and doing those things. But wouldn't it make sense to have part of the contract that is awarded include that person? MR. WILLIAMS: I think, once again, that's probably something that you would let that board decide. That's kind of an operational issue to me. They need to hire whoever they need to hire. Obviously, their motivation is going to be to spend as much money on marketing advertisement and as little on staffing as possible. But once again, I believe, Commissioner, that that's an operational issue. You just let them decide. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I want to be a little careful when we say it's just an operational issue, the Board doesn't need to worry about it, because that gets us back to some of the issues real or perceived that the board is just giving tourism money away, and whatever that group wants to do, they do. And so that's my worry here. And not that the intent is anything but honorable, just the perception has not always been good with tourism dollars, and I want to make sure we've got our hands on it. CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: And as on Category A, I think we've jelled the issue. I don't think that we're going to decide that one right here at this moment. And Commissioner Norris had a question. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, I just, in this discussion, I wonder what the role of the TDC becomes then? Apparently they'll just be sort of a collator of whatever this does, and primarily then be involved in the beach issues. Is that the way the TDC then will be evolved, their duties? CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: That's kind of the way I see it. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Instead of having three-hour meetings, it may only be an hour. CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: Once a year. Do you have one more thing? MR. WILLIAMS: Also, to add to Commissioner Constantine's, you still have the checks and balances, and we went through that, certainly. The budget, the annual budget, would have to be approved by the TDC. The county commission has to approve that budget. Anything that's in there you disagree with, whether it's spending, whatever, obviously, you still have that checks and balances, so hopefully that would alleviate your -- you still have the final say. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And just a final thought. I asked a lot of questions and raised some concerns, but I don't want that to be misinterpreted. I very much appreciate the work you've done, and the fact that you can get all of those groups together and agreeing on something is -- something to be said for that, applause for that. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Jerry, I think you hit it right on the head at the last. It is checks and balances. And I would look at what that checks and balances system is, and that's where I would get comfortable to make sure, as Commissioner Constantine has brought up, that we don't find ourselves spending a lot of money in an area where we're not getting an ROI. So I'm comfortable with that. And I would like to see that evolve and presented forward to us. Page 45 January 13, 1999 CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: And the good news -- thank you, Jerry, very much. The good news is with this broad based 17-member group that the chamber is proposing, the chances for any particular element of the county to be left out are certainly lessened over, you know, the situation we currently have. COMMISSIONER BERRY: That's been one of the main concerns. CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: Me, too. COMMISSIONER BERRY: And that was one of my concerns that we get all of Collier County represented. They've done that. I mean, they are pulling all of those areas in to be represented. CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: So would it be correct just to say for staff direction on this category B-1 point, that the Board likes the idea of the 17-member tourism board proposed by the chamber in their white paper as the administration for Category B-1 funds? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Would it also be right to say the majority of the board, maybe all five, think that B-2 should be rolled into B-l? CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: Well, the next discussion category. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Maybe we can short-circuit this thing. CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: Let's do it. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Yes, I do. COMMISSIONER CARTER: I concur that B-2 should be rolled into that. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I agree. CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: And I also concur with Commissioner Constantine's point that it's an up to percentage and you're not required to spend -- you know, it's only dedicated for special events. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It should be part of an overall plan. CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: Part, as he said, of an overall plan. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Yeah, if there are events that are -- you know, something that's really going to promote Collier County, then they certainly ought to have their allocated dollars. CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: So unless there's somebody from the public who's dying to speak on special events, which is No. 5, do we have anyone registered on that event, on that topic? MR. FERNANDEZ: You have none. MR. MIHALIC: Can I speak to that just for a moment, Commissioners? CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: Yes, sir. MR. MIHALIC: The recommendations we make, even though we didn't recommend rolling it into B-I, would you like those to be guidelines to this tourism entity, or do you want to leave them, use their own judgments for the level of special events, the dollar amount for each one, what they will use it for? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah, I don't like the restrictions, because it talks about a limited, it talks about it only being not-for-profit things. It talks about you can only do X amount in kind. I think we've got to leave a little bit more leeway. If there happens to be one big event that fits naturally into some marketing theme that costs $90,000 instead of $25,000, and that whole group Page 46 January 13, 1999 thinks that that works, and the TDC thinks that then works, and we think that that works, then that's all the levels it's going to have to go through. We probably ought not to restrict that on a -- CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: I see lots of nodding. Yeah, looks like a five-oh nod there. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Yeah, I would concur. CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: So we could move to Category C, discussion about museum funds. MR. MIHALIC: Yes, Commissioners. Well, we've expanded to some of the authorized uses allowed under state statutes for museums already. We have expanded it to museums that are owned by not-for-profit organizations and open to the public. There are two other areas under state statutes that we can expand to, if you want to. And that was sort of your direction to us. We'll take that direction. I think '- CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: Tell us the two areas, Greg. MR. MIHALIC: Oh, the two areas are nature centers that are publicly owned or owned by not-for-profit corporations, and not-for-profits and opened to the public. And zoological parks that are publicly owned or owned by not-for-profits and are opened to the public. Those are the two other areas in that section of the state statute. CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: All that means is that they'd be able to apply, not that there's some special amount allocated to them. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Do we have anything in Collier County that even fits the category that we would even consider funding? COMMISSIONER CARTER: I see some nodding in the audience, so I guess there is. CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: And why restrict the future creative thinking? If there is something, go forward. All it says is they can apply for money. MR. MIHALIC: We talked about a five-year plan for each museum to be formulated and updated. All contracts are on a fiscal year basis, that we talk about in our overall program design. And we talk about an early year funding for the Category C funds, which we talk about by March 31st of each year. Obviously, that has to be tinkered, because we see this, obviously, going in with all TDC projects into our county budget. CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: I have a question on Category C. Is this something that's going to go through the tourism bureau board? MR. MIHALIC: No, I think it's a separate category. That's my opinion. That's the way we wrote it. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: The tourism bureau is just strictly for -- CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: I just wanted to be sure, because -- COMMISSIONER CARTER: I would agree with Commissioner Norris, I think this stays separate. I think it stays under your administration, Greg. CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: So that will stay under the TDC, but not be part of the tourism bureau's discretion. Well, that's sounds like -- is there anyone registered to speak Page 47 January 13, 1999 on museums? MR. FERNANDEZ: None. MR. MIHALIC: I have a couple more things that I would like to speak about this -- CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: Yes, sir. MR. MIHALIC: -- Commissioner. Already for the TDC meeting on January 25th, there is a museum that is applying for some funds. But all the funds that we have are presently allocated to the Collier County museum. So if the board wishes to expand this category, at some time they're going to have to reallocate the funding percentages to put additional money in this category, if they choose to do that. CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: So when that application comes to the Board, we would have to be moving money from where to where, in order to -- MR. MIHALIC: I think you're going to have to amend your ordinance, so it's going to be a more elaborate process than that. But what I would anticipate is, we have put it on the TDC agenda for discussion. They cannot allocate any money, because there's no money to allocate in that category. You can get a sense of the TDC if that organization then wants to bring it to the Board for some discussion. A little bit like Lake Trafford did. CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: I see. Okay. And like in Lake Trafford, what we did was, we found the money in Category A. MR. MIHALIC: Yes. CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: And so the question would be, can we find the money in Category C? MR. MIHALIC: You would have to reallocate the percentages from one category to another. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We obviously want to prioritize. If there are good things in the private sector, I think that was the whole point of bringing that forward. But at the same time, we need to be careful, because with the museum thing, we've been able to pick up the slack of what had otherwise been paid or would otherwise would be paid by ad valorem. I don't want to increase ad valorem taxes just to fund some private museum or historical thing. So that will be a balancing act. CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: Any more discussion on Category C, museum? COMMISSIONER BERRY: I just have a question. Greg, would it be possible -- I don't know if the rest of the board's interested or not, but would it be possible to get some information on how other communities fund museums? I don't know. And I don't know if it's only through private funding or is it do counties do it. I'm just curious to get some information, that's all. COMMISSIONER CARTER: That's a good idea. COMMISSIONER BERRY: I'd like to know how they do it. I don't know. CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: A lot of counties do things with ad valorem funds that we don't. And that, I bet, will be one of those examples. Category D, then, fishing piers. Page 48 January 13, 1999 MR. MIHALIC: Yes, Commissioners. Originally in our report we recommended rolling this into Category A, beach renourishment. The County Attorney's Office has advised that's not a good idea, because it is its own separate category in the state statutes. So we essentially would leave it alone, say that you could fund it and say that we require a five-year maintenance plan for each fishing pier in Collier County that you want to consider funding. So you have some long-term ideas of what you -- requirements may be in this area. CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: What kind of allocation of money? Are we going to run into that same Category C question, that if you want to spend money on a fishing pier, you have to take money from what category? MR. MIHALIC: Yes. You would have to make that decision. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Well, almost logically, it belongs in A, because of all the things that affect us. But you're saying, Mr. County attorney, that we can't do that? MR. WEIGEL: Yeah, we are advising that it's recognized as a statutory distinction. Heidi, do you want to specifically respond to that? MS. ASHTON: The category that's currently A is for beach renourishment, and we just expanded it to include inland lakes. Fishing piers falls under a separate section in the statute; therefore, we created a separate category. CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: Does the statute say we have to do it that way, Heidi, or you're just saying that's the way state legislation was directed? MS. ASHTON: Well, it's my opinion that a fishing pier doesn't qualify under the section that deals with Category A, which is beach park facilities, or beach improvement, maintenance, renourishment, restoration and erosion control, including shoreline protection, enhancement, cleanup or restoration of inland lakes and rivers to which there's public access. CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: But would a beach park, or beach parking, it's going to come under Category A, as I understand. MS. ASHTON: If we amend our ordinance to include beach park facilities. CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: Then that's going to come under A. MS. ASHTON: I guess you could make that argument that -- MR. WEIGEL: Yeah, if you're talking specifically about fishing piers, though, probably the only pier that might lend itself to that presently is the Naples Pier itself. Because other fishing piers on Lake Trafford or other fresh water or off-beach places, it wouldn't appear to fit into that category. CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: Right. But all the more reason, since all those other things are in Category A. It seems like it's complicated. Like it's even more complicated to ever look at whether or not a fishing pier gets funded if when it comes in, it's well, there's no money in this category. It all should fall into Category A. I don't understand why it can't. Could the county attorney consider that for -- you know, see if Page 49 January 13, 1999 that's something possible? MR. WEIGEL: Well, certainly. If I understand you correctly, though, you're talking about fishing piers generically and not merely that on our salt water beach. CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: But Category A also now has inland lakes. So I can't think of a fishing pier that's not going to either be on a lake or an inlet or a beach, so doesn't it all go into Category A? MR. WEIGEL: We'll give it our full consideration. MS. ASHTON: The legislative history on this is originally beach park facilities was not included in this category and then was expanded. I believe it was Representative Livingston, former representative, who moved that forward in connection with the -- that state park that's on the way to Fort Myers Beach. CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: Lovers Key. MS. ASHTON: On fishing piers, I'm not sure if we'd be able to get much information on legislative history that would support fishing piers. But if the Board, in its wisdom, interpreted the statute to include fishing piers, we could make an argument that that's -- CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: Well, it sounds like we already have decided we're going to include fishing piers, and the question is just, what category? Are we going to make it a new category separate for fishing piers, or could it go in Category A? And I think that we have talked about this enough for today. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Yeah, and I'm hoping we can put it in so that we don't have to have a little separate thing here, where we only have got X amount of percentage that goes to taking care of a couple of piers. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: That's the point. If you make a separate category, then you're going to have to allocate funds to it in your budgetary process. Otherwise, if you leave it in A, if there's some way to fund it in A, then you can make a simple budget amendment if the necessity arises to do some funding on a pier. CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: So we'd like to leave it in A, if you can find a legal way to do it. MR. WEIGEL: We'll give it our full evaluation and ~- COMMISSIONER CARTER: Thanks. CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: Okay. Anybody registered to speak on fishing piers? MR. FERNANDEZ: None. CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: And Item 8, which is the last thing on our agenda, we've already discussed, which is the continuation and allocation of the 1 percent additional tax due to expire on December 31, 1999. Your lobbying charge is clear, I hope, before we take final action on this. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Anyone registered as a lobbyist? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Don't forget to register. CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: And then the final item on here is wrap-up. Do you have anything for us, Greg, on wrap-up? MR. MIHALIC: No, Commissioners. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I have one question. It was brought up Page 50 January 13, 1999 early in our meeting this morning. What is the status of our second beach cleaning machine? It was my understanding that we did approve that. MR. FERNANDEZ: Madam Chairman, I can speak to that. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. MR. FERNANDEZ: The budget that incorporated the funding for that beach machine was the fiscal year that started October 1st. I understand that the selection of the contractor was before the Board on December the 15th. The Board selected the vendor. And the anticipated delivery date is the middle of March. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. Great. CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: And I -- just seeing from the crowd that it looks like there are a couple of people who would like to speak on the wrap-up item. Am I right about that, Mr. Lydon? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Is he the only one? CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: Is there anyone else? COMMISSIONER BERRY: Who wants to wrap up? CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: Who wants to speak on wrap-up? MR. LYDON: Seems to me that we've accomplished a good bit today. We seem to have danced around, unless I was out of the room, how we're going to divide this one cent, assuming that we can do our proper lobbying with a ball bat in the back room. We'll -- you know, we haven't yet come up, and, obviously, this is not a place for a vote, but I'd kind of like to know what the leaning is on the 80/20, 60/40, 50/50, 40/60 or wherever we're going there. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I've said my position, the 73 percent. MR. LYDON: I understand that. But that will come up at a vote. And might I ask, when that might be anticipated? Will that be on the 23rd? CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: Can you help with that? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: If we end up, and it appears we may end up needing to go to referendum, and I think that's all defined as part of that. If we get a fourth vote, then again, I think at that time, then that's defined. But we're not today going to figure it out. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Let me make one more point, too, on your 73 percent, it is 73 percent because 100 percent of the third percent goes to Category A. MR. LYDON: That's correct. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: If you reduce anything out of a third cent, then they're not going to hold 73 percent. CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: I'm clear on that. My goal was to keep the 73 percent because as we're making such dramatic and positive changes on the other parts of the tax, that I wasn't ready, and I'm not ready to make the changes on the beach issues. And if anybody else wants to, I think Mr. Lydon is asking if anybody else wants to say sort of where they're leaning on the percentage split, if anybody's willing to do that. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Yeah, I could probably -- I guess my first Page 51 January 13, 1999 leaning is 60/40. But probably with a big nudge, I might go to 80/20. But 60/40 is probably -- if we're going to continue this after -- MR. LYDON: All right. Just one more thing in the wrap-up, if you will. I spent a lot of my life in the tourism business and went through the Hawaii Visitors Bureau and the Cleveland Convention Visitors Bureau and that sort of thing. Looks to me like that paper that you have been presented today gives the five of you a great opportunity, get the hell out of the micromanagement. Give them an X number of dollars. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Amen. MR. LYDON: Let them spend it. And if they don't do it right, then nail them. But don't micromanage. CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: Thank you. Did you want to speak, Ms. MacKenzie? MS. MacKENZIE: Just for five seconds. Again, for the record, I'm Bonnie MacKenzie. As we continue to make the decisions about Category A funding, I just wanted to offer the services of Dr. Staiger, Dr. Stephens, anyone that Greg feels would be of assistance. I think that if we had had input from the beginning, that possibly some of the difficulties might have been ironed out in front. So if there's any way that we can be of help, we'd be delighted. CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: And not only do we appreciate that, but I would hope that you would understand that we very much intend for you to wrap in the City of Naples opinions because that is where the -- MS. MacKENZIE: And the City of Marco, and, in fact, really all of the members of the beach renourishment committee who are so thoroughly familiar with the subject. CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: Absolutely. Thank you for that. Anything further? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Yes, are we going to -- I think we started to give our positions or opinions, at least, leanings, toward the split of the monies. And as I mentioned the last time we talked about it, I believe it was back in November when we talked about this before, I can't help but be struck by the dichotomy or the irony of county commission spending 99 percent of its time trying to reduce growth in the county and hold the number of people down, and then making a complete reversal under this scenario, this particular issue, in trying to attract more people. I mean, that's so ironic. It shouldn't have entered some category. Should be in the Guinness Book of Records or something. But in any case, if we're going to reallocate the funds, I would lean towards 99/1 or 95/5 at the most, that would be fine with me. CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: Dick probably wouldn't argue with you on that. Commissioner Carter, do you have an opinion yet, or are you still considering? COMMISSIONER CARTER: Well, first of all, I think it is a dichotomy, I guess, where we try to reduce densities. And then on the other hand, we're trying to promote people coming here. But I see a Page 52 January 13, 1999 separation. We have businesses here. We are in business. Tourism is a big business. These people come they visit and they leave. So I really believe that this is a majo~ stimulatio~ to our economy. So I hope I can step out the differences on that issue. As to the percentage of the third penny to go to beaches to tourism, I'm between 60 and 70 percent to the beaches. I mean, we can go 65/35, I can go 60/40, I can go 70/30. I think there's room in here to accommodate both. But I do believe that a percentage of that third penny must go for the promotion and development of the tourist industry. CHAIRPERSON.MAC'KIE: Are any of you going to voice an opinion on that? Commissioner Constantine? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No. I'm waiting for the lavish gifts sure to shower down upon me by the lobbyists before I form my opinion. CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: I heard baseball bat. I don't know about gifts. Okay. Anything else to come before the Board? If not, we're adjourned. There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 11:40 a.m. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX OFFICIAL GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS CONTROL ATTEST: DWIGHT E. BROCK,; CLERK '.~, These m~{/te's approved by the Board on ~ , as presented / or as corrected Page 53 January 13, 1999 TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING SERVICE, INC., BY CHERIE' R. LEONE, NOTARY PUBLIC Page 54