4/6/2000 blb1

MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERSHELD APRIL 6, 2000

BOARD CHAMBERS, THIRD FLOOR, ESCAMBIA COUNTY COURTHOUSE223 PALAFOX PLACE, PENSACOLA, FLORIDA

(5:30 p.m. - 1:19 a.m.)

Present: Commissioner D. M. "Mike" Whitehead, Chairman, District 1Commissioner Willie J. Junior, Vice Chairman, District 3Commissioner Thomas G. "Tom" Banjanin, District 4Commissioner Michael T. "Mike" Bass, District 2Commissioner Wilson B. Robertson, District 5Honorable Ernie Lee Magaha, Clerk of the Circuit CourtMr. Barry R. Evans, County AdministratorMr. David G. Tucker, County AttorneyMs. Marilyn Gingrey, Deputy Clerk to the Board

CALL TO ORDER

Chairman Whitehead called the Regular Meeting of the Board of County

Commissioners to order at 5:30 p.m., in Board Chambers, Third Floor, Escambia County

Courthouse, 223 Palafox Place, Pensacola, Florida. He said Commissioner Junior would

lead the invocation and Commissioner Robertson the pledge of allegiance to the Flag.

ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA AS PREPARED AND DULY AMENDED

Chairman Whitehead asked if the Commissioners had any items to add to the agenda.

Commissioner Robertson said he had two items to add to the agenda; one concerned

fines imposed by the Special Master regarding Eric and Hazel Fillingim; and the second item

concerned the settlement of Joe Lovetto’s claim on Klondike Road.

Commissioner Banjanin said his two add items concerned eco-tourism preservation

on Pensacola Beach and the prohibition of walkovers on Pensacola Beach.

4/6/2000 blb2

Commissioner Bass said his four items to add to the agenda concerned confirmation

of his appointee to the Board of Adjustment; the proposed convention center on

Pensacola Beach; a Proclamation for the Myrtle Grove Baptist Church’s seventieth

anniversary; and an update on the Stormwater Wetland Committee Report.

Commissioner Junior said his items to add to the agenda included an amendment

to the Office Space Needs Request for Proposals (RFP); and a request that groups meet

before a Public Hearing is scheduled regarding Little Sabine Bay.

Chairman Whitehead said his item to add to the agenda concerned the Crystal

Creek Subdivision 1st Addition Final Plat.

Motion made by Commissioner Junior, seconded by Commissioner Bass, and

carried unanimously, adopting the agenda as prepared and duly amended.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

Motion made by Commissioner Junior, seconded by Commissioner Bass, and

carried unanimously, approving the Minutes of the Regular Board Meeting held

February 17, 2000.

ADOPTION OF TWO EMPLOYEE OF THE MONTH PROCLAMATIONS

After requesting Mr. Phillip W. Parker to approach the lectern, County Administrator

Evans read the Proclamation honoring Mr. Parker’s selection as one of the two Employees

of the Month for April.

Motion made by Commissioner Junior, seconded by Commissioner Bass, and

carried unanimously, adopting and presenting a Proclamation commending and

congratulating Mr. Phillip W. Parker, Maintenance Mechanic I, Parks

Maintenance/Development Division, Parks and Recreation Department, Community

4/6/2000 blb3

Services and Economic Development Agency, for being selected from the two (2) Board

of County Commissioners’ Agencies as one of the two Employees of the Month for April,

2000, and Mr. Parker commented briefly concerning his appreciation for the honor.

After requesting Ms. Dellaina Merritt to approach the lectern, County Administrator

Evans read the Proclamation honoring Ms. Merritt’s selection as one of the two Employees

of the Month for April.

Motion made by Commissioner Bass, seconded by Commissioner Robertson, and

carried unanimously, adopting and presenting a Proclamation commending and

congratulating Ms. Dellaina Merritt, Equipment Operator IV, Roads and Bridges Division,

Public Works Department, Public Works and Land Management Agency, for being selected

from the two (2) Board of County Commissioners’ Agencies as one of the two Employees

of the Month for April, 2000, and Ms. Merritt commented briefly concerning her appreciation

for the honor.

PRESENTATION OF AN AWARD OF DISTINCTION

County Administrator Evans said he would present a Department of Labor and

Employment Security, Division of Safety, Award of Distinction, to the employees of the

Escambia County Parks and Recreation Department in recognition of the continuous

operation of the Department without a lost time injury for thirty-one (31) months, from

July 1, 1997, to February 1, 2000.

Mr. Mark J. Thornton, Director, Parks and Recreation Department, said he had

requested all of the Parks and Recreation employees to be present; however, three were

4/6/2000 blb4

unable to attend. After requesting the Parks and Recreation employees to stand, he said

all of his workers were to be praised as all of them were responsible for this safety award,

and he appreciated the opportunity to publicly recognize his employees and thank them for

all the success they had helped to bring to the County.

COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR’S REPORT - County Administrator Barry R. Evans

I. CONSENT AGENDA

1B. Adoption of a Proclamation for Fair Housing Month in Escambia County

Motion made by Commissioner Junior, seconded by Commissioner Bass, and

carried unanimously, adopting the Proclamation proclaiming the month of April 2000 as

"Fair Housing Month in Escambia County", which was accepted by Mr. Eugene Brown, who

commented briefly on behalf of the Escambia-Pensacola Human Relations Commission.

1C. Adoption of a Proclamation for National Telecommunicators Week

Motion made by Commissioner Junior, seconded by Commissioner Bass, and

carried unanimously, adopting the Proclamation proclaiming the week of April 9-15, 2000,

as "National Telecommunicators Week" in Escambia County, which was accepted by

Ms. Janice R. Kilgore, Director of Emergency Preparedness, Public Protection Group, who

commented briefly.

1D. Adoption of a Proclamation Concerning Youth Awareness, Inc.

Motion made by Commissioner Junior, seconded by Commissioner Bass, and

carried unanimously, adopting the Proclamation commending and congratulating Youth

Awareness, Inc., for conducting valuable youth violence prevention programs in area

schools and for encouraging young people to make positive choices in life, which was

4/6/2000 blb5

accepted by Mr. Larry Fordham, Sr., who presented each Commissioner with a "T" shirt,

and he commented briefly. (County Administrator’s Report continued on Page 57.)

WRITTEN COMMUNICATION - Number 1andCOUNTY ATTORNEY’S REPORT - County Attorney David G. Tucker, I-5.

Dr. Andrew Gygi, Chairman of the Santa Rosa Island Authority (SRIA), said he had

requested to speak during Written Communication to explain the seriousness of the

environmental conditions of Little Sabine Bay. After discussing the report which the

Escambia County Grand Jury presented in the summer of 1999, which encouraged a more

pro-active stance among local governments in dealing with environmental problems and

the protection of Escambia County’s waterways and other environmental resources, he said

the Escambia County Health Department subsequently presented a report indicating

alarmingly high levels of bacterial contamination in Little Sabine Bay. Dr. Gygi said the

contamination was high enough to require health warnings and could result in the possible

closure of Little Sabine Bay to water-contact activities. He said the Health Department

tested many specimens to locate the sources of the pollution.

Dr. Gygi said the Escambia County Utilities Authority (ECUA) performed many tests

on its systems; the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) and the Florida

Marine Patrol had also been encouraging prevention of pollution; and the local press has

publicized the problem. He said data and evidence was accumulated for the formulation

of a plan of action for this summer, and pubic opinion was solicited, and the twenty-two (22)

concrete suggestions which were elicited were sent to all the leaseholds around Little

Sabine Bay, and responses were obtained, along with additional suggestions. Dr. Gygi

said all of the concerns were discussed at SRIA meetings; the Pensacola Beach Residents

4/6/2000 blb6

& Leaseholders Association assisted in promulgating the twenty-seven suggestions among

the residents of Pensacola Beach; and the suggestions were narrowed down to ten

suggestions which the SRIA considered worthy of accomplishment in time to positively

impact the Bay by this summer. He said, after comments, that the SRIA unanimously

approved the implementation of ten items, and legal counsel indicated that six of the ten

suggestions would require County Commission action by way of an Ordinance to allow for

their enforcement. He said the ECUA staff has committed to replacing an aging sewer line,

which has been endangering Little Sabine Bay, and a new, more up-to-date line would be

installed in a safer location. Dr. Gygi said another goal was to abolish a twenty-year

stormwater outfall which has drained stormwater runoff from the Casino parking lot on the

Gulf side directly into Little Sabine Bay. He said some parking spaces would have to be

sacrificed in order to handle the stormwater runoff, and he gave examples of several water

activities that would be inconvenienced in the attempt to restore the condition of Little

Sabine Bay.

Dr. Gygi said he would appreciate the Board’s consideration of the six items which

had been incorporated into one Ordinance adopted by the SRIA, and he commented briefly

and emphasized the SRIA’s desire to solve some of these problems by this summer.

Motion made by Commissioner Bass that the Board approve Item 5 on the County

Attorney’s Consent Agenda, which was a recommendation that the Board schedule a

Public Hearing on April 27, 2000, at 5:34 p.m. for consideration of an Ordinance to protect

and enhance the environmental conditions of Little Sabine Bay on Santa Rosa Island.

Motion seconded by Commissioner Banjanin.

4/6/2000 blb7

Commissioner Junior said he had distributed some information which he had

received from representatives who wanted the opportunity to discuss this matter prior to

the April 27 Public Hearing. He said he would suggest the "Save Our Sabine Bay"

organization and the Pensacola Beach Residents & Leaseholders Association members

and any other groups or individuals meet informally, without the Commissioners setting up

a committee, and present their findings as a united front at the Public Hearing.

Chairman Whitehead said the Public Hearing was re-scheduled by staff from

5:34 p.m. to 5:35 p.m. on April 27.

There being no further discussion, Chairman Whitehead called for the question, and

the motion carried unanimously, scheduling a Public Hearing at 5:35 p.m. on April 27, 2000,

for consideration of enacting an Ordinance to protect and enhance the environmental

conditions of Little Sabine Bay on Santa Rosa Island (Pensacola Beach), including the

following six (6) provisions:

A. An extension of the no wake zone;B. Bay grass bed protection;C. Designation of Little Sabine Bay as a vessel no discharge zone;D. Prohibition of long-term transient boat mooring in Little Sabine Bay;E. Mandatory record keeping of pump out stations located on Little Sabine Bay;

andF. Prohibition of bird feeding within 200 feet of Little Sabine Bay.

ACCEPTANCE OF CERTIFIED AFFIDAVITS ESTABLISHING PROOF OF PUBLICATION

Upon inquiry from Chairman Whitehead, the Honorable Ernie Lee Magaha, Clerk

of the Circuit Court, said certified affidavits were provided to the Clerk’s Office for all Public

Hearings on the agenda, with the exception of the 5:36 p.m. Public Hearing, which was not

advertised in accordance with Florida Statutes.

4/6/2000 blb8

Motion made by Commissioner Junior, seconded by Commissioner Bass, and

carried unanimously, waiving the reading of the legal advertisements and accepting, for

filing with the Board’s Minutes, certified affidavits establishing proof of publication for the

following eight (8) Public Hearings on the agenda for which proof of publication is required:

A. The 5:31 p.m. Public Hearing, advertised in the Escambia Sun-Press onMarch 23, 2000, to consider the petition to vacate a portion of a platteddrainage easement on Lot 24, Block I, Muirfield Place Subdivision, aspetitioned by RGB Development, Inc.

B. The 5:32 p.m. Hearing, which did not require public notice, relative toconsideration of a petition filed in the Clerk’s Office on February 24, 2000, at3:19 p.m., by Mark Lee Smith, Attorney representing Mr. Rufus Smith, Jr.,appealing the Escambia County Contractor Competency Board’s February 9,2000, revocation of Mr. Rufus Smith, Jr.’s, License.

C. The 5:33 p.m. Public Hearing, advertised in the Pensacola News Journal onMarch 21, 2000, for consideration of vacating, on the Board's own motion, adeeded right-of-way and drainage easement on Robertson Road (a County-maintained dirt road, running north from Fence Line Road in Pleasant Grove).

D. The 5:34 p.m. Public Hearing, advertised in the Pensacola News Journal onMarch 18, 2000, for consideration of adopting an Ordinance amendingChapter 42, Article IV, Division 2, Sections 42-114 and 42-115, EscambiaCounty Code of Ordinances, to prohibit commercial vehicles over 10,500pounds from parking and storage on private property in residentialsubdivisions.

E. The 5:35 p.m. Public Hearing, advertised in the Pensacola News Journal onMarch 22, 2000, for consideration of the petition to vacate the east thirtyfeet (30') of the northeast quarter of Section 23, Township 1 North,Range 30 West (Motley Court), containing 1.58 acres, more or less, aspetitioned by AVT Investments, Inc.

F. The 5:37 p.m. Public Hearing, advertised in the Pensacola News Journal onMarch 26, 2000, for consideration of adopting an Ordinance amendingChapter 90, Article II, Division 2, Section 90-52, of the Escambia County Codeof Ordinances (Ordinance 89-7 and Ordinance 92-30); levying an additionalone percent (1%) Tourist Development Tax for a total rate of four percent (4%).

4/6/2000 blb9

G. The 5:45 p.m. Public Hearing, advertised in the Pensacola News Journal onMarch 19, 2000, and a corrected notice published in the March 22, 2000,Pensacola News Journal, for consideration of adopting an Ordinanceamending the Land Development Code (LDC) to include rezoning casesapproved during this Meeting.

H. The 5:46 p.m. Public Hearing, advertised in the Pensacola News Journal onMarch 19, 2000, for consideration of adopting an Ordinance to amend theRural Residential and Activity Area (Node), Cottage Hill/Quintette Area(Area 15).

I. The 5:47 p.m. Hearing, for which public notification is not required, forconsideration of a request for a temporary medical waiver.

J. The 5:48 p.m. Hearing, for which public notification is not required, forconsideration of a request for a temporary medical waiver.

K. The 5:49 p.m. Public Hearing, advertised in the Pensacola News Journal onMarch 26, 2000, for consideration of adopting an Ordinance amending theLand Development Code (LDC) relative to a scrivener’s error.

Commissioner Bass said the 5:37 p.m. Public Hearing was a similar situation to the

5:36 p.m. Public Hearing in that it would have to be re-scheduled.

Chairman Whitehead said both the 5:36 p.m. and the 5:37 p.m. Public Hearings

were being re-scheduled, at staff’s request.

Deputy Clerk Gingrey said the 5:37 p.m. Public Hearing was advertised properly and

any action could be addressed during that Public Hearing.

After discussion, Commissioner Robertson said he understood that Mr. Don Paedae,

the petitioner for the 5:36 p.m. Public Hearing, was present with an attorney, and he would

suggest the Board allow the attorney speak.

Chairman Whitehead said the 5:36 p.m. Public Hearing regarding a petition to

consider the vacation of right-of-way between West Roberts Road and Kingsfield Road was

not advertised correctly and would not be heard, and brief discussion followed.

4/6/2000 blb10

Commissioner Robertson asked if it was at all possible to act on the 5:36 p.m. Public

Hearing because any delay would be a hardship to the developer.

County Attorney Tucker said it would be impossible to hold the 5:36 p.m. Public

Hearing. He said some mistakes in advertising could be overlooked if the mistake was in

favor of the notice; however, in this case the mistake was against the notice, and it could

not be legally addressed at this time.

Chairman Whitehead said the question for the petitioner was whether or not the

Public Hearing could be scheduled any sooner than the April 27, 2000, Board Meeting.

Mr. Don Paedae, East Nine Mile Road, the petitioner, said he would request that the

Public Hearing be continued until tomorrow (Friday, April 7), and he briefly explained how

the Pensacola News Journal had mistakenly advertised the Notice a day late, and

discussion followed.

Deputy Clerk Gingrey said the Public Hearing was required to be advertised

fourteen (14) days prior to the actual Public Hearing, in accordance with Florida Statutes.

She said it would have to be re-advertised because no one had been notified; no process

had been taken; and staff had recommended the Public Hearing be re-scheduled to May 4,

2000, at 5:33 p.m., and brief discussion followed.

County Administrator Evans said a legal requirement could not be waived, and

additional discussion followed.

Mr. Paedae said he would suggest that he record his plat at this time, so that people

could conclude the closings on their properties, and he asked why he could not record his

plat with the right-of-way on it.

4/6/2000 blb11

County Attorney Tucker said he would yield to the Honorable Ernie Lee Magaha’s

staff on how to count the days required for a Public Hearing, and he also would not advise

Mr. Paedae on recording a right-of-way that had not been legally vacated, causing the plat

to be illegal. He said this legal situation would be a matter on which Mr. Paedae’s attorney

should advise him. County Attorney Tucker said the County could not vacate a right-of-way

without proper Notice.

The Honorable Ernie Lee Magaha said if the advertisement appeared in the April 13,

2000, newspaper, it could be scheduled for the April 27 Board Meeting, and discussion

followed.

Motion made by Commissioner Bass, seconded by Commissioner Robertson, and

carried unanimously, re-scheduling the 5:36 p.m. Public Hearing to April 27, 2000, at

5:37 p.m., due to the date and time of the 5:36 p.m. Hearing not being advertised in

accordance with Florida Statutes, relative to the vacation of a deeded, unopened, fifty-foot

wide right-of-way, running north and south between West Roberts Road and

Kingsfield Road, in Section 27, Township 1 North, Range 31 West, as petitioned by

Northview Properties, Inc., and Don Paedae.

APPROVAL OF A VACATION IN MUIRFIELD PLACE SUBDIVISION

Motion made by Commissioner Bass, seconded by Commissioner Robertson, and

carried unanimously, with Chairman Whitehead noting that no speakers had signed up to

speak concerning this Public Hearing, taking the following action at the 5:31 p.m. Public

Hearing regarding the petition to vacate a portion of a platted drainage easement on Lot 24,

Block I, Muirfield Place Subdivision, as petitioned by RGB Development, Inc.:

4/6/2000 blb12

A. Approving the Petition to Vacate a portion of a platted drainage easement onLot 24, Block I, Muirfield Place Subdivision;

B. Accepting the Hold/Harmless Agreement; and

C. Adopting the Resolution to Vacate.

DISCUSSION CONCERNING RUFUS SMITH, JR’S, CONTRACTOR’S LICENSE

Chairman Whitehead advised the 5:32 p.m. Hearing concerned the petition filed in

the Clerk’s Office on February 24, 2000, at 3:19 p.m., by Mark Lee Smith, attorney

representing Mr. Rufus Smith, Jr., appealing the Escambia County Contractor Competency

Board’s February 9, 2000, revocation of Mr. Rufus Smith’s license.

Mr. Mark Lee Smith said he was the attorney representing Mr. Rufus Smith. He said

he had received some documentation this date and, in accordance with the Ordinance,

documents were required to be received twenty-four (24) hours before the Hearing

concerning revocation of his client’s contractor’s license. Attorney Smith said the

Commissioners had the incorrect administrative complaint before them, because the

Escambia County Contractor Competency Board had amended the complaint and provided

an amended answer. He said the record, therefore, was incomplete, because the issues

were stated somewhat differently in the amended complaint, and there was also a problem

with technical compliance of the twenty-four hour requirement. Attorney Smith said the

Competency Board did not actually find that Rufus Smith would cause irreparable harm or

that he was a menace to the public; but at the same time, Rufus Smith was informed that

he was not allowed to pull other permits, and that was contrary to the Ordinance.

Attorney Smith said he would ask that the Board continue this Hearing because it

was important that the issues were clearly stated, and it formed the framework of the entire

4/6/2000 blb13

package. He said if the request to continue was granted, he would also ask the

Commissioners to clarify that his client was allowed to pull further building permits since

there was no finding of irreparable harm or menace to the public. Attorney Smith said if the

Commissioners chose not to address the second point because the Hearing would be

continued, he would understand.

After brief comments from County Attorney Tucker who concurred that this

technicality of new information caused a problem, Chairman Whitehead said the issue was

that the document before the Board did not represent the case before the Board, in its

entirety. He said an amended document was not received by the Board within the twenty-

four hour time frame stipulated by the Ordinance.

After brief discussion, Attorney Smith said he would also like to file some documents

with the Deputy Clerk.

Motion made by Commissioner Junior, seconded by Commissioner Banjanin, and

carried unanimously, accepting, for filing with the Board’s Minutes, an April 6, 2000, one-

page letter from Mark Lee Smith, P.A., attorney representing Mr. Rufus Smith, Jr., and

presented by Mark Lee Smith, with the following eighteen (18) pages of attachments:

A. Fifteen (15) pages of Minutes of the December 2, 1998, Escambia CountyContractor Competency Board;

B. A copy of a November 6, 1998, certified letter from the Escambia CountyCompetency Board addressed to Mr. James Brad Thompson of the Deer PointConstruction Company;

C. A copy of an "Administrative Complaint" concerning theContractor Competency Board vs. James Brad Thompson; and

4/6/2000 blb14

D. A copy of a Contractor Competency Board "Notice of Intent to ConsiderSuspension or Revocation of Certification" against James Brad Thompsonpresented by Mr. Mark Lee Smith, attorney representing M. Rufus Smith, Jr.

Commissioner Junior asked if Mr. Rufus Smith would be allowed to pull permits.

Attorney Smith said he understood Rufus Smith was allowed to continue working on

existing projects but, according to the Ordinance, Mr. Smith could only be suspended from

pulling other permits if he created harm. He said not allowing Rufus Smith to pull new

permits would create an economical strain for Mr. Smith, and he commented briefly.

County Attorney Tucker said, legally, the Ordinance allowed Rufus Smith to continue

with the work he had in progress.

Mr. Donald Mayo, Building Inspections Department, said he concurred that Rufus

Smith would be allowed to complete projects on which he was currently working but

Mr. Smith would be unable to pull new permits. He said, also, Rufus Smith had no liability

insurance because his insurance had been canceled recently due to lack of payment.

Commissioner Bass said it was his opinion that when the Competency Board

presented a finding to the Commissioners that, unless extraordinary evidence to the

contrary existed, he would vote to uphold the Competency Board’s decision. He said he

would vote in that fashion at this time, and he asked when the initial complaint was filed.

Mr. Mayo said the initial complaint was filed within the last two to three months but

he did not have that documentation with him to give Commissioner Bass an exact date.

Upon inquiry from Commissioner Banjanin, Mr. Mayo said a contractor could not

continue to do jobs without insurance, and work was suspended.

County Attorney Tucker said the Board did, in fact, have an incomplete record and

the matter should be continued; however, the Competency Board contended that a

4/6/2000 blb15

sufficient showing had been made that Rufus Smith’s ability to pull new permits should be

suspended during the appeal. He said Board action was not needed to maintain that

restriction while the Hearing was being re-scheduled.

Motion made by Commissioner Junior that the Board continue the Hearing until

April 27, 2000, at 5:38 p.m.

Motion seconded by Commissioner Bass, and carried unanimously, re-scheduling

the 5:32 p.m. Hearing to 5:38 p.m. on April 27, 2000, due to lack of a complete record,

relative to the Competency Board’s decision of January 5, 2000, to revoke the Builder

Contractor’s license of Rufus Smith, Jr., relative to Rufus Smith, Jr.,’s appeal of the

Competency Board’s disciplinary action on two complaints filed against him, and the

Competency Board’s orders of restitution to one complainant in the amount of $183,172.54,

and to the second complaint in the amount of $6,000.

After apologizing to those who had signed up to speak during the Hearing, Chairman

Whitehead said the Board did not want action taken at this Meeting to be appealed, and

have to begin the case again.

The Reverend Otha Leverette, East Leonard Street, Pastor of the First Community

Baptist Church, said he would request the Commissioners be fair in their decisions, and he

commented briefly.

AUTHORIZATION TO RE-EVALUATE THE ROBERTSON ROAD DEEDED RIGHT-OF-WAY SITUATION

Chairman Whitehead advised the 5:33 p.m. Public Hearing was to consider vacating,

on the Board’s own motion, a deeded right-of-way and drainage easement on Robertson

Road, running north from Fence Line Road in the Pleasant Grove area.

4/6/2000 blb16

Ms. Cindy W. Anderson, P.E., County Engineer, said Engineering staff requested

the Board to vacate one piece of right-of-way owned by the County on Robertson Road and

cease maintenance on the road. She said staff had attempted to contact all residents of

Robertson Road, with the exception of Mr. Westmoreland who had already donated his

right-of-way, and subsequently Mr. Harrison had also donated his right-of-way; however,

other homeowners on Robertson Road had been unwilling to donate their rights-of-way.

Upon inquiry from Chairman Whitehead, Ms. Anderson said the County had no hope

of acquiring any more rights-of-way; however, Ms. Sally Bussell, who owned property at

the end of Robertson Road, which was not currently maintained by the County, had offered

to visit with the other property owners in an attempt to have them donate their rights-of-way

to the County. She said staff was not sure the residents understood that the County would

pave the road and install a drainage system, at no cost to the property owners, if all rights-

of-way were acquired by the County, and she commented briefly.

Upon inquiry from Commissioner Robertson, Ms. Anderson said the County was

requesting that the residents deed 30 to 33 feet of right-of-way to the County, and that an

18-foot wide road, the minimum width according to State standards, could be established

with a needed drainage system, due to a severe drainage problem in this area. She said

staff had already drastically reduced the normal requirements, and she commented briefly.

Ms. Sally Bussell said she was an attorney; however, she was speaking as the

landowner of the parcel at the end of Robertson Road, where she did not yet reside.

Chairman Whitehead asked Ms. Bussell her opinion regarding the possibility of

acquiring additional rights-of-way. He said he did not want the County to abandon the

road.

4/6/2000 blb17

Ms. Bussell said she had mailed informational packages to all the residents of

Robertson Road and she had received calls from all but one of the residents, with several

indicating they would be willing to relinquish their rights-of-way, if they had a clear

understanding of what they were signing. She said the percentage would be well over 50%

of the total land area. Ms. Bussell said some residents were worried that they would have

little or no front yards remaining, and she doubted that she could obtain 100% of the

signatures, and she commented briefly.

Commissioner Bass said this dirt road impacted stormwater drainage into

Bayou Grande.

Motion made by Commissioner Bass to extend this Public Hearing for ninety (90)

days to give further time to obtaining the right-of-way and resolve the matter.

Chairman Whitehead said he agreed, and he would suggest the County proceed,

through eminent domain, and take the land required in order to complete the paving of this

road, if an excess of 50% of the residents wanted the road paved. He said, at some point,

the County would be held liable for the stormwater problem.

Commissioner Bass said he would favor such action.

Ms. Anderson said she would suggest a Municipal Services Benefit Unit (MSBU)

for dirt road paving be instituted, which would give the County the money to perform the

work without using tax dollars.

Commissioner Robertson said he would also support an MSBU instead of using tax

dollars to purchase the land, and he commented briefly.

Ms. Anderson said all property owners would be responsible for paying their share

of the pro rata assessment.

4/6/2000 blb18

Upon inquiry from Commissioner Bass regarding an appropriate motion,

County Attorney Tucker said staff could be instructed to report to the Board with everything

necessary to set the process in motion to assess an MSBU to get the road paved.

Motion made by Commissioner Robertson, seconded by Commissioner Bass, that

the Board approve County Attorney Tucker’s recommendation.

Mr. Chris Doege, Robertson Road, said the road was currently a red clay, oyster

shell mix. He said Mr. Harrison and Mr. Westmoreland had a serious drainage problem,

and he had helped them in the past when severe rainstorms had created serious problems.

Mr. Doege said the second issue was pollution to the Bayou, and a letter in

Mr. Harrison’s possession from the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) stated

that the Bayou had been tested three days after a major storm with no appreciable pollution

problem being visible; however, the DEP supported whatever the County wished to do. He

said most of the property owners did not want to give up any of their property, and taking

10 feet would cause his front door step to be 12 feet from the road, which he did not

consider fair. Mr. Doege said the County must attempt to reach agreement with the

property owners instead of taking property by eminent domain, and he commented briefly.

Chairman Whitehead said staff had decreased the size of the road from 66 feet to

33 feet, which was a large concession, and he commented briefly, and asked if Mr. Doege

was willing to assume maintenance on the road.

Mr. Doege said if it was necessary for the residents to assume maintenance, he

would, and discussion followed in which it was indicated that the drainage system, not the

road bed, would be 12 feet from Mr. Doege’s front door.

4/6/2000 blb19

Ms. Anderson said a drainage system would be either underground or would be in

a swale system that would be sodded and could be used. After discussion and inquiries,

she said that staff would use every opportunity to place a paved road where the current

road bed existed.

During comments, Commissioner Junior said the County did not want anyone’s land

and only wanted to make improvements. He said the County should move on to another

road if the opportunity to pave this road was denied. Commissioner Junior said, further,

he had requested that the terminology of "vacate a right-of-way" not be used.

Upon inquiry from Commissioner Junior, Ms. Anderson said the residents would

continue to own the property but the County would legally have the right to maintain it.

After discussion, Commissioner Robertson said he understood Ms. Bussell had

stated that more than 50% of the residents would be in favor of vacating and he was in

favor of an MSBU and condemnation if more than 50% signed a petition.

Ms. Anderson said it was a misunderstanding that the road would be 12 feet from

the residents’ front doors, and that misunderstanding might be resolved by staff and

Ms. Bussell meeting with residents to make sure it was correctly understood.

After brief discussion concerning the pavement portion being 18 feet, and a grass

swale for drainage would be no more than 12 inches deep and typically 6 feet wide,

Commissioner Junior said if the residents did not want the road paved and a drainage

system put in place, then the County would be vacating the road.

Upon inquiry from Commissioner Banjanin, Chairman Whitehead said the County

would not leave the road unpaved because dirt road graders would no longer be used in

the south end of Escambia County when paving the roads for free had been offered to

4/6/2000 blb20

those residents. He said the Board had adopted that policy and was offering to maintain

an asphalted road into perpetuity.

After discussion, Commissioner Robertson said the County was attempting to

acquire actual deeded rights-of-way for the road that the County was grading and

maintaining under a very old maintenance claim, so that the County could pave the road

and continue to maintain it. He said maintenance would cease without the right-of-way in

the County’s possession.

Mr. Doege said if maintenance of the road was the problem, the County could pave

the existing road in its current road bed, not taking residents’ property, and that would stop

the red clay problem, and discussion followed concerning the drainage problem.

County Attorney Tucker said the County owned the road if, in fact, it had been

grading and maintaining it for 20 years.

After Chairman Whitehead explained that the County did not own the adjoining area

needed for the drainage system, and asphalt could not be applied to the road without

establishing a drainage system, County Attorney Tucker said the privately owned right-of-

way was needed for drainage, and a statutory procedure, authorized by the Legislature,

allowed the County to vacate any road it owned.

Mr. Jerry Westmoreland, Robertson Road, said, after comments, that underground

drainage might be a compromise.

Ms. Anderson said some areas were conducive to underground drainage; however,

a swale, not a ditch, would be established on this road, and there was a big difference.

6:45 P.M. - COMMISSIONER JUNIOR LEFT THE MEETING TEMPORARILY.

4/6/2000 blb21

Mr. Westmoreland said Ms. Anderson had assured the residents that County staff

would attempt to save the large oak trees, and the DEP would be complaining if any

additional drainage problems occurred, and he commented briefly. He said the road and

drainage needed to be accomplished correctly; Mr. Doege’s front yard situation must be

resolved; and the trees must be protected, and he commented briefly.

6:47 P.M. - COMMISSIONER JUNIOR RETURNED TO THE MEETING.

Ms. Anderson said staff was more than willing to work with the residents, although

some of the residents had stated they did not want any further contact from County staff.

Commissioner Bass said the motion was to continue the Public Hearing for ninety

days and then pursue the MSBU/condemnation route.

Ms. Anderson said it was a staff-initiated vacation and therefore at the discretion of

the Board, and brief discussion followed.

Commissioner Bass said, as Chairman Whitehead mentioned, stormwater runoff

from dirt roads was a critically important feature of clean water, and that was a higher

public policy than an isolated dirt road. He said the County had been working diligently to

resolve environmental problems, and he commented briefly.

Chairman Whitehead said the DEP would not continue to ignore this drainage

problem; however, the County would not be held accountable if it had made a good faith

effort, and the residents would be held accountable, and he commented briefly.

Chairman Whitehead said the motion on the floor was to give staff ninety days.

Commissioner Junior said he would suggest staff get together with the residents and

make a decision, and come back to this Board, and he so moved.

Motion seconded by Commissioner Banjanin.

4/6/2000 blb22

Ms. Anderson said threats of restraining orders to prevent staff from re-visiting the

residents had been mentioned. She said staff had attempted to negotiate for two years.

After brief discussion, Mr. Westmoreland said the trees could be saved if

Ms. Anderson’s idea for the easement approach was utilized; negotiations with Mr. Doege

could be accomplished; and he was sure that a consensus could be reached.

Ms. Sally Bussell, Lancelot Drive, said she would appreciate being able to do

whatever she could by working with Ms. Anderson in explaining the situation to the

residents and solve the drainage and road problems.

Ms. Gail Fournier, Bremen Avenue, said a recent legal notice published in the

Pensacola News Journal contained no address, or street number, and she investigated the

matter with County staff to determine the location. She said the Section Map number was

in close proximity to her residence and she therefore was interested in what would be

happening. Ms. Fournier said she would request that published legal notices provide

sufficient information to enable citizens to be able to identify the location of properties.

After Chairman Whitehead said Commissioner Junior’s substitute motion had

become the main motion, Chairman Whitehead called for the question, and the main

motion carried unanimously, approving staff to confer with the citizens of Robertson Road

to resolve the right-of-way situation to allow the road to be paved and a drainage system

installed, and come back to the Board with a recommendation, relative to staff’s

recommendation at the 5:33 p.m. Public Hearing that the Board approve a vacation of a

deeded right-of-way and drainage easement on Robertson Road, a County-maintained, dirt

road running north from Fence Line Road in Pleasant Grove, on the Board’s own motion,

as follows:

4/6/2000 blb23

A. Approve the vacation of a deeded right-of-way, as recorded in Official RecordsBook 4206, Pages 917-919, and a deeded Drainage Easement as recorded inOfficial Records Book 1435, Pages 59-60; and

B. Adopt the Resolution to Vacate.

PROPOSED ORDINANCE DROPPED CONCERNING PROHIBITION OF PARKINGTRACTOR/TRAILER RIGS IN CERTAIN AREAS

Chairman Whitehead said the 5:34 p.m. Public Hearing was a revised

recommendation (revised based on suggestions from the March 2, 2000, Public Hearing)

for consideration of adopting an Ordinance amending Chapter 42, Article IV, Division 2,

Sections 42-114 and 42-115, Escambia County Code of Ordinances, defining a nuisance

condition as any commercial motor vehicle having a gross vehicle weight exceeding

10,500 pounds, excluding school buses, parked or stored on private property in certain

subdivisions, excluding non-residential subdivisions, in the unincorporated portions of

Escambia County south of Kingsfield Road, including Pensacola Beach and Perdido Key;

providing for methods to abate such a nuisance; providing for severability; providing for

inclusion in the Code; providing for penalty; and providing an effective date.

County Attorney Tucker said the Board had asked legal staff to draft a proposed

Ordinance, and Assistant County Attorney Michael C. Godwin had met with the affected

parties, the public, and also coordinated the drafting with the Commissioners. He said,

because of the controversial nature of the proposed Ordinance, all suggestions and input

from the last Public Hearing (March 2) had been incorporated into the draft Ordinance.

Upon inquiry from Chairman Whitehead, Mr. Michael C. Godwin, Assistant County

Attorney, said the Commissioners had directed legal staff to revise the Ordinance to

incorporate the suggestions enumerated by the Board during the previous Public Hearing,

4/6/2000 blb24

and Mr. Godwin explained the revisions, exemptions, and caveats included in the proposed

Ordinance, during which time Commissioner Junior temporarily left and re-entered Board

Chambers (6:56 p.m. to 7:03 p.m.).

Chairman Whitehead said any vehicle with a gross vehicle weight of 10,500 pounds

or more, excluding school buses, would be covered by the proposed Ordinance, which

would include the area of Escambia County south of Kingsfield Road, and that any vehicle

between the weights of 10,500 pounds and 16,000 pounds could be prohibited in a

subdivision if it presented a reasonable safety hazard, and also that commercial vehicles

including semi-trailers, straight trucks, truck/tractors, etc., with a gross vehicle weight of

over 16,000 pounds would be prohibited, and he identified the exemptions.

After brief discussion, Commissioner Robertson said he was opposed to prohibiting

people from parking their vehicles on their own property, unless subdivision covenants and

restrictions imposed such a restriction.

Commissioner Bass said his District included many older subdivisions for which the

original covenants had expired, and these subdivisions were not covered by any County

Ordinance, which was the only other alternative. He said it was a property rights’ issue in

which highly condensed, urban, residential areas were being adversely affected by large

vehicles parked in their neighborhoods.

Commissioner Bass said Seminole County and Sarasota County, Florida, as well

as Gwinnett County, Georgia, had adopted Ordinances and developed certain prohibitions

regarding the parking of trucks in certain areas of their Counties, and he proceeded to read

from documents from those respective Counties, which he submitted for the record.

7:17 P.M. - COMMISSIONER ROBERTSON LEFT THE MEETING TEMPORARILY.

4/6/2000 blb25

After brief discussion concerning what the Commissioners were requesting in the

drafting of an appropriate Ordinance, County Attorney Tucker said the Ordinance drafted

was a commendable Ordinance but might not accomplish what the Commissioners wanted,

and he commented briefly.

7:18 P.M. - COMMISSIONER ROBERTSON RETURNED TO THE MEETING.

Chairman Whitehead said, after comments, that he agreed with Commissioner

Robertson that a tractor/trailer did not belong in a very dense, urban neighborhood.

Commissioner Robertson said he did not believe the Board would support an

Ordinance that would prohibit more than eighteen wheelers in subdivisions. He said one

could not drive an eighteen-wheeler off the right-of-way in a residential subdivision with

small lots, and he commented briefly. Commissioner Robertson said the proposed

Ordinance should address eighteen wheelers only, and he so moved.

After discussion, Chairman Whitehead said he would first call on those who drove

the eighteen-wheelers to speak.

Mr. Jon Barnes, North 58th Avenue, said many long-distance truck drivers were

home only sixty (60) days per year, and it appeared the County would not be allowing truck

drivers to come home at all. He asked where Commissioner Bass would like the truck

drivers to park because Escambia County did not have a truck stop where truckers could

legally park their vehicles, and discussion followed regarding covenant-restricted

subdivisions should renew their covenants as they expired.

Chairman Whitehead said he would like to refine the motion on the floor, and he

asked if lot size was stipulated.

4/6/2000 blb26

Commissioner Robertson said he was addressing the tractor without the trailer and

parking the tractor in the back yard.

County Attorney Tucker said Assistant Attorney Godwin was drafting an amended,

proposed Ordinance at this time which would limit prohibition to the eighteen-wheelers.

Mr. Clem Johnston, Tonbridge Circle, said he only brought the tractor part of his

eighteen-wheeled, tractor/trailer into his neighborhood, which he parked completely on his

property, and he had not caused any property damage. He said he did not know of any

place he could legally park, and his truck was his only means of transportation, and brief

discussion followed.

Mr. Bill Olson, Eight Mile Creek Road, said he resided and operated his business

from that address. He said truck drivers were on the road six nights of the week and might

be home as little as one weekend a month. Mr. Olson said Ordinances were already in

effect to regulate parking on the streets but were not enforced, and he commented briefly.

County Attorney Tucker said the proposed Ordinance would regulate trucks being

parked in driveways. He said an Ordinance already existed which prohibited parking on

County rights-of-way and County roads, but the issue before the Board was the parking of

the vehicles on private property in subdivisions.

7:40 P.M. - COMMISSIONER JUNIOR LEFT THE MEETING TEMPORARILY.

Ms. Deborah Brownlee, Tennessee Drive, asked if the County would be responsible

for damage and vandalism to trucks when the drivers were not allowed to park the trucks

at their homes, and discussion followed, after which Ms. Brownlee reminded the

Commissioners that it was the truckers who were responsible for transporting most of the

food, goods and supplies that fed, clothed and serviced all Escambia County residents.

4/6/2000 blb27

7:45 P.M. - COMMISSIONER JUNIOR RETURNED TO THE MEETING.

Ms. Brownlee said the truckers in Escambia County could organize a "roll" on

Escambia County, as they had done in Washington, D.C., and she commented briefly.

Commissioner Bass said the speakers’ comments were well taken and even though

most of the Commissioners would agree with the comments that had been made, he did

not agree with them, and he commented concerning his desire to protect property values

in residential neighborhoods.

After further discussion, Ms. Brownlee said her husband only parked the truck

portion of his tractor/trailer rig on their property.

Ms. Debra Montgomery, Silver Ridge Drive, said her husband’s truck could not be

pulled into the back yard and it was parked on the right-of-way. She said the

Commissioners would not like it if goods were not being delivered to Pensacola and that

could happen if the truckers united. Ms. Montgomery said her husband was home only two

days a week.

Commissioner Banjanin said if an Ordinance could not be enforced by the County’s

Code Enforcement officers, then the Board should drop the whole thing, and he so moved.

After additional discussion, Chairman Whitehead said Commissioner Banjanin’s

motion was out of order because the Board had not heard all comments yet.

After brief discussion, Mr. Michael West, Bankhead Drive, said he and other truck

drivers had been parking their trucks and trailers in a lot off of Lillian Highway, near the

Myrtle Grove Post Office, and he questioned the legality of this parking.

After brief discussion, Commissioner Robertson said the proposed Ordinance

addressed subdivisions with small lots.

4/6/2000 blb28

Mr. Buster Nunnelee, Eight Mile Creek Road, said many truckers were present

tonight because of language in the proposed Ordinance which stated that any vehicle over

16,000 pounds should be removed from private property, etc. Mr. Nunnelee said the truck

portion alone often weighed approximately 22,000 pounds, and he commented briefly.

Mr. Nunnellee said he would remind the Commissioners that most goods and

supplies were delivered to Escambia County by truck. He said the proposed Ordinance

was so broad in scope and would cover such a large part of the County that it basically

prevented truckers from dropping off their trailers and driving their trucks home.

Mr. Nunnellee said the County was eliminating places where truckers could park, and two

small fuel/truck stops could not handle all the trailers, and he commented briefly.

Mr. John Rostron, Continental Drive, said he did not drive his trailer home but

instead parked it at the Fairgrounds on Mobile Highway, and he had reinforced his driveway

so that he could back his tractor onto it. He said tractor/trailer rigs were comparable to

highly expensive RV’s (recreational vehicles), which were not prohibited from parking in

residential areas, and he commented briefly concerning his ten-day road trips, followed by

one or two days at home. Mr. Rostron said the County did not have an Ordinance to

prohibit abandoned, junked boats from remaining in yards, and he commented briefly.

Mr. Rostron said he objected to tractor/trailers being called "nuisances" because they were

responsible for feeding the people, and he commented about delivering to Home Depot,

Sears Roebuck & Company, Montgomery Ward, and many other companies in Escambia

County, and he encouraged the Board to vote against the proposed Ordinance.

4/6/2000 blb29

Mr. Bernard Penn, Bartow Avenue, said he had two vehicles on County right-of-way

for which Code Enforcement Officers had cited him many times, and he commented briefly

concerning private nuisances.

8:14 P.M. - COMMISSIONER BASS LEFT THE MEETING TEMPORARILY.

Mr. Frank Montenes, Hamilton Crossing Drive, said he was not in favor of this

proposed Ordinance. He said the Board might want to decide whether or not vehicles

should be allowed to park on rights-of-way, and he commented briefly. Mr. Montenes said

the Commissioners seemed to be invading on intrinsic business rights as well as property

rights of people who had property that would accommodate trailers.

Mr. Montenes said consideration must be given to the insufficient facilities that were

available for the parking of tractor/trailer rigs. He said this situation was as important as

convention centers or recreational parks and soccer fields, and it was a business base that

was very important to the community, and he commented briefly.

Mr. Samuel A. Munnerley, Skyhawk Road, said he has been a businessman in

Escambia County for thirty-five years and he commented about his past work experience.

8:20 P.M. - COMMISSIONER BASS RETURNED TO THE MEETING.

Mr. Munnerley said the trucking industry spent a lot of money in Escambia County

and he commented briefly regarding the much-needed supplies that truckers provided to

the citizens of Escambia County.

Mr. Munnerley said Commissioner Bass did not respond to the question asked

earlier regarding where the truckers were supposed to park their vehicles if they were

prohibited from doing so at their residences.

4/6/2000 blb30

Commissioner Bass said truckers would be parking some place other than

residential neighborhoods, if he had anything to do with it. He said people in other parts

of the state and the country were imposing regulations for a reason.

Mr. Munnerley said some people were of the opinion that their property values would

depreciate when a truck was parked near their house, and he commented briefly in that

regard. He said one of the reasons Escambia County financially enjoyed lesser freight

rates than Leon, Sarasota, or Seminole Counties was that Escambia County had

5,300 Class A, registered truck drivers. Mr. Munnerley said the proposed Ordinance

addressed classes A through Class D. He said bigger companies accepted lower freight

rates, and because so many residents drove trucks, Escambia County residents were

enjoying a lower price on groceries and all goods consumed, and that was proven by the

fact that Escambia County was always listed as having a lower cost of living than any other

county in the State of Florida.

Ms. Polly Ann Munnerley, Skyhawk Road, said she thanked the Commissioners for

listening to the truckers’ viewpoints. She said she was opposed to the proposed Ordinance

as originally written. Ms. Munnerley said it was unfortunate that Mr. Bill Burchett was

unable to get along with his neighbors, and making that neighborhood disagreement a

County-wide affair was ludicrous. She said Mr. Burchett had not contacted his neighbor

to rectify the problem but proceeded to cause harm to all truckers in the County by claiming

that big trucks were unsafe, and she commented briefly. Ms. Munnerley said there were

no legal places to park tractor/trailers in Escambia County other than the two small truck

stops, which would accommodate approximately twenty trucks, and those spaces were

primarily for transient trucks, and only one allowed the dropping of tractor/trailers for longer

4/6/2000 blb31

than overnight. She said shopping center parking lots, etc., were private property and

permission should be granted to park at such places, and she commented briefly

concerning the lack of safety in such parking lots. Ms. Munnerley said everyone knew the

impact on Escambia County when a large employer left the area, and even if a small

number of the 5,300 truckers left the area, the County would have a disaster, noting that

the annual salary of a truck driver usually averaged in excess of $30,000 per year and most

of that was spent in Escambia County. She said she would urge the Commissioners to

vote against the proposed Ordinance.

Mr. James Rathel, Eight Mile Creek Road, said he had lived on his 300 foot by

300 foot land since 1970 and although he did not drive a truck, he had two sons who drove

trucks. After commenting briefly that his property value had risen from $2,200 per ace to

$17,000 per acre, he said it was obvious his sons’ trucks parked on his property had not

caused a decrease in property values. Mr. Rathel said all of Escambia County’s citizens

used the goods that trucks brought to Escambia County, and he commented briefly.

Mr. Bruce Brown, Sabrina Drive, said motorcycles and lawnmowers made more

noise than a tractor/trailer. He said the truckers came home on the average of every ten

days, and he commented briefly.

Mr. Brown said regarding weight and size being a nuisance, RV’s were as big as

full tractor/trailer rigs, and if tractor/trailer rigs were too heavy or big, then RV’s would also

have to be too heavy or big. He said personal property rights were being violated and it

appeared to him to be discrimination. Mr. Brown said the only solution that he could see

was going to court, and that would cost the taxpayers, and he commented briefly.

4/6/2000 blb32

Mr. Bill Burchett, Deer Ridge Road, said he originally came to the Commissioners

because of severe problems in his subdivision, and he recalled how his one neighbor

backed his truck for 700 feet on the street, in an area where children played. He said,

being a certified safety professional himself, there was no way that vehicle could safely be

backed down that road on a continuous basis. Mr. Burchett said the truck had already

destroyed a sewer line, and he commented briefly about the truck’s weight breaking up

driveways. He said the presence of trucks lowered property values and the builder and

developer in that area were unable to sell a lot because of potential buyers saying they did

not want to live next to a tractor/trailer rig. Mr. Burchett said other neighbors in his

development parked their large motor homes/RV’s and large boats in rented parking

places, off of the property, and did not bring them to their homes. He said the Board’s

challenge was to do what was right or to do what was popular, and he commented briefly.

Upon inquiry from Commissioner Banjanin, Mr. Burchett said his neighbor did not

park the tractor/trailer on the street but had parked it in the right-of-way until the sewer was

destroyed, and the driver now attempted to park it at the front of his personal property.

Upon inquiry from Commissioner Banjanin, County Attorney Tucker said a private

action for nuisance would depend on neighborhood restrictions. He said in terms of the

actual truck being in the owner’s yard would be a prohibitive nuisance and that was what

the Board was attempting to address with the proposed Ordinance, but it would not qualify

as a public nuisance.

Mr. Burchett said his subdivision’s covenants did not address this issue. He said the

proposed Ordinance to exclude the trailer would make it unnecessary for this trucker to

back down the street, and the road was not designed to accommodate tractor/trailers.

4/6/2000 blb33

Commissioner Banjanin asked if Code Enforcement or the Sheriff’s Department

could address safety of children and prevent the truck from being backed down the road.

Commissioner Robertson said a truck prohibition could be approved for any single

road, which had been done many times by the Board, and he commented briefly.

Upon inquiry from Commissioner Banjanin regarding whether or not Mr. Burchett

had ever talked to the person who backed the truck down the highway, Mr. Burchett said

he had never talked to the driver of the truck.

Commissioner Robertson said most subdivisions had covenants and restrictions to

cover such matters. He said he was not in favor of an Ordinance that applied to many

subdivisions when the problem was one street, and he commented briefly. Commissioner

Robertson said he would also not agree to trucks being legally parked on rights-of-way.

County Attorney Tucker said truck prohibition on one particular street was now being

discussed among the legal staff.

Commissioner Robertson said a public nuisance could be declared, and the Board

had adopted Ordinances (Resolutions) to prohibit trucks on specific streets.

County Attorney Tucker said even when trucks were prohibited, constitutional

limitations still existed on where the trucks could be prohibited in terms of access to the

property, and brief discussion followed concerning the lack of available legal parking.

Mr. Larry Fordham, Sr., Schofield Drive, said he had always respected truck drivers;

however, the neighborhood in which he lived contained $150,000 to $400,000 homes. He

said he would not want a piece of farm equipment, or a truck, parked next to his home,

even though both vehicles helped to indirectly bring food to his home, and he commented

briefly. Mr. Fordham said tractor/trailers did not belong in neighborhoods with small lots.

4/6/2000 blb34

Commissioner Bass said the Lake Charlene Homeowners Association supported a

ban on tractor/trailers in its subdivision, based on noise, pollution, visual nuisance, damage

to streets and storm drains, as detailed in a letter he had received.

Motion made by Commissioner Junior, seconded by Commissioner Robertson, and

carried unanimously, accepting, for filing with the Board’s Minutes, a one-page copy of a

letter dated March 22, 2000, from Sandy McMillin, President, Lake Charlene Homeowners

Association, expressing support of an Ordinance restricting tractor/trailer rigs from

residential communities.

Mr. LaVerne Matheson, Edgewater Drive, said he had managed a stock yard and

shipped cattle all over the United States, and had loaded 10,000 trailers per year. He said

he had tried for several years to get a truck stop built in Escambia County and had always

been told that not enough trucks passed through this area to warrant building a truck stop.

Mr. Matheson said the one-third acre lots in his subdivision did not accommodate

tractor/trailers very easily, and the County already had an Ordinance which prohibited

trucks over 10,500 pounds from entering subdivisions. He said neither the trailers nor the

tractors should be allowed in subdivisions such as his, and he commented briefly.

Mr. Michael Dopson, Bridgedale Road, said the lot size in his subdivision was one

of the smallest in Escambia County, and problems had occurred in the last ten years

concerning large trucks of all sizes in his subdivision. He said narrow roads which would

not accommodate large vehicles were a large part of the problem, and he commented

briefly concerning where the vehicles parked and the erosion problems that had been

caused. Mr. Dopson said certain vehicles should be prohibited in older subdivisions.

4/6/2000 blb35

Mr. Bruce Thompson, Patricia Drive, said he owned businesses in both

Escambia County and Santa Rosa County. He said this subject should not have come as

a surprise, and he commented briefly concerning the intent of an Ordinance should be for

the benefit of the general population or the good of society. Mr. Thompson said the

message being received tonight was that an Ordinance prohibiting truck parking would not

be for the good of the general citizenry, and impeding a person’s income should be

countered by offering a solution to the problem; i.e., provide an area in the County where

tractor/trailer rigs could safely be parked, and he commented briefly.

Mr. Douglas Frantz, Stetson Road, said he was a truck driver and he abided by the

laws, as did most truck drivers, and he commented briefly concerning truckers not wanting

to bother their neighbors.

Ms. Shirley Garland, Pelham Road, said her daughter and son-in-law came home

once every four months and parked their tractor/trailer rig by her house. She said her

neighbors had never complained.

Mr. Paul Alexander, Bush Street, said an Escambia County Ordinance from 1997

prohibited 10,500-pound vehicles from parking on the rights-of-way and that would include

his plumbing truck when making a service call. He said he would have to pull his vehicle

into the driveway of the house, and he commented briefly.

Mr. Teddy (Theodore) Laviano, Gordon Avenue, said the proposed Ordinance was

designed to remove eighteen-wheelers from subdivisions because of weight and noise;

however, there were also sixteen-wheelers and many oversized trucks, and he explained

briefly. He said it was his opinion that the Ordinance should be dropped from discussion.

4/6/2000 blb36

Commissioner Robertson said because some people occasionally had unique

problems in certain neighborhoods, the Board could establish a mechanism by which quasi-

judicial hearings could be held to address complaints, on a case-by-case basis, for truck

prohibition, and that should be considered so that both sides could be heard on a case-by-

case basis, and he so moved.

After brief discussion, County Attorney Tucker said the theory would be to

investigate each case and regulate traffic on County rights-of-way. He said Mr. Burchett

had indicated that the problem was not the parking but the backing up of the large truck on

the road for several hundred feet, and brief discussion followed.

Motion made by Commissioner Banjanin that the Board drop the whole thing.

Motion seconded by Commissioner Junior.

Commissioner Bass said the proposed Ordinance, as presented by Assistant County

Attorney Godwin, had been radically changed during the course of this discussion, and he

would support it. He said he would vote for the proposed Ordinance, as re-written during

this Meeting, to address problems with trucks in residential neighborhoods.

Substitute motion made by Commissioner Bass that the Board approve the

proposed Ordinance as advertised for this Meeting, as revised and created during this

Meeting, and which deleted a lot of the original language. He said it would address only

trucks weighing over 16,000 pounds.

Chairman Whitehead called for a second to the motion; there being none, he

advised it died for lack of a second.

4/6/2000 blb37

Chairman Whitehead said people were agreeing that tractors would only be allowed

on property at least a third of an acre in size, and an acre or more would allow both the

trailer and the tractor, and he commented briefly concerning that being a compromise.

Substitute motion withdrawn by Commissioner Bass.

CHAIRMAN WHITEHEAD RELINQUISHED THE CHAIR TO VICE CHAIRMAN JUNIOR.

Substitute motion made by Commissioner Whitehead that the Board restrict the

Ordinance to tractors allowed to park on parcels greater than or equal to one-third of an

acre, and that both the tractor and the trailer could only be parked on greater than or equal

to one acre, and further restricted to deal only with platted subdivisions south of Kingsfield

Road.

Substitute motion seconded by Commissioner Bass.

Vice Chairman Junior said he would support dropping the whole thing and, also, he

would suggest that residents of any subdivision could make requests for a Public Hearing

relative to what that particular subdivision wanted to do.

Commissioner Banjanin said a few complaints out of 250,000 Escambia County

residents had caused the creation of proposed legislation that would restrict a whole

profession. He said this was wrong, and he commented briefly.

Commissioner Robertson said he would agree to drop the issue. He said the

compromise offered by County Attorney Tucker would address each subdivision separately,

and he commented briefly and said he would support dropping the whole idea.

Substitute motion withdrawn by Commissioner Whitehead.

Vice Chairman Junior said Commissioner Banjanin’s motion became the main

motion, and he called for the question, and the motion carried 4-1, with Commissioner Bass

4/6/2000 blb38

voting "no", dropping from further discussion the recommendation to consider adopting an

Ordinance to protect the public safety and welfare of residents in certain residential

subdivisions from large commercial vehicles/tractor/trailer rigs.

9:26 P.M. - MEETING RECESSED.9:34 P.M. - MEETING RECONVENED.

VICE CHAIRMAN JUNIOR RELINQUISHED THE CHAIR TO COMMISSIONER WHITEHEAD.

APPROVAL TO VACATE RIGHT-OF-WAY PETITIONED BY AVT INVESTMENTS, INC.

Chairman Whitehead said the 5:35 p.m. Public Hearing was for consideration of the

petition to vacate the east thirty (30) feet of the northeast quarter of Section 23,

Township 1 North, Range 30 West, which was Motley Court, containing 1.58 acres, more

or less, as petitioned by AVT Investments, Inc.

Ms. Cindy W. Anderson, P.E., County Engineer, said this Public Hearing was

continued from last month, at which time there were three (3) separate easements that AVT

was requesting to be vacated, and she explained why the petitioner had decided not to

vacate the westerly rights-of-way and was requesting vacation for only one right-of-way.

She said it was located on the easterly portion of the Baroco property.

Commissioner Robertson said this right-of-way could be clarified as the

Motley Court/Boulder Creek area.

Ms. Anderson concurred.

Mr. Stephen C. Lugg, Lexington Road, said he was representing the Boulder Creek

Homeowners Association. He said he would thank Mr. Tom Henderson from the University

of West Florida (UWF) for assisting the homeowners and not asking to vacate the east side

of their property. He said he had asked his neighbors if they understood the consequences

4/6/2000 blb39

of the right-of-way being vacated. He said Cindy Anderson had said that the right-of-way

would be divided in half and would revert to the adjoining property owners on either side,

after it was vacated. Mr. Lugg said that was never explained to the homeowners. He

asked who would maintain the thirty-foot right-of-way, which had been owned by the

County since 1924.

Ms. Anderson said the County owned the right-of-way, but it was an unopened right-

of-way and the County had no maintenance responsibilities relative to the drainage. She

said the right-of-way could be used for drainage problems, if necessary, and she

commented briefly.

Mr. Lugg said the homeowners did not object to giving AVT all of the right-of-way,

so that UWF could become their neighbors.

Upon inquiry from Commissioner Robertson, Mr. Lugg said the homeowners did not

want to take ownership of the washed out right-of-way which was a disaster. He said the

homeowners wanted it on record that if AVT wanted to vacate the right-of-way, they did not

want half of it to be given to the homeowners, and they would give AVT all of the right-of-

way so that AVT could sell it to UWF.

Upon inquiry from Commissioner Robertson, County Attorney Tucker said if the

County owned right-of-way by dedication from a plat, the vacated property was split down

the middle. He said the side who did not want the fifteen feet of right-of-way might not have

a choice and would have to accept it.

Commissioner Banjanin said once it was vacated, the homeowners could deed their

fifteen feet to AVT.

4/6/2000 blb40

Mr. Lugg said, because of the drainage problem, the fence was beginning to wash

out on the east side of their property, and he asked if the County would maintain the

drainage on the property which it had owned since 1924.

Ms. Anderson said it was a private drainage ditch in the unopened right-of-way and

it was the Board’s discretion to take over maintenance on a private ditch.

After brief discussion, Ms. Anderson said the subject property split a Section line and

therefore it would go to both sides. She said if UWF wanted the property, the homeowners

could resolve that after the vacation, and she commented briefly.

After Chairman Whitehead asked why UWF would want property with a drainage

problem, Ms. Anderson said the drainage ditch was on both sides, and whoever owned the

property would gain the right-of-way and would have to address run-on as well as run-off,

as part of the Land Development Code (LDC), if they developed the land.

After brief discussion, Commissioner Junior said Mr. Lugg asked about maintaining

the drainage. He said and the County was not maintaining drainage at this time.

Ms. Anderson said that was correct and the drainage problem was a pop off from

a private holding pond onto County property.

Chairman Whitehead said the County could fix the problem and it could become part

of the Miscellaneous Drainage Projects for which funding had been budgeted, and brief

discussion followed. He said because the County owned the property, the County had

accepted the pop-off drainage over the years.

Motion made by Commissioner Robertson that the Board approve vacating the right-

of-way in question, and then ask staff to explore the potential cost to address the drainage

and come back to the Board in the next couple of months. He said the land could be

4/6/2000 blb41

deeded to UWF, if the University wanted it.

Motion seconded by Commissioner Junior, for discussion.

Ms. Anderson said the motion on the floor would be a combination of Engineering

and Legal expertise. She said this was County property with a private system within the

County property, which was a situation that existed many times. Ms. Anderson asked who

had the maintenance responsibility for a private drainage system on County property.

Upon inquiry from County Attorney Tucker concerning who owned the drainage

system, Ms. Anderson said the owner of the holding pond would own the drainage system.

Chairman Whitehead said the drainage system was the ditch that was not being

maintained, and the County owned the ditch.

Commissioner Robertson said the second part of his motion was to address the cost

of the drainage.

Mr. Tom Henderson said he was Acting Vice President for Administration at UWF,

and he was present to answer any questions. He said he was in support of the motion.

Upon inquiry from Commissioner Robertson, Mr. Henderson said he was of the

opinion that UWF might want the right-of-way that the homeowners could deed to UWF;

however, UWF wished to finalize its closing at this time.

Mr. Tony Weaver, Spring Creek Circle, said when he received the certified letter

relative to the petition to vacate, he called the County Engineering Office and asked for an

explanation, and he was told that it was a formality through which the County proceeded

to vacate a right-of-way, and would have little or no affect to him as a homeowner. He said

the people giving out the information should realize that vacation of a right-of-way could be

a more sensitive issue than they realized.

4/6/2000 blb42

Chairman Whitehead said in light of what had been discussed, it would have been

necessary for UWF to address the drainage issue which would put the homeowners ahead

of the game, had UWF accepted half of the right-of-way. He said if the vacation did not

occur, the homeowners would be no worse off than now and impact on the homeowners

probably was negligible.

Mr. Weaver said his concern was that the County would be deeding fifteen feet to

the homeowners, and he did not want to be held financially accountable as one of eleven

homeowners to correct the drainage problems.

Ms. Vanessa Lewis, Valley Ridge Circle, said she was more or less satisfied;

however, she was concerned about the holding pond and she requested to see a map of

what was now being considered, which Ms. Anderson provided, after which Ms. Lewis said

she was satisfied.

Commissioner Bass said he wanted to vote for the motion; however, he asked why

a project was being created by addressing this drainage problem because it was not part

of the plan nor had the County Engineer requested it.

Chairman Whitehead said the neighbors understood a drainage system existed on

County property that was eroding to the point that the residents’ fences were collapsing.

He said a system on County property became a County system which was being accessed

illegally through a private holding pond. Chairman Whitehead said, nonetheless, it would

become the County’s system as it was on County property, and brief discussion followed.

Mr. Lugg said the drainage from the entire Valley Ridge Subdivision, which was

located past Boulder Creek, drained into that pond. He said drainage on the west side,

down Motley Court, drained down into Boulder Creek, and it was the whole subdivision and

4/6/2000 blb43

not just a little bit of flow. Mr. Lugg said the depth of the existing ditches were over his

head and the fences would be collapsing with another two feet of drainage.

Upon inquiry from Commissioner Bass, Mr. Lugg said the real problem needed to

be addressed, which was the property that the County owned, adjacent to the whole east

side of his subdivision, and that drainage needed to be fixed so that Valley Ridge’s entire

drainage had a place in which to drain, and he commented briefly. He said this all came

to light after the residents received the notification of the proposed vacation, and he walked

the property to see the actual drainage situation.

Commissioner Junior said, after comments, a private situation had created a public

problem, and the public would be paying for the private problem. He said the Valley Ridge

Subdivision had a responsibility to deal with its own drainage, and he commented briefly.

Ms. Anderson said she did not know if the County would be fixing the problem, and

she understood her direction from the Board was to bring back information on the cost.

Commissioner Junior said a problem needed to be fixed; however, he did not

understand why the citizens were not draining their water into their own system rather than

into the County’s system. He also asked why that situation had not been monitored, and

he commented briefly.

Ms. Anderson said this new subdivision was required to have a positive outfall.

After further discussion, Chairman Whitehead called for the question, and the motion

carried unanimously, taking the following action at the 5:35 p.m. Public Hearing regarding

an unopened, thirty-foot, right-of-way, along the north one-half of the east boundary of

Section 23, Township 1 North, Range 30 West, as petitioned by AVT Investments, Inc., the

owner/petitioner:

4/6/2000 blb44

A. Approving the Petition to Vacate;

B. Accepting the Hold/Harmless Agreement;

C. Adopting the Resolution to Vacate; and

D. Directing staff to report back to the Board with the cost to repair the existingdrainage system located in the vicinity of the property being vacated.

RE-SCHEDULING A PUBLIC HEARING CONCERNING THE TOURIST DEVELOPMENT TAX

Chairman Whitehead said the County Attorney’s Office had requested the 5:37 p.m.

Public Hearing be re-scheduled to April 27 at 5:36 p.m., relative to consideration of an

Ordinance to adopt a 1% Tourist Development Tax (TDT) for construction of the County’s

soccer complex at Ashton Brosnaham Park.

Motion made by Commissioner Bass that the Board re-schedule the Public Hearing.

(Action taken later in the Meeting; see Page 45.)

ITEMS ADDED TO THE AGENDA - COMMISSIONER THOMAS G. "TOM" BANJANIN

2. Discussion of Eco-Tourism Preservation Referred to the April C/W Meeting

Commissioner Banjanin said he would like an eco-tourism preservation area on the

372 acres located on the east end of Pensacola Beach included in the 4th Cent Tourist

Development Tax (TDT) in the amount of $1 million, as part of the Public Hearing which

was just re-scheduled for consideration of the funding for the soccer complex.

Commissioner Robertson said the Public Hearing was not advertised to include an

eco-tourism area.

County Administrator Evans said Tourist Development Council (TDC) approval was

needed before the Commissioners could act on funding for eco-tourism preservation.

4/6/2000 blb45

Mr. William A. Neron, Assistant County Administrator, said the 4th cent could only

be used for infrastructure related, professional sports teams and/or convention centers.

(Action taken later in the Meeting; see Page 47.)

9:58 P.M. - COMMISSIONER BASS LEFT THE MEETING TEMPORARILY.

RE-SCHEDULING A PUBLIC HEARING CONCERNING THE TOURIST DEVELOPMENTTAX - Continued

Chairman Whitehead said the motion on the floor was to approve changing the date

of the 5:37 p.m. Public Hearing to April 27 at 5:36 p.m., relative to the proposed Ordinance

for consideration of levying an additional one percent (1%) Tourist Development Tax (TDT)

to construct, equip, and expand the County Soccer Center at Ashton Brosnaham Park. (Discussion

held earlier in the Meeting; see Page 44.) He said he would call on those who had signed

up to speak.

9:59 P.M. - COMMISSIONER BASS RETURNED TO THE MEETING.

Mr. Carl Whitson, Tara Dawn Circle, said he would like to submit some information

for the record.

Motion made by Commissioner Robertson, seconded by Commissioner Junior, and

carried unanimously, accepting, for filing with the Board’s Minutes, copies of six (6) pages

of documentation, as presented by Mr. Carl Whitson, III, regarding insufficient infrastructure

and the already existing traffic problems which would have a direct affect on the County’s

soccer complex to be constructed at Ashton Brosnaham Park.

Mr. Whitson said his concern was the $3 million soccer complex to be constructed

in Ashton Brosnaham Park, and the concurrency evaluation for traffic that was performed

4/6/2000 blb46

in 1997, which he submitted, indicated the infrastructure was insufficient at this time and

would not be able to endure the traffic associated with a soccer complex.

After brief discussion, Chairman Whitehead said Mr. Whitson’s documentation would

be incorporated into the information presented at the 5:36 p.m., April 27, 2000, Public

Hearing regarding the proposed Ordinance for consideration of levying an additional one

percent (1%) Tourist Development Tax for a total rate of four percent (4%) to construct,

equip, and expand the County Soccer Center at Ashton Brosnaham Park. He said only one

Public Hearing would be held regarding this issue.

Motion made by Commissioner Junior, seconded by Commissioner Bass, and

carried unanimously, re-scheduling the 5:37 p.m. Public Hearing to 5:36 p.m. on April 27,

2000, at the request of the County Attorney’s Office, regarding the proposed Ordinance for

consideration of amending Chapter 90, Article II, Division 2, Section 90-52, of the Escambia

County Code of Ordinances (Ordinance Number 89-7 and Ordinance Number 92-30);

levying an additional one percent (1%) Tourist Development Tax for a total rate of four

percent (4%) of each whole and major fraction of each dollar of the total rental charged

every person who rents, leases, or lets for consideration any living quarters or

accommodations in any hotel, apartment hotel, motel, resort motel, apartment, apartment

motel, rooming house, tourist or trailer camp, or condominium for a term of six (6) months

or less, unless such living quarters or accommodations are exempt according to the

provisions of Chapter 212, Florida Statutes; providing for allocation of such additional one

percent (1%) Tourist Development Tax to construct, equip, and expand the County Soccer

Center at Ashton Brosnaham Park; providing for severability; providing for inclusion in the

Code; and providing for an effective date.

4/6/2000 blb47

ITEMS ADDED TO THE AGENDA - COMMISSIONER THOMAS G. "TOM" BANJANIN

2. Discussion of Eco-Tourism Preservation Referred to the April C/W Meeting -Continued

Motion made by Commissioner Banjanin that the Board approve forwarding a

request to the Tourist Development Council (TDC) to consider the 4th cent for construction

of an eco-tourism preservation area on the 372 acres on Pensacola Beach, for a boardwalk

system and possible parking. (Discussion held earlier in the Meeting; see Page 44.)

Motion seconded by Commissioner Bass.

Chairman Whitehead said he would not support the motion because he did not want

to address this as an add item. He said it should be discussed in conjunction with the

University of West Florida’s (UWF) future plans for adjacent property. Chairman

Whitehead said the 372 acres was one of Escambia County’s last and greatest assets.

After brief discussion about an issue of this magnitude not being discussed as an add item,

Chairman Whitehead said the Board had not received documentation from the Santa Rosa

Island Authority (SRIA) to support the matter. He said public discussion was also needed,

and it should be referred to the C/W.

Motion made by Commissioner Banjanin, seconded by Commissioner Bass, and

carried unanimously, referring to the April 11, 2000, C/W Meeting for an in-depth discussion

the verbal request of Commissioner Banjanin that the Board forward to the TDC his request

for consideration of using Tourist Development Tax (TDT) proceeds for an eco-tourism

preservation area on the 372 acres on Pensacola Beach by constructing a boardwalk

system and possible parking to enhance tourism efforts.

4/6/2000 blb48

GROWTH MANAGEMENT REPORT - Growth Management Director Nancy Stuparich

4. Approval of Marcell V. Watson’s Request for a Medical Waiver

Motion made by Commissioner Robertson, seconded by Commissioner Bass, that

the Board approve the medical waiver requested by Marcell V. Watson.

Upon inquiry from Deputy Clerk Gingrey, Ms. Nancy Stuparich, Growth Management

Director, said that a related Order for Medical Waivers was being finalized by her staff.

There being no further discussion, Chairman Whitehead called for the question, and

the motion carried unanimously, upholding staff’s recommendation and approving a request

for a temporary, twelve-month medical waiver, to be re-certified annually, for a mobile

home to be used as a guest residence by Marcell V. Watson’s granddaughter,

Talesha Minder, to assist with Ms. Watson’s medical needs, in accordance with the

provisions of Ordinance Number 99-28, for the following:

Case Number: MW-00-03Location: 6712-A Lillian Highway (.64 acre)Parcel Number: 11-2S-31-6109-000-001Zoning District: R-2, Single Family DistrictMedical Need for: Marcell V. WatsonRecommendation: Approval

1. Actions Concerning Three Rezoning Requests

Chairman Whitehead advised there were no speakers for Rezoning Case Z-00-06.

Motion made by Commissioner Bass, seconded by Commissioner Junior, and

carried unanimously, taking the following action concerning Case Z-00-06:

A. Reviewing and upholding the Rezoning Hearing Examiner’s March 9, 2000,recommendation and approving R-6, Neighborhood Commercial andResidential District, High Density, as follows:

4/6/2000 blb49

Case No. Z-00-06Location: 1135 West Hayes StreetParcel Number: Section 18, Township 2 South, Range 30 West, 6000-

005-056From: R-4, Multiple-Family District, Medium-High Density

(18 dwelling units/acre)To: R-6, Neighborhood Commercial and Residential District,

High Density (25 dwelling units/acre)Requested by: James E. Way, Jr., Agent for Theodore L. and

Gail M. Welsh, OwnersRecommendation: Approval

B. Authorizing the Chairman to sign the Order of the Escambia County Board ofCounty Commissioners.

Chairman Whitehead advised Case Z-00-07, located in the 6700 block of

Old Palafox Highway was a request to rezone certain parcels from R-6, Neighborhood

Commercial and Residential District, to C-1, Retail Commercial District, and the

recommendation was approval.

Ms. Ruth Smith, Planner II, advised the Board that Parcel Number 1203-000-004,

located at 6756 Old Palafox Highway, was already zoned C-1 and was, therefore, not part

of the requested zoning change although it had been inadvertently included on the agenda.

Chairman Whitehead said Mr. Moye, the applicant who had signed up to speak,

indicated he was in favor of the rezoning.

Motion made by Commissioner Robertson, seconded by Commissioner Bass, and

carried unanimously, taking the following action concerning Case Z-00-07:

A. Reviewing and upholding the Rezoning Hearing Examiner’s March 9, 2000,recommendation and approving C-1, Retail Commercial District, as follows:

4/6/2000 blb50

Case No.: Z-00-07Location: 6750 Old Palafox Highway; 6758 Old Palafox Highway;

the southern 10 feet of Lot 8, Old Palafox Highway Parcel Numbers: Section 27, Township 1 South, Range 30 West, 1203-

000-001; 1203-000-007; and the southern 10 feet of1203-000-008

From: R-6, Residential & Neighborhood Commercial District(25 dwelling units/acre), High Density

To: C-1, Retail Commercial DistrictRequested by: William R., Sr., and Ella R. Moye, OwnersRecommendation: Approval

B. Authorizing the Chairman to sign the Order of the Escambia County Board ofCounty Commissioners.

Chairman Whitehead advised Case Z-00-09, located on Sandy Bay Drive, was a

request to rezone from R-2, Single-Family District (7 dwelling units per acre) to R-3, One-

and Two-Family District, medium density (10 dwelling units per acre) and the Rezoning

Hearing Examiner’s recommendation was denial. He said there were three speakers.

Ms. Ruth Smith, Planner II, Growth Management Department, said the parcels were

located in an area north of Lillian Highway and just east of the Lillian Highway bridge, which

was designated entirely as Coastal High Hazard Area and, therefore, the County was not

allowed to raise the density of the area.

Mr. Dave Fretz, Spanish Moss Drive, said a watershed had been placed on this

property to stop the large quantities of water from running off into Perdido Bay. He said

twenty-seven individuals present at the Rezoning Hearing Examiner’s Hearing were all

opposed to the rezoning. Mr. Fretz said the citizens would request the watershed in the

area be addressed because problems occurred with as little as four inches of rain.

Ms. Helen Baker, Spanish Moss Drive, said she was in favor of denying the

rezoning, and she commented briefly that the property was on Perdido Bay.

4/6/2000 blb51

Mr. Arthur E. Radvilas, Sandy Bay Drive, said, after comments, that the attendance

of twenty-seven residents of this area at the Rezoning Hearing Examiner’s Hearing

unanimously protested any rezoning. He said he was pleased when he read the verbatim

record of the Rezoning Hearing Examiner’s Hearing because staff had recommended

denial of the requested R-3 zoning, and the Rezoning Hearing Examiner also

recommended denial of the rezoning. He said if the Board approved the rezoning, a

problem would occur because he would then request a rezoning change for the two lots he

owned which were adjacent to Mr. McDavid’s land, the petitioner. Mr. Radvilas said other

property owners would request rezoning, and he respectfully requested the Commissioners

to deny the request for rezoning.

Motion made by Commissioner Junior, seconded by Commissioner Bass, and

carried unanimously, taking the following action concerning Case Z-00-09:

A. Reviewing and upholding the Rezoning Hearing Examiner’s March 9, 2000,recommendation and denying R-3, One- and Two-Family District, mediumdensity (10 dwelling units/acre), as follows:

Case No.: Z-00-09Location: 983 Sandy Bay DriveParcel Numbers: Section 03, Township 2 South, Range 32 West , 1102-

008-010From: R-2, Single-Family District, Low-Medium Density

(7 dwelling units/acre)To: R-3, One- and Two-Family District, Medium Density

(10 dwelling units/acre)Requested by: David M. McDavid and Daniel F. McDavid, JTWRS,

OwnersRecommendation: Denial

B. Authorizing the Chairman to sign the Order of the Escambia County Board ofCounty Commissioners.

10:15 P.M. - COMMISSIONER BASS LEFT THE MEETING TEMPORARILY.

4/6/2000 blb52

2. Adoption of an Ordinance for Approved Rezonings

Motion made by Commissioner Junior, seconded by Commissioner Robertson, and

carried 4-0, with Commissioner Bass temporarily out of Board Chambers, adopting

Ordinance Number 2000-12 of Escambia County, Florida, amending Part III of the

Escambia County Code of Ordinances (1999), the Land Development Code of Escambia

County, Florida, as amended, the Official Zoning Map, as adopted by reference in Article

6, Section 6.02.00, to include two (2) owner-initiated rezoning cases which were approved

by the Board earlier in this Meeting, as follows:

Case Number: Z-00-06Location: 1135 West Hayes StreetParcel Number: Section 18, Township 2 South, Range 30 West, 6000-005-056From: R-4, Multiple-Family District, Medium-High Density (18 dwelling

units/acre)To: R-6, Neighborhood Commercial and Residential District, High

Density (25 dwelling units/acre)Requested by: James E. Way, Jr., Agent for Theodore L. and Gail M. Welsh,

Owners

Case Number: Z-00-07Location: 6750 Old Palafox Highway; 6758 Old Palafox Highway; the

southern 10 feet of Lot 8, Old Palafox Highway Parcel Numbers: Section 27, Township 1 South, Range 30 West, 1203-000-001;

1203-000-007; and the southern 10 feet of 1203-000-008From: R-6, Residential & Neighborhood Commercial District

(25 dwelling units/acre), High DensityTo: C-1, Retail Commercial DistrictRequested by: William R., Sr., and Ella R. Moye, Owners

3. Adoption of an Ordinance to Change Land Use for a Planned Commerce Park

Chairman Whitehead advised the 5:46 p.m. Public Hearing was for consideration

of adopting an Ordinance amending Part II of the Escambia County Code of Ordinances

(1999), the Escambia County Comprehensive Plan, as amended, which controls future land

use, guides public facilities, and protects natural resources pursuant to the Local

4/6/2000 blb53

Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act

(Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes); providing for amendments to Chapter 7, to amend

the acreage for Rural Residential and Activity Node, Cottage Hill/Quintette Area 15, and

to revise the mix of uses to allow a ranges of uses in Activity Area, Cottage Hill/Quintette

Area 15, by increasing the percentage of allowed development for light industrial uses and

decreasing the percentage of the lands required to remain in Agricultural Uses.

After calling on the two speakers who had signed up, Chairman Whitehead advised

it was 10:20 p.m. and it appeared the speakers had already left the Meeting.

Motion made by Commissioner Robertson, seconded by Commissioner Junior, that

the Board adopt the Ordinance.

County Attorney Tucker said the Board was able to submit amendments of the

County’s Comprehensive Plan to the Department of Community Affairs (DCA) twice during

a one-year time frame. He said this recommendation, if approved, would count as one of

the two opportunities, and the Board should be aware that only one other opportunity would

be available this year to submit amendments to the Comprehensive Plan.

County Administrator Evans said, also, there was a time frame in which the County

could purchase this property, which was important to the future of the County.

Ms. Nancy Stuparich, Growth Management Director, said Ms. Gay Hamilton Smith

had been the County’s consultant who assisted staff with preparing the amendment, and

Ms. Smith, who had met with the DCA, would present the DCA’s recommendation.

Ms. Gay Hamilton Smith, Hamilton Smith & Associates, Inc., consultant to the

Growth Management Department, said the DCA recommended strengthening the response

4/6/2000 blb54

to the Objections, Recommendations and Comments (ORC) Report, and offered an

amendment to Page 13 of the proposed Ordinance, Line 28, the Future Land Use

Description for Activity Area 15, the Cottage Hill/Quintette Area. She said the DCA

recommended the Ordinance state, "Light Industrial (Commerce Parks) greater than 100

acres must be served by central sewer."

Commissioner Robertson said that would be part of his motion.

Commissioner Junior said his second would stand, and the motion carried 4-0, with

Commissioner Bass temporarily out of Board Chambers, adopting Ordinance

Number 2000-11 at the 5:46 p.m. Public Hearing, as amended, relative to the land use

change of 515 acres from R-R, Rural Residential District, to Activity Node 15 (Cottage Hill)

to accommodate a planned commerce park, as follows:

An Ordinance of Escambia County, Florida amending Part II of the EscambiaCounty Code of Ordinances (1999), the Escambia County ComprehensivePlan, as amended, which controls future land use, guides public facilities, andprotects natural resources pursuant to the Local Government ComprehensivePlanning and Land Development Regulation Act (Chapter 163, Part II, FloridaStatutes); providing for amendments to Chapter 7, “Future Land UseElement”, Section 7.04, titled “Goals, Policies and Objectives”, Objective7.A.4, titled “Future Land Use Categories”, Policy 7.A.4.7.b and Policy7.A.4.7.l.2, to amend the acreage for Rural Residential and Activity Area(Node), Cottage Hill/Quintette Area (Area 15), and revise the mix of uses toallow a range of uses in Activity Area (Node), Cottage Hill/Quintette Area(Area 15) by increasing the percentage of allowed development for lightindustrial uses and decreasing the percentage of the lands required toremain in Agricultural Uses which will allow greater flexibility in the locationof non-residential uses; Section 7.05.A, the map Titled “Year 2000Generalized Future Land Use Map”; providing for inclusion in the code;providing for severability; and providing for an effective date, with thefollowing amendment to the Future Land Use description of Activity Area 15(Cottage Hill): Light Industrial (commerce parks) greater than 100 acres mustbe served by central sewer.

4/6/2000 blb55

5. Approval of Annie Lou Sims’ Medical Waiver

Motion made by Commissioner Robertson, seconded by Commissioner Junior, and

carried 4-0, with Commissioner Bass temporarily out of Board Chambers, and Chairman

Whitehead advising no speakers had signed up to speak, upholding staff’s

recommendation and approving the request for a temporary, twelve-month medical waiver,

to be re-certified annually, for a mobile home to be used as a guest residence by Annie Lou

Sims’ granddaughter, Tina Therrell, to assist with Ms. Sims’ medical needs, in accordance

with the provisions of Ordinance Number 99-28, for the following:

Case Number: MW-00-04Location: 101 Cox Road, McDavid (2.22 acres)Parcel Number: 34-5N-31-4400-000-000Zoning District: VR-1, Villages Rural Residential DistrictMedical Need for: Annie Lou SimsRecommendation: Approval

6. Adoption of an Ordinance to Correct a Scrivener’s Error on Perdido Key

Motion made by Commissioner Junior, seconded by Commissioner Banjanin, and

carried 4-0, with Commissioner Bass temporarily out of Board Chambers, and Chairman

Whitehead advising no one had signed up to speak, adopting, at the 5:49 p.m. Public

Hearing, Ordinance Number 2000-13 of Escambia County, Florida, amending Part III of the

Escambia County Code of Ordinances (1999), the Land Development Code of Escambia

County, Florida, as amended; providing for amendment to the official zoning map to correct

a scrivener's error; providing for severability; providing for inclusion in code; and providing

for an effective date; which authorizes the following action to correct the scrivener’s error

regarding two (2) adjacent parcels on Perdido Key Drive, as follows:

4/6/2000 blb56

A. Removing the S-1, Outdoor Recreational District designation and replacing itwith the correct designation of CCPK, (Perdido Key) Commercial Core Districton the following parcel:

Location: 14301 Perdido Key DriveParcel Number: Section 14, Township 3 South, Range 32 West, 1001-

000-030, Lot 30, Gulf Beach Subdivision, Plat Book 4,Page 52 Section 14/26/27/34/35, Township 3 South, Range 32 West,Official Records Book 3701, Page 860

From: S-1, Outdoor Recreational DistrictTo: CCPK, (Perdido Key) Commercial Core DistrictOwner: Brenda Beumer, Broker

B. Removing the CCPK, (Perdido Key) Commercial Core District designation fromthe County Park and replacing it with the S-1, Outdoor Recreational Districtdesignation, as follows:

Location: 14261 Perdido Key DriveParcel Number: Section 14, Township 3 South, Range 32 West

(No parcel number available)From: CCPK, (Perdido Key) Commercial Core DistrictTo: S-1, Outdoor Recreational District

Owner: Escambia County

7. Scheduling a Public Hearing for an Ordinance Concerning Upcoming Rezoning Changes

Motion made by Commissioner Robertson, seconded by Commissioner Junior, and

carried 4-0, with Commissioner Bass temporarily out of Board Chambers, scheduling a Public

Hearing for May 4, 2000, at 5:45 p.m. for consideration of adopting an Ordinance of Escambia

County, Florida, amending Part III of the Escambia County Code of Ordinances (1999), the

Land Development Code of Escambia County, Florida, as amended; and the Official Zoning

Map, as adopted by reference in Section 6.02.00., to include Cases Z-97-35 and Z-00-08,

which were heard by the Rezoning Hearing Examiner on April 5, 2000, as follows:

4/6/2000 blb57

A. Case Number: Z-97-35 (Remanded by the BCC on February 10, 2000)Location: Northeast Corner of Gulf Beach Highway and Bauer RoadParcel Number: Section 22, Township 3 South, Range 31 West

5001-002-001From: R-2, Single-Family District, Low-Medium Density (7 dwelling

units/acre)To: C-1, Retail Commercial DistrictRequested by: Ben W. and Frances C. White, Owners

B. Case Number: Z-00-08Location: Acorn Lane Parcel Number: Section 20, Township 1 South, Range 30 West

2101-010-008From: R-6, Neighborhood Commercial and Residential District,

(25 dwelling units/acre) High DensityTo: C-1, Retail Commercial DistrictRequested by: Robert T. and Margaret Emily Ross, Owners

10:20 P.M. - COMMISSIONER BASS RETURNED TO THE MEETING.

COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR’S REPORT - Continued

I. CONSENT AGENDA - Continued

1-22. Approval of Various Consent Agenda Items

County Administrator Evans advised he had twenty-two (22) items on his Consent

Agenda, and he recommended Item 12 be approved as revised.

Chairman Whitehead said someone wished to speak concerning Item 21, and he

would request it be held for discussion.

Commissioner Bass said he would like Item 16 held.

Motion made by Commissioner Junior, seconded by Commissioner Robertson, and

carried unanimously, approving the Consent Agenda Items 1 through 22, revising Item 12

to reflect the correct location of M and M Lane, from "south off of the 1600 block of

4/6/2000 blb58

Fairchild Street, 1,000 feet west of Lanier Drive" to "north off of the 6300 block of

Hubbard Road, 1,300 feet west of Pine Forest Road", and holding Items 16 and 21, as

follows:

1. Taking the following action concerning Proclamations:

A. Ratifying the Proclamation proclaiming the month of March 2000 as "RedCross Month in Escambia County"; and

E. Adopting the Proclamation proclaiming Saturday, April 22, 2000, as"Earth Day in Escambia County."

(Items B, C, and D approved earlier in the Meeting; see Page 4.)

2. Ratifying out-of-County travel for Commissioner Banjanin, who represented theBlue Ribbon I-65 Task Force at a meeting with the Secretary of the FloridaDepartment of Transportation and other State officials, which was called byState Representative Jeff Miller in Tallahassee, Florida, on Tuesday, March 21,2000, for all representatives of the three (3) proposed hurricane evacuationroutes.

3. Accepting, for filing with the Board’s Minutes, the "M. C. Blanchard CenterExhibition Program, Policies and Procedures" for an Arts in the CourtExhibition Program at the M. C. Blanchard Judicial Building, which has beenorganized by the Escambia-Santa Rosa Bar Association in cooperation withthe Arts Council, as requested for acceptance by Mr. Wayne Peacock, CourtAdministrator, First Judicial Circuit of Florida.

4. Approving to award a total bid contract to Advance Construction Services, Inc.,of AL, the apparent responsive and responsible low bidder, in the amount of$473,831, for PD 99-00.29, North Barth Road Paving and Drainage ProjectPhase I, with funding available in Local Option Sales Tax Extension Fund 351.

5. Approving to award a unit price term contract to Severn TrentLaboratories, Inc., the lowest, most responsive and responsible bidder, in theamount of $91,007, for PD 99-00.28, Laboratory Services, Department of SolidWaste, Escambia County, Florida; with funding available in Solid WasteFund 401.

4/6/2000 blb59

6. Approving to award an annual contract to Horton Emergency Vehicles forPD 99-00.40, Purchase of Ambulances, with the contract amount not to exceed$500,000 annually, for a period of thirty-six (36) months with the option toextend for two (2) additional twelve (12) month periods, subject to renewal inaccordance with the terms and conditions stated within the solicitation,contingent upon an annual funding approval by the Board of CountyCommissioners with issuance of purchase orders as the instrument ofpayment, to be funded in Cost Center 330314, Object Code 56401.

7. Approving to award a contract to the StageRight Corporation, in the amount of$71,277, relative to PD 99-00.43, Arena Stage of The Pensacola Civic Center,with funds allocated in the five-year capital plan for the Civic Center.

8. Approving to award a contract to Landers-Atkins Planners, Inc., in the amountof $83,000, for PD 99-00.21, Palafox Corridor Planning Project, in accordancewith the solicitation terms and conditions, with funding available in Other Grantsand Projects Fund 110 and Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Departmentof Housing and Urban Development (HUD)Entitlement Fund 129.

9. Scheduling a Public Hearing on May 4, 2000, at 5:32 p.m., for considerationof adopting a Resolution regarding the merger between Time-Warner, Inc., andAmerica Online, Inc., providing for an effective date, relative to the transfer ofcontrol of the cablevision franchise of Time Warner (Cable/Communications).

10. Taking the following action regarding a Lease Agreement between the Boardof County Commissioners and the Board of Trustees of the InternalImprovement Trust Fund of the State of Florida relative to 6.52 acres +/-,located on Old Highway 90/State Road 10 (Mobile Highway), the site of theformer Florida Welcome Station; with funding available in Cost Center 260102,Account Code 54401:

A. Approving to enter into a fifty (50) year Lease, at a rate of $300 per year,effective April 10, 2000, through April 9, 2050; and

B. Authorizing the Chairman or Vice Chairman to execute the Lease.

11. Approving the street name "Allie Jean Road", a private street in the Walnut Hillarea, running east off of the 11300 block of (State) Highway 97(Atmore Highway) just north of the Alabama State line and immediatelyentering Florida for the remainder of its length, as requested by the propertyowners.

4/6/2000 blb60

12. Approving the street name "M and M Lane", a private street running north offof the 6300 block of Hubbard Road, 1,300 feet west of Pine Forest Road, in thePine Forest Acres unrecorded subdivision in the Walnut Hill area, as requestedby the property owners, as revised.

13. Scheduling a Public Hearing on May 4, 2000, at 5:31 p.m., to consider theadoption of an Ordinance creating the Scenic Hills Country Club Estates StreetLighting Municipal Services Benefit Unit (MSBU).

14. Taking the following action regarding a permit (agreement) with the EscambiaCounty Tax Collector providing Code Enforcement Officers access to the TaxCollector’s Florida Realtime Vehicle Information System (FRVIS), which willexpedite determination of ownership of inoperable vehicles when an issuanceof notice of violation is needed:

A. Approving the permit; and

B. Authorizing the Chairman to sign the permit, which includes a list often (10) authorized users (Code Enforcement Officers).

15. Scheduling a Hearing on Thursday, April 27, 2000, at 5:31 p.m., forconsideration of the petition of Homer H. Graham, as the first Lienholder forproperty located at 1010 Barnett Street, appealing, in accordance withOrdinance Number 97-36, the Board’s February 17, 2000, action whichauthorized the filing of a Nuisance Abatement Lien, in the amount of$36,423.60 ($723.60 for landfill fees; $300.00 for administrative/filing fees; and$35,400.00 in Special Master fines), against ASC Enterprises, Inc., RegisteredAgent, Austin P. Conner, for property located at 1010 Barnett Street.

17. Taking the following action in reference to PD 98-99.99, Black Road Paving andDrainage Project, awarded on November 23, 1999, to Couch Construction, L.P.:

A. Approving to assign all Contract rights, titles, and interest awarded fromCouch Construction, L.P., to APAC, Florida, Inc., the successor in interestto Couch Construction, L.P.; and

B. Approving such assignment, subject to Legal sign-off.

18. Taking the following action regarding Windship Cove Subdivision, a sixty-fivelot residential Planned Unit Development (PUD) located one mile west ofDavis Highway, on the north side of Olive Road; Developer:Mitchell Company, Inc.:

4/6/2000 blb61

A. Approving the final plat for recording, subject to final sign-off by theEngineering Department and the Growth Management Department;

B. Approving the street name "Heirloom Drive";

C. Accepting the rights-of-way, road paving, drainage improvements, andeasements, as depicted on the final plat, for permanent Countymaintenance, subject to final sign-off by the Engineering Department;and

D. Approving and authorizing the Chairman to sign, if applicable, aWarranty Agreement and Subdivision Development Agreement,including the appropriate survey.

19. Taking the following action regarding Beach Haven Cove, Phase I, a twenty-one lot residential subdivision located on the south side of Gulf BeachHighway, one-half mile west of the south end of Fairfield Drive on the west sideof Soldier’s Creek:

A. Approving the final plat, for recording in Official Records, subject to finalsign-off by the Engineering Department;

B. Approving the street names "Beach Haven Cove Drive" and"Americus Avenue";

C. Accepting the road paving and drainage improvements, includingParcel B, the retention pond, as depicted on the final plat, for permanentCounty maintenance, subject to final sign-off by the EngineeringDepartment;

D. Accepting and authorizing the Chairman to execute a Temporary PondEasement Agreement between the Developer and Escambia County fora drainage easement required until the future pond site can be acquired;and

E. Approving and authorizing the Chairman to sign a two-year WarrantyAgreement, and if applicable, a Subdivision Development Agreementwhich includes the appropriate survey.

20. Taking the following action regarding Pine Forest Royale, Unit Number 1, aforty-lot residential Planned Unit Development (PUD) located one-half milenorth of Nine Mile Road, on the west side of Pine Forest Road; Developer:Mitchell Company, Inc.:

4/6/2000 blb62

A. Approving the final plat, for recording in Official Records, subject to finalsign-off by the Engineering Department and the Growth ManagementDepartment;

B. Approving the street name "Trailwood Drive";

C. Accepting the road paving, drainage improvements, and easements,including Parcel "A" retention area, as depicted on the final plat, forpermanent County maintenance, subject to final sign-off by theEngineering Department; and

D. Approving and authorizing the Chairman to sign, if applicable, aWarranty Agreement and Subdivision Development Agreement,including the appropriate survey.

22. Taking the following action concerning application for a Fish and WildlifeConservation Commission Division of Marine Fisheries Artificial Reef Program2000-2001 Fiscal Year Construction Grant Application and Monitoring GrantApplication, to be coordinated with the Marine Recreation Committee and theFish and Wildlife Conservation Commission:

A. Authorizing staff to submit the Application, in the amount of $50,000, forthe construction of artificial reefs in the Gulf waters of Escambia County;

B. Authorizing staff to submit the Application, in the amount of $12,000, forthe monitoring of artificial reefs in the Gulf waters of Escambia County;and

C. Ratifying the Vice Chairman’s signature on both Applications andauthorizing the Chairman to sign any other documents required toreceive the grants.

16. Action Concerning Employees’ Picnic, Rededication Reception, and Tree Fund

Chairman Whitehead said staff’s recommendation was that the Board adopt the

Resolution approving Supplemental Budget Amendment Number 166, in the amount of

$3,160, General Trust Fund 882, to recognize fund donations from sponsors for the

Year 2000 Escambia County Employees’ Appreciation Picnic, the Rededication Reception

for the M. C. Blanchard Judicial Building, as well as Fund Balances for the County Picnic

and the Tree Funds, and to appropriate these funds accordingly.

4/6/2000 blb63

Commissioner Bass said he would vote for approval of the Supplemental Budget

Amendment; however, he had written a letter objecting to the manner in which money was

raised for County Appreciation Picnics, and he commented briefly.

Motion made by Commissioner Bass that the Board approve the Supplemental

Budget Amendment and refer the matter of how funding was raised for the County Picnic

to the May 9, 2000, C/W Meeting.

Motion seconded by Commissioner Junior, and carried unanimously, taking the

following action concerning the Escambia County Employees’ Appreciation Picnic, the

Rededication Reception for the M. C. Blanchard Judicial Building, and Fund Balances

Forward for the County Picnic and the Tree Fund:

A. Adopting the Resolution approving Supplemental Budget Amendment Number166, in the amount of $3,160, Escambia County General Trust Fund 882, torecognize fund donations from sponsors for the Year 2000 Escambia CountyEmployees’ Appreciation Picnic, the Rededication Reception for theM. C. Blanchard Judicial Building, as well as Fund Balances Forward for theCounty Picnic and the Tree Fund, and to appropriate these funds accordingly;and

B. Referring discussion of the manner in which funds are raised for the annualEscambia County Employees’ Appreciation Picnic to the May 9th C/W Meeting,as requested by Commissioner Bass.

21. Authorization of Legal Action Against Professional Leasing and DevelopmentCorporation and Harold Pridgen

Chairman Whitehead advised staff’s recommendation was that the Board authorize

the County Attorney’s Office to institute legal action in the Escambia County Circuit Court

against Professional Leasing and Development Corporation and Harold Pridgen to recover

certain damages, costs, and other expenses relating to the repair by the County of

disturbed properties, rights-of-way, driveways, and sprinkler systems on Bauer Road and

4/6/2000 blb64

in the Wildwood Lakes Subdivision, which were caused by the construction activities of

Professional Leasing and Development Corporation and Harold Pridgen, and authorize

such other relevant legal proceedings as may be required in this matter.

Mr. Harold Pridgen, East Nine Mile Road, said it was true that he had developed

Wildwood Lakes Subdivision without a sewer system. He said when sewer became

available along U. S. Highway 98, he proceeded to install a low pressure sewer system in

Wildwood, which consisted of a four-inch force main into which individual sewage systems

could be pumped. Mr. Pridgen said during the installation of the four-inch line, many

complaints from neighbors were received and Ms. Cindy W. Anderson, P.E., County

Engineer, and some of the Commissioners were contacted. He said while he was

attempting to do that, Ms. Anderson sent him a letter denying him a permit to work on

County right-of-way and County crews completed the necessary work, and he was billed.

Mr. Pridgen said he contested the bill with Ms. Susan Miller, Assistant County Administrator

at the time, and was informed that the bill was not debatable and it would have to be paid,

or the County would "put him out of business." He said Ms. Anderson had been instructed

to not accept any more of his engineering plans until the bill was paid, which effectively

was putting him out of business. Mr. Pridgen said, after approaching several people in an

attempt to reach resolution in this matter and not being able to do so, he welcomed the

opportunity to take the matter to mediation or to court for a judge to decide whether or not

this amount of money was owed to the County. He said he would request the Board lift the

restriction that Ms. Anderson had imposed of not accepting his plans which, in effect, was

putting him out of business.

4/6/2000 blb65

County Administrator Evans said this was not the first time problems with

Mr. Pridgen had occurred, and approximately $5,000 for problems in another subdivision

he had constructed was still due the County.

After Mr. Pridgen said he did not know to what County Administrator Evans was

referring, County Administrator Evans said Mr. Pridgen had been asked to correct drainage

problems, which he had not, on property west of Davis Highway.

County Administrator Evans said the recommendation was that the matter be taken

to court, and Mr. Pridgen had just indicated he was willing to address the matter in court.

Chairman Whitehead said the request from Mr. Pridgen was whether or not it would

be appropriate to carry this to mediation as an alternative to the Circuit Court, and County

Attorney Tucker could appropriately respond to that.

County Attorney Tucker said once a complaint was filed, these matters went to

mediation. He said the best way to reach mediation would be to have the complaint filed

and to move it to Circuit Court, and at that point, the court itself would direct the parties to

mediation. County Attorney Tucker said, after comments, mediation was not being

precluded by filing a suit but was being enhanced because the presence of the litigation

forced everyone to address the issue.

Motion made by Commissioner Bass that the Board approve the recommendation.

Motion seconded by Commissioner Junior.

Upon inquiry from Commissioner Banjanin, Ms. Cindy W. Anderson, P.E., County

Engineer, said the amount of money involved was approximately $20,000.

4/6/2000 blb66

After Mr. Pridgen asked if an amount of $20,000 was justification for putting him out

of business, County Administrator Evans said he would remind the Board that this was not

the first time that Mr. Pridgen had caused such concerns for the County.

Ms. Anderson said the condition of issuing of no more permits was because of a

violation. She said a right-of-way permit was issued on June 6, 1997, on which it had been

stated, "If you do not comply with this permit, no further permits will be issued."

Ms. Anderson said every step of the way in this matter had been coordinated with the

County Attorney’s Office, and staff was comfortable that it had done all its due diligence.

Upon inquiry from Commissioner Banjanin to Mr. Pridgen, Mr. Pridgen said he did

not owe that much, and it was his opinion that he owed less than $5,000.

Ms. Anderson said staff’s opinion was that he owed $20,000, based on an estimate

that had been calculated, and the condition worsened during the due process, which the

record reflected. She said multiple complaints had been filed regarding this matter.

Chairman Whitehead said it was a serious situation of gross proportions and the

matter should go forward to court to be settled, and he commented briefly.

Upon inquiry from Commissioner Robertson, Ms. Anderson said the ban on

Mr. Pridgen’s ability to pull permits would be lifted once the situation was settled, and there

would be no reason not to accept Mr. Pridgen’s plans once things had been settled.

After further discussion, Chairman Whitehead called for the question, and the motion

carried unanimously, authorizing the County Attorney’s Office to institute legal action in the

Escambia County Circuit Court against Professional Leasing and Development Corporation

and Harold Pridgen to recover certain damages, costs, and other

4/6/2000 blb67

expenses relating to the repair by the County of disturbed properties, rights-of-way,

driveways, and sprinkler systems on Bauer Road and in Wildwood Lakes Subdivision, an

eighteen-lot development located on the east side of Bauer Road, south of (U. S.)

Highway 98 (Plat Book 11, Page 69), with the lots later subdivided into 103 lots and vested

rights was approved on March 3, 2000, for the additional lots, as an unrecorded

subdivision, with the damages caused by the construction activities of Professional Leasing

and Development Corporation and Harold Pridgen (due to the higher density and the

necessity of sewer service); and authorizing such other relevant legal proceedings as may

be required in this matter.

II. FOR DISCUSSION

1. Approval to Amend PD 99-00.48 Regarding Office Space Needs

County Administrator Evans said a letter from The Honorable Chris Jones, dated

March 13, 2000, requested Mr. Jones be removed from the voting membership of the

Master Space Needs Committee and again become a non-voting member of the

Committee, and also requested County Administrator Evans be removed from the voting

membership of the Committee. He said the Committee would probably only meet one

more time, on May 16, because the Committee’s Request for Proposals (RFP) could

involve either land or buildings, to satisfy the County’s space needs related to the One Stop

personnel, Property Appraiser personnel, and possibly others.

Motion made by Commissioner Junior, seconded by Commissioner Bass, and

carried unanimously, amending PD 99-00.48, the Request for Proposals (RFP) of the

4/6/2000 blb68

Master Space Needs Committee for Developed or Undeveloped Land for Office Space

Needs, to allow consideration and acceptance of proposals for the following:

A. The long-term lease of land and/or buildings; and

B. The exchange of existing County land and/or buildings for land and/or buildingsthat meet the criteria of the RFP.

2. Approval of Additional Financing Regarding PD 99-00.104, Baylen Street ParkingGarage

County Administrator Evans said he had received a draft proposal from the City of

Pensacola, which had not yet been brought before the City Council, according to City

Manager Tom Bonfield. He said the proposal did, however, reflect his discussion with

Mr. Bonfield concerning the Baylen Street Parking Garage.

Motion made by Commissioner Junior that the Board approve funding an additional

$1.38 million contingent upon the City funding an additional $3.5 million, which would

enable the County to obtain an additional 94 parking spaces over the 132 spaces presently

located behind the Old Court House on the corner of Baylen Street and Intendencia Street;

and that an Interlocal Agreement be worked out between the City and the County which

would factor in not only construction costs, but also operation and allocation of space.

County Administrator Evans said, technically, the City’s share would be

$3.494 million.

Motion seconded by Commissioner Bass, with a question.

Upon inquiry from Commissioner Bass, County Administrator Evans said the not-to-

exceed cost of Northwestern Partners, Inc., was included in the figure quoted.

4/6/2000 blb69

During discussion and inquiries, County Administrator Evans said the length of time

before construction of the parking garage would begin would depend on concurrence

between the City and County, the Interlocal Agreement being prepared, and the County

proceeding with its RFP process. He said the contract could not be awarded to

Northwestern Partners, Inc., until the City agreed to the financial terms of the draft proposal

which had not yet been approved by the City Council.

Upon inquiry from Commissioner Robertson, Commissioner Junior said he would

amend his motion that the situation be contingent upon the City agreeing.

There being no further discussion, Chairman Whitehead called for the question, and

the motion carried unanimously, taking the following action concerning PD 99-100.104, the

Baylen Street Parking Garage, the City/County Downtown Parking Garage, located behind

the County Courthouse Annex Complex at Baylen Street and Intendencia Street:

A. Approving the County financing an additional $1.38 million, contingent upon theCity of Pensacola financing an additional $3.494 million, which would enablethe County to obtain an additional 94 parking spaces over the present132 spaces;

B. Approving that an Interlocal Agreement between the City and the County beprepared, which will factor in not only constructions costs, but also operationand allocation of space, which includes the total "not to exceed" cost presentedby Northwestern Florida Partners, Inc.; and

C. Approving to award the contract for the construction of the parking garage toNorthwestern Partners, Inc., contingent upon available funding and anInterlocal Agreement between the City and County.

4/6/2000 blb70

COUNTY ATTORNEY’S REPORT - Continued

1. CONSENT AGENDA

1. Authorization to Reject Proposal of Settlement in Litigation of Billy Eugene Jacobs,Individually, and on Behalf of Joyce Elizabeth Jacobs, Deceased v. EscambiaCounty, Florida, et al., Circuit Court Case Number 98-984-CA-01

County Attorney Tucker said Consent Agenda Items 1 and 2 should be for

discussion because the recommendations were to reject settlement offers, and the Board

must be aware of the exposure and litigation before it approved rejecting the offers. He

said Item 1 was a recommendation from staff that the Board give the County Attorney’s

Office blanket authority to reject any proposal of settlement for the limit of the sovereign

immunity in the Billy Eugene Jacobs, individually, and on behalf of Joyce Elizabeth Jacobs,

Deceased v. Escambia County, Florida, et al., Circuit Court Case Number 98-984-CA-01.

County Attorney Tucker said potential damages were between $250,000 and $300,000 and

the County’s sovereign immunity cap was $100,000, and he commented briefly. He said

his Office would like to defend this case and, in the event the plaintiffs made a reasonable

settlement offer below the policy limits, it would be brought back to the Board for its

consideration.

After discussion, County Attorney Tucker said his Office was unaware that the party

had made a formal offer of settlement and it would be anticipated that the settlement

demand would be the policy limit, which was $100,000. He said the case was based on

negligent maintenance of an intersection due to a stop sign being obscured, and his Office

was defending the case based on the cause of death (of Ms. Jacobs) being the result of

the collision and not the obscured stop sign, and he commented briefly.

4/6/2000 blb71

Motion made by Commissioner Bass, seconded by Commissioner Banjanin, and

carried unanimously, approving to grant blanket authority to the County Attorney to reject

any proposal of settlement for the limit of sovereign immunity ($100,000) in the litigation of

Billy Eugene Jacobs, individually, and on behalf of Joyce Elizabeth Jacobs, Deceased v.

Escambia County, Florida, et al., Circuit Court Case Number 98-984-CA-01, relative to an

automobile accident at the intersection of Dunaway Lane and Eight Mile Creek Road on

June 1, 1996.

2. Authorization to Deny Certain Settlements Regarding Johnny R. Shelton andMichele Shelton, Husband and Wife, and as Natural Parents and Guardians ofAustin Shelton, a Minor v. Escambia County, Florida, Circuit Court Case No. 96-1138-CA-01

County Attorney Tucker said his revised recommendation was that the Board:

A. Reject any settlement proposal that involves the payment of policy limitsrelative to Johnny R. Shelton and Michele Shelton, Husband and Wife, and asNatural Parents and Guardians of Austin Shelton, a minor v. Escambia County,Florida , Circuit Court Case No. 96-1138-CA-01 (an August 4, 1993, vehicularaccident in which Johnny Shelton and Austin Shelton were injured, and inwhich the plaintiff alleges the County negligently maintained the right-of-way);and

B. Reject the offer of settlement of $75,000 of March 31, 2000, and grant theCounty Attorney’s Office settlement authority of $66,250 in this matter.

Motion made by Commissioner Bass, seconded by Commissioner Robertson, that

the Board approve the revised recommendation and take the following action regarding

Johnny Shelton and Michele Shelton, Husband and Wife, and as Natural Parents and

Guardians of Austin Shelton, a Minor v. Escambia County, Florida, Circuit Court Case No.

96-1138-CA-01:

A. Approve granting the County Attorney’s Office blanket authority to deny anysettlement proposal at the $100,000 level, the policy limit, relative to this Case;and

4/6/2000 blb72

B. Approve rejecting the March 31, 2000, offer of settlement of $75,000 andapprove granting the County Attorney’s Office to make its own proposal ofsettlement in the amount of $66,250.

County Attorney Tucker said his Office was certain it could settle the Shelton case

and was requesting blanket authority to deny any proposals at the $100,000 level. He said

he was requesting the Board reject the proposal to settle for $135,000 which was based

on the County’s ability to only pay $100,000 of the $135,000. County Attorney Tucker said

he was also asking the Board to reject a new settlement offered as of March 31, 2000, in

the amount of $75,000; however, he was asking that his Office be given the authority to

make its own proposal of settlement of $66,250.

Upon inquiry from Commissioner Bass regarding what precedent would be set,

County Attorney Tucker said the claim was that the County negligently maintained a right-

of-way in such a manner that it was dangerous enough to cause serious injury to the

plaintiff; however, the County contended that the accident was actually caused when the

plaintiff’s sister grabbed the steering wheel from the plaintiff’s father, causing the accident

to occur. He said his Office contended the plaintiffs could not carry the burden to show a

defective condition existed in the roadway which caused the plaintiff to be seriously injured.

After brief discussion, Ms. Jean A. Kassab, Director, Administrative Services, and

Acting Risk Manager, said photographs taken by the plaintiff’s attorney might not be in the

actual location of where the accident occurred. She said they were not taken immediately

following the accident, and she commented about a child who was injured in this accident.

County Attorney Tucker said he was asking the Board to reject, although the jury

would probably try to find a way to compensate because it would be sympathetic to the

4/6/2000 blb73

injury of a child, based on the amount of medical expenses, irrespective of the legal

defenses put forth, which was the situation legal staff was assessing.

There being no further discussion, Chairman Whitehead called for the question, and

the motion carried unanimously, taking the following action regarding Johnny R. Shelton

and Michele Shelton, Husband and Wife, and as Natural Parents and Guardians of Austin Shelton,

a Minor v. Escambia County, Florida, Circuit Court Case No. 96-1138-CA-01 (an August 4,

1993, vehicular accident in which Johnny Shelton and Austin Shelton were injured, in which

the plaintiff alleges the County negligently maintained the right-of-way):

A. Approving to grant the County Attorney’s Office blanket authority to deny anysettlement proposal at the $100,000 level, the policy limit, relative to this Case;and

B. Approving to reject the March 31, 2000, offer of settlement of $75,000 and approvingto grant the County Attorney’s Office to make its own proposal of settlementin the amount of $66,250.

3-6. Approval of Various Consent Agenda Items

Motion made by Commissioner Junior, seconded by Commissioner Bass, and carried

unanimously, approving the remainder of the Consent Agenda Items 3 through 6, with the

exception of Item 5, which was approved earlier in the Meeting; see Page 5; and approving

the revised recommendation for Item 6, as follows:

3. Authorizing an appeal of any judgment entered against the County in Pro-Mark,Inc. v. Escambia County, Florida, et al. Circuit Court Case No. 97-2174-CA-01,which concerns legal errors occurring during the course of the trial relative toa contract between Pro-Mark and The Pensacola Civic Center, managed byOgden Entertainment, to lease space for a gift show, which contract was terminatedby Ogden in order to accommodate the construction of an ice rink and relatedstructures for the East Coast Hockey Franchise - Pensacola Ice Pilots.

4/6/2000 blb74

4. Authorizing out-of-County travel and expenses for the County Attorney to attendthe Governor’s Hurricane Conference in Tampa, Florida, on May 22-26, 2000,to which County Attorney Tucker has been invited by the Department of CommunityAffairs to speak regarding "Clarifying the Legalities of Emergencies" on the effectsof declared emergencies upon normal legal and constitutional requirements.

6. Taking the following revised action, which added Item C, concerning a proposedSettlement Agreement regarding the Harris Private Property Rights Act Claimson the River View Condominium Project and the Sea Pines Condominium Project -Perdido Key:

A. Scheduling a Public Hearing on April 27, 2000, at 5:32 p.m., for considerationof approving the Proposed Settlement Agreement, on which resolutionwas achieved during mediation; and

B. Scheduling the first of two (2) Public Hearings on April 27, 2000, at 5:33 p.m.,to consider a Development Agreement to implement the settlement onthe River View Condominium Project, as follows:

Claim by Weldon W. Doe, Jr., Robert E. Seibels, Jule S. Northrup, LouiseH. Montjoy, Carol M. Jackson, Rebecca S. Doe, Becky S. Doe, FrancesP. Doe, Frances D. Doe, and Weldon W. Doe, III - Pertaining to Parcels14-3S-32-1001-000-156; 14-3S-32-1001-000-157; 14-3S-32-1001-000-158and 14-3S-32-1001-000-159 River View Condominium Project on RiverRoad, Perdido Key, Florida; and

C. Scheduling the first of two (2) Public Hearings on April 27, 2000, at 5:34 p.m.,to consider a Development Agreement to implement the settlement onthe Sea Pines Condominium Project, as follows:

Claim by Weldon W. Doe, Jr., Jane Sellers Johnson, Carol Kern Sellersand Hendricks C. Alford, Jr. - Pertaining to Parcels 14-3S-32-1001-000-148,14-3S-32-1001-000-149 and 14-3S-32-1001-000-150 Sea Pines CondominiumProject on River Road, Perdido Key, Florida.

CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT’S REPORT - Honorable Ernie Lee Magaha Clerk of the Circuit Court

I. CONSENT AGENDA

1-2. Approval of Two Consent Agenda Items

Motion made by Commissioner Junior, seconded by Commissioner Robertson, and

carried unanimously, approving two Consent Agenda Items, as follows:

4/6/2000 blb75

1. Taking the following action relative to Reports/Disposition of Property:

A. Accepting, for filing with the Board’s Minutes, the following seven (7) Reports,as prepared by the Clerk's Finance Division:

(1) The following two (2) Payroll Expenditures:

(a) As of Payday March 17, 2000, in the amount of$1,179,536.35; and

(b) As of Payday March 31, 2000, in the amount of $980,031.30; and

(2) The following three (3) Disbursement of Funds:

(a) From March 9, 2000, to March 15, 2000, in the amount of$2,639,629.27;

(b) From March 16, 2000, to March 22, 2000, in the amount of$1,438,479.11; and

(c) From March 23, 2000, to March 29, 2000, in the amount of$2,832,860.85; and

(3) Tourist Development Tax Collections for the month of February, 2000;and

(4) Investments as of February 29, 2000; and

B. Approving twelve (12) Requests for Disposition of Property (other than realestate).

2. Approving, due to the Liens having been satisfied by payment in full, cancellationof the following two (2) Liens:

A. Lien dated March 18, 1999 (in the original amount of $6,050.13), recordedin Official Records Book 4468, Page 1148, and revised June 22, 1999, recordedin Official Records Book 4468, Page 79, in the amount of $3,355.18, forcleanup work under Nuisance Abatement Ordinance Number 93-12, for propertyowned by Mamie B. Parker and Roger L. Parker, and located at 2418 North "Q"Street; and

B. Lien dated December 2, 1999, in the amount of $2,270.52, for cleanup workunder Nuisance Abatement Ordinance Number 97-36, for property ownedby Edna Hardy Glass, and located at 2408 North Pace Boulevard.

4/6/2000 blb76

4/6/2000 blb77

PUBLIC FORUM

1. Attempt to Call on a Public Forum Speaker

After calling on Ms. Priscilla Lamore, at 10:45 p.m., who had signed up to speak during

Public Forum, and receiving no response, Chairman Whitehead surmised that Ms. Lamore

had probably left the Meeting.

2. Discussion Referred to April 11, 2000, C/W Meeting Concerning Ongoing DrainageProblems in Maple Oaks Subdivision

Mr. Forrest V. Walker, Tara Dawn Place, said the Commissioners had told him four months

ago that the County had $80,000 available to correct the drainage problems created by the

builder, Edwin Henry, and that a thirty-six inch pipe would be installed from the south holding

pond to the center holding pond regarding the existing drainage problems in Maple Oaks

and Maple Oaks West Subdivisions. He said the builder was responsible for correcting

the nine-year-old problems, at his cost, and he understood the project was on hold again,

and he commented concerning the systems being incorrectly installed and the builder not

reacting to the problems in a timely manner, and resolution was needed, and brief discussion

followed.

Motion made by Commissioner Robertson, seconded by Commissioner Junior, and

carried unanimously, referring to the C/W Meeting on Tuesday, April 11 the discussion of

drainage and other problems in Maple Oaks Subdivision, when appropriate staff would be

present to address the status of the matter.

3. Failure to Approve Withdrawing the County’s Motion to Dismiss a DOAH Hearing

Mr. James (Jim) Veal, Bayshore Drive, said he would request the Commissioners

ask the County Attorney to withdraw his motion to dismiss the petition to the Department

4/6/2000 blb78

of Community Affairs (DCA) for a DOAH (Division of Administrative Hearing) hearing relative

to the County’s Land Development Code (LDC). He said it was the same situation as the

last petition he and others had filed, and it was his opinion that the County Attorney was

attacking the rights of citizens to petition government. Mr. Veal said his request was that

the Commissioners state that the LDC was a good document and that the citizens did not

have to worry. During lengthy additional comments, he said he would like to receive a fair

and objective hearing, and he pointed out that the County Attorney’s Office had already agreed

with some of the issues stated in the petition, and he elaborated on the points at issue and

again appealed to the Board that County Attorney be requested to withdraw his motion to

dismiss the petition.

Upon inquiry from Commissioner Robertson regarding what the County Attorney would

recommend, County Attorney Tucker said the petitioners had already received one hearing

with the DCA and the issue was now at the Division of Administrative Hearings. He said

the petitioners had the benefit of legal advice and should be held to the same rules as were

the Commissioners, and he commented briefly.

Chairman Whitehead said the Board had authorized the County Attorney to defend

the LDC, which was a good document. He said the LDC was being modified and improved,

and was in the process of being revised, which would be a continuing process over the years.

Mr. Veal said the County Attorney was not defending the LDC against substantive

issues in the petition but was attacking the citizens’ rights to a fair hearing. He said the petition

was asking that the Commissioners do a better job in having the LDC implement the

Comprehensive Plan and provide protection to citizens that the Comprehensive Plan required,

and discussion followed.

4/6/2000 blb79

Chairman Whitehead asked if there was a motion to further the request of Mr. Veal.

Motion made by Commissioner Junior, seconded by Commissioner Banjanin, that

the Board approve requesting the County Attorney to withdraw his motion to dismiss the

petition to the Department of Community Affairs (DCA) for a DOAH (Division of Administrative

Hearing) hearing relative to the County’s Land Development Code (LDC), and the motion

failed 2-3, with Commissioner Bass, Commissioner Junior, and Commissioner Whitehead

voting "no".

Mr. Kerry Culligan, North 13th Avenue, said he concurred with comments made by

Mr. Jim Veal regarding a request for dismissal of the petition for a DOAH hearing.

4. Approval to Request the ECUA to Contact the DEP Regarding Concerns of the Chemicals

to be Used in Fluoridation

Mr. Kerry Culligan, North 13th Avenue, said the Escambia County Utilities Authority (ECUA)

wanted to add toxic waste from the fertilizer industry to the County’s water. He said although

he knew this situation was out of the Commissioners’ purview and he understood the Department

of Environmental Protection (DEP) would be granting the ECUA the authority to do this, it

was also a public health issue beyond comprehension. Mr. Culligan said the people of Escambia

County would not have voted for fluoridation had they known the truth. He said the people

were told the fluoride chemical was naturally occurring, safe and effective; however, the chemical

that would be placed in the County’s water would be a product derived from the toxic waste

of the fertilizer industry and it was not naturally occurring; had never been tested

for safety; and this chemical’s effectiveness was questionable.

Mr. Culligan said he would like the Board to request that the DEP hold a public forum

before issuing any permits to the ECUA, because many facts indicated the chemical increased

4/6/2000 blb80

lead levels in children’s blood; thyroid problems had been directly linked to it; and 10% of

the people in the country had undiagnosed thyroid problems, and discussion followed.

Motion made by Commissioner Junior that the Board, based on Mr. Culligan’s concerns,

ask the ECUA to consider asking the DEP to do that. He said the Board could not tell the

ECUA what to do.

Mr. Culligan said he appreciated the motion and would request the Commissioners

request the DEP to hold a public hearing. He said he had talked to Dr. John J. Lanza at

the Escambia County Health Department, who supported fluoride, and he had also talked

to the State representatives who were in favor of fluoride, and he commented briefly.

Chairman Whitehead said he had read some of the same literature to which Mr. Culligan

was referring and he would not be opposed to asking the DEP to study some of the data

and make a determination, and he commented briefly.

After Commissioner Bass commented that the ECUA had spent $30,000 to $40,000

on consultants to evaluate what would be placed the water, Mr. Culligan said the only safety

tests the ECUA had undertaken were for the safety of the workers who would be handling

the chemical, and nothing had been tested concerning the safety of people who would be

drinking the treated water, and discussion followed.

Commissioner Banjanin said he would ask the County Administrator to contact the

ECUA and ask them to send the Commissioners any information on this chemical that would

justify its use, and discussion followed.

Motion made by Commissioner Junior that the Board convey to the ECUA the concerns

of Kerry Culligan and possibly have the ECUA ask for a public hearing through the DEP.

4/6/2000 blb81

Motion seconded by Commissioner Banjanin, and amended to request that a response

be forthcoming from the ECUA.

Amendment accepted by Commissioner Junior, and the amended motion carried 3-2,

with Commissioner Bass and Commissioner Robertson voting "no", taking the following

action concerning an unproven, untested chemical, a derivative of toxic waste from the fertilizer

industry, which was proposed to be used in the fluoridation of the County’s drinking water

by the Escambia County Utilities Authority (ECUA):

A. Approving to convey to the ECUA the concerns of Mr. Culligan and the informationhe has provided to the Board, and that the ECUA consider the possibility ofrequesting a Public Hearing through the Department of Environmental Protection(DEP), and studies be conducted before the DEP issues a permit to the ECUA;and

B. Approving to request the ECUA respond to the Board concerning the acceptabilityof the chemical.

ITEMS ADDED TO THE AGENDA - COMMISSIONER WILSON B. ROBERTSON

1. Approval to Waive Fines Regarding Eric T. and Hazel Fillingim’s Property on Molino Roadand Highway 95A

Motion made by Commissioner Robertson, seconded by Commissioner Junior, and

carried unanimously, approving to waive the fines imposed by the Special Master against

Eric T. and Hazel Fillingim for violations of County Ordinances not abated (inoperable vehicles

and overgrowth) on property located at the southeast corner of Molino Road and Highway 95A,

thereby creating a lien against the property for only the total County costs associated with

this Nuisance Abatement complaint, in the amount of $3,334.95.

4/6/2000 blb82

2. Approval to Continue Assessment of Damage Incurred on Joe Lovetto’s KlondikeRoad Property

Motion made by Commissioner Robertson that the Board approve settling a claim

with Joe Lovetto, 8418 Klondike Road, in the amount of $25,000, for damage incurred to

his property resulting from the Public Works Department removing approximately 250 large,

old trees and clearing all underbrush, subject to Mr. Lovetto signing a Release.

Commissioner Robertson said Mr. Lovetto had been requesting $30,000. He said

the County had responded to a complaint of flooding, and Mr. and Mrs. Lovetto had agreed

to allow the County to clear a narrow easement through Mr. Lovetto’s wooded property, which

resulted in the County clearing a 100-foot wide strip. Commissioner Robertson said the County

had offered to replace the trees with small, knee-high trees, and he suggested this claim,

which had been ongoing for over one year, be settled, and he so moved.

Motion seconded by Commissioner Junior, with a question.

Commissioner Junior asked why Mr. and Mrs. Lovetto were unaware that these trees

were being cleared from their property at the time it was occurring.

Commissioner Bass asked what the Risk Manager’s position was on this situation.

County Administrator Evans said Risk Management staff had been negotiating with

Mr. and Mrs. Lovetto. He said citizens would come directly to the Commissioners to have

their requests granted if the Board made this decision, which would cancel the need for the

County’s Risk Management Department. He said Risk Management staff had been negotiating

extensively and many factors were involved, and to approve a $25,000 settlement, after Risk

Management staff had arrived at a figure of approximately $8,500, would cause future problems.

Ms. Jean A. Kassab, Director, Administrative Services, said staff had acknowledged

4/6/2000 blb83

its over-zealousness in clearing the area needed for the proper drainage. She said permission

had been granted to enter the Lovettos’ property and the work had been performed at the

request of the claimant, and discussion followed concerning the loss of value suffered by

Mr. and Mrs. Lovetto. Ms. Kassab said, at this point, staff was awaiting a counter offer from

the claimant, in writing, and brief discussion followed.

Chairman Whitehead said the trees removed from this 100-foot wide area should

be replaced with trees of an equivalent size. He said the claimants had been offered $3,247.50

for 250 trees at $12.99 per tree, which was insufficient.

Ms. Kassab said Risk Management offered a total of $8,700. She said Public Works’

staff was banned from entering the property again because of the extensive problems between

the property owner and Public Works’ staff.

After brief discussion concerning the manner in which the 100-foot wide cut evolved,

Commissioner Junior said he would propose that Risk Management continue to assess the

situation and when a final recommendation was ready, the Board would address it, and he

so moved.

Motion seconded by Commissioner Bass, and carried 3-2, with Commissioner Robertson

and Commissioner Whitehead voting "no", directing the County’s Risk Management Office

to continue its assessment and come back to the Board with a final recommendation in response

to Commissioner Robertson’s recommendation that the Board settle a claim with Joe Lovetto,

8418 Klondike Road, in the amount of $25,000, for damage incurred to his property resulting

from the Public Works Department removing approximately 250 trees and clearing all underbrush,

subject to Mr. Lovetto signing a Release.

4/6/2000 blb84

ITEMS ADDED TO THE AGENDA - COMMISSIONER THOMAS G. "TOM" BANJANIN

1. Approval to Send to Planning Board an Ordinance Amendment Request ConcerningPedestrian Walkovers on Major Pensacola Beach Roads

Commissioner Banjanin said the Pensacola Beach Residents and Leaseholders

Association had requested that walkovers not be allowed across roads on Santa Rosa

Island, and he would propose a prohibition on building these walkovers, and he so moved.

County Attorney Tucker said the request should be forwarded to the Planning Board

to be addressed for inclusion in the Land Development Code, and discussion followed.

Motion made by Commissioner Banjanin, seconded by Commissioner Junior, and

carried unanimously, approving to send to the Planning Board the request contained in a

letter from the Pensacola Beach Residents and Leaseholders Association, dated March 15,

2000, via Commissioner Banjanin, that an Ordinance amendment be prepared to the Land

Development Code which would prohibit the construction of pedestrian walkovers on

Via De Luna Drive and Fort Pickens Road on Santa Rosa Island.

ITEMS ADDED TO THE AGENDA - COMMISSIONER MICHAEL T. "MIKE" BASS

1. Confirmation of Board of Adjustment Appointment

Motion made by Commissioner Junior, seconded by Commissioner Bass, and

carried unanimously, confirming Commissioner Bass’ nomination of Mr. Wayne R. Briske

to the Escambia County Board of Adjustment.

3. Adoption of a Proclamation Honoring Myrtle Grove Baptist Church

Motion made by Commissioner Junior, seconded by Commissioner Bass, and

carried unanimously, adopting a Proclamation commending and congratulating the Myrtle

Grove Baptist Church on its Seventieth Anniversary celebration.

4/6/2000 blb85

4. Discussion of Stormwater/Wetland Committee Report Referred to the April 11, 2000,C/W Meeting

Motion made by Commissioner Bass, seconded by Commissioner Banjanin, and

carried unanimously, approving to refer to the April 11 C/W Meeting Commissioner Bass’s

request for a discussion and update from staff concerning the Integrated Storm

water/Wetland Committee Report which was accepted by the Board on November 23,

1999, and sent to the Citizens’ Task Force on Urban Stormwater Runoff for its review and

use, and has therefore been on hold until the Report from the Citizens’ Task Force on

Urban Stormwater Runoff was completed, which was completed on March 21, 2000, and

accepted at the Joint Workshop Session of the Board of County Commissioners, City of

Pensacola, and the Escambia County Utilities Authority on April 4, 2000.

ITEMS ADDED TO THE AGENDA - COMMISSIONER D. M. "MIKE" WHITEHEAD

1. Approval of Final Plat for Crystal Creek 1st Addition

Motion made by Commissioner Bass, seconded by Commissioner Banjanin, and

carried unanimously, taking the following action regarding the final plat of Crystal Creek

1st Addition, an 84-lot residential subdivision located on the north side of Mobile Highway

between Longleaf Drive and Millview Road, approximately 1/2 mile east of

Eight Mile Creek; Developer: Crystal Creek Development, Inc., Gary Tippens, President:

A. Approving the final plat, for recording in Official Records, subject to final sign-off by the Engineering Department;

B. Approving the street names "Tannehill Drive", "Hallendale Drive","Margate Drive", and "Henegar Drive";

C. Accepting the road paving and drainage improvements, including the publicStorm water detention area and public easements as depicted on the final plat,for permanent County maintenance, subject to final sign-off by the EngineeringDepartment; and

4/6/2000 blb86

D. Approving and authorizing the Chairman to sign a two-year WarrantyAgreement, and if applicable, a Subdivision Development Agreement includingthe appropriate surety.

ITEMS ADDED TO THE AGENDA - COMMISSIONER BASS - Continued

2. Authorization to Obtain an MAI Appraisal and Begin Negotiations Concerning aConvention Center on Pensacola Beach

Commissioner Bass said his three-page Memorandum, dated April 4, 2000,

discussed the proposed convention center/parking facility on Pensacola Beach and also

referenced several cities in the area around Pensacola that had built enormous convention

centers of which he and Commissioner Whitehead had become aware during their recent

trip to Savannah, Georgia. He said the appointed Due Diligence Committee had met many

times, and it was opportune to move this proposed project ahead and commit to a

convention center. Commissioner Bass said he was offering an omnibus motion regarding

the purchase of approximately five (5) acres of land located on the north side of Via De

Luna Drive, which was commonly referred to as the "Surf and Sand" lease. He said a

number of conditions would result because of the purchase of that property. Commissioner

Bass said, in addition, he would propose identifying monies from within the County’s cash

and pooled investments which currently totaled $168,336,000, enabling the Board to

purchase the property within the next six (6) months and that closing could take place by

June 15, 2000, and he opened his proposal for discussion.

Commissioner Junior said he did not understand the Due Diligence Committee, and

he asked who served on the Committee.

County Administrator Evans said the Due Diligence Committee consisted of four

members, including himself, Mr. Bill (William H.) Griffith of the Santa Rosa Island

4/6/2000 blb87

Authority (SRIA), Ms. Jean A. Kassab, Director, County Administrative Services, and

Ms. Wanda McBrearty, Deputy Finance Director of the Clerk of the Circuit Court’s Office.

Commissioner Junior said according to County Administrator Evans’ four-page

Memorandum, dated April 5, 2000, found in the backup materials, the Due Diligence

Committee’s findings did not mesh with what Commissioner Bass was now proposing. He

said a public hearing was needed before the Commissioners took any action, and a report

from the Due Diligence Committee should be available, and he commented briefly.

Commissioner Bass said he agreed that a major disconnect existed between

members of the Due Diligence Committee. He said it was his judgment, based on

experience, that the County could pay off a loan in two to three years, if the Commissioners

and staff wanted to build a convention center, and if it was set as a priority, and he

discussed using funding from the 4th Cent Bed Tax (Tourist Development Tax) and monies

derived from the toll bridge.

During discussion, County Administrator Evans said the parking garage would affect

what money could be used because a certain number of spaces would be required for

convention center parking as well as a certain number for visitors to the beach, and the

spaces had not yet been delineated. He said many unanswered questions still existed and

nothing was clear; i.e., the cost of the convention center, if a bond issue would be used,

etc. County Administrator Evans said discussion was needed at some point in time, and

it was inappropriate to address this issue at midnight, as an add-on item, and a special

meeting with financial advisors and others was needed to discuss it. He said he and his

staff were not opposed to the idea of a convention center but the concept needed to be

something the County could afford to operate, and the SRIA had not yet committed

4/6/2000 blb88

financially to anything at a public meeting of its Board. County Administrator Evans said

the project would take more than pledging the 4th cent of the Tourist Development Tax

(TDT) and more than just an architect. He said it would need a consultant; information

about bond issues; and many other aspects needed answers. County Administrator Evans

said neither he, Ms. McBrearty, nor Ms. Kassab were convinced the County was ready for

this, and he commented briefly.

Substitute motion made by Commissioner Banjanin that a workshop be held on

Monday, April 17, 2000, at 9:00 a.m. and have all parties make presentations. He said he

was in favor of a convention center but the question was whether or not it was feasible and

a reasonable risk, and he commented briefly.

Chairman Whitehead said he would request Commissioner Banjanin hold his motion.

Substitute motion made by Commissioner Junior that the Board do away with the

Due Diligence Committee at some point. He said the SRIA’s support was needed, and he

commented briefly about dismantling the Due Diligence Committee.

Chairman Whitehead said he strongly supported the convention center concept, and

he commented briefly regarding the recent trip to Savannah to which Commissioner Bass

had alluded. He said he had reservations with the direction of the concept, even though

the County needed a convention center. Chairman Whitehead said the information

received was not compatible with the direction in which the Board was headed.

Chairman Whitehead said he would support taking the land off of the market, based

on a fair appraisal, and that would enable staff to do something with the land in the future.

He said if the project was not feasible, the land could be again placed on the market.

Chairman Whitehead said serious questions concerning the design, size, and offsite

4/6/2000 blb89

storage of trailers, etc., still existed; and he did not want to commit to developing a plan,

at this point, and he commented briefly. He said it would appear that the location was the

only one available in Escambia County because of the number of rooms and the

combination of rooms needed, and he was in favor of that, but anything beyond that was

premature. Chairman Whitehead said he was impressed with the consulting firm hired by

Savannah, Georgia, officials and he suggested inviting that consultant to Escambia County

to assess what was being proposed. He said that consulting firm was associated with 96

facilities world-wide, and he wanted someone of that caliber assessing Escambia County’s

project, and he commented briefly. Chairman Whitehead said it was important to have the

financial planning resolved before serious problems developed in the future, and he

commented further.

Commissioner Robertson said, after reviewing and analyzing the several points in

Commissioner Bass’ recommendation, the location seemed to be good, and he would

consider an MAI (Member Appraisal Institute) appraisal and determine if the other points

would fall into place. Commissioner Robertson said the County could negotiate an option

to purchase the lease. He said the site was needed first, and then negotiations with the

developer could begin.

Commissioner Bass said he agreed with both Chairman Whitehead and

Commissioner Robertson.

Commissioner Banjanin said he had understood that the County would have to

commit to building a convention center in order for the owner of the lease to sell the land

to the County, and that kind of commitment would require a lot of unknown information. He

said it might be agreeable to the owner of the lease, Mr. MacQueen, to let the County buy

4/6/2000 blb90

the lease without a definite commitment to build a convention center. Commissioner

Banjanin said an in-depth analysis of the situation was needed before making a

commitment, and he commented briefly.

Commissioner Banjanin said during the above-mentioned trip to Savannah, which

he also attended, he had asked about an 80,000 square foot convention center and was

told that a county the size of Escambia County would need a convention center

approximately 150,000 square feet, minimum, in order to be successful.

Commissioner Whitehead said the Savannah community was approximately the

same size as the Escambia County community, and Savannah was building a

330,000 gross square foot facility which was being serviced by 1,400 hotel rooms, which

was roughly the same number of rooms that Escambia County had.

Commissioner Banjanin said much of Savannah’s financing came from the State of

Georgia, and the land was given to them by the railroad, and Escambia County did not

have that kind of assistance. He said financial staff had expressed doubts; more research

was needed; and the County should not become financially unstable by creating a large

debt, and he commented briefly. Commissioner Banjanin said he supported fostering

economic development and supported the concept of a convention center if it was

financially feasible, but it appeared that it would be an obligation to taxpayers as well, and

he commented briefly about the use of bridge tolls.

County Administrator Evans said the operating revenues from the Bob Sikes Bridge

would not completely pay for a convention center.

Commissioner Banjanin said he did not want this concept to perish; however, the

4/6/2000 blb91

Board must be cautious. He said perhaps Mr. MacQueen would let the County buy the

lease and hold it without a definite commitment to build anything.

County Administrator Evans said the County would have to obtain an appraisal if it

contemplated purchasing that property, and he commented briefly.

Chairman Whitehead said the owner would want an amount equivalent to what he

had intended to develop on the property.

Commissioner Bass said nothing in his motion would require the County to build a

convention center.

County Administrator Evans said appraisals were usually based on the sale price

of like property in the area. He said making a decision at midnight that would have a

tremendous affect on the County was impractical, and more discussion was needed.

Motion made by Commissioner Bass that the Board approve the motion he offered

earlier in the Meeting. He said the majority agreed that the County should buy the land,

without being obligated to build a convention center, and the Board would direct staff to

take the money from the Bob Sikes Toll Bridge proceeds that were above and beyond

Operating, Maintenance, and Reserve for Replacement funds, and the motion would

include building a parking deck.

Motion seconded by Commissioner Robertson, for discussion.

Commissioner Junior said other issues had to be addressed; such as, moving tractor

trailers onto the premises of this convention center, and parking the trucks on Pensacola

Beach. He said he would suggest hiring the consultants mentioned for guidance on how

to do it, and he commented briefly.

4/6/2000 blb92

Upon inquiry from Commissioner Robertson concerning what percentage of bed tax

other communities had used, Commissioner Bass said the actual cost of Savannah’s

convention center was $83 million, and Savannah had a 6th cent bed tax, and brief

discussion followed.

County Administrator Evans said the 4th cent of TDT could only be used for specific

things, such as a convention center, or a soccer field. He said increasing the square

footage from 80,000 to 150,000 would more than double the cost, and an expansion at a

later date would cost more, and additional discussion followed.

Substitute motion made by Commissioner Banjanin that the Board discuss this

matter at Tuesday’s C/W Meeting, on April 11, or on April 17 at 9:00 a.m. He said he would

support the convention center; however, he did not want to make a hasty decision and he

wanted to address the particulars and allow everyone to speak.

Chairman Whitehead said there was nothing in Commissioner Bass’ motion that tied

a convention center to the developer, and discussion followed.

Chairman Whitehead said the motion could be revised to direct staff to begin the

negotiation process and leave it at that, and come back to the Board for approval. He said

he was comfortable with beginning the process, and that would be the commitment to

reach the major goal.

Chairman Whitehead said the Board should direct staff to begin negotiating to take

the property off the market. He said there were many ways to take property off the market

if the County was interested in setting it aside without committing to build anything.

Chairman Whitehead said the process could start, but an appraisal was necessary, and he

commented briefly.

4/6/2000 blb93

Commissioner Junior said there would be insufficient hotel rooms for a convention

center if a hotel was not built, and he commented briefly. He said the motion should

include getting rid of the Due Diligence Committee, and the consultants from Savannah

should be hired.

Substitute motion made by Commissioner Junior that the Board, based on the

Savannah trip, find a consultant and hire him and get rid of the Due Diligence Committee.

Substitute motion seconded by Commissioner Robertson.

Mr. Bill Stromquist said he was representing the Perdido Key Chamber of

Commerce. He said this issue had come before the Board twice as an add-on item and

that was not the way to handle an issue of this magnitude, and he commented briefly.

12:12 A.M. - COMMISSIONER BASS LEFT THE MEETING TEMPORARILY.

Mr. Stromquist said discussion of a proposed convention center should be on the

Regular Agenda and should be advertised. He said the fact that the Due Diligence

Committee was not in accord was a problem, nor were the Commissioners unanimous. Mr.

Stromquist said more research and input from the whole County was needed, and he

commented briefly concerning the bed tax being committed for thirty (30) years. He said

the County had not received a commitment from the owner of the lease, and this matter

should be on the Regular Agenda and not an add item.

12:15 A.M. - COMMISSIONER BASS RETURNED TO THE MEETING.

Mr. Joe Gilchrist, Perdido Key Drive, said an Orange Beach/Gulf Shores’ group

visited every community south of Tampa and interviewed all cities with smaller convention

centers and, without exception, they all said the money could have been better used in

other ways in their communities. He said a small size convention center was not a high-

4/6/2000 blb94

occupancy matter and this proposed convention center would not be the most efficient use

of that tax revenue for the next thirty years. Mr. Gilchrist said he would recommend that

any additional funds come from private funds and if people believed strongly enough in this

concept, they would contribute, and he commented briefly.

Mr. Julian MacQueen, Innisfree Management Corporation, the current leaseholder

of the Pensacola Beach property, said this was a visionary opportunity for the County, and

it would take fortitude to follow through. He said it had been studied extensively, and a

$100,000 study of this site indicated a $20 million per year annual impact with about

400 new jobs available, not including the construction jobs. Mr. MacQueen said the

convention center would be paid for by visitors and not the constituents.

Mr. MacQueen said he owned hotels in Nashville, Tennessee; Mobile, Alabama;

Birmingham, Alabama; Columbus, Georgia; and Gulf Shores, Alabama; and none of these

hotels were in the central part of these cities where convention centers were located but

were all suburban locations. He said overflow from the downtown conventions always

filled his hotel rooms. Mr. MacQueen said the Commissioners would not be pioneering but

would be doing what every other successful community had done by building a convention

center. He said it would be a huge economic impact to Escambia County, and he

commended the Commissioners for addressing it, and he commented briefly.

Upon inquiry from Commissioner Banjanin regarding whether or not Mr. MacQueen

would be willing for the County to purchase the lease without a commitment for a

convention center, Mr. MacQueen said the only reason he would consider selling that land

would be for a convention center. He said there was no motivation for him to do it any

other way, and it had become a passion at this point. Mr. MacQueen said he could realize

4/6/2000 blb95

a much larger profit if he developed the land as he had intended originally, rather than

selling the raw land to the County. He said he needed time to think about it, and brief

discussion followed.

Chairman Whitehead said the motion was only to set aside the land. He said he

would not support a commitment to construct a facility.

Commissioner Banjanin asked if the motion could include that the consultant from

Savannah be hired, and discussion followed. He said this consultant would be a unique

person on which the County would not have to bid, and he commented briefly.

Ms. Jean Kutina, Pensacola Beach, said she had attended four of the Due Diligence

Committee meetings and three of the four members expressed extreme and grave

reservations about the feasibility of the convention center. She said the project would need

financial support from other sources, and she commented briefly. Ms. Kutina said

Pensacola Beach was part of the Coastal High Hazard Area (CHHA), and the Department

of Community Affairs (DCA) had mandated that construction be directed away from the

CHHA. She said Mr. Bill Griffith had expressed extreme doubts about moving ahead with

the Due Diligence Committee at the last meeting when he said, "What shall we do; shall

we pause on this for a while?" Ms. Kutina said she would urge the Board to not purchase

this piece of property, and she commented briefly.

Mr. James (Jim) Veal, Bayshore Drive, said he understood the motion was for the

County to prepare to buy this land, which could be a public park as opposed to a

convention center, and he commented briefly.

4/6/2000 blb96

Chairman Whitehead said the motion was to negotiate to determine if the land could

be purchased; it was not a commitment to build within a time certain but to set aside the

land, and if it was a feasible project, the land would be available.

Mr. Veal said insightful comments had been made of reasons not to pursue a

convention center, but they were being disregarded by those who had a predisposition for

a convention center on Pensacola Beach. He asked if there would be an opportunity for

the public to have input.

Chairman Whitehead said the Board was addressing setting aside the land. He said

the highest and best use of that property would not be a park. He said Mr. Veal was aware

that anything of this nature had to be held at a public meeting; therefore, the public would

have the opportunity to speak. Chairman Whitehead said the Commissioners had indicated

they would not support construction of a facility under the current financial plan.

After brief discussion, Mr. Veal said there was no spare money and before putting

the County at risk with a convention center that would not benefit too many people, he

would suggest the Board "get its house in order." He said he would suggest not purchasing

the land if the intent was to build a convention center on Pensacola Beach, because it was

a barrier island; the traffic would be overwhelming; and there were much better places for

a convention center.

Mr. Kerry Culligan, North 13th Avenue, said Savannah had things to keep people

interested all year long and an incredible waterfront; and the activities were not limited to

the beach. He said, after comments, that he understood the owner was not able to find the

financing to put it together, and he asked why the County would invest in a project in which

the investment community did not have enough faith to fund. After quoting from the CHHA

4/6/2000 blb97

chapter of the County’s Comprehensive Plan, he said conditions set forth in the

Comprehensive Plan were not being met; i.e., a convention center on Pensacola Beach

was not a facility that would be necessary to protect human lives or preserve important

natural resources, nor was it being provided at a location outside of the CHHA.

Chairman Whitehead said every study completed to date stated that the beach

location was the only one identified by the consultants as an appropriate location because

of the number of hotel rooms that were available there and nowhere else in the County.

Mr. Culligan said the Comprehensive Plan and State Statutes directed growth away

from the CHHA, and this was in conflict with the Plan.

Chairman Whitehead said the State Statute stated one should develop appropriate

facilities, and a convention center was more appropriate then residential structures.

Mr. Culligan said the State Statute was directing growth away from the CHHA to

prevent the financial exposure to the facilities that were there; whether it be a convention

center, home, or a hotel. He said the State and the public would be open to financial

exposure in the event of a hazard, and this should be addressed, and the public facility

criteria was questionable. Mr. Culligan said, also, Pensacola Beach had the highest

density in the County and a convention center would be placing more growth in harms way,

and he asked that the Board not vote for a convention center.

Ms. June Guerra, Quietwater Beach Road, said she commended the Board for

visiting other locations to observe what facilities were available to attract people. She said

she would hope the Board would continue to discuss a convention center for this location

in the core area. Ms. Guerra said she would urge the Commissioners to not let this piece

of land slip by and to question all angles regarding the feasibility of it.

4/6/2000 blb98

Upon inquiry from Commissioner Banjanin, County Administrator Evans said the

Board could not pledge bridge tolls under the existing covenants of the present bond issue,

and he commented briefly about the size of the parking garage.

Mr. William H. Griffith, SRIA, said the parking garage would be adjacent to the

convention center because that was the land that was available. He said bond counsel

needed to know how much of the garage would be for the convention center.

County Administrator Evans said the Due Diligence Committee never discussed

spending money for a study to determine how much parking was needed for the convention

center and how much of the parking would be for those visiting the Beach.

After discussion concerning the use of Bob Sikes Bridge toll funds that could be

used towards the financing of the proposed parking garage, County Administrator Evans

said the money on the bond issue could not be pledged, but it could be used.

Mr. Griffith said much talk transpired concerning an environmental study, and

drainage had also been discussed. He said space was needed in the main parking lot on

Pensacola Beach for a drainage pond to correct the drainage problems on Pensacola

Beach and to ensure that the drainage did not enter into Little Sabine Bay or any other

body of water, without being filtered.

1:00 A.M. - COMMISSIONER ROBERTSON LEFT THE MEETING TEMPORARILY.

Commissioner Banjanin asked if there were other needs for the toll revenue.

County Administrator Evans said he did not completely disagree with Commissioner

Bass and there would be extra money to be used for various things under the conditions

of the bond issue, and transportation was one of them. He said he had not stated it could

never be used; only that it could not be pledged.

4/6/2000 blb99

Mr. Richard I. Lott, Miller, Canfield, Paddock and Stone, P.L.C., Escambia County’s

Bond Counsel, said Florida law stated that a toll for use of transportation facilities could be

charged, but the money became a tax if used to pay for things other than transportation

facilities, and if it was a tax, it had to be authorized, and there was no authorization for tax

for these purposes, and he commented at length. He said a study was needed to

determine how much of the parking would be used for public parking and how much would

be needed for the convention center. Mr. Lott said that Ms. Gay Hamilton Smith of

Hamilton Smith Associates, had been contacted as a consultant, and he explained the rules

and the scope of study. He said the Bob Sikes Bridge toll revenues could be used to pay

for the part of the parking garage that would be used by the public and not for the

convention center, and a study would determine what was needed.

1:03 A.M. - COMMISSIONER ROBERTSON RETURNED TO THE MEETING.

After brief discussion, Mr. Lott said $29 million was required and only $22 million

would be available from the 4th Cent Tourist Development Tax, and the gap could be

reduced to $1.7 million by utilizing the Bob Sikes Bridge toll revenue.

Chairman Whitehead said he would not support a motion that incorporated the

potential construction of a parking garage, or anything else, and he was only interested in

negotiating for the purchase of the property, and he commented briefly.

After discussion, Commissioner Bass said he would withdraw his motion.

Motion made by Commissioner Bass that the Board approve instructing County

Administrator Evans and staff to move forward immediately in negotiations with

Mr. MacQueen for the purchase of the property referred to as the Surf and Sand lease on

Santa Rosa Island; that County Administrator Evans be instructed to move as quickly as

4/6/2000 blb100

possible to get an MAI appraisal on this property, with the $20,000 already allocated, and

that he retain a person, and come back on Tuesday at the C/W Meeting to identify a firm

or person to tell the Commissioners more about the facility and its layout on that property.

Motion seconded by Commissioner Robertson.

After brief discussion, Commissioner Bass said his final motion would include

instructing staff and the Committee that the bridge toll revenues would be used for part of

the land and part of the parking deck.

After discussion in which it was agreed that financing would be premature,

Commissioner Junior said the Due Diligence Committee should be dissolved.

Chairman Whitehead said an appraisal was needed to negotiate a purchase price,

and the third item was to identify a consultant and bring it back to the Board.

There being no further discussion, Chairman Whitehead called for the question and

the motion carried 4-1, with Commissioner Junior voting "no", taking the following action

concerning the proposed convention center/parking garage to be located at Pensacola

Beach on the property commonly referred to as the Surf and Sand lease, an approximate

five-acre parcel located on the north side of Via De Luna Drive:

A. Authorizing staff to obtain as quickly as possible an MAI (Member AppraisalInstitute) appraisal on the subject property, utilizing the $20,000 previouslyallocated by the Board;

B. Instructing staff to begin the negotiation process immediately with Mr. JulianMacQueen, the current leaseholder, without a commitment to build within atime certain; and

C. Directing staff to report at the Tuesday, April 11, C/W Meeting, relative toretaining a consultant to identify appropriate size, layout, and other detailsneeded for a convention center for Escambia County.

4/6/2000 blb101

ITEMS ADDED TO THE AGENDA - COMMISSIONER WILLIE J. JUNIOR

1. Discussion Concerning Office Space Needs

Commissioner Junior advised that the first item he added to the agenda concerning

office space needs had been addressed during County Administrator’s Report, Item II-1.

2. Discussion Concerning Little Sabine Bay Environmental Problems

Commissioner Junior said the second item he added to the agenda concerning Little

Sabine Bay Environmental Problems had been addressed as part of the County Attorney’s

Report, Item I-5.

ITEMS ADDED TO THE AGENDA - COMMISSIONER BASS - Continued

5. Discussion Concerning Report from the Citizens’ Task Force on Urban StormwaterRunoff

Motion made by Commissioner Bass, seconded by Commissioner Junior, and carried

unanimously, referring to the April 11, 2000, Committee of the Whole Meeting the request

of J. Dan Gilmore, Secretary of the Building Industry Association of West Florida (BIA f/k/a

Home Builders Association), that the Board consider the recommendations of the BIA, as

outlined in Mr. Gilmore’s April 6, 2000, letter to Chairman Whitehead regarding a recommendation

of the Citizens’ Task Force on Urban Stormwater Runoff that a unified stormwater utility authority

be formed.

4/6/2000 blb102

ADJOURNMENT

There being no further business to come before the Board, Chairman Whitehead declared

the Regular Meeting of the Board of County Commissioners adjourned at 1:19 a.m. on April

7, 2000.

BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ESCAMBIA COUNTY, FLORIDA

By:_________________________________

D. M. "Mike" Whitehead, Chairman

ATTEST:ERNIE LEE MAGAHACLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT

____________________________ Deputy Clerk

Approved: May 18, 2000