Loading...
Agenda 04/10/2012 Item #11D4/10/2012 Item 11 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Recommendation to approve a budget amendment in an amount up to $25,000 from Unincorporated Area MSTD General Fund (111) reserves to retain an outside firm to provide a cost - benefit analysis of the Ave Maria SRA and determine if the development has demonstrated fiscal neutrality, as required by the Land Development Code (LDC). OBJECTIVE: Access MSTD Unincorporated Area General Fund (I 11) reserves to retain the services of a qualified firm to provide an independent cost - benefit analysis of the Ave Maria SRA at the project's five year anniversary of approval (June 2010), as required by LDC section 4.08.07.L. CONSIDERATIONS: On February 14, 2012, the BCC directed the County manager or his designee to retain a third -party independent firm to review the Ave Maria SRA five -year fiscal report and determine if the development is fiscally neutral to the County at the five -year anniversary of the project approval utilizing a cost - benefit approach. The Ave Maria SRA five -year report, as evaluated by staff was found to satisfy the fiscal neutrality requirement of the code. On December 14, 2010, the BCC requested the Clerk of Courts to perform an independent review of the findings. The Clerk of Courts was unable to reach a definite determination of fiscal neutrality as such, the BCC requested a cost - benefit analysis from an outside firm. Attachment `B" provides the written minutes of the agenda item, with the motion highlighted on page 84 and voted upon on page 96. This executive summary is to initiate the retention process, which will require funding to be available to the growth Management Division to finance the endeavor. FISCAL IMPACT: Land Development Services has not appropriated funds to satisfy the cost associated with retaining the requested outside firm within the FY2011 -12 budget. Therefore, a budget amendment moving dollars from Unincorporated Area MSTD General Fund (I 11) reserves to the appropriate expense cost center in an amount up to $25,000 is necessary. Current MSTD General Fund (111) contingency reserves total $205,400. GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN (GMP) IMPACT: Fiscal Neutrality is a requirement of the Growth Management Plan (GMP), and as implemented within the LDC, a final determination of fiscal impact is required to satisfy Section 4.08.07.L.1. LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS: This executive summary has been reviewed by the County Attorney's Office. A majority vote is necessary for Board action. (HFAC) STAFF RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Board approve the required budget amendment moving up to $25,000 from Unincorporated Area MSTD General Fund (I 11) reserves to the appropriate expense cost center for the retention of an outside firm to provide a cost - benefit analysis of the Ave Maria SRA, consistent with the Land Development Code at its five -year anniversary (June 2010) of approval. Prepared by: Mike Bosi, AICP, Comprehensive Planning Manager, Land Development Services Department Attachments: Exhibit "A" Scope of Work Exhibit `B" February 14, 2012 BCC Public Hearing minutes Packet Page -395- COLLIER COUNTY Board of County Commissioners Item Number: 11.D. 4/10/2012 Item 11. . Item Summary: Recommendation to approve a budget amendment in an amount up to $25,000 from Unincorporated Area MSTD General Fund (111) reserves to retain an outside firm to provide a cost - benefit analysis of the Ave Maria SRA and determine if the development has demonstrated fiscal neutrality, as well as provide suggestions upon best practices for future five -year financial reports required by the Rural Lands Stewardship Area (RLSA) Overlay. (Mike Bosi, Compreshensive Planning Manager, Growth Management Division) Meeting Date: 4/10/2012 Prepared By Name: BosiMichael Title: Manager - Planning,Comprehensive Planning 3/13/2012 8:50:41 AM Approved By Name: CurranJohn Title: Purchasing Agent,Purchasing & General Services Date: 3/16/2012 2:43:53 PM Name: CummingsRhonda Title: Contracts Specialist,Purchasing & General Services Date: 3/16/2012 2:52:18 PM Name: MarkiewiczJoanne Title: Manager - Purchasing Acquisition,Purchasing & Gene Date: 3/17/2012 9:42:36 AM Name: LorenzWilliam Title: Director - CDES Engineering Services,Comprehensive Date: 3/17/2012 1:07:07 PM Name: PuigJudy Title: Operations Analyst, GMD P &R Date: 3/19/2012 3:35:07 PM Packet Page -396- 4/10/2012 Item 11 Name: WardKelsey Title: Manager - Contracts Administration,Purchasing & Ge Date: 3/21/2012 1:32:13 PM Name: AshtonHeidi Title: Section Chief/Land Use- Transportation,County Attor Date: 3/21/2012 4:47:36 PM Name: MarcellaJeanne Title: Executive Secretary,Transportation Planning Date: 3/29/2012 7:41:53 AM Name: IsacksonMark Title: Director -Corp Financial and Mgmt Svs,CMO Date: 3/29/2012 11:47:48 AM Name: KlatzkowJeff Title: County Attorney Date: 3/29/2012 4:28:24 PM Name: IsacksonMark Title: Director -Corp Financial and Mgmt Svs,CMO Date: 3/30/2012 10:59:28 AM Packet Page -397- 4/10/2012 Item 11 Exhibit A: Background and Scope of Work Background On February 14, 2012, the BCC directed staff to retain a third -party independent firm to review the Ave Maria SRA and determine if the development is fiscally neutral to the County at the five - year anniversary of the project approval utilizing a cost - benefit approach. The Ave Maria SRA five -year report, as evaluated by staff was found to satisfy the fiscal neutrality requirement of the Land Development Code (LDC) section 4.08.07.L. SRA Economic Assessment. An Economic Assessment meeting the requirements of this Section shall be prepared and submitted as part of the SRA Designation Application Package. At a minimum, the analysis shall consider the following public facilities and services: transportation, potable water, wastewater, irrigation water, stormwater management, solid waste, parks, law enforcement, emergency medical services, fire, and schools. Development phasing and funding mechanisms shall address any adverse impacts to adopted minimum levels of service pursuant to the Chapter 6 of the LDC. 1. Demonstration of Fiscal Neutrality. Each SRA must demonstrate that its development, as a whole, will be fiscally neutral or positive to the Collier County tax base, at the end of each phase, or every five (5) years, whichever occurs first, and in the horizon year (build - out). This demonstration will be made for each unit of government responsible for the services listed below, using one of the following methodologies: a. Collier County Fiscal Impact Model. The fiscal impact model officially adopted and maintained by Collier County. b. Alternative Fiscal Impact Model. If Collier County has not adopted a fiscal impact model as indicated above, the applicant may develop an alternative fiscal impact model using a methodology approved by Collier County. The BCC may grant exceptions to this policy of fiscal neutrality to accommodate affordable or workforce housing. 2. Monitoring Requirement. To assure fiscal neutrality, the developer of the SRA shall submit to Collier County a fiscal impact analysis report ( "Report') every five (5) years until the SRA is ninety (90) percent built out. The Report will provide a fiscal impact analysis of the project in accord with the methodology outlined above. On December 14, 2010, the BCC requested the Clerk of Courts to perform an independent review of the findings. The Clerk of Courts was unable to reach a definite determination of fiscal neutrality as such, the BCC requested a cost - benefit analysis from an outside firm. Detailed Scope of Work The County's Growth Management — Comprehensive Planning Department is interested in receiving proposals from interested suppliers who would perform the following service tasks between May 15, 2012 — January 31, 2013: 1. Provide an independent cost - benefit analysis of the Ave Maria SRA at the project's five year anniversary of approval (June 2010); 2. Provide suggestions for best management practices for future five year fiscal neutrality reports required by Land Development Code (LDC) section 4.08.07.L. Packet Page -398- 4/10/2012 Item 11 February 14, 2012 talking about this model, and we're talking about a model that was created in the year 2005 when we had an exciting future ahead of us for Collier County. All we could see was things were increasing, improving, jobs were plentiful, the prices of homes were high -- well, probably too high -- and things were going along swimmingly, and so all we could see for the Ave Maria community, as well as when we voted on it, was there was no way to go but up. Who would ever estimate -- who would ever even guess, project, that we were going to go into one of the worst recessions in our history? And there we were a few years later. So, you know, as we look at all of this based on 2005 and 2010 and you start thinking about what happened in between, I don't know how anybody could even calculate or guess -- I don't care what formula you use -- that we would have gone through all of that, and that's just -- that's just my own thinking about it. MR. BROCK: Well, whether or not there's a positive or negative impact, you know, really isn't affected by the economies that exist. What does exist is, you know, whether or not this is created by the change in the economy, and I think that anyone who looks at the real estate market in Collier County or anywhere else in the State of Florida, and probably anywhere else in the country, will tell you that this is a consequence -- the impact, whatever it may be, is a consequence of the economic situation. Who would have foreseen that our -- I would go from 400 foreclosures per day -- I mean per month -- no, I'm sorry -- per year, to 800 foreclosure cases per month? Nobody could have foreseen this, in my opinion. But if I could take a moment to address some of the other issues that were brought up by Mr. Fishkind, I'd like to do that, Mr. Chairman. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'd like to give some direction Packet Page -399- 4/10/2012 Item 11 February 14, 2012 myself. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, it's the pleasure of the board. Do you have all the information you need? COMMISSIONER HENNING: You know, it's not rocket scientist -- science here. You have to have the proper inputs of what this development costs and what it contributes. It's very, very simple. This model is -- has been changed from the time that it was adopted by the Board of Commissioners. Why don't we have somebody independent to analyze, not this data, but analyze the fiscal impacts or the fiscal neutrality or the positive impacts of the community? That's what the whole thing -- the SRA, the whole intent was, is to find all that -- those things out. And we still don't have it. You know, you -- you start changing things or you put things in there that really doesn't matter, then you're not going to get to the conclusion. That's what I would like to do is give direction to the county manager to have somebody provide the Board of Commissioners of what the bottom line is. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Is that a motion? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. We have a motion that we give guidance to county manager to find an impartial reviewer to take a look at the financial impact of the Ave Maria development and provide us an assessment of that. Is that fair? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, and we want a five -year review as -- according to the Land Development Code. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'll second the motion. CHAIRMAN COYLE: And there's a second by Commissioner Fiala. Now, let me just ask one thing about this. I believe that our rules Page 85 Packet Page -400- 4/10/2012 Item 11 February 14, 2012 are written in a way that invite misinterpretation. The Clerk will read the requirement that you have snapshots at five -year intervals and out to buildout. I had read it that you have snapshots at five -year intervals all the way until the year of buildout, because I -- I'll go back to my earlier statement. I have absolutely no confidence in anybody's ability to tell me whether or not Ave Maria, out 20 or 30 years from now, will be positive or negative. I mean, Mr. Fishkind says the same thing. I mean, you can't make projections like that. So expecting that this particular model would have projected out those number of years is, in my opinion, not consistent with our intent and is almost impossible. So if -- you stated it correctly, Commissioner Henning, when you said that a five -year report is what you're looking for. And we want to know whether it was positive or negative. And if we could hold it at that and forget about the forecast -- because nobody has the capability to do that. So we have a motion and a second. Now we'll have discussion. Commissioner Hiller was next. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you. Again, I'm very concerned about Mr. Fishkind's testimony here today because, as I said, I do believe he has a conflict of interest. He's compensated by Barron Collier; he's representing Barron Collier in the interpretation of this model. I was also very concerned about his statement about the fluidity of the model where in his own manual he provides that there is an inherent danger with open formulas and that the open formulas allow for potential manipulation to serve particular ends and, you know, now he's making a statement contrary to his own manual, so I have a problem with that. I really like what you said, Commissioner Fiala. I thought the comment that you just made was well said. And to that end, one of the things that I was thinking about is the Packet Page -401- 4/10/2012 Item 11. February 14, 2012 realty of the situation that we're in. You know, yesterday I asked Leo how much have we spent on Oil Well Road, and his response to me was 52 million. Now, when you look at this model that, according to Mr. Fishkind, is correct, their revenues to date are approximately 28 million, if we're to assume that that is a correct number, which leaves a deficit of, you know, roughly, say, 24, 25 million. I'm just rounding the numbers. So that obviously is concerning to me. Now with respect to, yeah, it's a model, and, you know, how do we know, the reality is we had an obligation to know. We have two developer contracts, one which is strictly with the Ave Maria Development LLP, the other which is a tri-party contract, both which were executed in April 2005. And both of which have a provision that the DCA dated April 2005 in Paragraph 22 provides for an annual review and audit of performance under the agreement, and that if the Board of County Commissioners finds on the basis of substantial competent evidence there has been a failure to comply with the terms of the agreement, the agreement may be revoked or unilaterally modified by the county. And the tri -party agreement, in Paragraph 7, says that the -- and I'm not going to read the whole thing, but just in part as an example, if the construction of the town of Ave Maria is not proceeding in a substantially timely manner to buildout, the agreement may be modified or terminated by agreement of the parties. Now, if there's one thing I take away is that everybody agrees that only, what, 374 or so -- let's say 375 units have been built by this five -year mark. And based on the development parameters that were attached to the interlocal agreement as what was supposed to be built by the end of Phase 1, the number is 6,010. Now, we also know that based on schedules provided to me through April of 2011 -- obviously these need to be updated to the present -- that substantial impact fees were being shifted from other Page 87 Packet Page -402- 4/10/2012 Item 11. February 14, 2012 districts to pay for the infrastructure that otherwise should have been paid for by the Ave Maria developer as committed to in the development agreement. They committed that they were going to build so many homes and in exchange they were going to produce about $60 million in impact fees, and the county detrimentally relied, and, as a result, accelerated the construction of Oil Well Road to match these phases in the expected revenues, and obviously there is a shortfall at this point. And as I said, it doesn't take rocket science to figure out that if you've got a $52 million expenditure and only a $28 million contribution, you're in the hole about 25 -or -so million, just rounding. What disturbs me the most is this letter that was presented by Nick Casalanguida from Barron Collier that says -- and this was presented in the AUIR. And it says that Ave Maria gives -- consents to the county using the impact -fee dollars for other projects that have not been paid for, because all the monies were being shifted to this project as a priority when, in fact, all the numbers were showing year after year after year when I was not sitting on this board that development was not moving at the pace it was expected. That is a huge problem. The taxpayers of Collier County, as I said, are the fall guy for this development's failure to perform, and whether it's because the market has declined or they've changed their priorities, it doesn't matter. This board should have stopped expending funds on Oil Well Road when it was clear that the development was not moving forward. And right now we are in a negative situation with the taxpayers of Collier County advancing funds that should have been advanced by the developer for the developer's benefit. So -- CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Coletta? COMMISSIONER HILLER: I would like to hear what you have to say, Mr. Brock, in answer to Mr. Fishkind's presentation. I also have a problem that Mr. Fishkind did not present your slide show to I. -_ .. Packet Page -403- 4/10/2012 Item 11 February 14, 2012 the board in advance as the Clerk did. We had a problem when the Clerk -- or it's my understanding there was a problem. I don't want to say "we," but I know I was concerned about the fact that there was no attachment to the presentation that was going to be made by the board (sic). This board passed an ordinance that requires that materials that are going to be brought forward be brought before the agenda is presented. How did you get ahold of that information? Because we were bound to confidentiality not to release it. MR. FISHKIND: I have no idea what you're bound by or not. It was sent to me in an email, ma'am. COMMISSIONER HILLER: By whom? MR. FISHKIND: I don't even remember, but I'll pull it up and provide it to you. I get a hundred emails a day. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Right. Then I want to know who provided it, and please consider this a public- records request to all the commissioners and all staff to produce the email that was sent with the Clerk's attachment to Mr. Fishkind when it was clearly understood that was not to be done. MR. BROCK: Just a -- may I respond to Mr. Fishkind? CHAIRMAN COYLE: How quickly can you do that, Mr. Brock? MR. BROCK: Very brief. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Very good. MR. BROCK: With regard to the staffs telling them that it was positive, my staff has never told them that, and a copy of the tape exists, and anyone that wants to can go through it. As it relates to the $30,000 per acre being a current evaluation of the property, you know, look at the email, the email sent by Kevin Hendricks on June the 13th, 2011. So, obviously, it was done prior to -- the analysis was done prior to that. Packet Page -404- 4/10/2012 Item 11. February 14, 2012 Now, do I know that's the correct value? No. Okay. In addition to that, he said that he used a change that he got out of the Tindale Oliver study. He told us that. That was not a secret to us that that was a position they were taking. Unfortunately, we went back for -- as far back as we could get the Tindale Oliver study, and the same formula was used in all the Tindale Oliver studies in calculating the impact -fee costs to -- that were going to be assessed. And every one of them has that divided by two, and it's, in part, because, I suspect, of the going and coming. The problem when they submitted the 2005 model, from our perspective, even though that was in the Tindale Oliver study then, they didn't use it then. I want to show you something now. And I didn't want to do this, but I'm going to do this. This is what gives me more problem with regard to what this gentleman stood up here and said, that he did this with staff, than anything else. Now, this is taken out of a conversation that took place in my office between my staff and the persons who are there -- are there, and it's a statement by Nick Casalanguida which indicates to me that, you know, he saw the problems associated with this development, and he was, in fact, directed that this is what we're going to do regardless. That's what concerns me more than anything else here. And with that, I will leave you with it. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Coletta? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, thank you very much. Nick, I -- you're walking right into the middle of this movie now. There's been a lot of things said concerning your particular role in this. Would you elaborate on that? Then I have some questions I need to ask everybody. MR. CASALANGUIDA: First of all, I want to thank you all for this position. This is a lot of fun. I can't tell you how much fun I have at this job. 0_,W Packet Page -405- 4/10/2012 Item 11 February 14, 2012 That's a quote from probably 2004 when I first started here. And Norman called me on a Friday. And there's a funny story. We sat down with County Manager Mudd, God rest his soul, and they gave me a contract, about an hour to review it. They said, hey, you know, bloody it up a little bit. Norman said, take a good look at it; see what you think of it. And, of course, me being, you know, new to the job, I said, well, I'm going to take a good shot at this thing. I'm going to really, you know, hit it up pretty good. And, yeah, I got chewed out. And I thought it was kind of a funny story. And I think at that time the purpose of that was for me to look at something, analyze it, give them some feedback and give them something to chew on. And I went in there with a pretty strong red pen. But I wasn't party to any of the negotiations that led up to that date. I mean, it was my first meeting, probably, with the county manager. K And I said to Norman, do I still have a job on Monday? Because I fired the guy up pretty good. So, yeah, that's about right. And I didn't know what the purpose of the exercise was, but I think you can't take that out of context, so -- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: What about Commissioner Hiller's statement about Oil Well Road? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yeah. And halfway through this exercise I took a step back. Anybody who knows me, I don't like modeling to the certain extent, because it's just a planning tool. And you do the LRTP, and we present at the MPO the Master Mobility Plan and now the FIRM. God, if you look at what the intent of these models are, it's to give you a feel for where things are going. And there are so many variables in these models, trip length, trip generation, new trips, cost at any point in time. If you look at our impact -fee studies, five years ago we have almost a billion- dollar work program generating $60 million impact fees annually. Now I'm AM Page 91 Packet Page -406- 4/10/2012 Item 11.. February 14, 2012 barely collecting 4 and a half on the 200 million. So these are forecasts that are difficult to ascertain. So I said, let's go to actuals, and I provided that to everybody. See if I can find it real quick. Is it the I drive? D? CHAIRMAN COYLE: We're going to have to move along here. Is there anything you can tell us quickly? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, sir. I looked at the actual expenditures, and I -- so -- go to the actual page, Page 5. I looked at actual expenditures, and I said, I'm not going to get into forecast modeling. I'm not going to get into what's been there. And based on what we do with the larger project, we have a DRI rule. We look at proportionate share, because impact fees don't always make sense when they look at a specific project. So you say, what are the impacts to the actual project? So their proportionate share, based on adding new trips or capacity, is only a certain percentage of the total volume of that capacity on that road. So, you know, when you go through this -- I don't want it to keep disappearing. When you go through this, they only have a certain percentage. Here 33 percent, and over here 55 percent of the segments that they're actually responsible for. Because think about Orangetree to the left on the west portion of the road. We built that road. Not -- even if Ave Maria didn't come in, we have two schools there in the Orangetree development, which you're going to hear this afternoon. We had to widen Oil Well Road. So you can't attribute all the cost to Ave Maria. You always do a percentage. And you base it on their DRI submittal or their SRA submittal and distribution. Then you look at, if I've got a road that carries 1,000 cars today and I add capacity of 2,000, 2,000 more cars to get to 3,000, and it costs me $20 million, well, you do the math. I'm adding 2,000 trips, and I've divided it into the, you know, amount of cost, and I get a unit cost per new trip. And then you multiply it by Page 92 Packet Page -407- 4/10/2012 Item 11.. February 14, 2012 what the developer consumes of that. That's a proportionate cost. So after doing all that, you look at what they've done over here. And if you consume the right -of -way, you can even zero these things out. And I went from -- I looked at it from June 2010 at project completion; not their project, our road - construction project. So using our road - construction project costs and their trips, they would be responsible for $23 million of that road project. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Half. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Calculated half; half. And when you look at their impact fees, developer contributions and impact fees paid -- and this cursor does not want to play nice with me -- and then I substract out their -- that credit, they've given us $25 million in value. So let's say I zero out the right -of -way. They're still going to give us another $60 million over time, or here it says $80 million. But now with our impact -fee reductions, Amy gave me a calculation, I think, of 75. So even though to date we've collected $25 million, I'm going to collect another $60 million from Ave Maria at the current rate. And yet they're only responsible for, on Oil Well Road, $23 million. And to date, they've only consumed, to June 10th, $7 million worth of capacity. So when I do an actual calculation, I forget the model, because the model's just a guidance tool, and I get into the nitty -gritty of the numbers, I can't find out how they're negative on the Oil Well Road project per their calculations and mine. So, you know, I was kind of listening to the discussion about modeling. And, one thing I will tell you is -- and you've heard it from both -- Mr. Brock -- we've had a good rapport with going through this project -- and Mr. Fishkind. MR. BROCK: I probably ruined his day. MR. CASALANGUIDA: No, you didn't. The point being is, it's a modeling tool. And when you get close, Page 93 Packet Page -408- 4/10/2012 Item 11., February 14, 2012 you have to go down to the actual numbers. So if you want to get into another model review, you're going to get a lot of subjective comments from their side and our side and everybody else. Even in the proportionate -share calculations you have percent new trips, trip distribution. You could argue about that. Traffic modeling is not an exact science. But the amount of money they're going to pay versus what -- the cost of the road is much more over time, and that's the bottom line when you look at it. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay, Nick. Thank you so much. MR. CASALANGUIDA: You're welcome. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I appreciate it. Now, the rest of my comments. I --just first a question for the county attorney. Regarding this confidentiality clause that was put on there, what is that? Is that something that's binding by law? Is that something that you do out of respect? MR. KLATZKOW: It's out of respect. That is a public document once it got circulated. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's exactly what I thought. Now -- and forgive me. Both of you are wrong. I'm going to tell you right now, I have real problems with the fact that I didn't receive the document from the Clerk's Office until Friday, and I had even more of a problem with the fact I never received the document from Fishkind until I got to view it right now. These are public records that everybody needs to be able to make a -- base their decisions on and where to go with it. If you had -- either one of you had asked me to be able to give you this record, first I would have checked with the county attorney to see if I legally could do it. I would have given your records to both of you. You both needed to be prepared totally to what the other one was doing. I think they call it discovery. So what I'm going to tell you in the future, if you ever come back Page 94 Packet Page -409- 4/10/2012 Item 11. February 14, 2012 here again, please, get this to us at an early time, exchange the information back and forth so that we can act accordingly. I was actually going to ask for a continuance for the lack of time that was here to be able to study, first, the Clerk's document. I didn't realize you had so much detail. If I knew that, and I never got to see it beforehand, I would have asked for a continuance today to be able to view it. The Clerk was at a disadvantage that he never got to see your document. The commission was at a disadvantage because they never got to see it, period. The Clerk's document, if it got here a little bit earlier, we might have some more time to react to it. So what I'm saying is, confidentiality might be a great thing under certain circumstances. In this case public records are public records, and I'm always going to treat them like that. And if one of you wants those records, you can have them. Now, I got a couple of other things I want to go through. MR. BROCK: Commissioner, may I respond to that first? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Go ahead, Mr. Brock. I just hope I don't lose my train of thought for the last item I've got. MR. BROCK: Okay. The audit report, by statute, while it is a public record, is confidential by law until it is presented to the Board of County Commissioners. The form in which I presented it today was in an oral presentation as opposed to an audit report. So statutorily it is in my hands a confidential record. I gave it to you with the understanding that it would remain confidential as I do with the records. If this is the rule that we're going to play by, okay -- I don't want it to be the rule that we're going to play by. I want it to continue in your hands so that I can give it to county staff and let them have an opportunity to review it before it becomes a public record. But if that's the rule we're going to play by, I need to know what the rule is so that I can play by it. Page 95 Packet Page -410- 4/10/2012 Item 11.. February 14, 2012 COMMISSIONER COLETTA: What are rules, sir? The rule here is to come up with an honest appraisal of what's happening. MR. BROCK: Okay. But -- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: We've got two conflicting appraisals, and they were both excellently presented. And if we had a little more time to be able to do it -- now, Commissioner Henning's suggestion is the greatest thing I've heard here today. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Call the motion. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. All in favor, please signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER HILLER: (No verbal response.) COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign. (No response.) CHAIRMAN COYLE: It passes unanimously, and we're breaking for lunch. MR. OCHS: How long, sir? CHAIRMAN COYLE: Three hours -- MR. OCHS: You have a 1:30 time - certain phone call, just as a reminder. CHAIRMAN COYLE: We'll be back here at 1:30. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Didn't you say there were two speakers? MR. MITCHELL: Yes, but the second speaker said he didn't want to speak. (A luncheon recess was had.) MR. OCHS: Mr. Chairman, you have a live mike. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, ladies and gentlemen. The Board of County Commission meeting is back in session. Page 96 Packet Page -411-