Loading...
BCC Minutes 02/01/1999 J (w/Naples City Council)February 1, 1999 TRANSCRIPT OF THE JOINT MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND THE NAPLES CITY COUNCIL Naples, Florida, February 1, 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 2:00 p.m. in SPECIAL SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRWOMAi~: 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 FOR THE CITY COUNCIL: Councilman Barnett Councilwoman MacKenzie Councilman Herms Councilman Nocera Councilman Coyle Councilman Tarrant Councilman Van Arsdale ALSO PRESENT: Dr. Woodruff Page 1 COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND THE NAPLES CITY COUNCIL JOINT MEETING MONDAY, FEBRUARY 1, '1999 2:00 P.M. TO BE HELD AT THE COLLIER COUNTY COURTHOUSE COMPLEX BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' CHAMBERS 3RD FLOOR - BUILDING "F" 330'1 E. TAMIAMI TRAIL NAPLES, FLORIDA AGENDA NOTICE: ALL PERSONS WISHING TO SPEAK ON ANY AGENDA ITEM MUST REGISTER PRIOR TO SPEAKING. SPEAKERS MUST REGISTER WITH THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR PRIOR TO THE PRESENTATION OF THE AGENDA ITEM TO BE ADDRESSED. ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THIS BOARD/COUNCIL WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO, AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. ALL REGISTERED PUBLIC SPEAKERS WILL BE LIMITED TO FIVE (5) MINUTES UNLESS PERMISSION FOR ADDITIONAL TIME IS GRANTED BY THE CHAIRMAN. ASSISTED LISTENING DEVICES FOR THE HEARING IMPAIRED ARE AVAILABLE IN THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' OFFICE. 1. INVOCATION - REV. ROBERT JACOBS, MESSIAH LUTHERAN CHURCH. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 3. DISCUSSION/ADOPTION OF AGENDA 4. ITEMS TO BE DISCUSSED: A. DISCUSSION OF COUNTY-WIDE GOVERNMENT ACCESS CHANNELS/MEDIA ONE FRANCHISE. B. STAFF UPDATE REGARDING THE GATEWAY TRIANGLE STATUS. C. DISCUSSION REGARDING RECENT ACTION BY THE NAPLES CITY COUNCIL TO EXCLUDE COUNTY RESIDENTS FROM ELIGIBILITY TO SERVE ON THE NAPLES AIRPORT AUTHORITY. D. CITY REFERENDUM (FEBRUARY 2000) ON SECOND GORDON RIVER BRIDGE CONSTRUCTION. E. DISCUSSION OF BEACH ACCESS ISSUES. F. DISCUSSION OF CITY AND COUNTY DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS. ADJOURN. February 1, 1999 CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: We'll call to order the joint meeting of the Collier County Commission and the Naples City Council for February 1st, 1999. Good way to start a new month and a new year. And we have the Reverend Robert Jacobs from Messiah Lutheran Church who is here to lead us in invocation, and then we'll stand for the pledge of allegiance. REVEREND JACOBS: In the name of our great God who loves us and cares for us in so many wonderful ways. And Lord, Solomon said it so well when he said, I will lift mine eyes into the hills from which comes my help. My help comes from the Lord. Today at this joint meeting, Lord, the City of Naples Council, as well as the County Commissioners, are seeking your help for you to open their minds to listen, to hear about all the different issues which come before them as a county and as a city. Then as they listen, to analyze all of the information, and then be able to work toward a solution, a solution which will be to the betterment of your people, to the betterment of our community, both county and city, in which we can live together as your people in joy and excitement and offer the tremendous things that you offer unto us that we enjoy each and every day. And so we commend this meeting into your keeping, into your guidance, and into your direction. We offer it in your name, Amen. (Pledge of allegiance was recited in unison.) COUNCILMAN NOCERA: It was nice of the Reverend to mention the City Council first. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I'm from Mississippi, the hospitality state. COUNCILMAN VAN ARSDALE: We're not going there today. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Welcome everybody, and especially the City Council members who are here. It's good to be having this joint meeting. And I assume everybody knows everybody and we don't need to do any kind of introductions. We did that at Marco Island, but I think we've been around too long to need to do that. We have an agenda, and I think we've agreed, there's not going to be additions to the agenda. Is there anything to remove from the agenda that we have in front of us today? DR. WOODRUFF: We need to call roll. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Well, we don't usually call roll, but if that's how City Council -- do you need to call the roll? DR. WOODRUFF: Yes, ma'am, we do. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Would you do that? DR. WOODRUFF: Mayor Barnett? MAYOR BARNETT: Here. DR. WOODRUFF: Councilwoman MacKenzie? COUNCILWOMAN MacKENZIE: Present. DR. WOODRUFF: Councilman Herms? COUNCILMAN HERMS: Here. DR. WOODRUFF: Councilman Nocera? COUNCILMAN NOCERA: Here. DR. WOODRUFF: Councilman Coyle? COUNCILMAN COYLE: Here. Page 2 February 1, 1999 DR. WOODRUFF: Councilman Tarrant? COUNCILMAN TARRANT: Present. DR. WOODRUFF: Councilman Van Arsdale? COUNCILMAN VAN ARSDALE: Here. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Thank you. Okay. If there are no changes to the agenda, then we can begin with the first item, which is what started this discussion, and that is the access channel, the Media One franchise. Mr. Fernandez, are you going to present this to us, or how are we going about this today? MR. FERNANDEZ: Madam Chairwoman, we are prepared to present, but I understand that the city has requested to make some additional remarks. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: That would be wonderful. Could we hear from Dr. Woodruff or whomever he designates? DR. WOODRUFF: Chief Rambosk, among his other responsibilities, is Media One cable coordinator, so I'd like to ask Kevin to step forward. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: So that would be like us having Don Hunter in charge of the -- COUNCILMAN VAN ARSDALE: Exactly. MAYOR BARNETT: Not quite the same. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Okay. MAYOR BARNETT: Anything is possible. MR. RAMBOSK: Good afternoon. Dr. Woodruff had asked me to talk just a few minutes, actually a minute or two. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I'm sorry to interrupt you. I have to ask you to identify yourself for the record for the court reporter. MR. RAMBOSK: Kevin Rambosk, Chief of Police and Emergency Services, City of Naples. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Thank you. MR. RAMBOSK: And what I thought might be worthwhile is to go over a little bit of our franchise, master franchise agreement, which I know is very similar to that of the county's, and to make it relevant to the topic that you'll be discussing as best as possible today. Originally the group of people that put this together was citizens, just as the county had stated, and they looked at the ability to enhance the service through technology, customer service standards, and then modification processes and reviews. And that's one of the things that this question will raise is a review of what we currently have in our existing franchise. The master franchise ordinance actually went into place in 1995. And as part of that agreement at that time, there were several aspects that were relative to the application process, the renewal process, the revocation process should an entity not fulfill the requirements of the agreement. That's a difficult one to address; however, I think some of the questions that you will be discussing today impact that to some degree, whether or not there's sufficiency of materials, substantial Page 3 February 1, 1999 change or inability to perform. That's, I think, a question for the legal staff and not necessarily for us. Customer service standards, and that's relative to both technical and the way we answer calls and complaints. And then a requirement section, which really outline requirements for what does it cost to get a franchise, and in the city it is $10,000. And what's the franchise percentage fee, and that's three percent to five percent. The city has settled on three percent and takes in about $200,000 a year for us. Transmission requirements, how it comes into the head end, it should go back out to our residents. Municipal access, which was specifically designated in the agreement. Terms relative to the franchise, whether it be new or a renewal. And in and along with that is the ability for at least the city to review on an annual basis the agreement. And then also, because of the alternative renewal process that we went through, it sets forth years two, seven, and twelve for real formal review and determination whether we want to unilaterally go into a separate agreement. Again, if you can't or you're unable to fulfill the requirements of the existing agreement that give you -- that would give you an option to get out of our existing agreement. The other one is interconnection capabilities. We have the ability through our agreement to require that any cable franchisee enable us to interconnect. More of the question with that, though, is the franchised areas and the responsible persons for managing them, which is yourselves, need to create an agreement amongst yourselves to interconnect. And of course, that relates directly right into -- we have three entities, and we have two channels, and we're relegated to our own franchise areas. Certainly a couple of the options under these agreements. While we've been given two channels in the city, we could certainly look for a third. Utilize the periodic review process to determine whether we're meeting the needs of our community, and then look at doing a modified agreement to that. Wait until our seventh year review comes up, and that's unfortunately in the year 2000. But that's, again, when we can do a more in-depth review. Or seek another channel or find a way that we can all work together and accomplish three entities using two channels. DR. WOODRUFF: Let me make a couple of additional comments, and then Councilman Coyle has been the council member who has been working with the staff closest on this. The dilemma that the county and the city are facing is the fact that each franchise agreement has certain requirements in them, and for all practical purposes they are very close to being identical. You, as a County Commission, have your franchise agreement which says you are to have two governmental channels. We, as a city, the City Council's agreement is that they have two channels. But the way that Page 4 February 1, 1999 our franchise agreement is written, and I don't know for sure about the County Commission, is that is a commitment only inside the franchise territory. Therefore, what we actually find is that the same two channels -- and I'll use the Channel No. 54 and 78, they are your channels, and they are the city's channels. Now, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out very quickly that you can't be two places at one time, and you can't have two shows on the same channel at the same house at the same time. So what the -- did you follow that, Mr. Van Arsdale? I notice -- COUNCILMAN VAN ARSDALE: I think I did. DR. WOODRUFF: You've got that one. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I think I got that. DR. WOODRUFF: So what we have, the technology is available today that the city can be broadcasting on Channel 54 in our franchise territory, and you can be broadcasting on Channel 54 in your franchise territory at the same time. But if the County Commission and the City Council individually or collectively have a desire to have our channels broadcast across the franchise line, that is something we have to work out and is not something that our current franchise agreement can require of Media One. So with that additional word of introduction, I'd like to turn it over to Mr. Coyle. COUNCILMAN COYLE: Thank you, Richard. Richard has very adequately summarized the problem. Let me also tell you, however, that in discussions with Media One, we have been informed that the two access channels, which are promised to us in our contract, and in Ordinance No. 95-7470, states that the grantee shall provide at least two municipal access channels for the transmission of city programming. I suspect your franchise agreement requires the same thing. But the two that we are possibly being promised are the same two the county gets. So they are mutually exclusive. Our residents would not be able to watch the City Council meeting and then watch a county meeting. You have to choose one or the other. And the county residents can't watch a county meeting and then watch a City Council meeting. And we think that that is not the proper way to keep our people informed about what goes on in government. I consider that to be one of our most important goals. So what we're trying to do is find a way, either by working with Media One or by working with the County Commission, to be able to provide access throughout the county for both city and county meetings. And for other informational broadcasts, which either of us might consider to be appropriate. Now, I would like to very briefly read to you a requirement of the franchise agreement. It states that all cable systems shall be designed with the capability to be interconnected with other adjacent cable systems. At a minimum, the cable system shall be capable of interconnecting municipal access channel programming to other adjacent systems. The interpretation that Media One has applied to this provision Page 5 February 1, 1999 is not the same interpretation that I would apply to it. But I think that the issue here is what the lawyers would say about this particular requirement. And I think we're here to ask if it's possible for the county, if you're interested in pursuing this, if it's possible for the county to get together with the city's lawyer and try to determine if there's some way that we can meet our mutual goals of keeping our residents properly informed. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Comments? Yes, Councilman Herms. COUNCILMAN HERMS: Just to pick up on Councilman Coyle's comments there. Perhaps with the cooperation of the county stipulating to Media One that the county wants county-wide coverage of their two channels, it would force a situation of where Media One would have to give us a separate channel, which again, we would request to be county-wide. Because I think the programming of both entities is critical that residents throughout the community, at least if they so choose, get to be able to watch. COUNCILMAN COYLE: I think that's the inconsistency in Media One's argument right now. The county has a channel and it is being broadcast throughout the county. But they're telling us, if we want a channel it can't be broadcast throughout the county. You can't have it both ways. And you're absolutely right, Joe, I think that with the county's cooperation, we can reach some kind of a solution. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I appreciate that. I just weigh in here that I can't imagine as much county tax money as paid by City of Naples' residents that city residents wouldn't be able to watch and see how we decide how to spend their money at a County Commission meeting. That would be absurd. But the way it's been described, it sounds sort of like a clever trick. I mean, is it more complicated than that, or is it simply a clever trick? COUNCILMAN COYLE: We have been told that it creates certain legal issues in other franchise territories that Media One could not deal with. I do not know with any degree of specificity of what those problems might be. And it would be good to hear from them, perhaps to get a better understanding of those requirements. COUNCILMAN HERMS: And one other point relative to that, that the merging technologies of just the last year has allowed this to take place. We would not be having this conversation if, in fact, the city's channel was started a year ago. They've just changed their facilities to allow this to take place. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I see a Media One representative in the audience. I'm sure he's here because he wants to speak. Are there other members of this governing board up here that would like to comment before we call for -- yes, Peter. COUNCILMAN VAN ARSDALE: Well, the only issue for me is really what our needs are for these channels. We haven't gone there ever, and we certainly haven't gone there on this particular issue, but it keeps coming to my mind, you know, what do we need two channels for? And we haven't done that. Because that's a lot of programming, at Page 6 February 1, 1999 least to make a decent programming. Certainly one of the options that we have available to us is to actually have the county and the city pool our resources and the school board and make two really good channels, rather than have three mediocre channels, which we had one up to now. We certainly have access to a second. And I think if we were to focus on the programming issue in terms of what we're trying to program, what sort of information we're trying to put out there, and insist on a good programming plan and high quality programming, we'd find that we would have more than enough capacity with two channels. I've said this a number of times, we don't seem to get there. We keep demanding our own channel without really saying what we want to put on it. So I want to toss that out as an alternative to this issue that I think would fill the bill. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Any other comments from the Board? COMMISSIONER BERRY: I'd like to hear from the school board what their needs are. I know there are some people here and I know that in the past that their concern has been, I believe, from what I remember, about access to a full-time channel, particularly during the school day. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: It sure seems logical to me that out of all the -- COMMISSIONER BERRY: But I'd just like to know. I think we need to look at the needs here. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: -- out of all of the programming that the school board would have the most need. Is there somebody here from the school board, or from the school system? Oh, Ms. Goodnight's here. Thank you. This really is a summit. We've got all three levels of county government here. MS. GOODNIGHT: Thank you. For the record, my name is Ann Goodnight. I'm a school board member. I apologize that our chairman and vice-chairman are out of town, so I'm kind of pinch hitting for them. The school board very much would like to have as much time possible during the daytime hours, especially during the school time, to broadcast, especially in the areas that the cable is serving in our schools. And so yes, you know, as much time as possible. And I have -- you know, once a week we put out a list of all of the programs that we have on there. And so I mean, we're filling it up as much as we are allowed to do, and we'd certainly like to have as much time as possible. And the school system is very much wanting to work with the city and the county in filling in or doing anything that we need to do to make sure that both channels can serve the citizens of Collier County. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Thank you. Maybe if you've got copies of that you might want to pass that around, let people up here get an idea of what the programming is. DR. WOODRUFF: We'll just take the one copy and pass it through Page 7 February 1, 1999 and then file one with the clerk. Would that be acceptable? CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: That would be wonderful. COMMISSIONER BERRY: If you need copies, I'm sure that we can get copies made in our office. MS. GOODNIGHT: I'll make sure that we have some copies over here. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Okay. DR. WOODRUFF: One of the things that the school board, of course, finds itself in the awkward position in, that they are not a franchise authority. Therefore, for them to supply the channel inside the city or in the unincorporated area of the county, they have to look to one of the two franchising authorities, be that Board of County Commissioners or the City Council. And as the staffs have worked together, when you take the two channels, if two and two equaled four, there would be plenty of room here. Unfortunately, two and two only equals two, because of the way the franchise is stated, at least with the city. I have not read the county franchise. I think one of the first things you may want to do is determine is there a requirement in your franchise that your signal goes beyond the franchise territory. Because even though you represent the Board of County Commissioners -- I'm sorry, you are the Board of County Commissioners. Even though the Board of County Commissioners may represent the entire county, when it comes to the franchise matter, you may find that your franchise is limited only to the unincorporated area. And, therefore, if that is the case, you are in the same boat the city is in, in that neither one of us may have the power to force -- require Media One to give that cross franchise programming. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Mr. Fernandez, do you know the answer to that question, or is there somebody here who might? MR. FERNANDEZ: I believe Mr. Fitzek can speak to that issue. MR. FITZEK: James Fitzek, Department of Utility and Franchise Regulation. Our franchise is worded very similar to the City of Naples. And as our Board of County Commissioners acts in the franchising authority role, it would appear after legal review that our franchise is limited to that geographic area. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: The unincorporated area? MR. FITZEK: The unincorporated area. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: That's the bad news. MR. FITZEK: The bad news. On the other hand, the county assumed and was under the impression during the franchise negotiations that these channels would be county-wide. And so it creates somewhat of a gray area and our franchise is not specific enough to -- for a standstill defense of that issue. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Okay. Mr. Norris? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. I believe that the issue has been framed very well here this afternoon. And what I would suggest, since there's no possibility of making a Page 8 February 1, 1999 resolution of it here today, I would suggest that we direct our staff to make a little analysis of the issue and perhaps do some preliminary discussions with Media One and see what we can come up with, maybe in two weeks or 30 days or something like that. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Has anything like that happened already, Mr. Fernandez, or is this the initial discussion? MR. FERNANDEZ: I believe there have been some discussions with Media One on this issue. MR. FITZEK: Very early on we discussed with Media One -- both parties went back to see what room there was to compromise. Early on Media One said, this is your franchise territory, this is what your channels cover, we meet our obligations. I do believe they have been working on some form of proposal that they might be able to better explain, but I don't know the details of that. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Mr. Herms? COUNCILMAN HERMS: Another question, too. What is the complaint process for municipality or county to the FCC? MR. FITZEK: What is the complaint process? COUNCILMAN HERMS: Right. Can we file a complaint that they're not meeting the requirements of the franchise agreement? MR. FITZEK: In the Telecommunications Act there are certain methods for different forms of complaints. This area of complaint really becomes a contract issue between the county or the city and the franchisee. It doesn't really bump up too hard against anything with the FCC0 We could look for some relief from them, but I don't think this would be the issue to do that. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Is there a consensus from the group? Do we want to hear from the Media One or send this back to our staffs? What is the will of the Board? COUNCILWOMAN MacKENZIE: Well, if in fact there is something that they would like to offer, I'd like to hear what it is. COMMISSIONER CARTER: I think we need a three-way discussion with the city, the county and Media One before we can move forward on this. That seems to be the logical place to start to see if we can't get this resolved. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: That would be wonderful then if we could hear from the Media One representative. COUNCILMAN NOCERA: Also, I would assume that there is a consensus that the county and the city have no problem facilitating the school board. Am I correct here? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yes. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Absolutely correct. If you'd identify yourself for the record before you speak. MS. HILDEBRAND: Yes. I'm Lynn Hildebrand. I'm the general manager for Media One. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Welcome. MS. HILDEBRAND: So I've been sitting on pins and needles there waiting to have a chance to say something. We really would like to bring this to resolution today. We made a proposal. We think the proposal that we made meets your needs. As Page 9 February 1, 1999 you stated, there is one channel, 54, which can broadcast the meetings of Collier County throughout the county to all residents. If the City of Naples has meetings which they wish to broadcast to their franchise area, those will also be on 54. At the time, if there are times when both entities have meetings going on simultaneously, the City of Naples will see their meetings, Collier County will see their meetings. Any other time, whoever is broadcasting can be broadcast to either entity. Similar -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Could I interrupt you, just because there's one small problem there, and that is that I represent the City of Naples on the County Commission. So when I meet at the County Commission, if the people within the city boundaries are not able to see the County Commission meeting, then I'm not able to get the information to my district. MS. HILDEBRAND: I understand. But I believe that the way that can be accommodated is simply for you to tape the meeting and show it on the channel at a later time. COMMISSIONER BERRY: We do. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Which we do. MS. HILDEBRAND: There's not programming today that fills up all hours of the day, all days of the week that would preclude these meetings being shown throughout the county. MR. BARNETT: That was Peter's point, right? COUNCILMAN VAN ARSDALE: I guess my point is that I think that in dealing with this issue, we should get the school board, the county and the city staffs together and really define what our programming needs are. In other words, where -- what time slots we have to produce these shows, and see if we can make it all fit on the two channels that we have, rather than trying to get the channel first and then fill the void with something that we make up. And it may come out of this -- and I would hope that if we head down the route where everybody starts working together, that that's sort of where we start. We define what we need, and then it would be a lot easier to come back and argue for a third channel. If we said that two doesn't do it because we can do this, this, this and this, then fine. But right now we're arguing for a third channel, and we don't know even know why we need it. And I guess that's where I would like -- that's part of what I suggested. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Ms. MacKenzie? COUNCILWOMAN MacKENZIE: It is my understanding that if the Collier County School Board, the County Commission and the City of Naples all agree that we would each like to have our own channel, it is Media One's position that there are only two channels that are going to be made available, that this meets your contractual obligations. MS. HILDEBRAND: That's correct. COUNCILWOMAN MacKENZIE: We're going to have to find a way to work it out. So there is no other alternative. And there are no unassigned channels available as of December 31st -- January 1st of this year; is that correct? Page 10 February 1, 1999 MS. HILDEBRAND: I don't believe that's pertinent to the issue. The franchise requirement is -- COUNCILWOMAN MacKENZIE: Well, it is to -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That isn't the question. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: You don't mind answering the question, though? MS. HILDEBRAND: The channel space is an important asset. We don't give it away freely. COUNCILWOMAN MacKENZIE: You've got it reserved for such marvelous -- the used automobile channel is one that would give it my attention. MAYOR BARNETT: Hey, lighten up on that one. COUNCILWOMAN MacKENZIE: We could argue a long time about what community needs are. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Another time, please. COUNCILWOMAN MacKENZIE: Excuse me, could I just follow this up? You are saying there are unassigned channels available as to today, or there are not any unassigned channels available? MS. HILDEBRAND: There are unassigned channels. They're not available. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: To us? COUNCILWOMAN MacKENZIE: To us? MS. HILDEBRAND: Right. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Understood. Commissioner Constantine? COUNCILMAN HERMS: What channels are unassigned? MS. HILDEBRAND: I really don't know. It's just spectrum. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Let me get -- Commissioner Constantine has been so patient, let me let him speak. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I think Councilman Van Arsdale makes a good point in that we don't want to have air just for the sake of having air. But I know in the past 18 months how we've gone from Tuesdays and a handful of programming hours to a pretty full schedule. And I know the school board has added dramatically to theirs. So I don't think it is beyond the realm of reality that more than a year we've got enough programming where we do start crossing times and more often than not. And so I think if we're in the situation right now where we're going to have to deal with the two, that's fine. But I think that if we're looking, and I think several of us are, at trying to see that as that need evolves, that programming is available for both the city and for the county. We need to be working on that now and not wait until the point that we're busting at the seams. I think your point is well taken, Peter, that we don't want to have programming that's sub-par, but I don't think we're far at all from being pretty full on the county channel. And thanks in great part to our staff and the hard work they've put in during the last 18 months on that. But I'd like to see us pursue that third one. If it's not today, perhaps we disagree on where we're headed on that with our franchisee. But I'd like to see us pursue that. I don't think we should put it Page 11 February 1, 1999 on air prior to when we're ready, but I think we should have that reserve so that if we woke up tomorrow and decided we were ready, we would have the option of exercising it. COMMISSIONER CARTER: I also technically hear a contractual reason why you will not cover the City of Naples with the county programming. But I can understand why, Commissioner Mac'Kie, when we're up here live and someone from the City of Naples wants to come here and raise an issue, they can't do it if it's pre-taped. So I would like to explore that with you to see if we can't readjust the contract, because I don't see any technical problem with that issue. MS. HILDEBRAND: Well, our position is our position. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: And would you state that one more time for us, please? Nice negotiating with us in that way, but okay. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Remember the old quotes from Ken Cuyler, our position is our position. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Where we are is where we are. MS. HILDEBRAND: Where we are is where we are. The franchise requires that we provide a channel for Collier County, our franchise with Collier County. And our franchise with the City of Naples requires that we provide a channel for the City of Naples. We will do that. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: And respectfully, we have had such a good working relationship with Media One over the years that I would be disappointed if the position today is it was a cute trick and we won and we don't have to talk to you about it. MS. HILDEBRAND: I don't think it's a trick at all. As I said, our channel space is important. We're trying to protect our channel space and meet your needs at the same time. And I believe that this proposal will allow your residents to get the information you want them to get. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Well, we certainly -- it seems to me that the right thing to do as the first step is to do exactly what has been proposed, and that is to get the three entities together and see if we can fill up the schedule of two channels with really quality programming without avoiding meeting any of the needs. Commissioner Constantine? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I have a question for Mr. Weigel. I don't know if you have a microphone back there. But in the event the existing franchise were sold to another prorider of some sort, do we have to go back and review that franchise agreement? MR. WEIGEL: David Weigel, County Attorney. Obviously we'd be reviewing the agreement very closely in any event for a change in a central partner to it. However, if your question is does that give us an opportunity to go back and renegotiate -- is that the question? CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: That's my question. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Open question. MR. WEIGEL: Okay. It comes down to what we've noted, even with working with the City of Marco, is that our franchises do not provide -- did not provide for assignment, and this would probably be akin to Page 12 February 1, 1999 an assignment, or where you have a transfer to someone else. And so it may be an opportunity to negotiate. At the same time, it would appear that there's nothing in the agreement that automatically gives us the authority to unilaterally dictate. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: But we would have an opening. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: At the same time, if Media One were to sell this particular part of their franchise, or trade out this particular part of their franchise, there's no guarantee, there's no automatic that the county accepts the new group as the franchiser either, is there? That's what the whole process of reviewing that is for. MR. WEIGEL: That is correct. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thanks. COUNCILM/~N HERMS: When do the two franchises end? What's the city's and the county's dates as far as the existing franchises? CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Do you know that? COUNCILWOMAN MacKENZIE: We were just looking that up and we came up with -- COUNCILMAN VAN ARSDALE: County has 2012. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: County has 2012. MR. FITZEK: We do have provisions to review the franchise once every four years. In doing that, you could reopen the franchise and look at whether or not Media One is meeting the current public needs within Collier County. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: And that four-year window opens again when? MR. FITZEK: It's open now. It's one time within every four years. COMMISSIONER CARTER: It's open now. Thank you very much. I don't think the hard-ball approach may work here and we may have some room to negotiate. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Mr. Coyle? COUNCILMAN COYLE: One additional point. If you get to negotiating, I would urge Media One to reconsider its conditions by granting an access channel to the city. You're saying that the city must demonstrate that the access channels are programmed with non-duplicative original programming for an average of 18 hours per day. That certainly is not my intent. It will be duplicative. It's intended to be duplicative because there are a lot of people who can't watch these proceedings at a particular point in time. We are trying to reach people who can't attend the meetings. We want to rebroadcast them in the evenings and during the daytime and on the weekends in many cases. So as far as I am concerned, that's a show-stopper. It is going to be duplicative. It is duplicative now. And I would insist that it be duplicative in the future. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I couldn't agree with you more. That is the point. DR. WOODRUFF: Could I suggest the following course of action? CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Yes, please. DR. WOODRUFF: You may want to take the last speaker. Page 13 February 1, 1999 CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: All right. It looks like they are lining up, so why don't you go ahead. DR. WOODRUFF: I think there's three things that you might want to authorize. Number one, knowing that the rumor mill has it that Media One may be in the process of transferring properties, I think it would be a very good idea for the Board of County Commissioners to authorize their legal department and the City Council to authorize its legal staff to send a notice of request or whatever the proper term is, but at least it's a letter that puts on record so that no one who may be looking to buy this part of the Media One franchise is caught unaware of the feelings of the elected officials on both sides. Second thing, I think that it would be appropriate for the city staff, county staff and school board staff to bring back a program board that shows you that when you take all the programming that the school board would like to put on and that our citizens could benefit from, and then you plug in the number of advisory board meetings and the elected officials' meetings, you begin to see very quickly, yes, 4:00 in the afternoon may not be a hot show time, but there is already duplication that makes it pretty difficult to say, okay, you know, there's a lot of open time. And I think when the staffs do that -- and I think that a third thing that might be appropriate for you to do is to have the understanding that the city, county and school boards are authorized by you, our elected officials, to proceed to continue to negotiate with Media One and see if we can bring back some resolve. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: All of those sound awfully good. MR. MONTEVIAS: My name is Gilbert Montevias (phonetic). I am the Corporate Affairs Manager for Media One. I have been involved in the access situation in this particular area for quite some time, as well as access background in other areas that I've been involved in franchising. I just wanted to assure you that we're not taking a position of being stand-offish or anything of that nature. The bare essence of what we're looking at is, we are concerned about establishing a precedent that we, down the road, may not be able to meet, and that's not necessarily a burden that's imposed by these particular commissions or councils, it's something that we need to be concerned about in dealing with multiple governing entities. The thing that was touched upon that I think is the key issue is the demonstration of a community need. And once that is done, that really opens the door for a lot more possibilities. But there's no need to run before we start crawling, and in particular, on that particular issue. As far as the point of non-duplicative programming, the mere reason that that was in there was to prevent someone from having a tape and replaying it and counting that as their original programming. I think there's certain parameters that you can establish and say, okay, there is a need to show or replay this particular meeting. If the issue of 18 hours seems a little stringent, that was taken from our model franchise. There may be some flexibility in that. But Page 14 February 1, 1999 to claim that you have access, local origination programming, and it's serving a community need, it's hard on that point to argue that just replaying the same meeting or the message over and over again and counting that as original programming would be serving an ongoing community need. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Let me just speak to that, because I want to be sure that -- and I think the whole group seems to be -- seems to see this as an important issue. And that is, much more important than any other issue to me about broadcasting these meetings is to make them available for people -- we meet during the day, to make them available for people who cannot attend the meetings or couldn't watch the live broadcast. So showing the meeting in the afternoon and showing the meeting in the evening is the most important piece of this whole puzzle for me. MR. MONTEVIAS: Absolutely. And we are in total agreement. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Okay. MR. MONTEVIAS: But where we are at -- where we are at right now, with the amount of programming that exists, there is a lot of flexibility to have these duplicative programming with the tapes, with the replays of particular meetings. There's enough room because the programming grid for Channel 54 is not at full capacity. So our thinking is, let's get to that point first and then we can see where we're at. MAYOR BARNETT: Well, wouldn't it be easier -- I'm sorry. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Go ahead, please. COUNCILWOMAN MacKENZIE: How do you -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Excuse me. MAYOR BARNETT: Wouldn't it be easier, and I understand exactly what you're saying, fill them up and then talk to us about something else. But it really would be easier if you would say, hey, we will be everything that we can. I mean, more of a positive note saying when you get them filled it up, we'll give you one. Fill them up and then we'll give you one. And if you work toward that goal, I think everybody would be extremely happy. But I'm not hearing that. MR. MONTEVIAS: Right. And our position probably will not change on that, for the reason that when we negotiated the franchises with both Collier County, City of Naples, we counted on you as governing authorities to let us know what you felt the community needs were going to be for the projected term of the contract. That way we can establish our asset, which is our programming lineup. It gives us the flexibility to establish what we need to do to conduct our business. You came back with your inputs and we are following the terms of that contract. Let me introduce somebody real quick. This is Mr. Jim Campbell, who is our legal counsel from Jacksonville. And any specific issues regarding rules and laws he will be able to answer. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Unless somebody has some -- do you? Okay. Mr. Herms? COUNCILMAN HERMS: The last time you appeared before the City Council, we had a similar kind of discussion. And one of the things Page 15 February 1, 1999 that you explained to us was that the new technology has only been in place for a little over a year that allows you to split this away. When both of us negotiated our franchise agreements, the technology that you're now placing us under was not in place in this community. If two years ago we were having this discussion, you would have given us whatever channels the city wanted for county-wide distribution, and you would have done the same thing for the county for county-wide distribution. Now because of this new technology, you're not allowing us to do this. And I understand it from a business standpoint, but I think one of the things that's important is that your company is putting a higher priority on the -- on a channel that you're going to sell cars and boats on than on giving access to the community for the governments that need to place their public programming on your channel. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: You know, I -- COUNCILMAN HERMS: And that's where I'm having a real difficult time, that you won't give us the priority that you'll give to a channel like the cars and the boats and/or you're saying, well, you can't be repetitive in your programming, when you have yourself many programs that are repetitive all day long. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: And my thought, just the strategy or sort of the way the Collier County Commission works in these kinds of issues, is we would give direction to our county attorney, as suggested by the city manager, that we think we have some legal positions. And one of them may be that -- and I appreciate you bringing up the technology, because I was thinking darn it, it just sounds like the county -- we missed this issue. Because it never would have occurred to me that our broadcast area would only be the unincorporated area. Certainly never to me, since I represent the incorporated area. And if, in fact, technology has changed in the interim, that may give us a legal position, and I'm sure it would be your job to tell us that it doesn't, but we would at least have something to argue about. So unless there -- I know Mr. Coyle has something. Did you have something, Ms. MacKenzie? Maybe we ought to just -- my thought would be that we would take the city manager's advice and send this on along, those three points. MR. MONTEVIAS: Chairwoman -- I'm sorry, I just wanted to clarify something real quick that may pend what you do next. The advancement of technology was not the cause for establishing out-of-parameter type precedent-setting concerns. It was the issue of going outside the franchise area, whether it be the Collier franchise or the City of Naples. It was not tied to the technology at all. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Let me ask you a basic question. If in the county's franchise agreement it says you're going to have these two channels for distribution of information and in the city's it says the same thing, why don't you owe us four channels? MR. MONTEVIAS: Because your franchising authority is relevant to your control of the public rights-of-ways. And Jim -- Mr. Campbell Page 16 February 1, 1999 can further define how we look at that. But if you're not in control of certain jurisdiction, why go outside of that and put requirements for us to -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I understand that part. My question, though, was, was there a change in technology that allowed you to split Channel 54 between two geographic areas that previously you would have been unable to divide that channel between two geographic areas? MR. MONTEVIAS: No. The equipment has existed that we would be able to separate it. It would have taken some system design changes but that the equipment exists to do that and have it separated, and that's probably what would have been done to get away from setting the precedent. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: But it wasn't in place at the time that we signed our contracts? COUNCILMAN TARRANT: Madam Chairman? MR. MONTEVIAS: The equipment existed. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Yes, Mr. Tarrant. COUNCILMAN TARRANT: I don't want to shock people, but I really do agree with Mr. Van Arsdale. It's true. It's true. And his -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: It happened here. COUNCILMAN TARRANT: His idea of, you know, getting together the three government bodies, getting together and figuring out, you know, how much time we can fill up. And then with Commissioner Constantine's added request that we look seriously at a third channel, which will undoubtedly be needed in the near future. And I want to throw a bone of concession to Media One, because inadvertently, without realizing it, since we're trying to keep the taxpayers throughout the county informed on how their money is spent to the best advantage, sometimes they put on programming on the Learning Channel, for example, it's not about cars or boats. They'll have something on there that is very appropriate. The other day I saw one advertised, witness a giant anaconda enjoying his lunch. I mean, that gives the taxpayers a clue. So I think there's an inadvertent spin-off that we get from the other channels that they help us with. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: All right. Councilman Coyle? COUNCILMAN COYLE: My question has particular relevance to the issue you just raised, Ms. Mac'Kie. Our contract says that Media One shall provide at least two municipal access channels to the City of Naples. Now, the question is -- there are no requirements and no qualifications. The question is, if we asked you for our two municipal access channels for broadcasting within the city's franchise area, will you give them to us tomorrow morning? MR. MONTEVIAS: Yes. COUNCILMAN COYLE: Okay. And I presume the same would be true of the county; is that correct? MR. MONTEVIAS: Yes. But with the county, the second access channel, the provision was September 30th, 1999, to have the second access channel in place. We decided to make it available January 1st. And as the rebuilt continues, more constituents within Collier County Page 17 February 1, 1999 will be able to get Channel 78. But for the City of Naples, as of tomorrow, you know, or as soon as we can get the connection done, which will be quick and -- COUNCILMAN COYLE: So it's not an issue of giving us a channel, it's an issue of transmitting the signal through the entire subscriber network. MR. MONTEVIAS: Right. The county-wide provision that both of you are discussing is what is really at issue; however, that can be resolved quite easily with the shared scenario. And I think that probably before the issue even comes up again, that we should at least get to that point where we're talking about two access channels that have full programming on there. And in the definition of full programming, we can be flexible with that. But it's really what we would like to see. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: So probably -- I'm sorry. COUNCILWOMAN MacKENZIE: That goes directly to my question, Gilbert, which is, we have Ms. Hildebrand's letter which defines what you consider to be full programming. And I think you can see that we feel as though repeat broadcast of programs is, in fact, very desirable for us. So while we're coordinating schedules, would you go back and redefine the standards that we must meet so that we're all working towards the same goal, and the bar doesn't keep getting readjusted and we never actually meet the target? MR. MONTEVIAS: Certainly. Getting together to establish the bar is not a problem, it's something we're willing to cooperate to establish. So I have no problems in doing that. COUNCILMAN HERMS: But our franchise agreement does not have a bar. It just says that you will provide us with two channels. There's no conditions placed on it. We could be running the same thing over and over again. MR. MONTEVIAS: Oh, absolutely. COUNCILMAN HERMS: And you would have to be able to grant us the rights to do that. MR. MONTEVIAS: Oh, absolutely. The letter that you have in front of you by no means was meant to prohibit your -- for you to get your access channels. In fact, we can do that as soon as possible, if that's what you want to officially request. The first term that you were looking at was merely a suggestion. If you want to ask for two access channels, it's in your franchise, you can do that. There's no problem with that. But requiring either a third access channel, or requiring one of those two access channels to be county-wide is the precedent that we are concerned about. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Unless there is more, I feel like this horse has been sufficiently beaten. And we can give -- COUNCILWOMAN MacKENZIE: Although, I would like to observe that in fact in other jurisdictions there is a crossover between the franchise areas. My mother lives in the Washington D.C. area, and Fairfax County has its own media system, cable system, Arlington has its, and everybody else gets to see everybody else's government channels. Page 18 February 1, 1999 CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Sure does make sense. COUNCILWOMAN MacKENZIE: So there must be a precedent somewhere. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I don't know how we want to work this. Is there consensus from the County Commission to give direction to our staff in accordance with what Mr. Woodruff said? COMMISSIONER CARTER: Yes. So moved. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: City Council? COUNCILMAN VAN ARSDALE: Yes. MAYOR BARNETT: Yes. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Okay. Then we can move on to the second time item, which is -- I promise, don't make a liar out of me, Bob -- but a brief update on the status of the Gateway Triangle. Just since I have attended the City Council's workshop on your Gateway project, I just thought this was too good of an opportunity not to just give you a little bit of information about where we are on this, but I don't want to take too much time. MR. MULHERE: I will be brief. For the record, Bob Mulhere, Planning Services Director. The Board approved the hiring of Landers Adkins, the planning consulting firm, to work with county staff in developing the Bayshore Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Plan, and that was in September. The first workshop was held December 10th of 1998. There were approximately 140 people in attendance, which I think was a very good showing. And they identified areas of priority, including drainage being the top priority -- or drainage problems being the top priority. Also, the need for greater code enforcement and increased street lights. Second level of concern was improving the image of the area, problems associated with absentee landlords and dredging canals and creeks, which is the drainage issue. The consultants and staff have scheduled a second meeting for February the 18th at 7:00 p.m. at East Naples Community Park. And at this meeting we would hope to have a presentation centering around opportunities in the area, alternative conceptual plans, and possible catalyst for redevelopment in the area. A third meeting will be scheduled in late March, with the final completion of the consultant's work and staff's work hopefully by the end of April. That is a brief update of the Gateway Bayshore Redevelopment Triangle. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I appreciate that. And I'm just going to take just a second more to tell you that on your visualizers now are the maps of the two areas, the Gateway Triangle and the Bayshore MSTBU. And those two are sort of coming together as one redevelopment area and it's also the map that is here. And what I think you're going to be seeing is perhaps a zoning overlay where we can redesign the land uses for those areas. I know that you're going to see some serious landscaping improvements along Bayshore, because they have already taxed themselves to the tune of three mill for landscaping improvements in there. And the -- what I would hope for with Mr. Woodruff is just the Page 19 February 1, 1999 continuation of cooperation as you develop simple things. As you guys choose the light poles for the Gateway project, if you'll keep our staff informed, and then the fixtures, maybe, that we choose for the Gateway project on this side can be coordinated to match. Simple little things. But it is a beautification project, and it would be awfully good if the two could coordinate. And it's much more than a beautification project, also, you need to know that. It's a revitalization of the whole area. MR. MULHERE: Madam Chairwoman, may I just add very briefly that the County staff and the City planning staff have met on several occasions. We are coordinating our efforts. And you're correct, street lighting and signage and those type of issues are the very issues that we have been working on and we will continue to work on with the City staff. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Stay tuned, and show up actually for the meeting on February 18th at -- COMMISSIONER CARTER: What time is it? CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: 7:00, East Naples Community Park. This is -- you know, the first meeting, you guys know how these charets go. You have done them more than we have. The first one is sort of information gathering. The second one is really when you get down to real planning and what's going to happen. And that's going to be February 18th, 7:00 at East Naples Park. Anything further on that item? COUNCILWOMAN MacKENZIE: Other than to say that there have been remarkable changes just in Davis Boulevard. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Isn't it beautiful? COUNCILWOMAN MacKENZIE: And they look great. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Thank you. The next item is a discussion regarding the recent action by the Naples City Council to exclude county residents from eligibility to serve on the Naples Airport Authority. Do we have any backup for this item, or who's presenting it? MR. FERNANDEZ: Madam Chair? CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: John? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I am. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. If you'll indulge me just for a couple minutes, I'd like to bring up a little background about why I brought this forward. Six years ago, when Commissioner Constantine and I came on the County Commission, the relationship between the City and the County were not at its best, would be a mild way of putting it. We weren't getting along too well. In the intervening years, though, the County Commission and the City Council have worked very diligently, both of the bodies, to get on a more cooperative footing. And we've done a number of projects together. We've shared information much better, we've shared responsibilities on certain projects much better. And in my opinion, at least, I think that the relationship has been very good. We used to have scheduled joint meetings like this because there Page 20 February 1, 1999 were issues to be discussed between the two bodies. And we haven't had very many of those in recent times because, frankly, there haven't been any outstanding issues that would require us to get together. The reason I mention all of this, of course, is because of the recent action by the City Council to exclude county members -- or county residents from membership on your Airport Authority. That causes me some concern, because I take that as a step backwards from all the progress that we've made over the years. I would like to point out that the County has over 40 committees, advisory committees, and except for those who are municipal taxing units that require residency within those particular geographic areas the County, to my knowledge, does not exclude anyone within the entire county from serving on any of our committees. Some of these committees, I might go down through there with you, are important to City residents as well, of course. Affordable Housing Commission, for example, the Board of Billing Adjustments, Black Affairs Advisory Boards, Code Enforcement Boards, our Planning Department. Even though it may not seem to be very important to you, if you think about it, it does have a lot of importance to City residents, as they are -- we have a lot of common borders. And in fact, I think that's one of the issues that we'll be discussing a little later. Contractors Licensing Board and Development Services Advisory Committee, Environmental Advisory Board, Emergency Medical Services Advisory Council, Historical Archaeological Preservation Board, and on and on and on. Library Advisory Board, of course, is very important. And I would point out that two of the seven members on our Airport Authority are from the City of Naples. When you think about the makeup of our area, you will notice that 90 percent of the residents in Collier County live outside the boundaries of the City of Naples, and 10 percent, of course, live within the boundaries. However, the Naples Airport is a very important vital economic engine for our entire county. The fact that 90 percent of the residents do live in the county are really what causes the concern, because now they will not have a voice on how the airport is operated. I'm sure, I feel very sure, that the City Council did not mean to step away from the cooperation that we have done, but probably inadvertently made this step without thinking of perhaps some of the consequences of backing away from our cooperative spirit that we've had all these years. You know, we've been completely non-parochial in our use of the tourist tax money on beach issues and so forth. It never, as far as I'm concerned, ever crosses my mind, and I'm sure the other Commissioners are the same, of whether or not we're going to spend money because it is or is not in the city limits of Naples. That is just not part of the decision-making process on the tourist development tax money. For example, you know, we operate our biggest library, which is in the City of Naples. We do that. We've assisted in the past several Page 21 February 1, 1999 years with the rebuilding of the Naples pier; we've contributed money for that. Just recently, with Councilman Nocera's guidance, we've helped contribute some money to the enlargement of your Edge Skate Park, for example. We could go on and on and on, but I think you get the point. And I would just, as one member of this County Commission, would like to ask the City Council to perhaps reconsider that action and see if maybe you would like to revisit that. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Thank you, John. Other comments? COUNCILMAN TARRANT: I'd like to make a comment -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Mr. Tarrant. COUNCILMAN TARRANT: -- in response to Commissioner Norris. Thank you, John, for that summary, which I agree with nearly all of your points. Certainly the desire of the City Council and City Administration have worked cooperatively and closely with the County Commission. It's absolutely vital to both of our interests. I don't see the City Council's desire to limit the membership on the Airport Authority to city residents as being an exclusionary policy. In fact, I consider it to be inclusive, very inclusive. And I'll tell you why. That's because you have to realize that the City of Naples is a very small area, 13 or 14 square miles. You compare that with the county, there's no comparison whatever. We basically, as you understand, are fairly well built out. Yes, we're experiencing a lot of tear-downs and rebuilding, but this is just tear down and rebuilding. We are a very, very tightly built community. So that the least little thing, the least little decision, the least little movement in any one area of that very small area of the City of Naples affects the whole area acutely and immediately. And so I feel -- and, you know, of course, in our election setup where we elect our City Council people, we have a very, very inclusive concept there, where anybody in any part of the city, whether they're from the north, the south, the east or the west can vote for any candidate that makes their application and filing to run for city election. Whereas, in the county, of course, for your own good reasons, you may not. If you're from the city, you may not vote for a commissioner in Mr. Constantine's district, for an example. So we see these differences which exist in the county which suit your agenda and your program, and are in line and suitable and appropriate for the scope and the size and the huge operation that you have in the county. But I think that in the city where everything is very finely tuned and there's no room for -- let's say, there's no room for error, we want to make sure that we have -- our city residents have the first and primary opportunity to serve on that very important authority which represents an asset of roughly 100 million dollars. So that's my feeling, and I'd like to hear from the other council people that may have a different approach to it. Thank you, John. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Thank you. Mayor Barnett and then Commissioner Constantine. Page 22 February 1, 1999 MAYOR BARNETT: Thank you. Commissioner Norris, I -- it was not a complete consensus on council with this vote, for sure. And I'm a firm believer, and I've stated it many times, that we want the best talent that we can get, whether it's in the county or in the city on any board. I mean, you never know who is out there. And the level of talent that's out there is unbelievable. And we've all witnessed that. I would like council to reconsider that as well. I concur with you 100 percent. I just think segregating it is not the way to go. Since I've been Mayor, I've certainly strived to tear down any walls that have been up between county and city. I get along with everybody. But it happens every day that people come to me and say we love Naples, and they don't even live in the City of Naples, but they don't know the difference anyway. And I don't bother to tell them. Whether they live in Golden Gate or not, they live in Naples, Florida. Their address is Naples, Florida, and that's the way that it is. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: It's whatever it says on your mailbox. MAYOR BARNETT: Right. We're one big, good community. I agree with you. I would hope that council would reconsider that, because I think we're losing a lot of talent. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Commissioner Constantine? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Councilman Tarrant makes a good point in that he talks about a hundred million dollar asset and how the city wants the best for it, as well you should. But I agree with the Mayor's comment about you may sometimes find the best talent doesn't necessarily live within those tiny boundaries that you described. My understanding of the old rules weren't that it wasn't required that you have a certain number of county seats, it was just that the opportunity was available. So if you did have a stellar candidate, you allowed yourself that opportunity to appointment them. And so this is certainly not inclusive; it's exclusive. Fred, I disagree with you, because you have now disallowed yourself that opportunity. If you have an excellent candidate who happens to live on the wrong side of the street, they are no longer eligible. What I'm wondering is, you know the old saying, if it's not broke, don't fix it, and apparently the council perceived something as broken and was trying to fix that. And what I'm wondering is if perhaps a representative of the council can tell me. I don't know if there was a problem with the county resident appointee or -- I'm not sure what the problem was that you were trying to correct, and maybe someone can help me with that. COUNCILMAN TARRANT: We do have a responsibility, as you have a responsibility to your constituents, to be concerned first and foremost with their needs. We have the same responsibility in the city. That's for sure. We need to think of our city residents. They pay the taxes. They are our first consideration, since we are elected by them. Page 23 February 1, 1999 CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Fred, I just have to say -- it's Pam. I have to jump in and say, certainly, for me, and it's my experience that with the entire Board of County Commissioners, they do feel that, as is true, we represent also members of the City of Naples, residents within the city limits. And just as a little history was made with you agreeing with Peter before, I'm going to make agree with John today that -- this is a history making moment. Is that -- COUNCILMAN VAN ARSDALE: It's Valentine's day. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: That's it. It's something sweet in the air. Is that where the talent lies is certainly where the -- but the pool should be for the available applicants. And maybe even more importantly, the importance of the Naples Airport to Collier County cannot possibly be overstated. I hear numbers, and I would love to get real numbers, but I hear things like 78 percent of the users are county residents. And, you know, I'd love to know what those numbers are. But when you look at who's paying at the airport and then also look at who's benefitting at the airport, it's a much broader base than the City of Naples. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Madam Chairman, again, I'm not -- and maybe you were going to answer this. I was just going to say, I just want to go back. And I don't know who brought it forward originally but maybe somebody can help me with that. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Mr. Coyle, were you -- COUNCILMAN COYLE: I didn't bring it forward, but I would like to try to answer your question, because I think it's a good question. I would say that it's my personal feeling that this particular decision was not meant as an affront to the people of Collier County. But let me try to use an analogy. The people of Naples, our garbage winds up in the landfill. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Don't I know it. I smell it daily. COUNCILMAN COYLE: The people of Golden Gate are very, very much concerned about what's happening there. Now, how many people of Naples do you think are really sensitive to that? Probably not many. Not nearly as sensitive to the impact upon Golden Gate as the residents of Golden Gate are. Now, when you have an attitude which says the airport was here first and you have no right to complain about anything associated with it, it's very much like telling the people in Golden Gate, the landfill was here first and you have no right to complain about the smell. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Except that wouldn't be accurate in a landfill situation, but go on. COUNCILMAN COYLE: So the point here is, I think the council was trying to find a way to get representatives on the Airport Authority Board who were sympathetic to the problem, and to reach some common reasonable approach to the things that annoy a number, but I would also hasten to say not the majority, of Naples residents. But we have an obligation to address those issues for the people, and we are hoping for some reasonable resolution. And a fair amount of progress has been made in that respect. As a matter of fact, we Page 24 February 1, 1999 have two members of the Authority now who do not live in the city. But that's my explanation to you as to why we thought it was important to have people who understood the problem, were sympathetic to the problem and could thereby go about developing solutions rather than dismissing them and saying it's not an issue, it's silly, the airport was here first and you have no right to complain about it. That's basically what -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: But, Fred, I'm so grateful that you used that as an analogy. Because for me -- Tim's surprised. But for me it makes the case that likewise, I don't think you would like it if we gave all of the decision-making power about the Collier County landfill to the residents of Golden Gate, because the impact of it is so severe and it's so broad that we can't let only the affected parties make the decision because of the economic impact of it. And in the case of City of Naples Airport, on three sides you've got, you know, county residents. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: To take the analogy a step further, too, is I came to the Board of County Commissioners when we were deciding to go through a long extended process of finding where an appropriate site would be if we were to have long-term uses for our solid waste, and I asked if we could create a citizen's committee. And what we created was one that included the people from the city, from North Naples, from Marco, from everywhere, as well as from different political cross-sections for that very reason. So while I understand your point, and you -- I completely respect both you and Councilman Tarrant's comments that first and foremost you're trying to take care of your residents. I understand that. But in the analogy you use, obviously Commissioner Berry, it's in her district and it's right near my district, have a particular sensitivity to the landfill. But we did go out of our way to make sure that we included the entire county in that process. And again, I go back to my earlier point in that I don't think the old rules -- and I may be mistaken, but my recollection isn't that the old rules require you have county people. They just opened that option up, so if you had several -- COUNCILMAN TARRANT: Tim, if I could say one more word. Our -- obviously, our -- perhaps one of our greatest assets in this city is the Naples Beach. And, you know, the County Commissioners basically control the beach renourishment program. Yes, there's a Tourist Tax Development Council, we have representation on that. Yes, there -- you know, there are various beach committees. There are various cost analysis people that do the cost analysis and so forth. But when it comes down to the final analysis of who has the final say over how the beach renourishment program is going to get done and funded and so forth, it really comes down to a vote of the County Commissioners. So I really think -- you know, I really think it's helpful when an area in the county of critical concern has the people that are most affected on the boards in the same in the city. And it is not -- as Mr. Coyle has said, it is certainly not intended in any way as an affront or anything of the kind. It just to me is common sense. Page 25 February 1, 1999 CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Fred, please don't lose sight of the fact that the City Council has a representative on the County Commission who helps to make those decisions, and that is the point. Please, I hope that I'm doing my job well enough that you don't forget that I'm down here. Peter was waiting. COUNCILMAN VAN ARSDALE: Well, I guess it seems to be lost in the justification for doing this. And I might point out, it was a four to three vote to do this. Mayor and I and Dr. Johnny were for maintaining the status quo. What seems to be lost is the simple fact that most people -- and the problem with the airport is noise. And most people affected by noise actually probably live outside of the city, is my guess, and it would be ever increasing. So there just isn't any rational justification to exclude people from Collier County on the basis that they don't have an interest in managing the noise problem. And I think if you look at -- and the current chairman is very well qualified, lives in Pelican Bay. We should be going for the best people. And I think traditionally the airport has been very well run by people who care about running a good airport and being a positive factor in the community. And so no, there isn't any -- I'd be happy to change my vote, but I'm not the one to do it. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Are there others who want to weigh in on this particular issue, or perhaps the County Commission -- COUNCILMAN NOCEHA: Gee, just one thing. Len Thornton, who's on the Airport Authority, he's the chairman now, has done just a wonderful job in fighting the FAA to ban the Stage One jets. And with his expertise -- and he lives in Pelican Bay. And that was a big concern for me, getting -- as the Mayor brought up, getting the right people. And we are a community. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: He's an aviation attorney. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: His entire career was as an aviation attorney. Bonnie, did I see you, or were there others who wanted to speak on -- it was Joe who wanted to speak, I think. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Go ahead. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Joe and then Barbara. COUNCILMAN HERMS: The airport issue is probably the most important issue in the minds of the residents in the City of Naples right now. You had a tremendous amount of turnout at the Telford Center two and a half, three years ago with people concerned with the quality of life that is being downgraded by purely the noise and the activity at the Naples Airport. I feel that there will be a benefit to the county residents by the City Council requiring that the board be comprised of city residents. We have a higher probability of getting people on our board that are sensitive to the noise issues because they live within the noise zone than by allowing it to be spread out among the total county. That has a very large potential of getting some bans on the Page 26 February 1, 1999 Stage One and Stage Two jets that will affect the quality of life in the flight paths of the people that live within the county as well. That's one of the, I think, goals that the residents in the community on this particular issue want to see accomplished. And I think by having city residents being the members of that board, that you're going to have a much more responsive board to the quality of life issues that so many people in the city and within the county see as a problem as of today. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Barbara? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: May I respond to that, please? CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Well, I promised Barbara was next and then if you would be. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Go ahead. If John wants to respond to him, let him go ahead and do it and then I'll speak. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I appreciate that argument, and I assumed that that was the one you'd make. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: You anticipated that. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: It is basically flawed from the outset, though, because it doesn't matter what a person's address is. It really matters their qualifications. But the central flaw in this entire argument is that you seem to be assuming that the most important thing about the Naples Airport is concerned with noise, when a stronger argument can be made that the economic benefits to our community are at least equal or perhaps outweigh any noise issues. But the economic benefits are not getting any mention in this argument, and I think that's where the flaw in the -- in your position falls apart. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Although those economic benefits and the noise concerns are not necessarily competing interests. They -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: No, they're not. And I would -- I guess I should go ahead and say that, you know, whatever support I can give to helping the FAA along with the decision that we're looking for on the Stage One and Two jets is fine. That's not my -- that's not my complaint at all. I'm not saying that we should just continue with whatever noise has been occurred and not take any measures whatsoever to control noise. That's not what I'm saying at all. I'm just saying that let's not lose sight of the economic value to our community, which is enormous, and also the parochialism. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Commissioner Berry? COMMISSIONER BERRY: I just go back to the Enabling Act, and I think that that speaks a great deal about that airport in terms of who it serves, and it's not only city but it's county as well. And to just say that you're going to exclude the county residents based on the fact that they're not affected by noise, and that's, in effect, what I heard, I don't understand that -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Don't talk about Lakewood or Foxfire. COMMISSIONER BERRY: That's exactly right. Depending on where the planes are taking off or whether they are landing can certainly -- you know, there can be a lot said. Page 27 February 1, 1999 I will tell you, and I'm going to say this, and I've been known to go out on a limb before, but there's a lot of county residents that are affected by that airport. But I'm going to tell you, people, frankly, they're too busy working to be able to sit home and dial the phone and complain about the airport noise. (Applause.) COMMISSIONER BERRY: And I'll tell you, and in many cases, when those airplanes are flying, there are some people making their living doing that. And it's not all bad. (Applause.) COMMISSIONER BERRY: So what I would like to offer to the City Council would be, if you think that you want to have the majority on the Airport Authority, then that's fine. I think at least you ought to designate at least two slots on that Airport Authority for a county resident. I would like to see you not have to designate anything and just leave it open and try to get the best qualified people. But if you are determined that you need to have the majority because you're still concerned about the noise issue, then I would say go ahead and have the three slots, but at least make sure you've got two people from the county. Because in case you've forgotten, you still are part of Collier County. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Barbara, maybe you could make that a motion and we could -- COMMISSIONER BERRY: I would like to make that a motion. COUNCILMAN TARRANT: If I could say one thing before you close with the motion, Barbara. You have three airports here in the county. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Yes, we do. Fine airports. COUNCILMAN TARRANT: Yes, they are. And we have a very fine airport in the City of Naples. I don't know whether you know or who knows how many planes take off and land in your three airports in the county in the course of a year, but I can tell you this, that there are more take-offs and landings at the little Naples -- beautiful little Naples Airport in the course of a year than there are at Southwest International Airport in Lee County. COMMISSIONER BERRY: I think that speaks volumes for the quality of our airport here in Naples. COUNCILMAN TARRANT: And I will also close by telling you that I know people in the Village Green in a lovely residential area in the City of Naples who have sold their units and moved out because of airplane traffic over their buildings. And even to the point that when the real estate people came with clients to try to sell those units, they had to stop their conversation and wait for the planes to go over. So it is a matter of continuing concern and interest in the city. We're proud of our airport. No one on the City Council I've ever heard, no one expresses the desire to cripple or damage or in any way shut down the Naples Airport. It is a marvelous asset to the city. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Mr. Tarrant, let me just -- COUNCILMAN TARRANT: There are people that don't agree with my statement, but I think it is a great asset to the city. And I have Page 28 February 1, 1999 never been in favor of curtailing the operation or shutting it down. Mr. Saliday, the director, has said that it is one of the most beautiful airports in the country. Mr. Putzell, before he left, said that he didn't want to see the airport grow any larger, it was large enough. That's our concern. We need to direct our interest and our concerns first to the people who elected us. That's only common sense. Thank you. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Ms. Berry? COMMISSIONER BERRY: Just one further comment, Mr. Tarrant. It is a beautiful airport, and it's a very serviceable airport and a great asset to both the county and the city, if you want to view it that way. But there are certain things that the Airport Authority may be asked to do. As just recently, we witnessed a letter from Mayor Barnett, I believe, that went to the Naples Airport Authority, and there were several statements in there, requests made of the Airport Authority to address those issues. You may not want to come out and say I want to shut the airport down, but you can impose some things through the Airport Authority on that airport that would cause them to become not as usable as they are today. Such things as some annexation of land which would cause a shortening of a runway, which certainly would not be conducive to commercial air traffic coming in here. Those are the things -- and, yes, you're not saying come out and close the airport, but you can come around these issues through the back door and cause that airport to suffer some economic problems. (Applause.) CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: We'll have an opportunity for public comment in just a moment. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Let me make one further comment. In regard to this airport, I happen to serve on the County Commission on the noise -- I hate to say, noise compatibility. But it seems like that's an oxymoron, because nobody likes noise. But nevertheless, it is a committee that we do look at noise complaints. And unfortunately, I don't have the last board package in front of me, but as I recall, 10,000 some operations for the month of -- I see Gene Smith sitting out here. What was the number, Gene, for December? MR. SMITH: For January, I saw the figures this morning, 11,209. COMMISSIONER BERRY: And out of that -- the last one I saw was 10,000. And out of that, the number of complaints were less than 100 complaints. It boiled down to .9 percent. .9. Not even one percent were the calls. And of those calls that were called in, 51 of them came from one family. (Applause.) COMMISSIONER BERRY: So, yes, and I'm not saying -- I'm not saying that people are not concerned about noise. They certainly are. And I'm telling you that there's a lot of things being done at that airport to control that noise, and they're going to continue to control that noise. Nobody likes it. But, you know, to say that you want to ban a Stage One, that's being done. In fact, that's going to Page 29 February 1, 1999 do it on its own. The aircraft are on their way out. But to come in and say you want to ban Stage Two, Stage Three, I defy many people to determine what is a Stage Two or Stage Three. Would you know one if you saw one? I think you need to have people that are very knowledgeable in the area that need to know. I mean, just to say that you heard a noisy airplane going over. I heard a noisy leaf blower outside my front door this morning that was far more bothersome to me than an airplane, but -- COUNCILMAN TARRANT: If I may, Madam Chairman, just one question. Commissioner Berry, would you explain, did you say regarding the annexation you're referring to the 25-acre piece that is under consideration for annexation, you said that you didn't think we should close off the possibility or the option of extending the runways? Wasn't that your comment? COMMISSIONER BERRY: I believe that was probably what I was alluding to. COUNCILMAN TARRANT: This is why we want to have city people on the Airport Authority. Thank you. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I think the issue was whether or not that runway should be shortened and not extended. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Right. Right. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: And -- well, for clarification -- COMMISSIONER BERRY: But again, I think we need people who are very knowledgeable in that area. You don't base it on just one aspect. You need to look at safety for people who are coming into that airport. If you want to present a problem, then you do something to those runways whereby it jeopardizes a pilot coming in there with a load of people. You're going to have a serious problem, Mr. Tarrant. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I think at this point we do have a motion on the floor. But maybe the best thing to do is to hold that in abeyance while we go to public speakers. MR. FERNANDEZ: Madam Chairwoman, we have six speakers on this issue. If I could call them two at a time and have them come up so we can save some time. The first two are Ellie Krier and Joe Bawduniak. MS. KRIER: Good afternoon, Madam Chairman, Mr. Mayor, Commissioners, members of the Council. I'm Ellie Krier with the Naples Area Chamber of Commerce. And as always, the Naples Area Chamber of Commerce is on record in continuous support of the Naples Airport, as we always have been, as a valuable community asset. And we acknowledge the outstanding job the Naples Airport Authority has done. There are two points that I would like to bring up. And I think they've both been adequately covered, so I will just summarize them. The first is my concern, having watched many, many advisory committees, as well as authorities, that any narrowing of eligibility will, at some point in time, exclude a qualified candidate whose skills and talents you will need. And the obvious example today is Chairman Thornton. His skills and his contacts which he is a master over time in the field of Page 30 February 1, 1999 aviation law are in a large part where you have gotten today in some of the work that has enabled you to ban Stage One and precede further than that. Secondly, the Naples Airport is a community resource. And there are two items that do not recognize the political boundaries; one is economic benefit and one is noise. Therefore, my question is, while no one questions the Council's power of appointment to the authority, wouldn't it be appropriate and beneficial to allow the possibility of representation from the county? Not to require it, not to amend or limit Council's authority, but to provide for that qualified candidate to serve you, should you so desire in the future? Thank you. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Thank you. MR. FERNANDEZ: Next speaker, Joe Bawduniak and then Tom Ryan. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: If we could ask the next speaker to sort of be on deck, it keeps it moving. MR. BAWDUNIAK: Good afternoon, County Commissioners and City Council. I appreciate the opportunity to be able to speak to both elected bodies at the same time. And thanks to the County Commissioners for their interest in the background documentation that has been prepared for you. What I hear today, you certainly have done your homework. And thank you for your awareness of the value of the Naples Airport to the county, as well as the city. For the record, for the record, I would like to mention a formal request will be sent to Mayor Barnett for an airport agenda item at a future workshop. Some concerned citizens, business leaders and leaseholders were heard at the Naples Airport Authority meeting where five requests were carefully considered and evaluated. Many people here were there. These five requests were rejected for reasons of legality, safety, and one was rejected out of hand as an unnecessary burden to taxpayers. Others than the 20 people who spoke and the approximate 90 who showed up wish to be heard at City Council as part of Save the Naples Airport. I thank you. MR. FERNANDEZ: Tom Ryan and then Louis Amato. MR. RYAN: I'm Tom Ryan, and I'm a member of the Noise Compatibility Committee. I love that nomenclature. That's a beauty, isn't it? It seems that a majority of the Naples City Council feels that nobody but Naples residents should serve on the Airport Authority, while obviously most of the County Commissioners feel they should. It also seems that many of the people in the City of Naples thinks the Naples Airport has too much traffic, while at the same time the county is doing everything they can to initiate more traffic at their airports, which are vastly under-used. It might be time for the two bodies to consider what many, many metropolitan areas have done in the United States, and that is a joint Naples/Collier County Airport Commission with three people from the county, three people from the city, and one at large. There would be tremendous economies of operation. You would have one executive Page 31 February 1, 1999 director, one staff, and perhaps, just perhaps, some of the traffic could be moved around a little bit to satisfy everybody. It might be a win-win situation. I ask you to just kind of take a good look at that and see if there may be some thought there, or some possibility of doing something like that. I thank you. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Thank you. MR. FERNANDEZ: Louis Amato and Captain Ashby Reardon. MR. AMATO: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. My name is Louis Amato. I'm at 5850 Pelican Bay Boulevard. I am not here as a member of the Airport Authority, but really as a happy user of the four airports in the county. There's really nothing more wasteful of your time and the public's money than to have political fighting and turf battles. When it comes to the Naples Airport, however, I will admit to having jumped in with both feet in the fight for the Naples Airport. I am combative by nature and by vocation, and I'm pleased to fight for the Naples Airport; however, that does not mean that I believe that is the best approach. I think that there is a solution. We didn't script it, but Mr. Ryan, who's on the Compatibility Committee, has exactly the suggestion that I do. It seems to me that the fundamental problem that the City Council has, vis-a-vis the Naples Airport, is they are in the undesirable position of having political responsibility for the Naples Airport, but no control over its operation. Secondly, there is a perception that the value of the Naples Airport should in some way be returned to the City of Naples. On the other hand, the county has the challenge of having made a very large investment in the three outlying airports, which are very much diamonds in the rough that Naples Airport was 25 years ago when the City Council washed its hands of it. Now, the Naples Airport is a tremendous asset. And with proper nurturing and investment, the three outlying county airports will be just as strong an investment. I would suggest to you all that the best approach would be to reconstitute the Airport Authority to have it control all four airports and that it be an elected body. Therefore, the people who are making the decisions have direct political responsibility to the voters, and that the -- this new Airport Authority purchase from the city, the value of the city remainder interest in the 99-year lease, that would return funds to the city and put it in the coffers. It would also permit this new county Airport Authority to acquire the three county airports in return for assuming the debt that the county has made with respect to that airport. Further, the revenues that will continue to be generated by the Naples Airport must be reinvested in aviation, but it doesn't have to be reinvested in the Naples Airport. That capital that is acquired can be used to develop the outlying airports and create a greater demand and a greater interest in those outlying airports and spread aviation around to all of those counties. Page 32 February 1, 1999 It puts the political responsibility with the decision-makers and returns the city and county their investments, and I think it would be something for you all to consider and to jointly petition to the Florida legislature. Thank you very much. COI/NCILMAN NOCERA: Mr. Amato, can you expand a little bit about that, how you feel that that would benefit the city financially? MR. AMATO: Well, there is -- the city has -- just went up 12 million dollars, now it's theoretically worth 100 million dollars, the airport. But we all have to recognize that the people of the State of Minnesota and New York and Alabama have a greater investment in the Naples Airport than does the City of Naples. Because the improvements that have occurred at the Naples Airport are from federal and state funding sources and from activities within the airport, not by the City of Naples. However, the city does have a remainder interest in that fee simple land. It has a value. It's not 88 million, it's probably not 100th of that, but it is a significant amount of money. What an appraiser would say the remainder interest to the City of Naples is if they were bought out of this lease, that doesn't do them any good right now anyway, what it could -- what it is worth. This new reconstituted authority could pay to the City of Naples the remainder interest that exists on that leased land, and that would return to the city significant sums of money on a near term basis. COUNCILMAN NOCERA: Give me an example. MR. AMATO: I'm not an appraiser, but say the remainder interest in the Naples Airport is worth $500,000, to throw out a figure. The new Airport Authority would agree to pay the City of Naples $500,000 for a deed to the remainder interest to the land. That $500,000 can go validly into the city coffers where aviation .revenues cannot, just as they cannot for the county airports. They have to stay segregated from the county funds if that occurs that it runs a profit. But that four or $500,000, or whatever that number is, and it will be a meaningful sum of money, can go directly into the city coffers, because it is a quid pro quo sale of an interest in land. And that money can go towards -- for city purposes. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Mr. Amato, if I may, there's no net loss to the city, because the income that is otherwise generated at the airport can only, as you said, be spent for aviation purposes. So there's no revenue stream that would be lost to offset. This would be a bonus, a cash payment for something that otherwise has a value in 99 years. MR. AMATO: I really do think that it's a win-win situation for -- not only for both political organizations, but for each and every taxpayer both in the city and in the county. And I commit it to you for your consideration. COUNCILWOMAN MacKENZIE: I think this is the pea under the shell. We own the airport fee simple. To resell the remainder of the lease to someone else, when it would revert back to the city at the end of that lease, unless you are proposing that we sell it, sell an 88 or 100 or whatever million dollar asset for $500,000 and not retain Page 33 February 1, 1999 control of the land, I can't imagine you suggesting that. MR. AMATO: Oh, no, I meant the convenience of the fee, of the underlying fee title. COUNCILWOMAN MacKENZIE: This is your win-win situation? MR. AMATO: Win-win-win. COUNCILWOMAN MacKENZIE: Win-win-win. COUNCILMAN VAN ARSDALE: The only comment that I'd make, Lou, is that you could make -- every point that you made could be applied to the county buying the city and having one form of government. And I think one of the things that we've chosen to do as a city is govern ourselves, and I think the airport falls also in that category, because it's very important to the city to continue to manage it. Now, if the county would like to have us help them manage their facilities, that's certainly an option, too, but I probably don't want to go there either. MR. AMATO: I don't see why you shouldn't go there. Because actually, that was contemplated by previous city councils and petitioned to and accepted by the Florida legislature that the Naples Airport Authority does now have the legal authority to operate other airports. But what I'm suggesting is that number one, the political responsibility for the operation of the airport be in the hands of the voters. That would certainly eliminate such unpolitical people as myself from the Airport Authority, that's for sure. But by the same token, I think that there's a valid purpose in having elected officials be responsible for what occurs, which is not the case now. City of Naples does not manage the Naples Airport Authority, but it's your phones that ring when something happens that a taxpayer doesn't like within the City of Naples. But you can't do anything meaningful about it. COUNCILMAN VAN ARSDALE: Sure we can. MR. AMATO: You can only appoint people -- COUNCILMAN VAN ARSDALE: We can appoint the members. MR. AMATO: You can appoint the members. COUNCILMAN VAN ARSDALE: If we need to get the members to sign an oath, okay, as to how they are going to conduct their duties as an Airport Authority member, I think we can do that. MR. AMATO: You can't eliminate personal initiative and personal integrity and tell people that they have to do something that they don't believe in. COUNCILMAN VAN ARSDALE: Don't apply for the job. MR. AMATO: But you can eliminate them from the -- from the job if the voters are unhappy with it. Yes, sir, Mr. Tarrant. COUNCILMAN TARRANT: Could I see this, Lou? I think that in my estimation, the biggest question today in the City of Naples is growth. You have a group of people on one side who feel that we should just let growth run its course and run rampant and move ahead as quickly as possible, turn Fifth Avenue South, for example, let it continue to develop into a real situation where it would be gridlock. Page 34 February 1, 1999 You'd reach a point where it would be impossible to drive down the street. You get people on the other side who want to try to control the growth factor in the City of Naples, being that it's such a small city, and in a sense it's between a rock and a hard place. It's between the water and the county that's growing at a tremendous rate of speed. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Would we be the rock or the hard place? COUNCILMAN TARRANT: Excuse me just for one second. Your airport manager made the comment at your last airport meeting last week that as far as building hangars at the Naples Airport, it's basically a no-brainer. You said if you were in the hotel business, you would be building hotel rooms like they're going out of style. And that is the plan of the Airport Authority in Naples at the present time. As I understand it, that you have over 200 planes for over 200 T-hangars, and you yourself urged them to go ahead and pre-lease those, get those under contract with the waiting list, and if necessary, go to the bank and get the financing to build that. If you look at the number of hangars that are at the airport at the present time and you add another 200 hangars, plus another 25 or 30 condominium hangars or general purpose hangars for large executive jets, you're talking about an attraction, an intensity. Whereas Mr. Saliday, the manager, or the director, pointed out that by the year 2015, he expects there will be at least another 200 planes, you know, stationed at the Naples Airport, large and small. So this is really -- I don't want people to overlook this. This is a growth issue. It is the commercial interest in this county, in this city, looking at things one way, and the residential people -- and hold the growth within reasonable means people looking at it from another direction. MR. AMATO: I'm very -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Excuse me. I'm going to try to keep us back on the subject here, because this is such a broad, broad issue and we could be discussing it for days and days, and maybe we should. But today's agenda item, and we promised we were going to stick to it, is whether or not county residents should be included on the Airport Authority or whether or not the County Commissioner wants to communicate to the City Council our concerns in that regard. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Madam Chairman, can I suggest we just run through the public speakers and then rather than debate with each one of them, perhaps if we have thoughts we could jot down remarks and state them at the conclusion? MR. AMATO: Thank you for your time and attention. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Thank you. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: The other thing, Madam Chairwoman, I believe, is that these poor unfortunate council members have a Town Hall meeting at 7:00, so we need to move them along. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Next speaker. CAPTAIN REARDON: Good evening, ladies and gentleman. I'm Page 35 February 1, 1999 Captain Ashby Reardon of the Civil Air Patrol. I'm a registered voter in the City of Naples. I represent 52 aviation enthusiasts of the Civil Air Patrol, half of which are pilots and half of which serve in other capacities for our safety function. I'd also like to say that I come here and I like living in Naples and I like voting in the city. And I voted for several of you gentleman up there who have surprised me on your attack on the airport. The Civil Air Patrol is a group of volunteers whose mission is to save lives by finding aircraft in distress, boats in distress and residents in distress. We fly approximately 240 sundown patrols every evening -- every year, one an evening, finding boats in trouble that may have turned over or may be on fire or may have illness aboard and get help to them. We found airplanes down in the Everglades, we have found residents in distress in years when the hurricane did a lot of damage here. We've assisted the local community in assessing damage after a storm, such as flooding, bridges out. We've also assisted the fire departments of a number of communities within the county. Not within the city, of course, we do only forests. But there have been forest fires here where our aircraft have been up helping fire departments spot fires that they could send their crews to on the ground. 25 percent of our members are city residents, 75 percent are county residents. If this airport is encumbered or our facility is shut down or for some reason we're asked to move to another location 25 miles remote from where we are now, it would destroy the activity that we currently perform. It would destroy the safety function and the sundown patrol that we regularly strive to do, weather permitting. We feel that this airport provides great service to both Naples and Collier County residents, and our position is that representation on its governing body should be at least 50 percent from the county and 50 percent from Naples. Thank you. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Thank you. MR. FERNANDEZ: Next speaker is Kathy McGrath and then Everett Thayer. MS. McGRATH: Good afternoon. Thank you for having us speak. My name is Kathy McGrath. I'm a private pilot. My husband and I have had our airplane based at Naples since 1990. I'm speaking basically for us, but I think the general things I say probably reflect the feelings of many of the private pilots. We happen to have a single-engine Comanche. First of all, we are a little disturbed at the direction and suggestions -- and a lot of this has been touched on already -- that the city made, the five suggestions. Just briefly. What wasn't mentioned today was -- one of them was to move mosquito control. Now, mosquito control has a million, million dollar facility there. And to move it would cost millions more. And no matter where they fly out of, they're still going to be spraying at 200 feet. So that was kind of ridiculous. Restricting flight schools. Does anyone have any idea how much Page 36 February 1, 1999 money the flight schools bring to the county and the city both? And as far as restricting operations, they're always encouraged to operate at the Immokalee Airport for their touch-and-goes. So that's important. The closing of Runway 5 and 23. That's the predominate runway. They were landing on 1-4 today. But to close that to turbo and multi-aircraft is compromising safety. What's important is this is a county/city problem. Problem is the wrong word. It is important, very important, that someone from the county is on this Airport Authority. Very, very important. Now, if I can get my thoughts again. Mr. Ryan is here today. I hadn't had the opportunity to meet him before. And he already said some of the things. I was going to quote his letter from the December 3rd issue. The one thing he didn't bring up, you were talking about, okay, oh, no, we never said we wanted to close the airport. Well, I believe I have heard that quite a few times. What I would like to point out is that a lot of people have unrealistic expectations as to what can be done. The FAA has a big voice. They have got big bucks in there. And even the directors of the airport, a lot of the things they have tried to alleviate. They come under limitations. I mean, they can't -- if you say do this, and even if they wanted to, they can't. What Mr. Ryan had said, and this is people who advocate moving the airport, he visited the FAA in Atlanta. And if I may quote him. It's his article here. It would take 20 years alone for permitting. And we all know that within five years if you did find the spot, guess what would be built around it? And you would have the same problem. Most of what I was going to say has already been said, and it looks like you've all listened very carefully. We appreciate this opportunity. I was going to say that, as Mr. Ryan said and Mr. Amato, I think a joint cooperation, a joint authority that could manage all four airports would be a wise way to go. And thank you again very much for your time. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Thank you, ma'am. MR. FERNANDEZ: Next speaker is Everett Thayer and then Bruce Thalheimer. MR. THAYER: My name is Edward Thayer. I live at 1690 Avion Place in Avion Park. If you got any closer, you'd live on the airport. I have no objections to the air noise. I've heard nobody express any objections to the air noise in Avion Park, and I'm the president of the homeowners' association. And therefore, if anyone was objecting, they would be objecting through me, or should be. They should be objecting through me, if there's anybody objecting to the air noise from Avion Park. I think that we have -- if I had a problem with the airport, I'd go up and talk to them about it. If I had a problem with the city, I'd go talk to the city about it, and I'd face them and I'd solve the problem. I wouldn't go around backstabbing. And that's what our Page 37 February 1, 1999 problem is, backstabbing politicians. They are Mayor Barnett and his three bad men. That's who they are. Now, did I go to your back, Mayor? You're -- I said it to your face. MAYOR BARNETT: How did you get me in there, huh? MR. THAYER: I wanted to get you in there for sure. We won't have another argument, will we? MAYOR BARNETT: No, we never do have an argument. MR. THAYER: I think that we got to get politics out of this airport business here. Because if we don't, we're going to have an accident. And then everybody's going to say how did this happen? It happened because we let it happen or made it happen. And politics is going to do it. Any questions from anyone? How about you, Mayor? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Pretty clear. MR. FERNANDEZ: Next speaker is Bruce Thalheimer and then Scott Cameron. MR. THALHEIMER: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen, backstabbers. All kidding aside -- MAYOR BARNETT: None with him, John. MR. THALHEIMER: All kidding aside, I've been here in Naples 33 years and I've lived in the City of Naples, lived in the county. When somebody asks me where I live, I live in Naples, and it all blends together. I've heard -- I'm speaking with two hats. One, I'm speaking as a pilot that uses the airport on a regular basis and loves the lifestyle that it affords. The other, I'm speaking as co-president of the Third Street South Merchants Association, and representing the Fifth Avenue South Merchants Association. There are approximately 200 businesses in those two associations. Many of the people that discovered Naples discovered it by flying in on American Eagle, Com-Air, when they were in business, coming in on corporate jets. As Bill Hall said from the Ritz Carlton, the Ritz wouldn't have built here if they didn't have a Naples Airport where it was. That was part of the equation. We have clients, many of the people in business in the community, on a daily basis that are flying in and out of this airport because of the convenience. They are spending money in our stores, they're building homes in the community, they're contributing to public works in the area. Ask how many people have contributed major, major dollars to things like Sugden, to the Philharmonic? And there's an awful lot that's given back to the city because of that airport. You know, I heard a statement that the average student that takes flying lessons at Naples Airport that comes over from Europe spends six weeks in the community. That's six weeks in a motel room, whether it be in the city or in the county. They're eating in our restaurants, they're paying sales tax on their purchases. And this is a real benefit. One thing you can't lose sight of, yes, the city -- the residents in the city, there might be some people that have some complaints. Page 38 February 1, 1999 And some of those complaints need to be addressed, there's no doubt about that. But you also have a tremendous number of people that work in the city. And you should take that into consideration also when you're looking at how to do this board. If you are going to stick with what it is, you might want to look at also saying, well, let's at least have somebody on the board. Maybe if they don't live in the city, but they have a tie in the city, they work there, they own a business in the city. But look at it where you're representing everybody and not just the City of Naples. Thank you. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Bruce, would you identify yourself? CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Our speakers are positioned oddly so it makes you think that it's coming behind you. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Just identify yourself for the record, please. MR. THALHEIMER: I'm Bruce Thalheimer. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Thank you. MR. FERNANDEZ: Next speaker is Scott Cameron and then Mark London. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: How many more speakers do we have? MR. FERNANDEZ: Three more after Mr. Cameron. MR. CAMERON: Thank you very much. For the record, my name is Scott Cameron, and I am a resident of the City of Naples and have been so for many, many years. I have had the good fortune of knowing many of you or most of you for some time. And I'm going to try to limit my comments to the issues that are before this particular forum. Specifically, I think the idea that's being addressed today is limiting the Authority membership to the residents of the City of Naples. And I think those of you who know me know that I do not agree with that concept. It's based on what I believe to be false premise. First of all, as a resident of the City of Naples, I pay taxes in the City of Naples. I also own property outside the city limits, and I pay taxes outside the City of Naples. And I'm very pleased to know that none of those taxes go to the operations or the improvement or anything having to do with the airport, whether it's a city tax or county tax. However, I am also a user of the airport. And there's a substantial difference when you're looking at -- and properly, when the City of Naples looks at having control over an asset that is built by city tax dollars and the people who pay taxes in the city, then certainly, that's something you need to pay attention to. But these are user dollars. Interestingly, I have some notes from an interview that was done with Mr. Fred Lowdermilk. Now, some of you have been around for a long, long time. Peter, perhaps you knew Fred. He was the town, at the time, manager for -- or actually, I guess -- yeah, town manager from 1948 to '71. And -- or excuse me, this interview was done in '71. And one sentence out of his interview talks about when the city was purchasing the two-thirds interest that was owned by the county. The city owned one-third, the city (sic) owned two-thirds. Page 39 February 1, 1999 CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: The county owned two-thirds. MR. CAMERON: I beg your pardon? CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: The county owned two-thirds. MR. CAMERON: The county owned two-thirds. It says, and I sold the gas tanks and other things left over from World War II with the council's approval, of course, and paid the county off. And our net cost, including the original payment, was $1,385. The balance of that asset that you continually refer to as 100 million dollar and 80 million dollar asset, that's just a pie in the sky. But let's assume it's 100 million dollar asset. The balance of it was paid for by user fees. And I think that it can be well established that those users, the majority of them, live outside the city limits, and they deserve the representation that they are seeking through this forum. Thank you very much for coming together to discuss this and other issues, and to hopefully do away with some of the parochialism. You said it so well. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Parochialism. MR. CAMERON: That word, what he said. Thank you very much for coming together to solve those issues. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Thank you, Scott. MR. FERNANDEZ: Next speaker is Mark London and then Scott Phillips. MR. LONDON: Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. My name is Mark London, and I live at 1288 Pond Apple Drive. I'm a county resident. I also own and operate London Helicopters at the Naples Airport. We employ about 12 people. All of those people live in the county. We have been before the City Council board numerous times this summer as we've acquired another business and are expanding that and are trying to upgrade and help some of the facilities. And our helicopter operations, we've continually worked with different neighboring groups and trying to do that. And I think that noise and growth are important issues. And I think it's important that everybody tries to find a balance for all of that. And that the city and county also try to find a balance, and that it isn't just the city's airport or the county's airport. And I've spoke to some of those people. And I think whatever you can do to help them understand that it's everybody's community and that we need all that representation. And just because somebody lives on a certain street corner doesn't mean that, you know, they're in and somebody that doesn't live out -- and, you know, Mr. Thornton has, you know, been very helpful and, you know, to exclude him because of where he decides to live in our community, I think, is a grave sin for all of us. Thank you. COUNCILMAN TARRANT: Mr. London, didn't the City Council recently give you a permit to upgrade your facility at the airport? MR. LONDON: Yes, sir, they did. COUNCILMAN TARRANT: Thank you. MR. FERNANDEZ: Next speaker is Scott Phillips and then John Page 40 February 1, 1999 Wesley DeBaun. MR. PHILLIPS: Good afternoon. I'm Scott Phillips, president and owner of Jet One at the Naples Airport. I'm also a city resident and have been since 1983. And I've been very involved with the airport and its growth. And I've operated in and out of the Naples Airport since 1983. Aviation basically is my life. Everything I do business-wise is in one way related to aviation. By being on a Jet One on a daily basis, I get to interact and speak with and discuss issues with the people that are using the airport on a daily basis. And the type of people that we service and cater to are more the corporate, executive travelers. I can tell you that this airport, if you look at the big picture, is such a big part of why this city is the success that it's been. These people are here. Behind their noise dragging airplanes, they're bringing jobs, they're bringing money, they're bringing contributions. And bigger than anything, they're bringing knowledge. The type of people that fly around in these airplanes are intelligent people that have a lot to offer this city. They're philanthropists. We don't want to send these people a message that go away, we don't want you using our airport, we're anti-growth. Positive growth is good growth. And we're experiencing positive growth because of the type of people our airport is allowing us to bring in here. And most of these people, and I know from dealing with them on a daily basis, could not function out of this town without their airplanes. They're also, most of these people, because of the way Naples has grown, are county and city residents. They should have a voice. They should have an opinion. They're are contributing the dollars. They're interested in seeing positive growth at the airport, not negative. And I'm very much in favor of having a joint county/city run authority. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Thank you, sir. DR. WOODRUFF: The county manager had to catch a plane. He said the last speaker is Mr. DeBaun. MR. FERNANDEZ: What did you say? DR. WOODRUFF: You're back already. Must have been a jet. Mr. DeBaun was the last speaker. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I'm so gullible, I'm about to buy it. MR. DeBAUN: Thank you very much. I'm John DeBaun. I live right under Runway 5, and I have one complaint. At night there's no planes flying in and out, and I can't sleep. Anyway, I've been flying airplanes since 1945. And your last meeting we had that I was there, I got up and said the same thing like I'm going to say now. I had one thing. There's an awful lot of gentlemen, businessmen, who are doing a fantastic job because we have the airport we have. The man that runs Ritz Carlton -- it hasn't been told yet, but there are two Ritz Carltons that are coming into Naples. I don't know if you people are aware of it. And Mr. -- the manager of the Ritz Carlton mentioned 940 employees, and I don't know if he said 400 or 600 conventions a year. And that means he needs that airport badly. Page 41 February 1, 1999 And I've been here since '69. I know a guy named Paul Frank, and he told me years ago that the airport is a necessity where it's located because of the wells that we have for the city water. And one more item, talking about safety. When I moved -- when I came here in '69, you had 27 golf courses. Today you've got 74. You've got the Gulf and you've got the Naples Bay right near my house. Your engine quits, you can always belly it in on the bay, and you have got golf courses. And that makes the airport a very safe airport. It's one of the safest airports in the United States for little airplanes and medium-size airplanes. Thank you very much. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Thank you, sir. Do we have any more speakers? MR. FERNANDEZ: That was your final speaker. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: There was, when we -- you want to take a break? COMMISSIONER CARTER: We have a motion by -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Can we just hang on one more second? Because we do have a motion on the floor. And as I understood it, Commissioner Berry, it was to urge the City Council to have two members of their -- COMMISSIONER BERRY: At least two members. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: -- of the Airport Authority be representatives from outside the incorporated area. Commissioner Norris? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Second. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: We've got a second. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Final comment. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Yes. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We heard all kinds of things above and beyond just the simple subject we had on the agenda. And we could certainly debate the issues of use and of noises and safety, but that's not what we are here for. The only question, as far as I see, is do you want the best and brightest to have the availability or the option to serve? Do you want the option to be able to appoint them, or do you want to exclude people and limit your pool of expertise? And I think the motion was just asking that the county may have folks like Mr. Thornton, who was referenced many times, who can benefit city and county both. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Mr. Nocera? COUNCILMAN NOCERA: Good point, Tim. Also, I'd like to remind people when the final vote came down on whether or not the City Council would leave the Airport Authority autonomous or not, and after doing a whole bunch of homework, talking to a whole bunch of people, interviewing the president's council, and just a number of -- gosh, I spent weeks with this, and it was definitely that the people in the City of Naples felt that it was an asset to leave the Airport Authority autonomous. I just wanted to make that clear. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Commissioner Carter? Page 42 February 1, 1999 COMMISSIONER CARTER: I think Commissioner Constantine has said it well. You know, to me, if you stay parochial, it's just like being prejudiced. You eliminate the possibility of some real quality people to serve on that authority. And safety and strategic location issues have been mentioned here to me, and that works the other way, too. If he have a disaster here, we've got an airport that's functional and operating that can assist us in those areas. The public service, to me, mosquitoes know no boundaries. I think it's pretty nice that we have it where it is. And I think the financial impact in this community is we need this airport where it is. We need to work with the city. If we go to a joint authority, I would certainly hope that beyond what we do here today, we can explore that possibility. But I heartily support Commissioner Berry's recommendation and hope that the City Council will take that under due consideration. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: We have a motion and a second on the floor. For the County Commission, all in favor, please say aye. Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Motion passes unanimously. COUNCILWOMAN MacKENZIE: Could I just take one second to correct something? CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Yes, ma'am. COUNCILWOMAN MacKENZIE: I happen to have a letter from Mr. Lowdermilk who said that in 1955 the City of Naples paid the county the balance due of $8,311.18. So the airport couldn't possibly have cost $13,000 total if, in fact, Mr. Lowdermilk paid them 8,300. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: See if I know this, Scott, because I think what happens is when they paid the 8,000 something, then they sold off equipment that reduced that 8,000 to -- MR. CAMERON: They did indeed. COUNCILWOMAN MacKENZIE: Gasoline tanks and other things. But the implication that was left was that the sale price of the airport was $1,300. Not quite the right number. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm pretty sure that the point was, is that it's not 100 million bucks. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Okay. Moving on. COUNCILMAN VAN ARSDALE: Just a second. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Yes, sir. COUNCILMAN VAN ARSDALE: I would like to offer a motion for the Naples City Council to revert to its former policy of appointing qualifying members for the Airport Authority. MAYOR BARNETT: I second that. COUNCILMAN NOCERA: I second that. MAYOR BARNETT: I got it fist. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Do you want to call that? MAYOR BARNETT: Yes, I will. Is there any discussion on that? Okay. I need -- COMMISSIONER BERRY: Can we discuss with the City Council on Page 43 February 1, 1999 that? CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Can we try to persuade? MAYOR BARNETT: Yeah, you can. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I think we can. I mean, I think that's the point of a joint meeting. MAYOR BARNETT: Well, that was the idea. COUNCILWOMAN MacKENZIE: Well, let me -- I'm probably not going to make anybody very happy, which is my lot in life, because I do agree that the airport is indeed an asset and it does bring very qualified, very generous people and a lot of knowledge and a lot of jobs to our area. Unfortunately, like anything, an asset can become a liability if it is not managed well. I don't think any of us would like for that to happen. I think the noise problem is far more complex than just airports. I -- or this airport. I think that it's part frustration with construction, frustration with trucks, landscaping equipment and leaf blowers. The airport certainly adds to the noise, but it isn't the sole source of all the noise. And I don't think we can address it and solve it because it is complex, but we can try. I don't think that excluding county residents as applicants for the Airport Authority limits us to a substandard pool of volunteers from which to choose, which is sort of what's being implied here. I think we do have very qualified applicants that live in the city. Certainly we have qualified applicants that live in Collier County, in Lee County, in the State of Florida. We could open it up nationwide if we wanted to. But, in fact, I don't think that's a good idea. One of the reasons, and it's been alluded to by many of the speakers, is this is a city asset. We do own it. We own it fee simple. It's been ours for 48 years. When people have a problem with the airport, they don't go to the county to solve it, they come to us. They stand in front of us and they say we have got a problem, and we want you to help us with it. And our job is to make sure we appoint people to the Airport Authority who are going to be responsive to those concerns. Whether they are the noise concerns or whether they are the loss of an economic benefit concerns. And I think we've been very good at that. Nobody on the Airport Authority serves because of the big bucks in benefits that they get. They do it because they want to help. And I think they're trying to solve the problem. They're not getting there as fast as people would want, they're not getting there as slowly as other people would like them to take, but it is a cost benefit ratio, and we're getting there step by step. I am very comfortable leaving the policy that we've just enacted in place for the time being. Should there be a problem in the future, I'm more than willing to revisit it, should I still have political office from which to make a decision. And I'm sure some people will make it their mission in life to make sure that doesn't happen. And that's okay. But it's good to sit and talk and work it out. And I don't think that just having city residents on the Airport Authority means that we Page 44 February 1, 1999 don't care how the noise affects county residents, because we do. We want to make sure the people who are on the Airport Authority share the same problem and are sensitive and responsive to it. And that -- how you define the problem, whether it's the economic benefit problem or growth problem or the noise problem, is what makes for places. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: If I -- Mr. Mayor? Just in a -- what I would ask you to consider, Ms. MacKenzie, is how does your interest in being sure that the noise problems are addressed and your interest in being sure that the progress of the airport is carefully guarded and all of those things that you just said, how is your interest in that enhanced by limiting the pool of applicants? COUNCILWOMAN MacKENZIE: Because the people who serve on the Airport Authority live within the city limits also live within the majority of the approach and departure routes, and they're concerned about -- they are also concerned about the cost of those benefits. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: See, I think ~- and maybe one of the things -- maybe we should make our case better to you, because I think that if we looked at -- well, I'll tell you, when I'm in East Naples, that's when I hear airplanes a whole lot more than when I'm in my home in Park Shore. So when I'm in the county is when I'm much more likely to be bothered by the noise than when I'm in the city. That's my personal experience. But maybe we should make our case to you better by showing maybe those flight paths or persuading you that those noise impacts are severe outside the city limits as well. COUNCILWOMAN MacKENZIE: I don't doubt that they are. And I don't think that the noise overlay issues and I don't think that the noise is a problem that stays within the city limits. It clearly affects county residents as well. But it is a city asset and I do believe it should be managed by city people. I think they look at the problem differently. MAYOR BARNETT: Mr. Coyle? COUNCILMAN COYLE: Before I vote on this, I'd like to state that the primary problem, as far as I am concerned, is one of uncertainty. And what I've heard today causes me really great concern. What I've heard today is a justification for an airport that has to get busier and busier and busier to service a growing population. It's always been my question, what is it going to be five years from now, 10 years from now? I haven't gotten an answer to that. If someone could give me an answer and produce a plan that says here's what the airport will be and here's how it will be managed to achieve those particular goals, I could probably get behind it fairly easily, if it doesn't result in an open-ended development process. But just 12 months ago, members of the Airport Authority came to the City Council and said we will not build any more hangars for the next five years. Right now they're asking -- they're going to build more hangars. There is no plan. Don't be deceived into thinking that because the master plan exists and the Airport Authority spent $500,000 on it that that is a plan. It is not a plan. There is nothing in that plan that tells us Page 45 February 1, 1999 or even tells the Airport Authority what has to be done, what sequence it's going to be done and when it's going to be done. It changes from year to year and from Airport Authority to Airport Authority. Now, the County Commissioners have control over budgetary processes over their airports. The Lee County Airport Authority, in essence, is -- they are the elected officials in Lee County. They have not destroyed that airport. I think most of us will agree, it's pretty well run. The surest way to destroy the Naples Airport is to let it grow in an unconstrained manner, because then the people would become so upset that they might try to close it down. And I think we all agree that that's an almost impossible task, unless you get an overwhelming majority of people who are in favor of that. But I don't think we're going to get that, because I don't think the overwhelming majority would ever be convinced that we should close it down. But most people believe that we should have a nice small airport here. And if you like it now, can we agree to keep it like it is now? I mean, is it an economic benefit now? Let's keep it the way it is now. Is there any need to double the size? The current projections are that the number of aircraft will double in the next 12 or so years. We already have twice the traffic that Southwest Florida International has. We're mixing high performance jet aircraft with training flights flown by people that I know do not have a good command of the English language. I know there are days when peak capacity is reached as far as a controller's capability to direct aircraft is concerned. And I know they take action to direct some of those training flights somewhere else. The problem is uncertainty. If someone could tell us where this thing is going, then I would feel a lot more comfortable about having whoever you wanted to have on the board. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I think all your points are valid. I'm just curious how non-city eligibility impacts that at all. COUNCILMAN COYLE: It's the only control we've got. There is simply no other way to control things, other than to hope. It's purely hope. It's not based on facts. It's our last hope at getting people who clearly understand the problem. We in Naples do not want this airport to become a major commercial flight center. We simply don't want that. Now, most people in the audience do want to do that. And therein -- okay, you don't. Then help us. Help us reach some sort of conclusion on where the airport is going in the future. And if you can help us do that, we'll all feel more comfortable about what's going to happen here. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Don't you still appoint them, though? When you said that that is the only control we have, if someone from the county or someone from the city, for that matter, applies that appears to have tremendous growth in their minds as the answer, you all have the ability to just not appoint them, don't you? COUNCILMAN COYLE: The problem is, you don't really know until they get on the authority and start making decisions. That has been one of the major problems. Just like being elected officials, you Page 46 February 1, 1999 never really know. COUNCILMAN VAN ARSDALE: What is the point of excluding them from the interview process and not picking the best person? I mean, that's what -- it doesn't make sense. The point was just made, it takes four people to put them on the board. Certainly if those four people feel that city residency is a requirement, then they can use that as a basis for their choice. And we can do it on a case-by-case basis and always get what those four people -- get the person who those four people feel is the best qualified for the job. It makes no sense. Why limit our candidates? Which is all we're really doing. COUNCILMAN COYLE: If you come up with a litmus test for the applicants, I'll buy into it. MAYOR BARNETT: Let me just say one thing. Is there anyone on the County Commission that would like to have a final say on this before we question it? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I don't even recall the question. But I just wanted to point out that Councilman Coyle, I believe you petitioned these people out here to come forward and help you with your struggle with what to do with the airport, but you're excluding most of them by your action. (Applause.) COUNCILMAN COYLE: The help we're looking for is to encourage the Airport Authority. And not many of the lessee and users of the Airport Authority are represented here. What we're asking them to do is to try to get the Airport Authority to develop an effective plan that tells us where they're going. Now, if any of those people have some great ideas and would like to serve on the Airport Authority, I'd be quite happy to revisit that issue, but I haven't heard anything so far that convinces me that there is anything, anything, but a desire to build and make more money and encourage more gas and build hotels and fly more jets in. I haven't heard anything other than that today. MAYOR BARNETT: That again is not what we're talking about. I understand where you're coming from, Fred, butthat isn't what the subject is. Mr. Carter? COMMISSIONER CARTER: We've got two different issues here. I mean, to me I'm back to the selection process. I would want the biggest, brightest pool I could select from, regardless where they came from, in the selection process. I think that the challenging kind of questions begin to answer whether or not you want them to serve on your Authority. The second point about a strategic plan: Fred, I couldn't agree with you more. I would demand a strategic plan out of my Airport Authority. I would want to know where it's going in five years, 10 years, 15 years. We have it in the county; we have a pretty good idea of where we are going and what's going to take place. But I have to separate the two issues, and I hope that you all on the Council will separate the two issues, go for the biggest, brightest pool, and then use your selection criteria to determine the Page 47 February 1, 1999 kind of questions you want to ask to get these people to participate on the Authority. MAYOR BARNETT: Thank you. COUNCILMAN TARRANT: Who's voting next here? MAYOR BARNETT: I'm asking if any of the County Commissioners want any final input before the question is called. COMMISSIONER BERRY: I guess one last try. I would just like to weigh in that at least with the five-member committee, I still think that at least two of those positions should be held by county residents in order to get -- if you open it totally up, Peter, and just say you want -- you can manipulate this committee, there's no question about it. If you just open it up and there's no restriction, that at least some of those shouldn't be from county residents, because you'll find a way to eliminate a county person, mainly when you look at their address. MAYOR BARNETT: Mr. Van Arsdale, you want to amend your motion? COMMISSIONER BERRY: Okay, that's my only concern. COUNCILMAN VAN ARSDALE: Well, except for me. It sort of flies in the face of picking the best people. COMMISSIONER BERRY: And I agree. But if I could be assured that you would do it honestly and openly, that the Council would do that and not go back to relying strictly on city residents only, then I would not -- I would not say two people. MAYOR BARNETT: There's one easy solution. When you fill out the application, don't put any address on it. See? COMMISSIONER BERRY: There's too many city directories running around, Bill. COUNCILMAN VAN ARSDALE: I guess I would hope that we can sort of rise above that. I don't like the quotas. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah, I think your assurance is, if there's that step of goodwill today, that all right, look, we're willing to at least look at everyone. I think that's a giant step back in the right direction. And to me, that's a great deal of assurance. COUNCILMAN VAN ARSDALE: I guess one option we could always do is have all interested parties apply, whether they meet the qualifications or not, and certainly circulate them and see who we're missing. MAYOR BARNETT: Let me call the question, how's that? And I just wrote the names down. Mr. Tarrant? COUNCILMAN TARRANT: Yes. Let me just preface my vote, Mr. Mayor, by saying Bonnie MacKenzie's comments I think were exactly on target and correct. I think the points that Fred Coyle raised were absolutely legitimate. And this whole idea that we're going to try to damage the airport or detour -- no one has never suggested turning the Naples Airport into a stadium Naples project. Not going to be done. Not going to happen. I think that when you talk about politicizing this issue, it will become a political issue, there's no question about it. Because at Page 48 February 1, 1999 the airport meeting last week, Mr. Cameron made the statement -- Cameron Real Estate made the statement that he and his people will be there at the voting booth. That's about as political as you can get. So I think that what we want is a beautiful little airport that we have today without seeing it constantly expand and expand and expand. And we're never going to satisfy the big commercial interests. This is a growth issue. And I'm surprised that the County Commissioners, with all the growth problems that you have in the county -- and they're very, very large and severe problems on your roadways and in all areas of your county business -- would be so determined to try to influence the growth issue at the Naples Airport. So I absolutely support the decision of the City Council. MAYOR BARNETT: Well, what's your vote, Mr. Tarrant, yes or no? COUNCILMAN TARRANT: My vote is yes, to keep the issue exactly as the City Council voted. MAYOR BARNETT: Then your answer would be no, Fred. COUNCILMAN TARRANT: Whatever. MAYOR BARNETT: Well, kind of makes a big difference. Mr. Nocera? COUNCILMAN TARRANT: I think I made myself clear. COUNCILMAN NOCERA: Well, I'm going to say that -- well, obviously, I'm going to stay the same, getting the best person. MAYOR BARNETT: That's a yes. Mr. Van Arsdale? COUNCILMAN VAN ARSDALE: Yes. MAYOR BARNETT: Ms. MacKenzie? COUNCILWOMAN MacKENZIE: No, thank you. MAYOR BARNETT: Mr. Coyle? COUNCILMAN COYLE: No. MAYOR BARNETT: Mr. Herms. COUNCILMAN HERMS: No. MAYOR BARNETT: And I'm yes. So we're right back to where we started. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I promised -- I'm sorry, do you need to say something? MAYOR BARNETT: You want to take a break now? I want to say one thing. I am really glad to see that you people out there have finally awakened, okay? And I would like to see you as council when we discuss airport issues in the future for the next year or whatever it is, because it has a lot to do with the vote. With that, I thank you. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: We'll take a five-minute break and come back. (Brief recess.) CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: We'll call the meeting back to order. Joint meeting of the Board of County Commissioners and the City Council for the City of Naples. With the indulgence of the group, if we could take Item F, 4(F) next, it would help with some childcare scheduling. And God knows, I'm sympathetic to those problems. So if there's no objection, we'll Page 49 February 1, 1999 hear Item 4(F) now, which is the discussion of the city and county development standards, and you'll find some information that's just been laid at each of our seats. MR. MULHERE: Thank you very much, Madam Chairwoman. Yes, this item that I've placed in front of you is a memorandum from Vince Cautero, Administrator for Community Development Services, to all of you, and it really just summarizes the ongoing informal activities between the Planning Department and the City of Naples -- County Planning Department and the City of Naples Planning Department on addressing the policies in both of our respective comprehensive plans for developing several joint initiatives. Most particularly the development of a corridor management plans for the areas that border the city and the county. And one of the items that I placed in that package is a map. It's rather a large map, but the scale is a fairly large geographical area. So rather than give you a small map that you couldn't read, we gave you a larger map that you could read. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: We appreciate that. MR. MULHERE: You might want to be careful opening it up. There are elbows flying. And that is also on the wall. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Maybe is there one for the visualizer? MR. MULHERE: I do not have one small enough to place on the visualizer; however, I think that they can run the camera. There it is, it should be coming up now on the camera. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Just so people at home have some general idea. MR. MULHERE: In our joint meetings -- and I do want to mention that the City Planning Advisory Board and the County Planning Commission also met. And I believe they met in May of this past year. One of the -- and the city planning staff and the county staff discussed the areas in common in developing an informal agenda for developing corridor management for those areas. And we felt that mutually that the -- obviously the area that would require the first attention would be the area entering the city, part of the Gateway and Bayshore triangle. So that would be obviously the first area where we would be working together to develop joint corridor management plans. There is already, just for your information, existing a joint corridor plan on Golden Gate Parkway, and that has been in effect for some time. Ron Lee from the planning staff is here to discuss specifically the development standards in the county and the city and where they vary, and perhaps we would be looking for some direction, if you're so inclined, to move forward on these efforts. Thank you. DR. WOODRUFF: In the interest of time and not to interrupt the presentation that Ron worked all weekend on -- trying to make you look good, Ron -- I think you get down to a basic issue that we would like to come to a request of both bodies. What we have and you have on your backup, you can look at it there, where you have the city on one side of the street and the county on the other side of the street, you have different standards. And what we see and what brought this item up was a recent annexation Page 50 February 1, 1999 request where we found that a person, a party, could annex into the city and get more development than by staying in the county. We don't think that that is a good situation. And what we're really look for is the Board of County Commissioners and the City Council to concur that their staffs, working with their Planning Commissions, should try to come up with what I will call a common zoning district so that if you are adjacent to the city, there is no development incentive for annexing in. You've got to annex for some other reason, whatever reason that may be. You may want to be appointed to the Airport Authority. The point being here, we have different standards that do cause problems. And the real bottom line is, do you, as both the elected bodies, would you authorize your staffs and your planning commissions to work to try to create one common zoning district where the boundaries are adjacent to each other? CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I'm certainly interested in seeing what it would look like than going forward with it. But I can't imagine not wanting to see what you would be able to design. Are there other -- yes, Mr. Norris. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Did I understand you correctly, Dr. Woodruff, to say that if someone annexed into the city, they could potentially get more development rights? DR. WOODRUFF: A piece of property on Davis Boulevard right next to the Welsley Inn actually can get more motel units, hotel units, by annexing into the city than they could have by being out into the unincorporated area. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. Now, the other question that I have is, you say one common zoning district. But really, that's not exactly accurate. I mean, you've got multiple zoning districts throughout both the city and the county, both commercial and residential and even industrial. So you don't mean one common zoning district, you mean to try to communalize the standards along the roadways? DR. WOODRUFF: That is a better way of saying it. Certainly we're not talking about having the county zoning county-wide and the city zoning city-wide match up. What we're really saying is where the boundaries -- where there is a boundary. Now, where there's a golf course on one side and single-family homes on the other side is not an issue. But where you all have commercial on one side and we have commercial on the other side, or where you have a conversion factor where when you go from your C-4 into our highway commercial, that conversion factor should be a common factor. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Right. Thank you. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Any other comments? COMMISSIONER CARTER: Would this -- Dr. Woodruff, would this also take into account looking at street-scaping and signage and everything else, or are you really just looking at density issues? DR. WOODRUFF: I think the Commission can be as broad as you, as the governmental bodies, want it to be. I think those are good Page 51 February 1, 1999 additions. COUNCILMAN VAN ARSDALE: My comment would be, I think it should include really all of the development code issues; signage, setbacks, building heights. The county has much better design standards, for example, for large buildings and things like that. So I would hope to see it be a comprehensive effort that deals with the standards that will really make the streets look more unified and make sense out of what occurs. COUNCILMAN NOCERA: Design, meaning architectural? CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Right. COUNCILMAN VAN ARSDALE: Inasmuch as the county has design standards and we don't, it would seem to me that we should look at those and they should be adopted, just as much as we would be adopting building heights and other standards. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I certainly wish the city would consider our architectural code for commercial buildings generally. And likewise, I wish that the county would consider -- the city has sort of a maintenance code for commercial buildings that the county does not have, and I've asked a couple of times if there's interest in bringing that before the County Commission. There's a lot of areas where we could trade, but what I would hope, if we do get this authorization to our staffs, we urge them to be as creative as they can be in their professional capacity, not to be limited by what we happen to mention when you go back and read the transcript today, but to give us your best professional advice as to how to treat these areas where our boundaries match. COUNCILWOMAN MacKENZIE: Well, in truth, our PAB is looking at the architectural code for commercial buildings and trying to find ways where we can adopt it into the city. And it was an initiative that started for which I had great hopes because there was city staff members on the committee that put it together for the county, and I hope the momentum would carry it from your jurisdiction into ours, and it sort of fell by the wayside of -- other work got in the way. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: So is that -- MR. MULHERE: May I just add that in fact the joint policies or the policies of each of the respective political entities do call for all of those issues to be addressed in the development corridor, including architectural standards, street-scape, signage, all of those. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Is there sufficient direction given to staff? Do you think you've gotten a consensus, or are there members of the County Commission that would disagree with that consensus? COMMISSIONER CARTER: Well, I would question, what do we need to do? CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Well, I think if we just give them direction today, then they can go forward and continue in the effort that's already ongoing, seems to me. COMMISSIONER CARTER: I suggest we do that. Just move forward to and kind of put the umbrella over, as I mentioned, the street-scaping, signage, and all those, so we have a uniform policy. Page 52 February 1, 1999 CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: And Madam Vice-Mayor, in the absence of the Mayor, I'm going to call for consensus of your council, or -- COMMISSIONER CARTER: It doesn't bother me. COUNCILWOMAN MacKENZIE: We just barely have a quorum, don't we? Grant, how do you feel? COUNCILMAN TARRANT: Yes, I think it's a good idea to go ahead and make that effort. COUNCILWOMAN MacKENZIE: John? Joe? Apparently we have consensus, five of seven. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Okay. Thank you for that. We can to get back to the regular agenda now with Item D, which is the city referendum, which is planned for February of 2000, on the second Gordon River bridge. Who's presenting that item? Are you, Dr. Woodruff, or Mr. Van Arsdale? COUNCILMAN VAN ARSDALE: I'd be happy to. DR. WOODRUFF: Let me make a couple of introductory comments. Would you like to present it or not? COUNCILMAN VAN ARSDALE: Sure. As you know, this is an entirely new topic for the City Council and the County Commission, and -- but thinking that you might have an idea about what we're talking about, I won't go into a lot of detail. The City Council is in the process of -- well, let me back up. About a year ago, we had a straw ballot on the bridge, and it was very -- there was very strong support for having a bridge. It was a pretty simple question, and the answer, I think, was pretty clear, but still didn't do anything to get us the bridge. So we have -- the Council has advanced the issue to deal with the funding and see if there's a way that we can move ahead with the project, because it's been discussed item for item for at least the last 30, 35 years, and we've never gotten anywhere. Those on the county know or are on the MPO, it's not moving too well on that list either. So it's my own feeling, and the Council's agreed with it, that we take the initiative to see if we can get this project moving in some other fashion. So our staff is in the process of coming back with language to place the item on a ballot. There -- we'll also be looking at potentially other options to construct a bridge. But I think it's going to be pretty tough for us to do it, certainly in terms of an ad valorem tax for our citizens. Certainly I think fairness would be an issue. We're looking at it from a fairly parochial point of view in that, let's build it as small and inexpensively as we can to, I guess, soften the blow. Because it won't serve our needs and the county's needs, because it's not going to be, at least as I envision it, just a city only bridge. So what I would hope to see out of this conversation is really support from the Commission to instruct their staff to work with the City Council's staff to see if there may be some way to really move ahead with the best -- the best bridge project and in the spirit of non-parochial cooperation. Page 53 February 1, 1999 CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: That we try to achieve today. COUNCILMAN VAN ARSDALE: Yeah, let's sort of turn the tide here. See if there's some way we could do this in a fashion that, frankly, would suit both of our constituencies. Because I think that there's -- it's in our 2010 plan, it's in our 2020 plan, but it's not funded, and, truthfully, I don't see how it's going to happen unless we come up with a meaningful way to do it. I believe the City Council is prepared to place the item on the ballot as a referendum and fund it through ad valorem taxes as a generation obligation bond. I personally think that the voters will support that. But I think that we won't wind up with probably as good a project that serves the needs of the entire community, and so I'm not specifically asking for anything other than to see if we can get Commission support to see if there's a way that you can participate in this effort. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Thank you, Peter. Commissioner Norris wanted to speak, then Mr. Nocera. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Councilman Van Arsdale, let me just ask you a question before I comment. Are you anticipating that you would come across Central Avenue and North Road? Is that the plan? COUNCILMAN VAN ARSDALE: Well, that was actually -- in the straw ballot a year ago, that was the proposed route. And that's an important route. Not just for the current Gordon River bridge. If you look at the greater county picture, that bridge actually has a dramatic effect on, for instance, the intersection of Airport Road and Golden Gate Parkway. So there's a very logical reason to have that location, even from a greater county network. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I wanted to make sure that was the route you were choosing, because my comment goes, that the last time we were in -- (At which time, Councilman Coyle exits the boardroom.) COMMISSIONER NORRIS: -- discussions about this bridge, it was pointed out to us very forcefully by our transportation staff that if you just come across North Road with four lanes and T-intersection at Airport Road, you're going to cause a transportation disaster at that intersection. If that's all that's going to happen here, I'm afraid that the County Commission is going to be in the position of having to look at that very, very carefully. Because if we destroy that intersection and that travel way up through that constrained section of Airport Road, we're going to be in serious trouble. Now, there's several things that we might want to do. There were two plans proposed back the last time we had serious discussion here about the bridge, and one of them would be to S-curve it up into Radio Road. And the other would be a -- to go straight across, turn northward and connect with Livingston. Now, without either one of those two, the County Commission is probably, in my opinion, going to be in the position of having to oppose this project. We don't have one of those two road segments to go along with the bridge, because that would -- I just don't think in Page 54 February 1, 1999 good conscience that we can sit here and allow Airport Road to be in effect just choked off. COUNCILMAN VAN ARSDALE: Well, in response to that, certainly the long-range plan for the county does show a link essentially going across to the east and hooking up with Livingston Road. Even in the short-term, I think -- and I don't know that that link again is in the 2010 and the 2020 plan. Whether it's funded, I can't answer that. But I don't think in any of the traffic studies that we have that deal with even the T-intersection that there are any currency issues, and really, traffic issues. I spent a lot of time studying that. So I think it does certainly hook into the long-term plans. And when that sort of missing link comes into play is something that I think you would be deciding. I'm not trying to take that on, but I think it's important. The simple reality is that this is -- this is essentially more blacktop and so that -- and the cars will stay the same, so it means less congestion, and that's what it's all about. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Mr. Nocera? COUNCILMAN NOCERA: Originally I had brought up the suggestion to form a task committee involving a county commissioner, a city councilman, finance director from the county, a finance director from the city, and let them hash out a whole bunch of these questions and answers. And then kind of put it on hold, because our city staff came up with their recommendations, which basically were to -- end up being a financial obligation. So two things here. What we end up having to do is that we end up putting it into a referendum, which is going to take another year before we are going to find out exactly what's going to happen. And we're not answering the question or we're not answering the 4,700 voters who told us that they wanted this bridge. So I would like to see this task committee. I'd like to see the commissioners endorse this task committee and get -- and try to get some of these questions, and maybe we can -- between both sides here, we can get something that's viable maybe financially, too, that the county would put together. And maybe from Mr. Norris' concern. Originally, Peter, you suggested a two-lane bridge. Maybe a two-lane bridge according to the studies that what we have from Kimberly Horn, that that's not a problem on Airport Road. And if we put a two-lane bridge there, build it so it's -- so it can accept another two lanes in the future. And by then, they'll have the Livingston Road done in that section that they need. I just think that this needs to be addressed, and we need to take it by the horns and do what we can representing the people and protecting the infrastructure of this town. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Thank you. Commissioner Constantine? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Councilman Van Arsdale, how did you guys happen to come up with the ad valorem tax as the financing of choice, as opposed to -- COUNCILMAN VAN/LRSDALE: Well, the choices were very limited. Page 55 February 1, 1999 The sales tax, we have no authority to do that. We really just took an approach from the standpoint of what can we do as a city. We could have considered our utility tax. I think we have three cents available on that. But we basically took the approach that we needed a new source of revenue. One of the things that we would consider is a toll facility. As you recall, the toll issue was much more viable back when the -- had the bridge been in place with the current construction project and would have been ongoing. So ad valorem is probably the least palatable, but in my mind may be the most logical. At this point in time, we're not limiting our discussions and our analysis to that. But I think that's where -- I mean, from my standpoint, I think we need to at least be bringing up options to make it -- to enable us to advance it, rather than to essentially shoot it down because we can't figure out solutions. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: And I just -- having attended a workshop where this was discussed, Commissioner Constantine, I'll tell you that they had a very thorough presentation from their city manager, taking them through what options are available, basically, to city government. It's a more narrower list than we're used to seeing. Commissioner Berry? COMMISSIONER BERRY: I just have two comments: Number one, as far as I can say right now, I'm in favor certainly of a second bridge. But there's two things that I think we need to know. Number one, the final link-up. We need to see the plan of how it's going to link up. Now, whether that happens immediately or within a certain time frame, that's something we can all take a look at. And from the County perspective, I'd also like to know what our funding source will be as well for this particular project. I think those are two critical elements. But as far as being supportive of the bridge, that's fine. I have a question. Peter, what are you going to be looking for in the referendum as far as -- you're looking at funding? Is that going to be the main question, the referendum is? COUNCILMAN VAN ARSDALE: At this point the question would be to approve a general obligation bond, essentially secured and paid for with our .26 mill property tax. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Okay. Well, I would think -- COUNCILMAN NOCERA: That's $26 per $100,000 assessed value. COUNCILMAN VAN ARSDALE: I'm not locked into it, but that right now is, I think, the most viable option. And what we're talking about here is really obviously if the county could find a way to participate, that may change that. We still need to look at all of our options. And I think -- and it would be part of the -- essentially the county-wide network, and we'd all benefit. So at this stage, there are a lot of unanswered questions. The link-up, I mean in terms of where it ought to be, is in both our 2010 and 2020 plans. So that's pretty well identified and certainly in terms of how it affects traffic. Page 56 February 1, 1999 So I think at this stage we're just looking to find a way to answer a lot of the questions that you would have to have answered to be able to make any decision to go ahead. COMMISSIONER BERRY: I would like to know then from our staff, Mr. Fernandez, if we have -- what our funding options might be. We have several projects, I think, that we're going to be taking a look at. But include this in -- perhaps in the whole list and see if there's some funding option that we might have where we could participate in this. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I would certainly agree, that I'd like to ask our staff to work as diligently as possible with the city's staff to at least identify what the potential sources of our -- or financial participation might be. And also to address Commissioner Norris' issues, which is a very valid point, about, in fact, if the city chooses to go forward with this, what are the repercussions to the county both from a transportation view and that bottleneck question that Commissioner Norris raises. And also the question of if, in fact, the city is going to build two lanes, what's the financial economy of scale for the county moving this up on its construction plan schedule in order to accomplish -- you know, to capture some of those benefits. Commissioner Constantine? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, we need to look at -- Commissioner Norris pointed out the connection and what's the expense of that. Where do we -- how do we impact Airport Road and beyond to the east? And one of the things that we may explore is if the city is willing to go on and take this on, regardless of what the county does. We may need to do one of two things: Either look at what all of those impacts are and the what the cost of dealing with that is separately, or combine the two things together and share that cost. But I think they need to either be -- one needs to be recognized with the other. And they either need to be one big project, or -- but for the county to participate in the bridge and then separately go look at all the impacts of it I think would be probably the worst thing we could do. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Right. One big project is sure a lot more efficient. Mr. Norris? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I have a question for Councilman Van Arsdale, since I believe that he's spearheading the project from the council's prospective. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Does that mean we are going to have to name it after him? COUNCILMAN VAN ARSDALE: That's where they'll bury me. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: In any case, my question is, you had a straw ballot, I guess it was, but a vote of the people who I think about two to one said they wanted a bridge built. Why would you go out for another vote to see if they want it again? Why don't you just do it? They said to do it. COUNCILMAN VAN ARSDALE: Well, we have to do a referendum to -- Page 57 February 1, 1999 if we want to do the ad valorem tax. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Why do a GO bond? Why do a GO bond? There's other ways to finance it without doing that. COUNCILMAN VAN ARSDALE: Well, maybe tolls. DR. WOODRUFF: Let me interrupt you for just a second. We apologize for not bringing the presentation which we gave to Council. The staff looked at all of the funding that we were aware of, including the funding which you use for your roads. And we looked at all the state gasoline taxes, the gasoline taxes that you have the ability to impose. And we brought back, I guess it was, eight to 10 potential funding sources and showed on there that realistically the money that comes from the DOT from taxes is not available. The money which you all have from your five-cent tax is already committed and not available. So we went through a process of elimination. And what we showed Council was that the money that they controlled -- which roughly the utility tax produces 2.1 million dollars a year, which we do all of our parks improvements and landscape improvements -- that unless they were willing to go to those current revenues and reallocate them and reprioritize them, then the only option available was to give us a new revenue source. Now, the revenue sources available to the city are, number one, additional pennies on the utility tax. We're at seven. We could go up to 10. And each penny of the utility tax raised about $400,000. A second option would be ad valorem tax increase. And as you know, if you're going to issue a GO bond, that has to be done through referendum. The bottom line was that the Council said that they would go and ask the voters if they would tax themselves with an ad valorem tax. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, and my point is, I understand all that. But my point is, they have already said they want a bridge, so they don't expect it's going to magically appear someday for free. So what I would suggest rather than that, if you want to fund it, why not reallocate some of those funds that you already have and adjust the ad valorem to make up that difference in upcoming years, and perhaps use some short-term financing such as your credit line or commercial paper type things where you don't have to go to a GO bond and you don't have to have another election and delay the process another two years. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: All of those seem to be -- COUNCILMAN NOCERA: Ready to take the bull by the horns, Peter? COUNCILMAN VAN ARSDALE: That's fine. I think that's something we could talk about as we are going through the process. I think the point is well made. COUNCILMAN TARRANT: If I may, I think in regards to the straw ballot, while there was the kind of strong return that Peter mentioned, there was absolutely no information, of course, on the straw ballot as to the impact of the bridge on the neighborhoods, residential areas of the city, or any areas of the city, and there was no mention of the cost of it. So, you know, when you -- when it gets around Christmastime and you want to promise, say, would you like a pony and a pony cart, you get a lot of people who say, yeah, that's Page 58 February 1, 1999 fine. They don't understand what the costs are related to that. There's another point here, that you're talking about Airport Road and the impact there, which is a very real and serious matter. There's another end to that, and that's Goodlette Road, which is very heavily trafficked. By the time you could finish a second Gordon River bridge, I'm willing to bet anything, I'll bet my house, that that road will be over capacity. So you have to look at the capacity problems on Goodlette Road, as well as on Airport Road. But I think the Council, in looking at that, John, and other Commissioners, also felt that it was the fair way to go; that is, to let the -- you know, to let the voters and the residents and taxpayers in the city make the decision and not try to finance it by other means and force the issue. DR. WOODRUFF: Madam Chair? CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Yes, sir. DR. WOODRUFF: One other point of information. The figures which we showed City Council was for a 10 million dollar project. Now, that's a very different number than the 16 million dollar project previously discussed. Word of explanation: The original cost included the acquisition of right-of-way west of the Gordon River. That is now in the ownership of the city. The original cost also assumed that the project would develop the road improvements necessary from the east side of the Gordon River to Airport Road. The Airport Authority is proceeding with funding those portions, whether a bridge is built or not. So the 16 million dollar project from Airport Road to Goodlette Road is actually today a 10 million dollar project. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Thanks to the Airport Authority and Mr. Pulling. DR. WOODRUFF: Yes, ma'am. The other point that should be made is, you asked about an economy of scale, two-lane versus four-lane. The material that we showed to City Council was you really do not save that much money by going from a four-lane facility down to a two-lane facility. The savings is between 25 and 30 percent. It is not a 50 percent savings. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: That, I believe, makes my point, though, Dr. Woodruff, is that by reallocating some of the funds that you currently have, you could probably go pay as you go, and have -- under -- you know, if you have to, you could bridge a little bit -- no pun intended, of course -- with some commercial paper. But you should be able to pay that whole thing off at your leisure in a four-year period, five, six, seven, whatever you wanted to do. It will take some time to build and you don't pay for it all at once anyway. So it seems to me that it would be at this stage of the game just pointless almost to go out to another referendum to decide a particular funding source when there may be other options. Just a suggestion. I'm not a city councilman, I don't even play one on TV, but I thought I would at least make that suggestion. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I know we have some public speakers we need to hear from and then maybe we can wrap up with consensus on this item Page 59 February 1, 1999 as well. MR. FERNANDEZ: Madam Chairwoman, you have three speakers on this subject. First two are Sewell Corkran and then George Galster. MR. CORKRAN: For the record, I am Sewell Corkran. I live in Naples, Florida. I want to give you some information in a friendly way. This bridge is very premature at this time. I've studied Goodlette and Airport Roads quarterly for 10 years and all of the roads in the county. A check on Friday showed that Airport Road, which has an annual daily capacity -- not annual, daily -- average daily capacity of 60,000 trips at Level of Service D. A year ago in February at this moment had traffic of 65,000 trips. We're nine percent over the capacity of the road. The county's own figures on projecting transportation increases is six percent a year. In five years when the bridge could be built, there's another 30 percent of over capacity for almost 40 percent. Livingston Road extension is going to help on Airport Road, but the county's got one hell of an expensive problem of getting traffic across on North Road and right and left and beyond that. It's a big deal and a very serious consideration. Goodlette Road is level of Standard E. That's the lowest it's allowed by the state. A is up at the top, and F is flunk, just like in college. And E is below D, where you're usually in bad shape in school. The capacity on Goodlette -- excuse me, the capacity on Airport is 56,000. The capacity on Goodlette as E is 60,000. There are 30 -- there are 40,000 count on the last count that I got from the county. On Friday, there were 40,000 trips. That means that there is an extra capacity of about 17 percent. Five years, 30 percent increase. You're over capacity. And that's a big problem. Now, let me make another point: Two sets of consulting engineers have said that the average daily traffic, once the bridge gets going, two-way traffic, is 30,000 -- one of them said 36,000 two-way trips a day, and the other said 30. If you proceed without fixing up Goodlette, eight-laning it -- even Stanley Hole, at a meeting of the City Planning Board, agreed with me, that at a minimum before a bridge can start, eight lanes are needed on Goodlette Road. And it really is. When that city -- the bridge traffic of 30,000 -- each one of those trips is going to enter at Central Avenue or exit and it's going to enter or exit at North Road. Both roads will be over capacity. You're going to be dumping 30,000 trips a day on those points. Not all of that is added traffic for reasons that are too complicated. But at least 20,000 trips are on top of roads that are already over capacity, if you don't do something about it. If you go to the state law, you're going to find that if you build this bridge on the basis -- or the city is -- that is now proposed, you're breaking the law. What's the law? The state law is very simple. Local governments can put in their roads in their plans, Page 60 February 1, 1999 they can select their standards. And if you build the bridge without improving those roads, you are going to be way the hell over capacity, and the state law says you can't do that unless you have a plan to correct it. And there's no plan now. The bridge needs a lot of work and the city needs the county. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Thank you, Mr. Corkran. MR. FERNANDEZ: Next speaker is George Galster, and then Erika Hinson. MR. GALSTER: Thank you. I'm George Galster, for the record, full-time resident of the county. Kings Lake, to be specific. Thank you for allowing me to comment on a possible new bridge, which I really believe will be needed in the next few years. And I refer to a real four-lane bridge with pedestrian and bicycle availability. And preferably with access on both sides of the airport, north and south. But first of all, I believe it's illogical to expect Naples residents alone to pay for this. And many of us living east of the river commute at least weekly, if not daily, into the city for work, dining, entertainment, medical appointments, et cetera. Most of us, I believe, would willingly accept a temporary increase in our property taxes, or an automated tollbooth system, or perhaps even both. Secondly, during season -- and I observed this just a couple of days ago -- nearly half of the cars on our existing bridge catastrophe bear out-of-state license plates. And I really cannot see any basic reason why some of our tourist tax funds can't be diverted to help finance easier access into the city for our tourists. Thirdly, many major housing developments are occurring out east. And this is where most future traffic volume into Naples will be generated. I would urge you, therefore, that any referendum on the future bridge, which is being considered by the city, should include the opinions of us county folks. Thank you. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Thank you, sir. MR. FERNANDEZ: Final speaker is Erika Hinson. MS. HINSON: Some of you know how well I speak publicly, so bear with me. I appreciate the opportunity to speak to all of you. As some of you know, I've been an opponent of the bridge for a number of years. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: You need to identify yourself for the record, ma ' am. MS. HINSON: Erika Hinson, life-long Collier Countian, life-long Neapolitan, and registered voter. If we're going to go ahead for the bridge, which I don't like, I didn't vote for it, I think we need to let the people know where the money is going to come from. Secondly, once we do build the bridge, would somebody address what's going to happen when it comes into the residential area and Gulf View Middle School? We have kids every day crossing Central, crossing 41 at Central, coming from Lake Park, River Park, going to Gulf View. They're already hit and miss. Page 61 February 1, 1999 Pulling out of Central -- onto Central is a nightmare. Nobody stops at any of the four-way stop signs for some reason, they just roll through them, especially if they're a truck. Seems they have the right-of-way. Has a great deal of commercial traffic now. I think we need to look at the impact onto Goodlette and onto Airport Road. I don't know about you, but when I drive Airport Road coming off of North Road, it's a mess trying to go either way. And we're going to dump more traffic on there? And I also don't agree with a bridge going five blocks north of another bridge. I mean, does that make a whole lot of sense? Thank you for your time. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Thank you, ma'am. MR. FERNANDEZ: That's our final speaker. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Is there consensus, then, from the County Commission that we would ask our staff to work with the city staff to bring some information back to us on all of these issues from what are the financing opportunities to what are the traffic impacts? Commissioner Norris? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Madam Chairwoman, as long as our staff understands that we need to look seriously once again at those two possible alignments or extensions along Airport Road, otherwise I think we're not going to be supportive in the end on this. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: That's a critical component is for the traffic to go somewhere. Commissioner Constantine? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: All we are asking for is information? CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Yes, sir. COUNCILMAN TARRANT: Madam Chairman, could I just bring to the attention of the County Commissioners that the heart of Old Naples is very well represented by the Old Naples Association. And the president of the Old Naples Association within the past week or two stepped before the City Council and said unequivocally that they're in opposition to this bridge. They believe it would have a very negative and damaging impact traffic-wise on the city. I just wanted to let you know that that was the determination of that organization. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Thank you, sir. Is there any other comments? Commissioner Carter? COMMISSIONER CARTER: I would like all the information we could get. And I'd also like to know about all the financial opportunities in this situation. I think we need a big picture. If we're going to do this bridge, let's do it right. Let's do it, long-range plan. Encompass everything that Commissioner Norris has talked about. And that would be I think our direction to staff. We want a big picture feedback on this; who's going to pay for it, how it's going to be paid for, and what our participation will be. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Is that sufficient direction to you, Mr. Fernandez? MR. FERNANDEZ: Yes, Madam Chairman. Madam Chairman, we're going to be discussing at tomorrow's goal-setting session the entire picture of transportation funding and Page 62 February 1, 1999 the options available. You may want to add this to your discussion there, in addition to our working with the city staff. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Maybe we can get more specific on a time frame after we have that discussion tomorrow, if that's okay. COUNCILMAN TARRANT: Is Dr. Woodruff here? CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Yes, sir. COUNCILMAN TARRANT: Dr. Woodruff, if this is the direction of the County Commission, isn't it my understanding that Mr. Cuyler, the city attorney, was given the direction to go ahead and prepare the referendum, the 75 words that would go on the ballot? And if he has been given that direction, then do we need to ask him to stop that activity until we find out the determination of the county? DR. WOODRUFF: Well, first of all, the City Council did give direction and the staff has already prepared drafts one and two and turned those drafts over to the county attorney -- city attorney to put in 75 words or less, so that work is going on. Now, there -- I do not see that there is a relationship between the creation of that ballot question and the work that the county and city staffs will do, unless it is the majority of City Council's desires not to have that ballot question. I mean, at some point those 75 magical words are going to have to be brought back to you so that you can approve the ballot question. It was our intent to have that back in your hands by the second meeting in February; that and the other ballot question, so that you could at least know what the question was going to be. Council can always -- COUNCILMAN VAN ARSDALE: It is certainly my intent to keep all options open as long as we can. There's no reason not to get all the information out. And like I said, we'd love to have the County Commission participate in this project, but I think we're also taking the approach that we feel strongly that -- not strongly, but a majority of the City Council members feel it's important to advance this project. COUNCILMAN TARRANT: So Peter, are you saying that you would like Mr. Cuyler at $150 an hour to go ahead and work on that referendum, not knowing whether the county would participate financially? COUNCILMAN VAN ARSDALE: Well, I don't think it's going to be a big legal bill. We can ask him that question. I think we need to, as I said earlier, keep all of our options open. I don't want to, from my own standpoint, sidetrack one issue just because of something else that may happen. I think that we need to keep addressing the issue. DR. WOODRUFF: The only thing I would remind you is, you know, when you ask us to do something, we do it. We don't worry about whether you folks are going to change your minds six months later. COUNCILMAN VAN ARSDALE: We never change our minds, so don't worry about it. DR. WOODRUFF: So the point being I think that you will find that Mr. Cuyler has just about finished his work. If it's the direction of the City Council today by a majority vote that you don't want us to do that work, please tell us. But until you tell us otherwise, the majority has spoken, you've given us direction, that's what we're Page 63 February 1, 1999 doing. COUNCILMAN VAN ARSDALE: That's what we did. COUNCILMAN TARRANT: If Mr. Corkran's figures are correct, and I tend to have a lot of confidence in Mr. Corkran's figures, then where are we going? COUNCILMAN VAN ARSDALE: Well, I don't think there's any validity to Mr. Corkran's figures. COUNCILMAN TARRANT: Pardon me? COUNCILMAN VAN ARSDALE: There is no validity, at least certainly from the standpoint of a transportation expert, that there is validity to Corkran's figures or his statements, but it doesn't seem to matter. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Just to try to bring this matter to a conclusion, if we've given direction to our staff on how to proceed and tomorrow we'll be able to give you a better idea on time frames, so I doubt there's very much that's going to, you know, proceed before we will have the ability to get back to you and tell you what we've discovered as a result of our staff work. So -- DR. WOODRUFF: Once again, the only point I'm making is, you folks gave us a direction, we're implementing it. If you don't want that direction, please tell me, I'll call Mr. Cuyler on the cell phone and tell him. COUNCILMAN VAN ARSDALE: Well, you are just preparing language, and -- but the vote isn't for a year. And I think our deadline to get it on the ballot is, what, November, late November. So there's, you know, the amount of money spent on this issue. I just think if we don't -- we have beaten this thing up and kicked it around for 30 years. And if somebody doesn't push it forward, and I think the city has to do it, it's going to get beat up some more. So I hope we can just keep the pressure on. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, Councilman Van Arsdale, that was precisely my point. You put out a straw ballot two to one, they said build us a bridge. Now, you are their representatives, represent them and go build a bridge. COUNCILMAN VAN ARSDALE: Right. And I think your suggestion was very good. And that's something that we should talk about also when we get to the point of talking about the ballot. Maybe in the meantime someone will come up with a toll alternative. I've had people talk to me about that. So, you know, Yogi Bara said, it's not over until it's over. We have time to work on this thing. And there may be some options that come up. I don't think anything should be set in stone, other than -- I think we've agreed we want to get this thing done somehow. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: It seems to me this horse is more beaten than even the bridge. I think we've given sufficient direction on this point. Let's go to our final item on the agenda for today and that has to do with beach parking stickers. And I think Dr. Woodruff had given us a memo. COUNCILMAN TARRANT: Madam Chairwoman, am I out of line here? On these other items, we kind of went around and got a consensus from the Page 64 February 1, 1999 County Commission what your direction was on these things. Should we go around and get a quick consensus of what the direction is on the City Council for having the County Commission involve themselves in this effort? CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Nothing wrong with that. Mr. Nocera? COUNCILMAN NOCERA: Absolutely. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Mr. Herms? COUNCILMAN HERMS: Unfortunately, I have to abstain on this particular issue. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Thank you. Ms. MacKenzie? COUNCILWOMAN MacKENZIE: I don't think getting the information does any harm. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: And Mr. Tarrant? COUNCILMAN TARRANT: I am -- I'm not in favor of it, because I didn't hear the County Commission in their charge to the staff say anything about analyzing the impact on the residents in the City of Naples. That was not mentioned. And also, Mr. Corkran's issues, I don't hear any serious interest in exploring the validity of Mr. Corkran's issues. So I don't support it, no. COUNCILMAN VAN ARSDALE: You want to know how I feel? CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I'm sorry, Mr. Van Arsdale. COUNCILMAN VAN ARSDALE: Never mind. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Looks like there is a majority in the Council vote for having the County participate. So maybe we can hear now about the beach parking stickers. Is that you, Dr. Woodruff, or is it something else? DR. WOODRUFF: No, it's me, unfortunately for you all. Very simple request. We have, I think, one of the most successful beach sticker programs that was established in the '80s between the Board of County Commissioners and the City Council. However, recently a series of breaking -- of breaking into automobiles has led to the fact that we, to a degree, encourage people to bring money to the beach, because there are many people who use the beach who don't qualify for a sticker. So the issues before you are very simple. After talking to the chief of police and looking at the issues, we went back and looked at the way that the current program was established. It was established by joint action of the Board of County Commissioners and the City Council; therefore, a modification to that program must be sanctioned by both bodies. What we would recommend to you is that you authorize the county staff and the city staff to bring back to you a plan where a visitor to the community could, in fact, purchase for a fee, yet to be determined, a parking pass for a period of a week or two weeks. It could not be a year pass. I suppose it could be, but the parties that we're primarily trying to address are those people that are here for a week or two weeks. You would be amazed at how many people stop our beach specialists who are giving tickets at the beach saying, "Well, I Page 65 February 1, 1999 don't want to bring money to the beach, but I have to, is there any way that I can buy a sticker?" This program would have to be revenue neutral or revenue positive. It could not have a negative impact that results in the county or the city having to put in any more money. So basic issue, do you think -- would you authorize your staffs to work on a program that has to be brought back for you to adopt? CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Commissioner Norris? COMMISSIONER CARTER: COMMISSIONER BERRY: COMMISSIONER NORRIS: CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: really good suggestion. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I certainly would support that. Fine, yes. Yes. I have no problem. Thank you. That looks like that was a That was a quick one. DR. WOODRUFF: Does the City Council? COUNCILWOMAN MacKENZIE: Mr. Tarrant? COUNCILMAN TARRANT: No, I'm not in favor of the program. COUNCILWOMAN MacKENZIE: Mr. Van Arsdale? COUNCILMAN VAN ARSDALE: Yes. The only comment I make, Richard, I would like to -- I don't know if it's going to really keep people from bringing their purses and their wallets to the beach. And I think that's maybe a separate issue that the chief of police should work on to try to figure out on how we can really get on top of these people to do these things. But, yes, I support the longer term -- or short-term permits. COUNCILWOMAN MacKENZIE: Mr. Herms? CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: He's not here. You can't see there, but he's not there. Mr. Herms? COMMISSIONER CARTER: You're in favor, aren't you? CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Just say yes. COUNCILMAN HERMS: In favor of the beach access, short-term beach pass, yep. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: That's a yes. COUNCILWOMAN MacKENZIE: Mr. Nocera? COUNCILMAN NOCERA: Yes. COUNCILWOMAN MacKENZIE: It's all in favor, except Mr. Tarrant. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Okay. It's nice to end on a positive note. Are there any other items to come before this body? DR. WOODRUFF: I think one matter of information, and that is just simply to commend the county staff for working very diligently on the new FEMA regulations. They and the city staff are working on a joint presentation, which we will probably bring back independent presentations to the two of you. But as you're aware, there are some substantial map changes coming to FEMA, and we are presently working jointly, county staff, city staff, with a group of citizens to analyze and bring you a report. COUNCILWOMAN MacKENZIE: And I would like to thank the County Commission for inviting us here today, for your warm welcome, and for Page 66 February 1, 1999 being so gracious. Although we have disagreed, we have not been disagreeable with you. I think that is a step in the right direction for us. COUNCILMAN TARRANT: I would second that. And I would encourage the County Commissioners who may be starved for attending more meetings that they are more than welcome to attend our meeting tonight. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: On that happy note, I think that our meeting is adjourned. There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 5:30 p.m. '%'~,'*e~%~nutes a~proved by as presented.., BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S} OF SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS CONTROL the Board on or as corrected TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING SERVICE, INC., BY CHERIE' R. LEONE, NOTARY PUBLIC Page 67