Loading...
BCC Minutes 08/08/1995 R REGULAR MEETING OF AUGUST 8, 1995, OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COHMISSIONERS LET IT BE REHEHBERED that the Board of County Commissioners in and for the County of Collier, and also acting as the Board of Zoning Appeals and as the governing board(s) of such special districts as have been created according to law and having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9 a.m. in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRPERSON: VICE-CHAIRMAN: Bettye J. Hatthews John C. Norris Timothy J. Constantine Pamela S. Hac'Kie Timothy L. Hancock ALSO PRESENT: W. Neil Dorrill, County Hanager Kenneth B. Cuyler, County Attorney Item #3A AGENDA AND CONSENT AGENDA - APPROVED WITH CHANGES CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Call to order the Board of County Commission meeting for Tuesday, August 8, 1995. Mr. Dotrill, would you lead us in an invocation and pledge? MR. DORRILL: Heavenly Father, we give thanks. We praise your name this morning as always for the wonder and glory that you bring to Collier County. Father, this morning we have several special requests to ask that you lift up and support the families of Skip Camp whose mother Rosemary is gravely ill in Orlando and, likewise, the family of Steve Brinkman and his wife Hargie and also the city clerk Harilyn HcCord and her family. We lift these people before you this morning and ask special prayer and needs in their individual cases. Father, we give thanks and delight this morning in the birth of Elizabeth Drury, the child of John Drury, and the happiness that brings their particular family, and we praise your name for that. We also would ask that you bless our time here together this morning, and we pray these things in your son's holy name. Amen. (The pledge of allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Dorrill, do we have changes to the agenda? MR. DORRILL: This morning only one. From our perspective there is a request to continue item 12(B)(2) until your second meeting in September which will be the 12th. That is petition PUD-80-20-5 which was the amendment to the Hideaway Beach PUD. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: To what date? September -- MR. DORRILL: September the 12th. And we received correspondence from both parties that are subject to that issue, and they are in agreement with that request. I do have a number of items that I need to mention to you at the conclusion under communications. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah. I was going to ask that we continue it to August 22nd, but I think communications has a discussion item on that. changes? COMHISSIONER NORRIS: CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Norris, do you have any further Nothing additional. Commissioner Hancock. No, ma'am. Commissioner Mac'Kie. No, ma'am. Commissioner Constantine. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No changes. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I neither. Is there a motion? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I'll make a motion that we approve the agenda and consent agenda with the changes as noted. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll second the motion. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second to approve the agenda and the consent agenda as amended. Is there discussion? All those in favor please say aye. Opposed? Motion passes 5 to 0. Item #5A1 PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING THE WEEK OF AUGUST 13 - 19, 1995 AS FLORIDA WATER, WASTEWATER AND SYSTEMS OPERATORS WEEK - ADOPTED There are no minutes to approve this week. Next are proclamations. Commissioner Norris. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Thank you, Madam Chairman. Do we have Tim Clemons? If you could come forward and face the camera, I'll read this proclamation for you. Whereas, the health and welfare of our residents are of vital county, state, and national concern; and Whereas, the Florida Water and Pollution Control Operators Association is a statewide organization dedicated to maintaining water quality in Florida; and Whereas, the operators association conducts operating training throughout the state at the twelve regional levels and acts a liaison between the Department of Environmental Protection and operators in the field; and Whereas, the association reviews and assists in supervising state certification examinations and coordinates the statewide plant operations awards program with DEP; and Whereas, the water, wastewater, and systems operators of Collier County are dedicated to maintaining the quality of water provided in Collier County; and Whereas, the governor of Florida, Lawton Chiles, has recognized the dedication of the water, wastewater and system operators by proclaiming August 13 to 19, 1995, as Florida Water, Wastewater, and Systems Operators Week. Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that the week of August 13 to 19, 1995, be designated as Florida Water, Wastewater, and Systems Operators Week. Done and ordered this 9th day of August, 1995, by the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida. Ms. Chairman, I'll make a motion that we accept this proclamation. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Second. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second to accept the proclamation. All those in favor please say aye. Opposed? There being none, it passes 5 to 0. Thank you. (Applause) MR. CLEHONS: I just want to say on behalf of the staff in the field of water and wastewater, we would like to thank you for the proclamation and for recognizing next week as Florida Water and Wastewater and Systems Operators Week. Thank you very much. Item #5B EHPLOYEE SERVICE AWARDS - PRESENTED CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. Next item on the agenda is service awards. Commissioner Hac'Kie. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Is Nancy Frye here from traffic operations? We would like to recognize Nancy today for ten years of continuous service to Collier County. (Applause) Next for 15 years of service from the Collier County Museum, Ron Jamro. (Applause) And finally with 20 years of service in Collier County, Edward Tottoni from parks and recreation. (Applause) You started when you were 127 MR. TORRONI: I did. I appreciate that. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thank you. MR. TORRONI: Good shot. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I obviously missed a great basketball game last night. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: You missed a great shot. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: There was only shot? MR. TORRONI: One shot. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Well, I got to talk about the Key Marco cat. Now you all get to talk about Key Marco today. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Will you be playing basketball while we are doing that? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I'd like to, but I can't do it alone. Item #SH1 STAFF TO COORDINATE WITH CLERK TO UPDATE INVESTHENT POLICY; PURCHASING DEPARTMENT TO ISSUE RFQ'S WITH REVIEW AND COHMENT OF SAME BY CLERK Next item on the agenda, all the way to 8(H)(1), consideration of modifications to the county's investment policy and ordinance and management of that portfolio. MR. DORRILL: I can just introduce this by saying I think this was previously discussed at your last meeting in July. It came about as a result of a request and some conversation that has been spearheaded by Commissioner Norris. The revisions and the draft that are there had been previously shared and had been prepared last December. And either I or Mr. Cuyler on legal issues are here. I know the clerk certainly is going to have some difference of opinion over these but will be happy to answer any questions that you may have. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Any questions? Commissioner Hac'Kie. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Just that the fundamental issue, Mr. Dotrill -- as I understand it, this is at the request of Commissioner Norris. Well, certainly all of the contentions are that our investment policy hasn't been looked at in awhile, and we should be reviewing it. But I fail to understand why we would even have any possible disagreement with the clerk when we aren't trying to take any authority away from the clerk. Am I correct about that, or are we, in fact, trying to take some authority away from the clerk or some responsibilities away from the clerk? MR. DORRILL: Oh, I think I would be the first one in the room to say that it is my interpretation, belief, and observation throughout the state and always has been that the clerk in his capacity is the ex officio clerk to the board. He is the sole custodian of county funds and as part of that the disbursement of those funds. It is, however, my impression that the Board of County Commissioners, as is the case in the county jail, you are ultimately responsible for the jail. And it is also my opinion that you are ultimately responsible for the policy that spells out how your excess cash is available to be invested. The administration of that is under your discretion, it is my opinion, but the other issues with respect to the clerk's stand -- and no one, and I in particular would question his authority to be the custodian or the disburser of those funds. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Norris. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: The reason I brought this forward is there are a couple of reasons. As Commissioner Hac'Kie has stated, the policy has not been updated in some time, and that needs to be done periodically. In fact, that would be part of our discussion. At some point we should perhaps set a time schedule such as an annual review or whatever we think is necessary on our investment policy. And the other factor that has -- that I want to bring forward here is that we have typically around a $200 million cash portfolio, and in today's modern securities market, as fast as things move, it is my feeling that we need professional management on that. And I would like to see if the board wants to put our portfolio out to bid to some of the professional firms. Certainly I don't suggest that we do that on an annual fee basis rather than a commission basis and, therefore, there is no incentive for anyone to make trades to generate commissions. And the other aspect of that, if we do it, we certainly want to have a third party oversight on our money manager to make sure that the money manager is adhering to our county investment policies. That way I think we have covered all the bases, and we know that we're getting the best possible advice in professional hands. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I've sat on the clerk's investment committee, and we have diligently worked that out, the new investment policy, which at our last meeting we decided to bring to the commission, I believe, the first week in September and at -- even at that late date, which was mid-July, I guess it was the last meeting that we had, I was unaware of this item coming before the commission quite this soon. And I was also unaware that there had been virtually no communication between the county manager's agency and the clerk's agency in developing the proposal that was given to us under memorandum dated June 8th. So also I believe Mr. -- Dwight, don't you have the portfolio under the management of a professional right now? MR. BROCK: Commissioner, I consider him a professional. He's got 30 years in excess of experience in managing portfolios, and what is it -- the second and third largest bank in the world. He has a tremendous amount of experience in portfolio management, and he is giving his total time and devotion to the management of the Collier County portfolio from the standpoint not only of cost deficits -- because we are in the process every day when someone submits a proposal to us or an outside management program to evaluate it, and from a cost standpoint, they can't touch what this individual is doing. And the experience of this individual is, I think, unsurpassed by any of the firms in which we are dealing. Let me introduce someone to you. The individual who is sitting over here -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Brock, if I may quickly. I think we're getting into one issue, and we may have two on the table today. We have, in essence, the one that says the review of our existing investment policy. Do we want to revise our investment policy to improve it, to make it better, more clear, and so forth? That is one issue. The second issue is do we want to begin the process to look at an outside investment or portfolio manager. I don't want to confuse the two. And we have in our package today a revision of the investment policy. So I think we need to look at this first as to whether or not we want to proceed on this. I'm offering this as an opinion for the rest of the board. Let me ask and see if we want to proceed on this, whether we want to subject it for further review or approve it as is. And I certainly appreciate the clerk's comments on that. And then if we want to discuss the second item regarding an outside investment manager, that really isn't a big part of what we are seeing here. But I think the request was do we want to go down that path and take a look at it. Is that a fair assessment, Commissioner Norris? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: The reason for hearing this today is simply to find out if there's sentiment to go forward with either of these proposals. We certainly can't make any kind of hard decision today on that. It is just a point in the discussion where we just say are we going to go forward or not go forward. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hac'Kie. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: If the question for today is do we want to look at our investment policy, then my vote is going to be absolutely yes. And I want to look at it both with this proposal from Mr. Dorrill's office -- but I understand that this is a couple of years old maybe or a year and a half old at that point. If the clerk has something also to recommend, I would like to look at the investment policy with both of those choices and maybe others -- I don't know on the table. MR. BROCK: Hay I speak? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I asked Mr. Brock to take this board through what the investment committee went through earlier this summer in developing a new policy and the input that you've had from the community at large. MR. BROCK: Okay. As I think is common to most people here in the community, there has been some activity in the county's portfolio that has been reviewed and evaluated. And as a consequence of that, what the clerk has done is he has created not one, but two oversight committees. One is a policy board which is comprised of Commissioner Matthews; Dan Croft, the tax collector; Mr. Ed Hahoney who has 30 years of experience in the brokerage business; and Mr. Keith Glisch who has over 30 years experience in the investment business; and also as an advisor to that is my portfolio manager, John Kannengeiser who has over 30 years in the business. And what we set out to do was to comply with the law as it presently stands here in Collier County, which is an ordinance passed upon the Board of County Commissioners here in Collier County directing that the clerk of the circuit court shall provide to this board for its review and action an investment policy. In the legislature this year, the legislature mandated that there must be an investment policy which complies with certain criteria set out in the statute, or this county would revert back to a policy prescribed by that statute which is mandated upon the county. And that has to take place by October the 1st. So through my investment advisory board, which is a policy advisory board, I have set up not only to make recommendations to you but to -- on an annual basis or as needed, we meet monthly to make a review of that policy before any changes or recommendations that need to be made to the Board of County Commissioners with regard to that policy. We have, in fact, formulated the policy. It has been reviewed by competent legal counsel that is specializing in the securities field who feels that it is a very good policy, and that at the request of Commissioner Matthews will be brought back to you for your review pursuant to an ordinance that is on the books on the first meeting in September for you then to review and do whatever you want to in terms of formulating a policy, which is the responsibility of the Board of County Commissioners. Then I have an oversight investment committee which reviews the activity that takes place in the account to insure that is in compliance with the policy, and it meets on a monthly basis. That comprises of my finance director, Kathy Hankins, comprised of finance director from the sheriff's office, Crystal. It is comprised of the finance director, Guy Carlton, Bob Patton. And it's comprised of the portfolio manager, John Pennigan (phonetic). And they review what takes place on a monthly basis in a committee forum and to insure that we are in compliance with the policy as set out by the Board of County Commissioners. And they report on a monthly basis. I think you have begun to see reports coming in to you on what is taking place in the portfolio. It is my intent for this process to insure that never again will anything happen to this portfolio that everyone in the world doesn't know about it. That is the whole purpose of me setting up the process that I have set up, to insure that we comply with the policy to the letter and that you as the Board of County Commissioners -- and that's an oversight function of the clerk's activities -- is in informed of what is taking place. Does that answer your question? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Constantine? COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It sounds to me as though we're dancing to the same song, but you might just be a couple of steps ahead of us. You and your finance committee have reviewed the policy and have made some suggestions. Counsel has reviewed those, trimmed the edges, and you're prepared to bring that to the board at which time we can accept or reject any of those changes and even to suggest other changes. It sounds like we're all going to do the same thing or scheduled to do that. MR. BROCK: I don't disagree with you, Commissioner. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hancock. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: You took the words right out of my mouth. I'd like to ask that. As you mentioned, Mr. Dotrill had something that the clerk advisory board has not seen, and the clerk's advisory board has something that Mr. Dotrill hasn't seen. So let's trade notebooks before this comes back to the board so that everyone knows what's going on, and the differences can be discussed then. We can maybe meld them or choose one or the other, but let's make a choice and put together the best investment policy we can using the resources that we have available. I think it's a great idea. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Brock. MR. BROCK: I mean I rely on a large part on the board in which your chairman sits. So I certainly have no problems with that. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Mac'Kie. COHHISSIONER MAC'KIE: It seems to me that that settles the question on policy in that we still need to examine the possibility of outside professional management. I have no idea. I have no prejudgments whatsoever in that regard. But I do think it s our responsibility to look at whether or not that's financially prudent so that maybe we should look at both of those two things together, or you might prefer to look at them together when the policy comes back. I would like to examine the question. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, yes. I think you're right. The bottom line is that it is the Board of County Commissioners' money. And, therefore, we are ultimately responsible for it, and we need to as a board decide whether we want to seek professional outside management for this portfolio or whether to continue with the clerk's operation as we set it up. That's the decision that we need to make here today. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I am going to interject something, because I don't want people to get the wrong idea. This money belongs to the taxpayers, and we are the custodians of it. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: That's a small point in this matter. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I know. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: The Board of County Commissioners obviously -- it's the money that comes to the Board of County Commissioners, rather than the money that would go to the school or something like that. We all understand that -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I understand that. It's just that I want to clarify the statements that it is not a sound bite further down the road today. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I don't know about you, but I wasn't planning any trips to Tahiti with that money. So it's not my money. But I believe that is understood. What we want to avoid here -- and I want to say this for the benefit of your staff, Mr. Brock -- is just looking at the concept of having an outside portfolio manager is not to make any comment about your professionalism or capabilities of your staff. It is simply to look at how many ways can we skin this cat, what is the best way and the advantageous way for this board, because I do think you have a good team assembled. But Commissioner Norris has made some good points regarding how to stay up with the technology, what is going on in the market right now, who is best suited to do that. And really that is as simple as the discussion needs to be. MR. BROCK: Hay I address that? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Please. MR. BROCK: It's real simple. This is not an issue that has been broached for the first time today. Back in 1974 the investment functions of Alachua County rested in the hands of the Board of County Commissioners. It was a call that the Board of County Commissioners made in Alachua County, and as a consequence of that a grand jury convened in Alachua County, at which point in time they critically addressed the clerk of the circuit court for allowing that to take place. As a consequence of that, the clerk of the circuit court in Alachua County in the case of Alachua County versus Powers in a declaratory action went to court at which point in time the trial court ruled clearly and unmistakably that the investment function of the county rested solely in the hands of the clerk with the oversight of the Board of County Commissioners. As a consequence of that trial court ruling, that went to the District Court of Appeals. From the District Court of Appeals it went to the Florida Supreme Court. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the ruling of the trial court, and at that point in time that function shifted from the board of county commissioners in Alachua County to that of the clerk. Recently in Escambia County, according to Jim Moy (phonetic) who is the comptroller for Escambia County until recently, they decided they would pass an ordinance which attempted to try to take the function away from the clerk, away from the hands of the board of county commissioners, at which time the clerk of the circuit court, the comptroller in Alachua County brought suit. The resolution of that suit took place a couple of months ago by repeal of that particular ordinance. It is clear, I think -- it is clear to my counsel, that is, that the function rests in the hands of the clerk of the circuit court. And there won't be any grand jury in Collier County ever criticizing me for not defending my constitutional statutory responsibilities. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Let me ask the clerk a question. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Go ahead. If you would wait. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We may be asking the same question. My question is -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: you tell me to go? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Sorry. -- what goes wrong here -- didn't No. I asked you to wait. I'm sorry. I misunderstood. That wasn't clear. No matter whose ultimate responsibility it turns out to be to handle these funds -- and I think our legal staff may not agree with your legal assessment of it, and we do rely on him for our legal advice -- nonetheless, a couple of months ago you and I had a conversation where I asked you if you would agree with me or had any objection to seeking outside money management. At that time you did not. Your response -- have you since changed your mind? MR. BROCK: No, Commissioner Norris. I have not changed my mind. As I told you early on, on every proposal that is submitted to me, my staff and I will review. The problem that we have encountered with outside money managers is that what you're dealing with are people who do not have the experience of the money manager that I have in my employ. In addition to that, everybody is wanting in excess of $100,000, not that that is the lowest, and it goes up to $200,000 a year to pay for a money manager. It costs me about $78,000 to have the money manager here in Collier County. So I am constantly, constantly looking at the proposals that are being presented to me and evaluating them through my investment committee to determine the feasibility of changing the process that we have in place. But we have not seen anything that will compete with what we are presently getting. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, I think you -- that may be true on a strictly monetary basis, but I will point out that $200,000 is only 10 basis points of the total average portfolio. You can get a professional money management firm with more resources and more -- I mean it's just going to be hard to make a case that one individual has more experience than an entire firm's cumulative experience and background in the business. If that firm can garner us at least 10 basis points over what we are now getting, we've more than broken even. MR. BROCK: Commissioner Norris, I don't agree with you at all. The problem with that logic, just blindly going out and hiring money management, is that -- you know, we're reviewing what they present to us as how they're doing with their money management and comparing it to what we are doing with our money management. And we're not convinced that anyone is touching us yet. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, the Board of County Commissioners has not seen anybody's proposal, and we have not asked to see anyone's proposal. We're just at the stage right now trying to make a decision of whether we want to ask for someone's proposal. But I think going back to the legal question that you raised a moment ago, if the Board of County Commissioners decides that's what we want to do, the inference of your discussion there a moment ago was that you're going to try to block it. MR. BROCK: Commissioner, I'm going to enforce the statutory and constitutional responsibilities of the clerk to the extent necessary to fulfill my job. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Brock, that doesn't have anything to do with the clerk. MR. BROCK: Sure it does. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: No, it does not. Whether the Board of County Commissioners takes the ultimate responsibility and goes out to get an outside money manager or we express our desire to do so -- and you just through your office -- the end result is the same. Now that doesn't address the question whether you can block it or not. MR. BROCK: Commissioner, that assumes that it is your responsibility to make that decision. My staff and my legal counsel are of the opinion that that is a very clear area of the law, and that isn't the Board of County Commissioners' responsibility. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Our legal staff, once again, is not convinced, as you are, that this a clear area of the law. MR. BROCK: You and the Board of County Commissioners make decisions that you will have spent thousands and thousands of dollars litigating that particular issue. I can't stop you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Mac'Kie. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Regardless of who makes the decision, what I would like at this point, Mr. Brock, is to be brought up to speed with the information -- the analysis that you have undertaken. Not presently, not necessarily at this moment. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Definitely not at this moment. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But to have that advantage to make the same policy decision that you have made without questioning the appropriateness of yours, without getting into any kind of a debate about authority, that to have the opportunity to do the analysis to determine for myself whether or not I agree with the conclusions you've come to that the management in house is best for Collier County. At that point then we may agree, and then we don't have to have this debate. At that point if we disagree, then we could have the debate whether or not we could persuade each other to come to the same conclusion instead of -- I have no interest in getting into some sort of a fight between the county commission and the clerk. And I absolutely respect that it was your constitutional right and, in fact, your mandate to defend the position that you believe to be legally correct. I am not going to argue with you about that. I think we can come through a mutual education here. If you could provide us with information, and if we could get some outside information, we may all come to the same conclusion and not have to have this debate, or we may find that we can agree to go down a different path. MR. BROCK: Commissioner, let me make this real clear. I have absolutely no problem whatsoever with the Board of County Commissioners reviewing the alternatives of a money manager and pointing out to me what you feel to be the best route for the county to take. At that point in time we will either agree or agree to disagree. And, you know, that is a fact of life. But I do not care for the Board of County Commissioners reviewing everything that we have reviewed. We have reviewed one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten private money managers that have submitted proposals to us and looked at them and decided that they couldn't provide for us what it is that we are getting from in house today. But if you have something that you can look at and make a determination that we have missed something and point that out to us, I'm more than happy -- more than happy to listen to the Board of County Commissioners' recommendations on that particular issue. You know, I welcome -- you know, I solicit your input into the process. You know where I have the problem is that Board of County Commissioners, as they did in Alachua County, for which the clerk got severely criticized by a grand jury and a grand jury report from not taking positive action to stop it. It independently takes on a course of conduct which circumvents the checks and balances that have been placed in the system by the constitution. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Constantine. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: First of all, I'm going to be a little bit critical. For two and half years something that continuously comes up is the lack of communication between the manager's office and the clerk's office. I don't know if that's an error along the way, if that's egos interfering occasionally along the way, or what is happening. But we have had this discussion as a board instructing our manager to try to communicate as clearly as possible with the clerk, and it appears we may have failed in that regard again. What I would like us do is seek from Mr. Cuyler a written opinion as to the BCC's authority on making this type of policy decision. Following that I'd like to see, or I would like to take the opportunity to review a written layout of what you and your staff and your folks have in way of background and resources and all, because I haven't seen that up until now. I don't know. It may very well be impressive. But I do think -- and you've just said you've compared that to ten outside sources which I was not aware of, but I would like to do exactly that, compare and contrast that with what's available outside, and we may very well find particularly if you have already been through the exercise, that the inside -- your inside staff can do and is doing an adequate job and better than the others. We may find certain areas that we think, gee, maybe you ought to try this, maybe you ought to try that. But it seems like it would be a healthy exercise to go through to see what we have, compare and contrast that with the outside. MR. BROCK: I agree. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hancock. MR. BROCK: I agree with you totally. I mean it is a healthy process. This whole process that I have been through in the last year has been a very healthy process. And I think the county policy that was in place -- I think it had been in place since 1987 and had never been reviewed until it came to light in early 1993 at which point in time we began scrutinizing the investment process here in this county very carefully. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hancock. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Just, again, I agree with Commissioner Constantine. Let's bring this to a closure and move on. I do want to say quickly that the territorial argument makes for good reading, but it really does no one any good. So we're all in the same game here -- who knows how to do for the taxpayers the best we can. And I think everyone is trying to do that. So let's try and get over the territorial argument and just put our heads together and come up with the best idea possible for now. That is my request. It's not just of you. It's of everyone. Beyond that, does this mean that we are going to request for qualifications, or are we just going to review what the -- I mean, we need some direction here. Are we going to review simply the ten that the clerk has received, or should we put out a request for qualifications so we see what's current as of now and who responds? I'm not sure which way to go there. I'm leaning towards the request for qualification. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Cuyler, how quickly can you give us an opinion on our authority on a policy matter like this? MR. CUYLER: I'd like over a week. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: By October 2nd? MR. CUYLER: Easily. I would like over a week. You don't have a meeting on the 22nd -- or, yes, you do have. We will discuss it. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We're going to discuss it later today, but that's -- MR. CUYLER: Within this month -- I mean within August. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: In answer to your question, Mr. Hancock, what I guess what I saw in my mind was get the opinion and that at that point, I think, what you're suggesting look for RFQs. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. MR. CUYLER: We can provide it by the 22nd. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. At that point we will discuss the RFQ. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hac'Kie. MR. BROCK: Question. I hear we're asking legal counsel for an opinion on whether or not you have the authority to do this. And then out of the other side I hear that this is not a territorial thing. You know, if in fact you're going to make this a territorial thing, we'll make it a territorial thing. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Brock, there is no need for threats here, sir. MR. BROCK: I mean -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Brock, there is no need to talk about that at this point. All we're asking for is a process, okay? And now I think we need to know from our county attorney one thing. And I don't care what he says. I still think an RFQ is a good idea. MR. BROCK: Oh, I'm not suggesting that -- we're not talking about an RFQ anymore -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, then, sir -- MR. BROCK: -- we're talking about -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- and I don't think -- MR. BROCK: -- legal opinion about who has the authority. You know, if we're going to get into a controversy over who it is that has the authority, we'll get into a controversy over who it is. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Fine. We'll cross that bridge when we get to it. MR. BROCK: I don't want that. But, you know, when I hear we're requesting a legal opinion with regard to that, I mean, that gives me some concern as to whether what is intended is what is being said. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Dwight, it's one you've already obtained for yourself. We're only doing the same thing you've already done. So please allow us to move on. MR. BROCK: It's your meeting, Commissioner. Hove on. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hac'Kie. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We need to be clear about what is -- I need to understand what is the question we've asked you to answer. MR. CUYLER: I guess the question is -- and I don't think anyone is disputing the clerk's role as custodian -- you have the ability to and have in the past adopted an investment policy, and you're talking about whether you're going to change that investment policy. I guess the issue that we're talking about is who on a day-to-day, week-to-week, month-to-month basis has the ability to make the money management decisions and to control the investment decisions within the policy that you have established. That seems to be the issue. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I guess for me the question that I want answered is if the Board of County Commissioners and the clerk of the courts disagreed about the prudence of an outside professional money manager, could we overrule the clerk? MR. CUYLER: That's the issue. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And I guess we have to know the answer to that. But I question do we have to know the answer to that before we go through the analysis of whether or not it is prudent. Why don't we do the RFQs or whatever is the process, and then see if we agree or disagree? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, let me just try to sequence it a little better. The first thing to do, we all agree that the policy needs to be updated, and the clerk's office has already made progress on that, and we'll have that shared with us as soon as we can so that we can review it from outside and take a look at it. I certainly haven't seen it, so I doubt if any of the board members have, and I have not. So we need to do that, and everybody agrees on that. The next thing to be done -- particularly agree on -- it appears here today is whether we should seek outside management or not. In order to decide on that we need to know, as was suggested earlier, what is the current status, how are we performing, and what can someone else do for us. That would be an RFP or RFQ. But there's no point in going through that exercise if we have no control over it. We need that question answered. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Unless, of course, we and the clerk agreed on that. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, that appears not to be forthcoming. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But, actually -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let's go along those lines, because the clerk did say he didn't mind. But, finally, my suggestion earlier was that we go through a compare and contrast exercise. MR. BROCK: Absolutely not, Commissioner. I'm looking for what is best for the county, pure and simple. That is my goal. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I don't want to get to -- MR. BROCK: I think that is what your goal is. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I would rather -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: One at a time, please, because we've got a court reporter there. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I would rather -- to help to give the clerk the benefit of the information that we are able to gather through an RFQ or an RFP process, to give us the benefit of the information already gathered by the clerk. Perhaps we jointly can conclude on inside or outside management. Then if we disagree, we get our lawyers working. What is wrong with that? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Is that a motion? COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah. That's a motion. MR. BROCK: If I get a vote, I vote for that one. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Constantine. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I was going to make a motion. I don't understand what that is. Could you clarify it? COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: My motion is that we go forward with the RFQ or RFP process which is appropriate to get bids from outside professional money managers so that we have data to compare with our present circumstance, that we do that now, and then if we find that we disagree with the clerk on what is the appropriate policy, then we seek legal advice. But let's not jump the gun on that question. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Can I suggest that we change two parts of that? One, that we make it qualifications, not bids and, two, that we seek legal advise concurrently. It's not going to do any harm to have an opinion from Mr. Cuyler at the same time. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: He may agree with the clerk. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: In that case I will second the motion. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second. Let me see if I can restate the motion so that we're clear on what we are doing. We are going to issue RFQs for outside management, and we are going to review the investment policy. Is there more to the motion than simply that? MR. BROCK: Who is it that is issuing the RFQ? MR. DORRILL: If the board issues it, then it will have to be done in accordance with their purchasing ordinance, and they would need to be coordinated through the purchasing department and advertised properly as we do for all requests for proposals for qualifications for everything from the engineers to privatization. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: That's following the CCNA. MR. DORRILL: And that was my question under discussion. Do you want your purchasing department to do RFQs in accordance with your purchasing policy, or do you want the clerk to do his own RFQs through whatever procedure that he may have? MR. BROCK: Hay I make the suggestion? Let me prepare the RFQ, and I will run it by county staff, and I'll issue the RFQ. Then they can look at it and suggest any changes that they might feel are appropriate. We'll deal with that. We'll go out, and we'll present it to you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: One of my questions in this process would be that we go into a county-issued RFQ. We're probably talking several months before we get anything back. No? They have to write it to issue it to give time for responses and review the responses and have -- how much time are we talking about? MR. DORRILL: It can be as little or as much as you think is appropriate. I would think we could have them here within 30 to 45 days at a minimum or 60 or 90 days. Your purchasing department probably does 50 to 60 RFQs or RFPs a year. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Norris, this item is on the agenda at your suggestion. I would just like to see where you are coming from on that suggestion. COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Well, I think our purchasing department should do the RFQ. If the board can't give direction to some other constitutional officer for them to do it through their agencies, I think if it's our discussion, we should do it through our purchasing department. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I think I would like that RFQ, though, to agree with the needs of the clerk as well. And the clerk has offered to issue the RFQ with the help of the purchasing department to make sure that we all are in agreement. And I'm not sure I can disagree with that. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: How about a novel concept? Our staff issues it, and we work in concert with the clerk in putting together the verbiage therein. I know it's a neat concept with us working together with the clerk, but I bet it could work. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Mac'Kie. MR. BROCK: My legal counsel has a problem with you issuing the RFQ. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I lost another bet, I guess. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Mac'Kie. Do you have further comments? COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm perfectly satisfied for the clerk to issue the RFQ, and I'm perfectly comfortable that if Mr. Dorrill's staff feels that the Board of County Commissioners is not being well served in that process or if there is something we should be worried about, that we'll hear about it. And let's ask them to work together, Commissioner Constantine, but just with the flip side, that we will be the cooperative parties. They will be the leaders, and we will cooperate with them instead of we will lead and ask them to cooperate. And, yes, Commissioner Norris, we cannot direct the clerk to issue an RFQ, but we can request that he do so, and he has agreed to. So I'm comfortable with that process. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I think I am going to withdraw my second. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. We have a motion on the floor. The motion is merely to issue an RFQ. I was going to ask Commissioner Mac'Kie if she would amend that motion for the board to request the clerk to issue that RFQ in cooperation with our purchasing department, but we just lost our second. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, I would like to amend my motion in that fashion at this point. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion. Is there a second? I'll second it to get it on the floor so that we can vote. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I was going to make a substitute motion. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, let's vote on this one. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Well, we'll vote on this one, and then you can substitute it. I'll call the question. All those in favor please say aye. Opposed? Motion fails 2 to 3 with Commissioners Constantine, Hancock, and Norris being in the opposition. Commissioner Norris, you have a substitute you say? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I'd like to make a motion that we cooperate with the clerk's office in reviewing our investment policy, number one, and that assuming that our legal counsel for the board does not have a problem with it, that our purchasing department issue an RFQ with a target date of 60 days on return an RFQ for outside money managers. And that is the motion. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll second that if we can make one amendment, and that is when we get those qualifications back from potential people, that we again work with the clerk's office in the review of those qualifications. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Fine. I'm sorry I omitted that part of the amendment -- I mean the motion as well as that after our -- after our purchasing department develops the RFQ and before it goes out, that the clerk is furnished with copies for his review and comment. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And I'm assuming that also includes this item. I had stated earlier the same type of response from the clerk and his current staff and resources, so we have apples to apples. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: The clerk has offered to provide us with that. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll second the motion. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Would you mind restating the motion for the record, because it's gotten a little unclear? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. First of all, to cooperate and coordinate with the clerk's office to update the investment policy. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Right. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Second, to have our purchasing department develop an RFQ for outside money management of the portfolio, the RFQ to be distributed to the clerk for review and comment before issuance, and there was another portion of it -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I think there was something when the qualifications came back, Commissioner Constantine. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We've taken care of that, but also -- just also have the clerk -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: To have clerk's office share, review, and comment on the return of the RFQs. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: So the clerk's office will review it and comment on the RFQ prior to issuing? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Prior to issuance. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: And the clerk will participate in the review of the qualifications when they come back. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Absolutely. MR. DORRILL: I can take that one step further which is so that you tell me specifically who you want on the review or selection committee, because your purchasing ordinance requires me to name a committee by name. And so I would prefer today as opposed to there being any problems, if you want Mr. Brock, Ms. Hankins, or this gentlemen previously introduced, if you want any of these people on the review committee, I would prefer that you tell me that today so that anyone either you or Mr. Brock want to have on the review committee will be on the review committee. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I don't know how large of a review committee you want, but if we had five or six, you might want to -- MR. DORRILL: We'll typically do five to seven so that there is an odd -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You may just want to leave three slots open or how many slots open from the clerk's office and let him assign those himself to whomever is most qualified from his office. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: That is a good idea. MR. DORRILL: I wanted to be clear that if Mr. Brock wants anybody on the review committee, he can have them. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Why don't we have a committee set up with three slots from the clerk's office of his choosing and three from your agency that you feel might be most appropriate. One suggestion that I might make right now is that we probably want our outside financial advisor involved in this. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: direction. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: not part of the motion? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: would be staff direction. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Are you broadening the motion? I think it is more staff It is staff direction, and it is Yes. The makeup of the committee And does the direction to the county attorney continue to research the statute and the court cases in question and get us a -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Yes. He has been given that direction. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Fine. Commissioner Hac'Kie, discussion? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Before I vote I need to understand why it is important to the three of you. What am I missing? Why is it critical that our purchasing department issue the RFQ, because that is the difference in the two motions? Why is that necessary? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I think if nothing else, perception is that we are comparing the outside sources to the clerk's group. I don't have any trouble that the clerk would put together an RFQ that's appropriate. However, public perception that he is putting together an RFQ to compare to his own setup might be inappropriate. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm afraid that the perception here -- and I don't believe that it is your goal to throw down the gauntlet, but I believe that the perception in this critical question of who prepares the RFQ will be that the county commission is throwing down the gauntlet with the clerk on who has the authority. And I wish that we would not do that. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, let's clarify for the record that, that certainly is not my intention. I don't know about the -- COMHISSIONER NORRIS: That wasn't my intention. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Then I still don't understand the answer. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Commissioner Mac'Kie, would you hire a consultant and ask them to do an RFP in their field of work instead of our county staff doing it? COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: The clerk is our financial staff. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Exactly. If you hire a consultant, would you then ask that consultant to prepare an RFP for a county program? COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: I don't understand the question. I can't see the clerk in that capacity. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm not calling the clerk a consultant -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I'm going to call the question. I think we have restated the motion well enough for us to understand it, so I'm not going to repeat the motion. All those in favor please say aye. All those opposed? Motion passes 3 to 2, Commissioners Mac'Kie and Matthews being in the opposition. Next item. Thank you, Mr. Brock. MR. BROCK: You're welcome. Item #8H2 REVISED FILM OFFICE PLAN - APPROVED CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: And maybe we can get going now. Next item on the agenda is the revised film office plan. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: As you know, we've been pursuing a joint effort with Lee County on their film commission, and RFPDC has been talking about having one here. We organized a meeting between our PDC film office reps; three folks from here; and with representatives from the Lee County Film Commission, Beverly Fox and Tom Kucharski from the EDC up there, both of whom are here today. We had what I think was a very productive meeting, and what began as discussions of sharing certain resources grew into quite a bit of excitement about having one joint office and having virtually everything together. And I think it will put us in a better position to compete with some of the bigger communities that have film offices. It will have one production guide, one promotional video, one location, one 800 number -- a single 800 number and so on. What I want to do just briefly is have some comments from both Mr. Kucharski and from Beverly Fox from Lee County to share some of what they have been doing and also some of the ideas of where we would like to head together on this. And I think John Ayres -- I hope John Ayres has some comments from Collier EDC as well. MR. KUCHARSKI: Good morning, Commissioners. For the record my name is Tom Kucharski. I'm the executive director of the Lee County Economic Development. Commissioner Constantine pretty much covered a majority of what I was going to say. I would kind of like to present the real picture real quick and then have Beverly comment on why this makes a great deal of sense for the film industry in particular. All over the country economic development efforts are going regional. As you may have read, with a heavy heart I am leaving Lee County to become the first president of a regional organization in Pennsylvania. They are about two to three years ahead of where this area is as far as realizing the potential of cooperating on various aspects of economic development and what that means to them as far as clout in both their state capital and Washington. This is an exciting opportunity, the Horizon Council, the Board of County Commissioners, and the county administration strongly behind the suggestion as well as I think over time you will realize that areas of economic development activity -- I would see the next one to consider is probably international trade with the activity going on and especially a very productive discussion between all the EDCs in the region on foreign trade zone and the way we're represented in international trade. But this is a trend that the whole nation is going to go with, Washington and state governments cutting back their assistance to local areas. The local areas are kind of banding together in strength and numbers. As I mentioned, our county is strongly behind any discussions as far as regional cooperation. We have -- I have spent some time with your EDC reps and their strategic planning that they have been going through. We will be moderating the Charlotte County's planning sessions that they are going to be having for economic development later in the year. It is starting to form, and we already are working on projects together. It makes a lot of sense for film in particular. I'll let Beverly discuss those aspects with you. I would be happy to answer any further questions. Thank you. MS. FOX: Hi. For the record, Beverly Fox, Lee County Film Commissioner. I'm glad to be here today. I just wanted to tell you a little bit about the film industry and why this could be part of the advantage for southwest Florida. When the producers of motion pictures and television shows and music videos, et cetera, and New York and L.A. think of Florida, to them it's one big blob called Miami. And some folks know of another community in Florida called Orlando, but the rest of the 40-some-odd film offices in the state of Florida are just a bunch of clutter on a map, that they really don't understand the geography of the state. They don't understand where the other 40 film offices are in relation to Miami or Orlando. It is just like I said, a bunch of clutter out there. What we get -- really take advantage, as I see it, if we do go forward and form a joint film office is, number one, we've got twice the locations to promote to producers when we show them both Lee and Collier County locations. We've got twice the resources, twice the marketing dollars, and we've got it all with one-stop shopping which is very convenient. And one of the really big advantages, that we'll be able to promote this area as the Southwest Florida Film Commission. Now that, of course, has -- and that creates an image with the customers. Southwest Florida is an area that they can identify with. That is a region of the state, and it has a really great advantage in being able to promote us in our marketing that way. So there are no other film commissions in the state that even ventures into the territory affording a joint film commission. We are the first in the state to join forces in order to increase our strength together. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, Ms. Fox, we love being the cutting edge here. And I want to point out that all the work that's gone into this with you and Commissioner Constantine and particularly Mr. Ayres, I think we're getting more bang for the buck than we anticipated initially. I for one am very comfortable with this. So there is -- if you would wish to make a motion, I would be happy to entertain it. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: John, we may have a -- MR. AYRES: This is a wonderful opportunity to address this robust group. For the record, John Ayres. I'm the chairman of the EDC film commission. We did have our meeting some two weeks ago, and I'm not sure when we arrived at our meeting site that we knew exactly how we were going to leave. And to let you know, there were some defensive positions which had to come up in terms of protecting the integrity of our business environment in this county and for Lee County as well. In the beginning of the meeting it appeared that we were going to agree that unless we did everything together, it really didn't make much sense to do anything together. And then one thing led to another, and we came up with a plan that made so much sense that -- Commissioner Constantine, I appreciate the fact that you brought us together because as often happens, you come up with a better plan. And that is exactly what happened. I would recommend and ask that, as we discussed, Commissioners, that for the Collier County side of this wonderful new idea, that the funds perhaps be channeled through the Collier County EDC and that our EDC be the liaison between you, the county commissioners, and the new film commission so that we've got some responsibility, and we've got some ability to judge how things are going and to be in a position to add whatever we can to make sure this effort works the way we all know it can. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hancock? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Real quickly. If that is the case, will we receive an annual or semiannual reporting information from the EDC? In other words -- MR. AYRES: Yes, sir. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- so we see how the money is spent? I just want to make that a part of the -- MR. AYRES: Yeah. We would plan on being responsible to you. And as a preamble to that, I took this meeting and the results of the meeting to the board of the EDC, and with unanimous approval they felt very positive about it. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Thank you. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: A couple of things that we didn't mention. When we talk about one central location or one single location, we're talking about a central place, perhaps in Bonita, so it would make sense for both Lee and Collier. Also I didn't mention, Ms. Fox is -- is it president or chairman? MS. FOX: I'm executive vice president. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- executive vice president of the statewide organization with all the film commissions. So she knows of what she speaks. With that I'll make a motion that we approve this revised film office plan as a joint effort with the Lee County Film Commission in forming the Southwest Florida Commission. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second. I just had one question. Hs. Gansel, is there $57,000 left in category B? MS. GANSEL: Yes, we do. As we kind of talked about last night, we allocate after we have the money, so we've got a year in there. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I mean I've got to ask the question. We were busy giving it away last night. We have a motion and second. Commissioner Hac'Kie. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'd just like to say publicly, Commissioner Constantine, you and I have butted heads on this at the beginning, and I very much appreciate your foresight and vision and leadership on this. Thanks for taking the bull by the horn. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Is this an election year or something? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I don't think so. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, we disagreed, and he was right, and I wanted to thank him for that. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second. Is there further discussion? There being none, I'll call the question. All those in favor please say aye. Opposed? There being none, motion passes 5 to 0. Thank you. Item #10A EXTRA GAIN TIME FOR INMATE NO. 64104 - APPROVED Next item on the agenda is under the Board of County Commissioners. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: suspended or revoked. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: What does that mean? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Motion to approve. Second. I have one question before -- Driving while license was Is that what that means? Yes. But that's what my question was. And he said he'll have them not do that anymore. We actually made that request about six months ago, because he kept giving me abbreviations. But it's driving while license is suspended or revoked. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: So we have a motion. Is there a second? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I seconded it. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I'm not going to support the motion, because I'm not in favor of giving people extra gain time who are already quote, unquote, I guess we could say, thumbing their nose at our laws. So I'm not going to support the motion. Commissioner Hac'Kie. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: My question related to the driving while license is suspended or revoked. Is that as a result of a DUI? Do we know why the license was suspended or revoked? MR. CUYLER: You're not going to have that information. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Could we have that information in the future? DEPUTY CANADY: I can ask that they do that. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Because that would be relevant to me. I'd like to know in the future. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I just feel that we've already been through a court case, and he was told what he needed to do, and he didn't do it. Any further discussion? All those in favor please say aye. Opposed? Motion passed 3 to 2, Commissioners Matthews and Constantine in the opposition. Item #10B RESOLUTION 95-456 REGARDING FUNDING FOR THE KEY MARCO CAT ARTIFACT - ADOPTED Next item on the agenda is 10(B) a discussion regarding funding of the Key Marco cat artifact. Are we going to the board with the exact words of the motion last night? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We hope so. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: This is the budget item that we looked at last night. MR. DORRILL: You have some speakers as well. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. MS. GANSEL: Would you like me to introduce it or just have the Key Marco people make their presentation? How would you -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I think, Ms. Gansel, it would be good if you gave this board a brief overview of what transpired last evening and the difficulty that the TDC was having with moving ahead with this. And since I have already piqued the interest of the board, I believe the motion was that we resolved to ask the BCC to find a way to fund this. MS. GANSEL: Exactly. The Tourist Development Council was very much in favor of supporting this project. However, there were some items that they proposed in their budget which were not consistent with the guidelines, primarily capital improvements to the museum. Also the Marco Island Historical Society is caught in a catch 22. They have some funds that they have raised, but until they can get a commitment of funds available and are assured that they would be able to bring the artifact to Collier County, they have not wanted to do too much in the way of soliciting contributions. So that was another obstacle that we ran into where there wasn't matching funds to be here. One of the suggestions was that we lend the historical society the money to do the capital improvements and that as their contributions come in, that money would be paid back to the county, and it would obviously be prudent to a county assay and possibly would draw other artifacts that could be for tourism in the future also. That was where we left it. Commissioner Matthews is correct in saying the motion just -- we would like to support this project and however the board can come up with this. The attorney's office has looked into the capital aspect of the tourist funds. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just to make sure I understand, the TDC then did not approve any specific funds for this. It said that the board go get it. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: The motion was -- well, yes, the motion was that we -- that the BCC find a way to fund this with TDC money. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No suggestions what that way would be? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: No. Part of our dilemma and, Ms. Ashton, perhaps you can help -- was whether we can lend to the historical society the thirty-two or thirty-three thousand dollars for the capital improvements. She was not certain last night that we could do that. And that was where it kind of said, well, Heidi, you've got 24 hours to see if we can lend it and talk to us tomorrow. MS. ASHTON: I stayed up all night to figure it out. Under the guidelines there is a mechanism if you distribute funds, and this project ends up being profitable, that they reimburse the county a certain percentage of funds. So that would probably be the preferable way to proceed rather than calling it a loan. You can disburse the funds, and then as they collect the admission, you get a percentage back from that. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: This is out of category C. MS. ASHTON: C. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Are there further questions? Why don't we hear something from Mr. Danray from the Collier County Historical Society and -- MR. DORRILL: We have three people who are registered. I don't know the order that -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Let's take the order they came in then. MR. DORRILL: Mr. Lee. This, I believe, would be Ms. Perdichizzi. MS. PERDICHIZZI: For the record, Betsy Perdichizzi, Marco Island Historical Society. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Would you spell your last name for the court reporter? MS. PERDICHIZZI: P-e-r-d-i-c-h-i-z-z-i. Just like it sounds. Just like it sounds in Sicilian. I want to thank the county commissioners for this long drawn-out process, for hearing us on June 20th, for sending us to the TDC council last night. We are overjoyed with their favorable opinion, and then you put us on the agenda today, because you understood the urgency of the request that Mr. Jamro has to get started, and we have to get started raising money and that we're all looking forward to seeing this in November and having a great time. And the film people were talking about regional issues. This is one of them. I think we have reached a cultural landmark -- the county commissioners, the TDC, the residents, that tourism and culture can go hand in hand. Now I think that Art Lee wants to say something about the archeology week, and Mr. Danray wants to speak. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hancock has something. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mrs. Perdichizzi -- MS. PERDICHIZZI: And if you have questions of me -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. I'm going to ask a question, whoever the more appropriate person to answer, please do, and that is -- MS. PERDICHIZZI: The fund raising -- we're all here so COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. The question is, I just want a level of comfort to know that the money can be paid back and to know something of the plans and the process by which that's to be done. That is my question. MS. PERDICHIZZI: All right. I would ask Norm Tengstrom, the fund raising chairman, to answer that. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Please go through the presentation. I just want you to know that's a question of something I would like to hear a little more about. MS. PERDICHIZZI: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Next speaker, Mr. Dorrill. Mr. Lee. MR. DORRILL: Mr. Lee, and then Mr. Danray is the final speaker. MR. LEE: For the record, Arthur Lee, chairman of the Historic Preservation Board of the county. To the bona fides of this organization, the Marco historical group, they are in the process of winding up a major archeological effort there which has given them a chance to demonstrate their organizational abilities. They have succeeded in doing a major piece of work on a completely volunteer basis, volunteer hours. Materials and supplies contributed amount to over a quarter of a million dollars on this. They have carried it off with complete aplomb, very, very efficiently. As a member of the board of the Florida Anthropological Society, I'd like to note that this event will be noted, certainly statewide on a professional basis, that you can expect delegations here from a half dozen affiliated chapters that I know of. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Lee. MR. DORRILL: Mr. Danray. MR. DAURAY: My names is Charles Danray. I'm president of the Collier County Historical Society. Twenty years ago the society realized that it needed a repository for the historic treasures of Collier County to raise a hundred thousand dollars to build a museum. Over the years in cash to that museum has gone an additional $175,000. Additionally, the historical society has allowed the museum to go from a loan position of the artifacts, which were the property of the historical society, to a gift position to the people of Collier County. Those artifacts, which are on display at the museum, what are they worth? I don't know. It could be a million dollars. It could be two million dollars. Here we're talking about one small artifact which stands approximately six and a quarter inches high. And it's valued at two and a half million dollars -- to come here to Collier County. Now when you want to talk about territorial custodianship, believe me, dealing with the Smithsonian Institution is not an easy situation. To extract from the Smithsonian Institution any artifact is unusual. But to extract from the Smithsonian Institution on loan to the people of Florida, to the people of Collier County specifically an artifact which represents the apex of ne of the most sophisticated native American cultures, the Calusa Indians, which is 600 years old, to be on display here is a great compliment to the 15 years of stewardship of Mr. Jamro for the museum, the Collier County Commissioners that have preceded you, to the State of Florida, and to all the people of Collier County. So we're talking about something very important here. If you're talking about getting a return of your dollars in item 3 of the TDC, you're going to get a great return. We're talking about the celebration of the 150th year of statehood for the State of Florida. The apex of that year -- that sesquicentennial year very well may be the returning of what is known as the Key Marco Cat to the State of Florida, to southwest Florida, to Collier County, to your museum. Let's not obfuscate, therefore, and snip hairs in terms of these dollars that you have sitting, gathering dust and/or interest at this time. We're talking a mere $68,500. If a formula has to be reached, it can be reached. The Collier County Historical Society, which I am speaking for, its board of directors, would presently not want to go into debt for approximately half that amount, because they're raising $292,000 right now for the renovation of Palm Cottage, which is our only nationally recognized residential historic site in all of Collier County. And in terms of perspective, Collier County is larger in land area than the State of Rhode Island. We can only do so much. We ask your cooperation. We ask your recognition of the archeological treasure that is Collier County in general, specifically Marco Island. Thank you very much. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Danray, I have a couple of questions. You mentioned raising funds for the Palm Cottage. How much money does the Collier County Historical Society have on hand right now? MR. DAURAY: We have restricted funds of $44,500 which we've raised in the last couple of months for the renovation of Palm Cottage. We have a pledge for matching funds, a category C-type grant from the state for $25,000 from a private foundation. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's matching for -- MR. DAURAY: That's matching at the challenge to the State of Florida. In other words, what we have is a letter from a foundation stating to the State of Florida, we will put up $25,000 cash if you will match it. We have applied to the State of Florida for a $292,000 grant under what is called a special category which has to be approved by the legislature. Your state representative, Mr. Saunders, voted for the appropriations from the State of Florida for that. How much of that we're going to get, I don't know. We're going for broke. We're going for the whole thing. We've never done it before as a society. Other organizations in the county have been successful in that endeavor, specifically the small wood store in Chokoloskee. Cash on hand with the society right now is approximately $9,000. Various restricted CDs for interior account, exterior structure accounts, and so on amount to about $20,000. We're not a rich society, but we offer stewardship and continuity. We've given away to the people of Collier County what we've raised. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The twenty-five thousand in matching funds and the two hundred ninety-two you have applied for, I assume those are both restricted to the use of Palm Cottage, or are those just generic? MR. DAURAY: Absolutely restricted strictly into a structure fund. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I suppose the CDs are locked up for some period of time? MR. DAURAY: They certainly are. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Do you know what that time frame is? MR. DAURAY: We just renewed them for a two-year period three months ago, so it would be twenty-one months. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thanks. MR. DAURAY: Are there any other questions? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Any other questions? Do you still want an answer to your question, Commissioner Hancock, on the fund raising? Mr. Tengstrom would be able to do that. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Only because I received correspondence talking about certain things that you were going to be doing to attempt to raise whatever funds are available and so forth. So I would just like to know what is in the works for fund raising, because I've received letters asking for the board to take a position of loaning money, and I just want to know some of the particulars of that. MR. DAURAY: To simplify this there are three entities. There is the Collier County Museum. There is a Marco Island Chapter of the Collier County Historical Society, and there is the Collier County Historical Society individually and collectively. The fund raising prospects for the cat are centered by those individuals involved with the Marco Island Chapter of the Collier County Historical Society in agreement with -- in concert with possible fund raising at the museum. The Collier County Historical Society as a whole is working diligently to raise money for the renovation needed for Palm Cottage. So with your permission, I'd like to defer to Mr. Norm Tengstrom who is the head of the fund raising for the Marco Island Chapter of the Collier County Historical Society which I think, incidentally, and you will agree, deserves great credit for the credit that they have brought into Collier County in its existence of only one year with already 189 members. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: No question, Charles. I'm just looking for kind of summary, Mr. Tengstrom. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Excuse me, Mr. Dauray, I think we have one final question for you. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I apologize. One more question for you, Charles. You mentioned in your eloquent words that bringing the cat to the State of Florida and, indeed, Collier County could be the apex of the entire sesquicentennial celebration in the State of Florida. And I am wondering if that's the case, why it is a lower priority for expenditure of historical society funds than the Palm Cottage? MR. DAURAY: It really is not. It's just a matter of dollars and timing. Timing is of the essence here. It is not a lower priority. The society, as I saw as whole, primarily is concerned with getting the cat back and to continue the ongoing efforts to bring monies to Palm Cottage. The society, in the particular, especially the Marco Island chapter which incidentally has its own bylaws, its own officers, its own agenda, but is a chapter under the legal entity of the federal tax exempt I.D. number for Palm Cottage, is in particular interested in bringing the cat back. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I assume in a regional effort and in the best interest of the historical society as a whole. While they may be a separate entity, the bigger group is working together on that project. MR. DAURAY: Well, absolutely. We are working in concert. We are great believers in synergy where the whole is greater than the sum of the parts. And that process and that attitude is evident in the success that we've had this year with the society and with the Marco Island chapter. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm not sure that I want to do this, but I'm just kind of throwing out -- on one hand the society has $44,000. And they're saying we don't want to spend that on this particular project, but we will repay the other project. And I'm wondering why rather than repaying the county you wouldn't repay your own coffers, put the money you have up front? MR. DAURAY: We can't use those -- we can't use those funds. Those funds are directed specifically in a fund raising effort for the structure of Palm Cottage. Second -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That answers my question. MR. DAURAY: -- secondly, I think if we can find a formula, a solution to not necessarily repay, but to reimburse both in dollars and culturally to the people of Collier County for the use of these funds, a formula can be reached. We're talking approximately 50/50, in other words, 50 percent cash for the physical necessities, and then another 50 percent of that money might come in during the next year. I can't guarantee it. The Marco Island chapter can't guarantee it. But certainly a small admission charge might be acceptable, a fund raiser by the chapter on Marco Island where those funds would go directly back for the display of the cat and any loss involved therein. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Charles, are these Mr. Tengstrom's points? MR. DAURAY: I hope so. Am I off the hook? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yes. Let's hear what Marco Island has planned for these funds. MR. TENGSTROM: Charles has done a very fine job in explaining the situation. The fund raising that we have been going -- the fund raising has been going on since really -- effectively for about two or two and a half weeks with a flyer that went out in the Marco Island Eagle and in the Naples news, and results are coming in from that slowly. But we are receiving daily, three, four or five contributions, $10, $2,500. We're pushing $5,000 at this time. We have not made an extensive hard-hitting attempt at fund raising, because we wanted to be sure we had the cat. Otherwise, we're faced with a refund problem, and we didn't want to get into that. It would be extremely difficult for us to say if you advance or allocate sixty-six, seventy thousand dollars to this project, that we will be able to repay that entire amount. We don't know that. We would certainly do all we can to comply with it and to fulfill that obligation -- return certainly all the funds we are able to raise. I have very serious doubts that we're going to raise substantial money for admissions. I do not think it's appropriate for us to be charging more than a modest amount in the museum -- probably a dollar -- approximately $2. The logistics alone of raising $50,000 through the museum through the doors of the museum aren't there. I don't think we could get that many people through it. I've been involved with another organization of the same type up on Long Island, the Friends for Long Island's Heritage where, you know, we have over a budget of $2 million a year just in the friends organization. I know it can be done. In the Marco chapter we're in our infancy, and we're feeling our way in many ways. We have tremendous competition for charitable dollars on Marco. It's the greatest fund raising place I have ever seen. There are more benefits going on. There are more fund drives. There are more demands for the dollar than I've certainly experienced on Long Island. I think those of you who are familiar with Marco will appreciate what I am saying. We will do, however, all we can to repay the funds. I certainly don't think we're in the position to sign a loan. I don't think that is the way to do it. But I think that the -- what the benefits that will reflect through Collier County from the exhibition of the cat are great, and they should be supported. Are there any other questions? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Mac'Kie. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm determined to find a way to do this, but I'm feeling as perplexed as apparently the TDC did last night about exactly how. And I'm wondering -- I heard something about that archeological societies will be advertising this. Has anybody projected if, in fact, this will sell hotel beds in Collier County at all? Was that any of the discussion last night at the TDC? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: No. It wasn't part of the discussion last night. MR. TENGSTROH: As towards businesses, it's a historical site. So one of the major factors in tourism in Florida -- and this is borne out by a study that was done by the state in 1988, and I have no reason to think it is not still valid -- but historical sites are a major reason for tourism. How you can convert the cat to those statistics concerning individual hotel room sales, I don't know. But to each of us speaking -- what friends -- for when friends come down, where do they want to go? Over to Everglades City? To the smaller store? To the park to see the big dredge? These are common desires. Frankly, I have to say that I've been here for eight years now. It wasn't until two years ago that I even knew that the Collier County Museum existed. I'm very impressed with what has been done over there. And I think this is certainly going to bring the museum to the forefront -- the attention, certainly, to Collier County residents and the entire state. I think it is an excellent application of TDC funds. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I see that Mr. Danray has some comments on that question as well. Did I -- COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Let me make a comment for you that -- my opinion on this is that while I can't imagine someone flying in from Oregon to see the cat, I can certainly see people making side trips to Collier County, people that have some archeological and historical interest once they know it is available for viewing. I can certainly visualize someone that is vacationing in Orlando or Hiami or some place coming over for a night here to get an opportunity to view our cat. I can certainly see it that way. I can't imagine a great rush of tourists from Germany or some place to come over to see it, but certainly I think Collier County stands to gain a significant number of hotel nights just by virtue of having the cat on display. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I see that too, Commissioner Norris. I share that, and it's not people coming from the east coast or from the middle part of the state and spending the night here. Certainly people changing their itinerary for an hour or two's drive, and if nothing else, our restaurant industry picks up some additional meals. While that doesn't generate TDC money, it certainly feeds the economy. So I share that viewpoint. Are there other discussions? Commissioner Constantine, you had something you wanted to say. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Like all of us -- like others on the board, I want to find a way to make this happen. But it is not a simple matter of what I would like. We as members of the board do have some responsibility here to follow local laws and local ordinances. Mr. Cuyler, I have some concern. The TDC ordinance specifies particularly what money it can be spent for. It also mentions in there -- and I know it is not concrete, but it mentions in there the purpose of funds is for the off season, and this runs from November through Hay; is that right? MR. DAURAY: I'd like to address that if I may. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll give you an opportunity to in a minute, but I have a couple of concerns along the way here, and I'm looking for help from the rest of the board, but we have a responsibility if we're going to give TDC dollars to make sure that what we're giving it to meets the letter of the law. I need from the board members and from Mr. Cuyler doing that -- because right now in my mind I'm not sure we are, but I want to find a way that we are. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Let me ask Mr. Cuyler to comment on that. I believe the law ordinance -- Florida statute says that this is okay. It's the resolution and the guidelines that are the problem. MR. CUYLER: You are dealing -- you usually go through this discussion -- you're dealing with the three strata. One is the state statute that authorizes everything. The second is the ordinance. Under the ordinance the 40 percent is broken down into 25 percent and 15 percent for activities and projects basically. Then below that is your guidelines that are adopted by resolution. And there are a number of things that this would not be with regard to in the resolution. The 50 percent match some capital expenditures and perhaps based on what Charles can tell you, the off-season criteria. You have -- we've taken the position -- I don't know how many times you've done this, if at all, but we have taken the position that it is within your ability, since the guidelines are by resolution, to pass another resolution saying we understand X, Y, and Z are not met, but we think it is important, and we're going to pass another resolution to say that we are going to do it anyway. You would still be in conformance as long as you make a finding that it promotes tourism and that it is a project or activity. You're then in compliance with the ordinance and, of course, under the statute it would be appropriate. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Because we are by your description, we are clearly not looking at a black and white question, yes, we're going to fund this. It does not meet some of the points of that resolution, and we need -- if we're going to do this, we need to go through some of the steps along the way to make this legal and appropriate. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We need to pass a resolution waiving them -- giving them a waiver from certain parts. Commissioner Norris. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: What is the actual request as of this moment? What are -- Ms. Gansel, can you answer that question? What is the request? MS. GANSEL: The budget that I put before you, the budget would be $66,516. At the time that they had submitted the application they had raised $3,484. So really the balance is what they are looking for. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. Now, who does this money go to? MS. GANSEL: This would go to the historical society which would be the contracting agency from my understanding. MR. DAURAY: That is not my understanding. I don't believe that the Collier County Historical Society is prepared to receive nor prepared to borrow these funds. The society would find it preferable if under the accountancy of Collier County it went to the museum to be used directly. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: It would be my preference as well. So -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Can I ask one question, Commissioner Norris? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Sure. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We don't have an application on it, and when we give away TDC funds there is an application process you go through. You would fill out a form. You have to -- apparently we don't have one of those -- if no one in particular is requesting these funds. MS. GANSEL: The application was made through the historical society. There was an application that was reviewed last night by the Tourist Development Council. Since it was the next day, it didn't have an opportunity to -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: But the historical society is not requesting the funds for themselves, Mr. Danray? MR. DAURAY: That is absolutely correct. The application did not come from the Collier County Historical Society per se but, rather, the Marco Island Chapter of the Collier County Historical Society. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Again, you are asking that the money go to the museum. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: That's a critical point, I think MR. DAURAY: The museum -- COHMISSIONER NORRIS: -- much more appropriate for the money to go to -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Excuse me. One person at a time. Commissioner Norris, you had a comment. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Yes, I did. I would like to make a motion that we approve this request, that the money be turned to the museum's authority for expenditures based on the findings that although the request doesn't strictly meet our guidelines that, we, the board, find that it is beneficial to tourism in our area and, additionally, that we get our county attorney to draft us a resolution authorizing this deviation from standard policy. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Cuyler, does that meet the letter of what you need? MR. CUYLER: Yes. We will put in specifically that the 50 percent match and the capital expenditure items would be waived, and it does promote tourism. And a contract would come back on the consent agenda, although I am not sure who to contract with, but we'll figure that out. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We'll work on that part of it. MR. CUYLER: We will consider this is passing of the resolution -- the only thing -- and we'll draft that up after the fact. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: So we're going to ask the legal staff to reserve a resolution number now. MR. CUYLER: Correct. The clerk's office will do that. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion. Is there a second? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second that the board of county commission adopt a resolution granting certain waivers to the Marco Island Historical Society to bring the Key Marco Cat to Collier County. Any further discussions? Commissioner Constantine. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm not going to support the motion, but I want to tell everyone why very clearly. And it is not because I oppose bringing the cat here. I don't have in my head right now clearly an alternative. I would like to work on an alternative way of funding this. But my concern here is we are getting a little loosey-goosey, getting a little sloppy with the process. We have an application from one party asking to give funds, not to them, but to our own museum. We're going against many of the guidelines, and I have a concern that we are opening the floodgates. I don't have any problem with the project and what we are trying to accomplish here. This particular way of doing it I have a problem with. And I worry that we're -- we're not setting a legal precedent, but we are setting some sort of precedent that is going to open the floodgates for people with very good ideas and very good intentions to come in and in a loose manner apply for funds and expect to get funds. And I think it is incumbent upon us to stay fairly tight on the process. So it is not a vote against the project, and -- my wheels are turning right now looking for an alternative, but it may not be necessary, because I think you are going to have three votes anyway. But I just have a problem with us being this loose with the process. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Further comments? Commissioner Hac'Kie. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I have the same exact problem. I think -- I'm beginning to understand, Commissioner Norris, while you continue to say we've got to readdress these criteria. We've got to look at this because, you know, that level has apparently reached saturation here too. I think I'm going to vote for it because the county attorney says that we technically can. But, for heaven's sake, let's readdress this to try to shut down the floodgates that I agree we are probably opening if we don't. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Let me comment. In communications this afternoon I was going to fill you in on the subcommittee formed last night to begin looking at all this. So, Commissioner Hancock, you had -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Just the only other element that gives me a level of comfort outside of what you two have just discussed, and I think you're on the mark, is that the next time someone comes in here, and they have something else that they have secured from the Smithsonian, we'll probably look favorably upon it too. So I separate this by sheer magnitude, and I think that's why this board sits in the manner it does. I don't disagree with you, but that is my sole reason for supporting this. The sheer magnitude of work that has gone into this is so commendable that I can't say no. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Good point. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Any other discussion? We have a motion and a second. I will call the question. All those in favor please say aye. Opposed? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Reluctantly, aye. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Motion passes 4 to 1 with Commissioner Constantine being in the opposition. Before we take a break -- MR. TENGSTROH: Thank you very much. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: You're quite welcome. Thank you. Before we take a break we're at the public comment portion for general topics. Mr. Dotrill, do we have anybody registered? MR. DORRILL: No, ma'am. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I have one comment before you hit the gavel here. Are we still under a state of emergency? Do we need to -- MR. CUYLER: I was going to tell you that we had planned on bringing a resolution back, but the state statute provides that your local state of emergency expires automatically within seven days unless you continue it. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: It expired. MR. CUYLER: We are going to put -- I still haven't finalized the original resolution, so I'm going to put in there that it expires pursuant to state law. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Why don't we adjourn until 10 minutes after the hour which will be about 20 minutes. Adjourn -- I don't mean that. (A short break was held.) Item #12B1 ORDINANCE 95-45 RE PETITION PUD-90-10(1), LARRY H. RAY REPRESENTING NAPLES COHMUNITY HOSPITAL, INC., REQUESTING AN AMENDMENT TO THE NORTH NAPLES MEDICAL PARK HAVING THE EFFECT OF ADDING HOSPITALS AS A PERMITTED USE, AND ADJUSTING THE CURRENT PUD DOCUMENT FOR THE PURPOSE OF UPDATING REFERENCES AND INSTITUTING POLICIES IN EFFECT BY THE CURRENT LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE FOR PROPERTY LOCATED WITHIN THE NORTH NAPLES MEDICAL PARK PUD DISTRICT ON THE NORTH SIDE OF IHMOKALEE ROAD EAST AND CONTIGUOUS TO THE NORTH COLLIER HOSPITAL PROPERTY - ADOPTED WITH CHANGES CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Reconvene the Board of County Commissioners for August the 8th of 1995. Next item on the agenda is under public -- advertised public hearings, item 12(B)(1), petition PUD-90-10(1). Hr. Nino. MR. NINO: Ron Nino, development service staff. Petition PUD-90-10(1) is a petition submitted by the Naples Community Hospital, Inc. Naples Community Hospital, Inc. has purchased the former Naples -- the former North Naples medical park -- office park, which at that time -- which currently permits medical offices. However, it does not permit a general hospital-type facility. It is the position of the Naples Community Hospital, Inc., that they would like the opportunity in expanding their facility on the property immediately contiguous to the north Naples medical clinic -- the opportunity to expand their hospital facilities onto the property to the east. I realize that perhaps it would be of interest to the board to know what the uses are permitted under the house services category, and I apologize for not having submitted those to you in the executive summary. I did take the opportunity to -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Nino, you have to use the microphone. MR. NINO: I took the opportunity to photocopy the health services group. The position of staff was that rather than attempt to enumerate all of the uses that are normally associated with health services, we concluded that it was far easier to simply cite, as is the technique in the Land Development Code, the health services SIC classification, and by doing that we automatically cover the entire span of those types of uses that are included in the medical profession and in the profession of medical services and hospital services. The -- we did -- so that the -- for all practical purposes, the only change to this PUD is the change that adds hospitals to the current list of uses. However, to simplify that process, we eliminated -- we suggested the elimination of the use list that had to do with medical offices and nursing homes and pharmacies, because it is all inclusive in the health service SIC code. We had one concern which the petitioner accepted, and that was that in the process of introducing hospitals to the North Naples Medical Center, we did not want those hospitals if developed to be in close proximity to the residential area which lies immediately to the east of the Cocohatchee River so that the PUD amendment that is before you would limit the location of hospitals to parcels 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9, none of which lie contiguous to the Cocohatchee River and, therefore, in close proximity to residential areas. So the effect of the amendment is to allow general practice medical facilities over all of the parcels but limits hospitals to parcels 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Nino, how far is it from the Cocohatchee River to parcels -- it appears 5 may be the closest -- but 5, 6, 7, 8, or 97 MR. NINO: I'd say parcel 5 is the closest parcel, and that would be about 300 feet. Parcels 8 and 9 would be somewhere in the neighborhood of 600 feet from the Cocohatchee River. Parcels 6 and 7 likewise would be eight to nine hundred feet. Parcel 5 would be the closest, and that would be about 300 feet. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Parcel 5 would be roughly the length of a football field. MR. NINO: In addition to that, as is the practice of staff, we ask that the PUD be updated to the appropriate references that would align it with the references used in the Land Development Code. There was, however, one inadvertent omission in this PUD that came to my attention while preparing for this meeting, and that was a paragraph that limited the heights of buildings on said parcels 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 to 50 feet. As is with this paragraph height is silent, so it is important that this paragraph be reintroduced. MR. CUYLER: Could we make sure that eventually the clerk gets copies of these documents too, please? MR. NINO: So that the strategy -- the strategy that the medical offices closest to the Cocohatchee would have a low profile and that on the inner parcels the height could be a little greater is maintained by this amendment. Certainly the aim is consistent -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Excuse me. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Quickly on that point, because under-building parking is in the PUD, I want to address on parcels 1, 2, 3, and 4, closest the residence in Palm River we have a 30-foot height except to 10 feet under building parking may be allowed. And then there is -- you know, setbacks should be increased 1 foot for every over 30. Are we actually saying that 40 feet is allowed there in a nutshell? MR. NINO: For all practical purposes we're saying that, yes. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. So -- MR. NINO: If they choose to take that option, however. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: If they choose to take that option. But it is available, so we could conceivably within 60 feet of a residential property line, if am reading my scale correctly, or within 75 feet of the residential property line, have a 40-foot structure? MR. NINO: However, that -- I would remind you, Commissioner, that in the single-family area or the estates area, which is the zoning along the Cocohatchee River, that the minimum height for residential structures is 35 feet. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: That's true, but typically they aren't 35 feet. I'm just making sure I understand how the PUD is written. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Hancock, I share your concern. This reminds me of the health park PUD that was put out in the Golden Gate area directly across from the Golden Gate canal from a single-family residence. And we did -- the buildings that were nearest to that canal, I believe, we did limit to 30 feet, and then the others further away and blocked by those buildings were 50 feet. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I commend staff for putting the 50 feet in for the buildings furthest away, because that wasn't addressed. It certainly could have been increased. My personal feeling is that parcels 1 through 4, 30-foot maximum. I don't care about under-building parking or not. If you want to lose a floor, that's their business. But I'm more comfortable at 30 than I am at a potential of 40 feet in that close of proximity to existing residential structures. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Do you want to do the same with parcel 107 COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yes. Parcel 10 would be the same. And I have a little problem with parcel 5 as a hospital parcel because of the proximity. Six, seven, eight and nine, you know, we already have North Collier Hospital very close to this PUD anyway. I don't see this as becoming an emergency room type of hospital but more of an inpatient care-type facility, so I'm not worried about the ambulatory situation and so forth, because North Collier has its emergency room and that will be going on there. I don't think anyone is going to build a competing hospital next to an emergency room. That doesn't make sense. MR. NINO: Same owner. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Exactly. So although there may be an expansion, I'm not worried. But I am a little concerned because of the possibility for intense use under hospital about parcel 5. I guess when we hear from the applicant, I would like to know the amendability of making parcel 5 an office parcel. That would make more sense to me personally. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I also have a question under category 8063 from the SIC code. I'm not sure, considering the proximity to the residential area, that is going to be embraced by the community. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Psychiatric hospitals. MR. NINO: 8063, of course, is limited to the inner parcels. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Five? MR. NINO: Five, six, seven, eight, and nine. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Five is only a hundred yards away? MR. NINO: Yes. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Nine looks like it is probably not a whole lot more than a hundred yards away, so I -- frankly, even so -- even with six, seven, and eight I have a little bit of concern. I'm sure those residents would have a little bit of concern. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: And I think what causes that is a lot of what we hear in relation to some of the isolated incidents of the David Lawrence Center. The question is in-patient treatment for the mentally ill, you know, how that is treated, what restrictions are applied to it. The David Lawrence Center has drawn very specific restrictions. In other words, do we know exactly what's going on there, because they had to get a conditional use. In this case if a detox center as an inpatient were to occur there or something that could potentially or possibly be, I would say, violent patients, you know -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Under this SIC code it is detox centers. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: It's not that I'm opposed to them, it's just that we don't know how they're going to be handled here and how it is going to impact the adjacent neighborhood because, yes, there is a river between them, and I don't think you can get much better security, but I think it's a cause for question and something the applicant I would like for them to address also. MR. NINO: I would remind you that the original -- the current PUD allows substance abuse treatment centers. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: So really that particular element of it is no different than what is currently allowed? MR. NINO: Right. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I think that -- MR. NINO: Let me continue. I would remind you that there is nothing in this application that increases the authorized amount of floor area. It's 150,000 square foot and will remain that. That is about it. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I have one other question under -- MR. NINO: The development standards will all remain the same. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I have one other question under 8093, especially outpatient facilities, birth control clinics. I'm wondering does that mean -- couldn't that potentially mean abortion clinics, and that's on all trends. MR. NINO: Yes, correct. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Aren't those -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I don't know that I want to get into a discussion of limiting the use because of the bomb in Pensacola. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That is not my reason why. I don't know if they are appropriate there. I'm sorry, that's an inappropriate aside. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: We could probably have a good discussion on that after the meeting. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: There is also the question, Commissioner Hancock, you were talking about the detoxification centers, and that is under that same code also, and that would be allowed on all tracts. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, as Mr. Nino said, that is not different than what was or currently is permitted on the site. In other words -- how long has this PUD been in place, Mr. Nino? MR. NINO: About four years, I believe. Let me remind you the current document also permits post hospitalization, extended patient care, and therapy facilities. And what does that mean? There's a lot in the current document that would call for administrative discretion making. We suggest at least -- going to the SIC code get's much more specific. I'm not sure in my mind that the way the current PUD document reads is that we are in fact talking about all of these uses with the exception of hospitals, the three categories of hospitals. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: So, in your opinion, really the only thing we are doing here is adding hospitals to set tracts as proposed in the PUD? MR. NINO: Yes. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: There really isn't any other significant changes to the PUD? MR. NINO: Well, that depends on the discretion exercised by the person making the administrative discretionary decision. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: In other words, in your opinion __ MR. NINO: In my opinion. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. MR. NINO: It depends who that person is. If they are liberal, they want to construe what this -- more generic-type language. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I've listed a couple of things that I am concerned about, as has some of my colleagues, so maybe we want to hear from -- MR. NINO: Certainly, staff would have -- would not have a problem with taking 5 out because of its proximity for hospital facilities, but I don't know what -- Mr. Ray, who represents the hospital, is here and will speak to this issue or Mr. Anderson. I'm sorry, Mr. Ray. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Bruce, you're on the clock. MR. RAY: Let me see what 5 is. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: The one just north of the lake, sir. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I think he represents the petitioner; is that correct? MR. RAY: Yeah. I'm Larry Ray, director of facilities to the construction at Naples Community Hospital. What our intention was was to add hospitals to the usage of the property adjacent to North Collier, which is where we are located, for possible expansion. We asked the staff of the county -- first of all, we asked the staff of the county could we expand the hospital onto that property under the wording that was permitted uses at that time, and the answer was no. So I worked with Ron and his people -- great people to work with -- to get that done. That is all we want to do is have the capability to expand should we -- the flexibility to expand simply if we want to do it. The psychiatric thing was already there, I believe. A lot of this stuff was there. The 30 foot -- what we asked for -- not height differences, that was already in the PUD. So that is sort of where we are. We don't have any plans to do it. We want the flexibility to be able to do it. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I appreciate that. I guess what I want to ask specifically of you, sir, do you have any problem with amending what is proposed to exclude parcel 5 as a hospital parcel and for the 30-foot maximum height of parcels 1, 2, 3, 4, and 107 MR. RAY: Parcel 5 I don't have a problem with. The 30-foot max I need to think about a minute. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: We're just trying to be consistent with what has been done elsewhere in the county in a very similar situation at Golden Gate Health Park which is across, I believe in that case, a 100-foot canal, which is a little wider than the Cocohatchee, is in this area. And I think that was a wise move then by a previous board, and I would like to mimic it. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: While he is conferring, Mr. Cuyler, this whole PUD is up for discussion. I would like to amend the PUD so that we just get something that has been in past doesn't necessarily protect it at this point. It is up for discussion; is that correct? MR. CUYLER: Correct. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm sorry, I missed that. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just because something was in before doesn't mean it's guaranteed. Everything is up for discussion. That's part of the PUD amendment. MR. RAY: We would like to work with you on that, so 30 feet on those outlying parcels would be fine. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Those are the two things that stood out in my mind. With that I am fairly content. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I've got a couple -- I'd feel much more comfortable approving the PUD if we could eliminate 8063 which is the psychiatric hospital. If we could eliminate 8093, which includes alcohol treatment, drug treatment, detox, mental health clinics, potentially abortion clinics, treatment for alcohol and drug addition -- I would like to see that one removed. And I'd also like to see under 8069 -- it says specialty hospitals. I don't have any trouble with any of those except one, and that would be the alcohol rehab hospital. Everything else listed under there, cancer, children's hospital -- oops, I'm sorry, there was one more, drug addiction rehab hospital. MR. RAY: Well, yeah. We'd like to -- you know, we didn't come into the thing to restrict the use. What we're trying to do is expand the use of the hospital. I appreciate your thoughts. I can't -- you know, I'd like to see the hospital added to -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So if you can't do that, you need to know I can't vote in favor of this. MR. RAY: I understand. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Mac'Kie. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And you also need to know probably what your options are, because you may have to withdraw your amendment if you can't get four votes. But I want to tell you my vote is going to be to grant the request which was to add hospitals. I don't think it's necessary and maybe not even appropriate, but it is certainly not necessary on this particular parcel to go in and be taking out uses that were previously approved. So with the concession that Commissioner Hancock was able to get them on the height and on the change of parcel 5, I think we should support the request. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let me just ask Mr. Cuyler one more time. Is it appropriate for us to review everything in this PUD when it's being asked to be amended? MR. CUYLER: We have traditionally taken the position that when the PUD comes in front of you, it is open for discussion. If an applicant wants to withdraw it, they can withdraw it. But as long as it is in front of you, you can take a look at whatever you feel is appropriate. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: But everything included in the PUD is fair game when it's up for an amendment. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And I didn't mean it wasn't legal, and I don't -- I don't mean to imply that it is not a legal thing to do. It's just my personal vote will be that I don't think that's how we should treat petitioners. I don't want to support that. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hancock. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I understand your concern, but I when I see alcohol detox, there are two ways to look at it. You are very familiar with the Willow, which is a very well-run operation, self-contained, no problems. I believe it even backs up to a condominium, Winter Park or something, I mean, right behind it. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And a canal too. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: And a canal. So I think there are cases in which it can be done properly and appropriately. So let's look at the record of that hospital and what they have done there. And what we've seen in the past there is -- I haven't received complaints from residents in the immediate area on ongoing operations or operational problems. So the question is can we -- it is an open book? Yes, you're right. We can pick and choose. No question about it. But I'm not comfortable picking and choosing and eliminating those things that were already approved, that are in an existing PUD, because I think they can be done correctly and properly. And if we look at the current trend in centers that handle detoxification and so forth, it is a higher end. It is not a kind of a seedy use, and it's not really dangerous. It is usually well controlled and secure. I guess I'm a little bit at odds on that element. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: When you say you haven't received any calls from constituents in the area, I suspect if in a year or two from now that a drug addiction rehab facility is proposed and starts to go up there, you might get a phone call or two. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I would guess so. But is there a way in which we can identify some uses in this PUD that would merit an additional layer of review or allow for public input at some time? I know it's something in tradition we haven't been able to do is to approve a PUD with, quote, unquote, conditional uses in them that merit a layer of review at some time. MR. CUYLER: You can condition the uses. But if you are talking about having a condition -- the equivalent of a conditional use hearing for these items, I think you probably you could do that. I think you probably could list them and set them for a subsequent hearing. I'm not sure that in the grand scheme of making things easier or harder that makes anything any easier. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Hancock, if you're comfortable doing that, then I can support the petition. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yes. Mr. Cuyler, can you help me with how that would be worded? I've got two elements of a motion put together barring -- discussion notwithstanding after this, but can you help me as to how that would have to be orchestrated and maybe, Mr. Nino, have we done anything similar. I'm just looking for a way in which that motion needs to be. MR. NINO: No, we haven't. And, of course, that is one of the problems with the application of the SIC code. When you adopted the SIC code, you come up with a whole list of uses that are authorized under that four-digit category, some of which you may not like. I don't think you can pick and choose within a four-digit category. On the other hand, if we went back to the generic days, you also had no guarantee that an administrator wasn't going to interpret the word hospital by itself to allow every and all kinds of hospitals. As a matter of fact, I suggest that would be the outcome. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Let me run this by Mr. Cuyler and see how we go. Just taking 8063 as a for instance, that the PUD could list as permitted uses X, and then under 8063 uses within this category require some form of board approval, require a review by the Board of County Commissioners prior to approval of a site development plan. I'm looking for a way in which that can be worked in. MR. CUYLER: Margorie says we have in the past. I don't recall, but I believe that you can specifically list them as, for example, a conditional use and have a separate hearing on them. You need to set out some basis for that, why they would not be permitted, why they would be conditional. I mean, if your findings would be if that -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Criteria? MR. CUYLER: -- if it needs heightened scrutiny as a result of problems that we've had in the past or as a result of concerns that you may have with regard to security or traffic or whatever it might be, then you can articulate those and have Mr. Nino put them in the PUD. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: The questions really are site-design related, how can it impact the adjacent neighborhoods. And if it is designed properly, then it doesn't, that's that. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I think the answer to Mr. Cuyler's final comment there is simply the potential impact on neighboring residential areas. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Mac'Kie. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Commissioner Hancock, you just made the point. However, if they are designed appropriately, then the criteria for whether or not they're appropriate for this location will have been met. And if our Land Development Code requires them to be designed appropriately, which I trust that it does, or we should look at it, we don't need to have this extra level of review. And all of us up here, good Republicans, don't want to be looked at -- we're layering -- layering reviewing government here where it is unnecessary. The code already exists to review the criteria for whether or not the design is appropriate to protect the neighborhood. I think that we're going much farther then we need to go. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: My concern is I'm not sure the code does. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Let's take a look at the code then. Let's not -- I really hate to see this board taking a step that we haven't taken before where you get a PUD and you have conditional uses in the PUD. We've done this before. Where have we done this before? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Mac'Kie, are you suggesting that we table this matter until we've had an opportunity to review the code then? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I would suggest that we should. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Norris. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: As I understood your comments there, you were saying that if the code allows a certain design and safeguards for the design, that we should go ahead and allow it within the PUD. But I don't think it is the design that we're concerned with. It is the usage and the usage in the interaction and impact on a residential neighborhood potentially. That's really totally separated to me from the design. I feel fairly comfortable. I know we've done similar things in the past when a potential form problem would necessitate or really bring forward the need to have another public hearing before the usage is allowed. I know we have done that in the past. So I feel fairly comfortable with that. And if it never arises, it never arises, but if it does, at least the residents will have an opportunity to come here and give their input and give their opinions on that usage. If you'll close the public hearing, we'll -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, I'd just like to have some comment from the petitioner. Maybe I'm concerned and don't need to be. If this is not a problem for the petitioner, they know better than I. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I'm going to close the public hearing, and we can further discuss this and ask specific questions. But first before I do that, Mr. Dotrill, are there speakers on this issue? MR. DORRILL: No. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: The public hearing is closed. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Madam Chairman, I would like to make a motion to approve -- let's get this right so we don't have to repeat it -- approve petition PUD-90-10(1) with staff recommendations of the following additions: Number one, building heights in parcels 1, 2, 3, 4, and 10 shall be limited to a maximum of 30 feet. Secondly, parcel 5 shall be designated -- shall not allow hospital uses. And lastly, that the petition call out SIC codes categories 8063, 8069, and 8093 as conditional uses within the PUD, and they will have to comply with the Land Development Code standard and procedures for conditional use at such time as those uses are chosen by the petitioner. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll second that. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Let me just ask for one clarification in the motion. The motion was that parcel 5 would not allow hospital usage, but the motion did not specify which parcels would allow, which I think is more important. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Let me clarify that element of the motion. Parcels 6, 7, 8, and 9 will be the only parcels allowing hospital uses. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Thank you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Mac'Kie. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Mr. Cuyler, should we adopt criteria for review in the conditional use process that we're going to subject these particular uses to? MR. CUYLER: As the motion set out, you would go through the normal conditional usage procedure, and it has criteria. And those are not as extensive as -- there is other criteria, and there are factors that you look at as part of it, but it does have a public hearing process. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Then I would like to hear a response from the petitioner. MR. RAY: In what respect? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Are you okay with the motion? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Do you understand what is happening was my first question. MR. RAY: That would be a good question. As I look down at 8069, as I understand it now, I came before you wanting to be able to expand on some parcels of the hospital. And now I'm saying that if I want to build a children's hospital on that parcel, I would have to come back before you on a conditional use situation. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And your option would be to say never mind; I'll go away and keep it the way it was. MR. RAY: I'll go away and -- don't get me wrong. If I go away the way I read it -- if I go away, I can put a psychiatric hospital up there tomorrow. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: You can't put a hospital. MR. RAY: No, I understand, which is what I would like to have done -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: What we're saying, and Commissioner Mac'Kie is trying to clarify it for you, and I appreciate it, is that, yes, right now you can build that alcohol rehab hospital. MR. RAY: Right. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: You cannot build a hospital per se. MR. RAY: That's why I put the petition there. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. So what we are saying is, yes, we don't have a problem with the hospital in certain parcels. However, when we look at things like alcohol rehab -- you know, if you come up here and ask for a children's hospital on conditional use, do you really think we're -- MR. RAY: I don't. I think I would get it. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: So we're just asking for an additional level of review on those particular items. MR. RAY: I understand. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Is it only because there are a couple -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Because of the way they are mixed in. MR. RAY: I understand. Fine. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Any other comments? I'll call the question. All those in favor of the motion please say aye. Opposed? There being none, motion passes 5 to 0. Thank you, Mr. Nino. Item #12C1 DEVELOPHENT ORDER 95-4/RESOLUTION 95-457 RE PETITION DOA-95-1, ALAN D. REYNOLDS, AICP OF WILSON, MILLER, BARTON & PEEK, INC., REPRESENTING TRAVILLA REALTY ASSOCIATES FOR AN AMENDMENT TO DEVELOPMENT ORDER 90-1, AS AMENDED, FOR THE REGENCY VILLAGE OF NAPLES DEVELOPMENT OF REGIONAL IMPACT FOR THE PURPOSE OF TEXTENDING THE DATE BY WHICH DEVELOPMENT WAS TO BE INITIATED, EXEMPTION FROM DOWN ZONING, AND REQUIREMENT TO BEGIN DEVELOPMENT TWO YEARS OF RECEIPT OF APPROVAL OF A FINAL SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN OR PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION PLAT FOR PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF IHMOKALEE ROAD CONTIGUOUS TO THE WEST SIDE OF INTERSTATE HIGHWAY 75 - ADOPTED Next item on the agenda is 12(C)(1), petition DOA-95-1. MR. NINO: Ron Nino for the record of your development services staff. The Regency Village DRI is requesting that their development order be extended by five years less a day. Regency Village is located on the northwest quadrant of 1-75 and Immokalee Road. The state statute provides for the extension of development orders by five years less a day and usually presumes those to be an insubstantial change. This petition, if approved, would extend the date of initial construction -- substantial initial construction from October 23, 1995, to October 22 of the year 2000. It would delete the requirements in the development order which requires the owner of this property within two years of approval to final to commence construction within two years of a final approval of a final site development plan or preliminary subdivision plat; and, three, it advances the date from which the project is exempt from down-zoning from October 23, 1997, to October 22 in the year 2005. This petition, if it were to come to you before -- come to you today as a new petition, would be deemed consistent of the future language element of the growth management plan. It is a mere image of the activity center, and the density on the residential part is less -- substantially less than the density that is otherwise authorized by the density rating system. The RPC and DCA have both reviewed this petition and have indicated that they have no interest in attending a public hearing which is tantamount to a statement on their part because it's of an insubstantial nature. Staff recommends approval of the modification. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hancock. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: As I understand it, the commercial portion of this property as proposed is consistent with the activity center boundaries? MR. NINO: Yes. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: The balance or the total -- or the density for the property at four units an acre is below because of proximity to the activity center what could be requested which would be seven or eight? MR. NINO: Correct. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Constantine. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: My understanding is that during the Clark administration there were some discussions with the petitioner -- not on this particular item or particular amendment -- but, Mr. Reynolds, you may need to help me here too. In reference to the name, the residents of Regent Park are petrified at the confusion that may ensue if Regency Village appears essentially across the street. I had been told at the time that our staff had some discussions going on with your client in regards to name. I don't know what transpired with that. MR. NINO: No, I believe, Commissioner, that that scenario arose over the naming of the theaters in Pine Air Lakes (Phonetic) that was going to be Regency -- Regent Village or something. And we received calls from residents -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: That would get confusing. MR. NINO: -- that said that would be a problem. I believe it was the theater complex, but Mr. Reynolds might -- could correct me. I don't know if it also applied to Regency Village -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I didn't anticipate this one coming up -- MR. NINO: -- with respect to the theater complex in the Pine Air Lakes development. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's just of a general concern. They're afraid people will get confused, and UPS won't deliver. I don't know. But there is some concern. There is quite a bit actually -- quite a bit of concern from those homeowners. MR. REYNOLDS: Alan Reynolds, Wilson, Miller, Barton, and Peek representing the petitioner. This is the first that I've ever heard that conversation. I wasn't aware that there was a concern that had been expressed. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Would your client be open to sitting down for discussions on that is all I'll ask? I won't require anything but sitting down in discussions on that with those homeowners to try to clear up any concerns they have. MR. REYNOLDS: Sure. I'd be happy to do that. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Any other questions of the petitioner or staff? Are there any assigned to speak? MR. DORRILL: There are no speakers. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I'll close the public hearing. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Motion to approve. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and second to approve petition DOA-95-1. If there is no further discussion, all those in favor please say aye. Opposed? There being none, motion passes 5 to 0. MR. REYNOLDS: Thank you very much. Item #12C2 RESOLUTION 95-458 RE PETITION AV 95-009 VACATING A 25 FOOT RIGHT-OF-WAY KNOWN AS EARL STREET AS SHOWN ON THE PLAT OF NAPLES GROVES AND TRUCK CO.'S LITTLE FARM NO. 2 - ADOPTED CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. Thank you, Hr. Nino. Next item on the agenda is -- if we stay diligent at this, we can finish by one o'clock -- petition AV 95-009. Mr. Archibald. MR. ARCHIBALD: Board members, this is a public hearing to consider vacating petition 95-009 to vacate the westerly 25 feet of lots 21 and 22 in the plat of Naples Grove and Truck Company Little Farm Number 2. This particular roadway known as Earl Street in an adjoining plat is really the extension of Shadowlawn Drive north of Rock Creek. The corresponding 25 feet of the east side of the existing roadway was previously vacated, and now the Rock Creek campground owners are requesting vacation of the remaining 25 feet. The appropriate letters of no objection have been received. The one condition of note is that in regards to giving up county right-of-way, the owners of the campground have gone ahead and made a dedication of 30 feet along a portion of North Road. So the staff recommends approval of the resolution that's a part of the agenda's recommendation. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. Are there questions for staff? Commissioner Norris. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: No. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: No. Oh, I think we have speakers, don't we? MR. DORRILL: No, ma'am. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I thought I saw someone give you a slip. If there are no questions, I'll close the public hearing. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll make a motion that, as much as I hate to lose a street named after my dad, that we go ahead and follow staff's recommendation and vacate Earl Street. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'll second. But I believe that if it had been named after your dad, it would have been Steady Earl Street. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: There you go. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: He hits the golf ball straight every time; that's why. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Now I know who I should get to teach me golf. We have a motion and a second. Is there further discussion on the motion? All those in favor please say aye. Opposed? There being none, motion passes 5 to 0. Thank you, Mr. Archibald. Item #12C3 RESOLUTION 95-459 RETURNING ALL HONIES THROUGH TAX CREDIT IF POSSIBLE FOR THE SURPLUS MONIES COLLECTED WITHIN SEWER AREA "B" SOUTH HALF MUNICIPAL SERVICE TAXING DISTRICT WITH EFFECTIVE DATE OF OF 8/8/95 - ADOPTED Next item on the agenda is a resolution to determine the disposition of surplus monies in sewer area B. MR. CUYLER: Madam Chair, before Mr. Weigel starts, in addition to that there is something we do probably once every 15 years. It is that unusual that we would run into this situation. The executive summary is self-explanatory, but I would like Mr. Weigel to just hit some high points before we get to the public comment. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Weigel. MR. WEIGEL: David Weigel, assistant county attorney. We're concerned today with a board discussion in determination for the disposition of surplus monies that exist for a particular HSTD identified as sewer area B south half. Historically this came into being in 1979 by ordinance in the early 1980s. A tax levy was assessed within the district -- the taxing district, and monies were collected. Monies were expended. Ultimately more monies were collected than expended in part because of the east and south sewer projects which came on line and took over some of the functions and needs of this particular district. The money has accumulated interest throughout the years after its collection. Again, we're dealing with approximately four or five collection years. As part of the background there is potential that the property owners that paid taxes during the initial years of assessment are different then the property owners that paid taxes during the latter years of the assessment as well as the intervening years where property may have changed hands. The executive summary itself provides five potential alternatives or directions that the board may wish to take or require upon for the disposition of the funds as well as in any other mix or determination that the board may make. If the board should determine today to take a specific action, the staff recommendation is that we -- that the staff would prepare a resolution, saving a resolution number with this agenda item to place in resolution form the direction of the staff. And, of course, the staff would be working with the tax collector or any other constitutional officer or department to effectuate the determination of the board. You may have some questions. I think there are some public speakers too. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hancock. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Weigel and some of my colleagues may have received some calls on this, and one person suggested something that makes sense to me, and it is not particularly on the list. I want to ask you about it from a standpoint of if it's legal. Most people that paid this assessment, when they sold their home, if they sold it, that cost went basically with the home on a lot of these. It was built into the sale price I would hope. So the suggestion I received, more than one form, was to refund it to the current homeowners, but to do it through methods of tax roll credits instead of having to cut checks, because in some cases the amount of the refund may be rather minute. Would that be a legal option if this board desires to do that? MR. WEIGEL: The answer is yes. That is an option that the board can entertain. County staff has spoken with the tax collector's office in regard to that, and it appears that it could be done. One question was raised is there a potential that the credit -- and that's perhaps a misnomer -- but the correction that would be made to a future tax bill to reduce that tax bill by the amount that would otherwise be refunded, there is the potential that certain parcels -- and there have been splits that have occurred in subdivisions since that time -- might be subject to actually having a tax bill of less than what the "credit" or amount to be accounted for in a refund may be. I do not know the answer right now as to whether that can be carried over to a future year. We are dealing with approximately 8,300 parcels present day. Of course, each one has an individual owner of record, although actually there are many owners that own many parcels within the area. But that is a very viable option and could be done. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Thank you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Constantine. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We have discussed this both in this forum and with -- as you said you've had phone calls. I have discussed it with a number of people for awhile. Quickly, going through a process of elimination to transfer the monies to a county general fund I think would be completely inappropriate, and I assume the rest of the board thinks that. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Agreed. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'd like to see us pay all the surplus monies to the current property owner of record. I think that makes sense in that as Commissioner Hancock said, when you sell or buy a property, you take the liabilities or benefits that go with that property when you take possession. So I would like to see us not try to track down the original person but go with the current owner. And I think if we can do it in the credit format as you have outlined or correction format that you've outlined, that would be the best and most viable way to go. MR. WEIGEL: I would suggest if we run into a procedural difficulty in doing that -- and, incidentally, the amounts we're talking about are approximately $65 per parcel if you just divide the parcels into the principal and interest that we have, leaving just a small amount from that for some administrative costs of whomever may do this. You might consider as an alternative the printing and the distribution of checks to the property owners of record. If it cannot -- ultimately cannot be done within the present -- at the future tax roll that will be coming out for these parcels with Mr. Carlton -- MR. CUYLER: I think what we will try to do -- what you want us to do in terms of not cutting checks. As a matter of fact, I think maybe even we'll come back to you if we can't do that, but that is the way we will try to shoot for. MR. WEIGEL: And we would be doing -- dealing with the property owners as of a date certain. So we would appreciate ultimately that you could tell us a date certain so that we can work with the property appraiser and the tax collector for the owners of record of that particular date certain. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: It would seem to me that if we go with this -- I don't know credit, deduction, refund, whatever it is that our legal staff determines what to call it, that rather than issuing -- what is it, 8,000 checks? MR. WEIGEL: That's right. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We would even if we can't carry it over, that reduction would be down to maybe several hundred. MR. WEIGEL: Absolutely. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: So the cost of issuing checks alone is going to deplete the usefulness of whatever money is refunded. MR. CUYLER: And then there may be some parcels for which you cannot do it this way. If they have a homestead exemption that exceeds what their taxes are, there may be some checks necessary but at least we'll cut that down to a small percentage. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: To a very small percentage. I don't think I've heard too much discussion on this board about refunding the accumulated interest. Is that part of our discussion or are we only going to refund the amounts paid? MR. CUYLER: You may want to hear from your public speaker at this point and let them give you -- or let Mr. Hall give his input. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I think we might eliminate public speakers or create more if we make a statement as to whether we are going to include the accumulated interest in the rebated money. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The interest is in the account? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: account. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: returning the interest. Yes, the interest is in the I can't imagine why we would not. On the surface I'm in favor of I see no reason for us to keep it. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The only question I would have is -- and I agree -- but the only question that I would have is I assume we're going to notify these folks that they are getting some sort of -- from what source will we be funding that notification? MR. CUYLER: I'm not sure if we are going to give them notice unless we can work it out somehow as part of the credit that we are talking about. Just so you'll know, the amount of the interest is about half. MR. WEIGEL: It's approximately a half. There's about $320,000 in principal. But over the years with compounding we've got over $270,000 in interest. MR. CUYLER: We will try to let them know some way what is happening just as we'll know the issue has gone away, and they'll know it's gone away. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Preferably a line item on the tax bill explaining the credit. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah, if we're not going to have to tell them how much of it is interest for income tax purposes and that may be another thing that we have to investigate, because 1099-INTs are due for anything over $10. MR. WEIGEL: Thank you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I complicated it. I'm sorry. Mr. Dorrill, you have a speaker? MR. DORRILL: Yes, ma'am. One speaker, Mr. Harold Hall. MR. HALL: For the record, Harold Hall, a property owner in East Naples and in the subject MSTD. First, let me express appreciation to this commission. This is -- actually I'm not trying to be critical. This is the first commission that has taken some very positive steps to address this and spent considerable time trying to resolve it. Thank you. And also the staff. I've been deeply involved in this for 12 years, and I'd like to say that especially in the last couple of -- well, since 1987 I've received excellent help from all of the staff, utilities, attorneys' office, clerk's office. And I'd like to say this for the county attorneys' office -- I know that Mr. Cuyler says he wants to get this out of his office. I know he does. It is sort of unfair. It is sort of unfair to the county attorney's office that you let something drag on this long, and it gets more and more complicated, and then expect them to straighten it out. So I can understand his frustration. Now there are reasons that it has drug out this long; I realize that. I'm not going to take exception to the executive summary or what was presented here. I have some questions on it, but we are where we are today, and it seems to me that now is the time to try to put this to rest. And my recommendation is, one, you return the full amount of money -- the interest was earned by the fund not by the individual I hope. Therefore, whatever that money is, I think it could easily be explained away that that's not interest income to the individual -- return the full amount of money. There is no completely fair way of doing this. I think that the most desirable of all the unfair ways is to take the total amount of the money and just divide it evenly among the eighty-two, eighty-three hundred parcels, try to -- as has been discussed and Mr. Hancock mentioned -- try to work out a way where this can be a credit to that folio number, and that credit will stay with it this year, next year, and the next year. If the taxes are -- if it would cover taxes for three years, fine. It takes three years to use up that credit. If that can't be done, write a check. Now we're talking about doing this electronically. We've got the name. We've got the address. This is on this. The dollar amount would be easily calculated, and it would not be the expensive process of check writing such as we have for vendor checks where you have to match up a purchase order and a receipt and a report. That's expensive. This could be handled almost entirely electronically. I think that is a way to go to go ahead and resolve it once and for all and, hopefully -- hopefully you folks will have straightened out something that was created 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 years ago. I don't even want to get into that. My recommendation -- by the way if John Norris had been a commissioner for us back then, this wouldn't have happened. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Is this an election year? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: It is an election year. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: My, gosh, it must be. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Thanks, Uncle Harold. MR. HALL: In summary, I would recommend that you go with what has been discussed from the attorneys' office and what Mr. Hancock discussed. Direct and prepare a resolution to this effect to direct the staff to find a way -- I mean to work with the tax collector, property appraiser to work towards a credit against each of those 80-some-hundred folio numbers. If that can't be done, write a check. Get it done. Get it over with. Thank you very much. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Hall. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: The big day is finally here, Harold. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Dorrill, is that the only speaker we had on this item? MR. HALL: By the way, there are some other speakers that wanted to be here but was thinking it was going to be in the afternoon. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah. MR. HALL: We do have some -- at least a few other people here, but I don't think they registered to speak. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I'm going to close the public hearing. Is there a motion? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I'll make a motion. Madam Chairman, I'd make a motion that we direct staff to return all funds in this account to the existing property owners through a tax credit arrangement if possible, writing checks only to the ones where it is impractical to give them a tax credit. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second. Mr. Cuyler. MR. CUYLER: We will use today's date as the date of property ownership with regard to who the refunds go to. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: This is like an ex-dividend date -- item of record? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: One question. MR. CUYLER: I guess. Now wait a second. I'm not even sure that is correct. We will use -- let's first of all save a resolution number. I think why don't you leave us the flexibility to figure out how best to do that since we're dealing with taxes. It's going to be based wholly on numbers on the properties so -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: You need to coordinate it with -- so when the tax rolls go out, we're not giving credit to someone prior to the tax roll being received by the current property owner of record. I would like to leave that flexible. MR. CUYLER: Yeah, we'll make sure that works. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. So we have a motion. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And a second. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: There was a second. Further discussion? All those in favor please say aye. Opposed? Motion passes 5 to 0. Hr. Cuyler, you will take care of all of the details on MR. CUYLER: Yes, ma'am. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. Item #13A1 RESOLUTION 95-460 RE PETITION PR-95-1, DONALD A PICKWORTH REPRESENTING THE GOLDEN GATE INN AND COUNTRY CLUB FOR A PETITION PLACING A CERTAIN NUMBER OF REQUIRED OFF-STREET PARKING SPACES IN RESERVE - ADOPTED Next item on the agenda is 13 A(1) petition PR95-1, the Golden Gate Inn and County Club and their parking. We've heard this before, I believe. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let's find out how much of a presentation Mr. Nino or Mr. Pickworth have, but we went through this once before, and we had raised some particular questions, and I've worked with Mr. Pickworth some and seemed to work out the answers to those questions in my mind. So I don't know if the others -- I was the one that had asked that we slow it down and work those out in the first place. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I would just like to see what resolution we have come to. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: What the resolution is. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: In other words, summary presentation. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: We remember the overall picture of it. I'd just like to see what has changed in the interim. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Nino. MR. NINO: The bottom line is that the petitioner is 80 spaces short of the agreement that they entered into -- the county board of commissioners in 1988, relative to the physical availability of parking spaces. They have asked that these be placed into a reserve status which is authorized by the land development provisions of the Land Development Code. You need to satisfy yourself that, in fact, the way this property operates, the current amount of parking meets the market demands that are made of the subject property and that no harm is done to the public health, welfare, and safety by allowing them to set aside lands that would accommodate 80 spaces in the future if you so decided at any point in time that you want that reserve parking space physically developed. I hope the executive summary answered some of the questions. Our research showed that, in fact, there was no additional building space created. We have no reason to challenge the 294 spaces as the requirement of the Land Development Code at that point in time. That's basically the situation that is before you, whether or not this property has sufficient parking spaces, that the otherwise required 80 spaces by code are apparently not necessary. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hancock. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: A couple of quick questions. One thing I'd asked for is a comparison of -- if it were under today's standards -- of existing code standards, how deficient are they? Do we have that number? MR. NINO: Yes. It is in the executive summary. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Understandably there were several numbers in here. MR. NINO: Three hundred nine spaces versus two hundred ninety-four. So if you decide to go with the current requirement, their deficiency would be 95 instead of 80. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. That was my first question. Second question is the parking standards that were in place at the time of development. In your opinion, were they less stringent than what is currently in the LDC? MR. NINO: There are 294 versus 309. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: So you're saying the 294 you feel was correct at the time of development? MR. NINO: Yes. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Third question. The tennis courts that cover parking spaces, are credits being issued for those spaces as current or available parking spaces? MR. NINO: No. We've -- we're saying there's 215 spaces available exclusive of the tennis courts, the dumpster. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: So if you walk out there today, there's 215 spaces right now. MR. NINO: Right. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: They need 80 more to meet what was the requirement then. MR. NINO: Correct. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: What's the difference then than the last time we saw this and declined to go along with it? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I think the thing that I remember at the end of the discussion last time was whether a recent permit had been issued to add onto either the hotel or the dining facility or something and by the issuance of that permit to add additional square footage did not then not come under the current LDC. I thought that was where we were the last time. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: In addition -- MR. NINO: You wanted more information. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah. We were being asked to accept a number of 294 that I don't think staff had actually had the time or thought -- went back and verified that was the requirement at that time. So it was just a shoring up of information that we were given is my recollection. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's my recollection as well. Just a comment in the for-what-it's-worth category. I go to the Quality Inn for various reasons probably four times a month either for Chamber of Commerce meetings, which are held there, or any number of things. I am there anytime a day, sometimes during the day, sometimes at night after you would assume most people who are checking into a hotel have checked in. In eight years I have never had a problem finding a parking space. I think if we're looking for substance over form here, the simple question is, is there enough parking or isn't there. And there is more than adequate parking here. They have a whole pile of vacant places in their lot even when the hotel is full, and, God bless Kevin Durkin (phonetic), he keeps that hotel full pretty frequently. So I think in a -- if we're looking at what is realistic here, do they need more space or don't they. The simple answer is no. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Dotrill, are there public speakers? MR. DORRILL: No, ma'am. MR. PICKWORTH: If I could make one other observation. You know, if push came to shove, that tennis court has large doorways to it. In fact, part of that tennis court could be used if push came to shove. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That would be the valet parking only. MR. PICKWORTH: The court was actually -- the posts for the fences were actually put in like insets. It can actually be lifted up and taken right down. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I used to play tennis on four tennis courts that were parking facilities for a banquet hall, and it had the parking stripes on it even. MR. PICKWORTH: This isn't Wimbledon that's for sure. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: There are no public speakers, Mr. Dotrill? I'll close the public hearing. Is there a motion or additional comments? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Motion to approve the item. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: There is a motion and a second to approve the item. Is there further discussion? All those in favor please say aye. Opposed? Motion passes 5 to 0. Thank you, Mr. Pickworth and Mr. Nino. Item #13A2 RESOLUTION 95-461 RE PETITION V-95-8, WILLIAM COE REPRESENTING REFEK PEKSEN REQUESTING A 14 FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE REQUIRED FRONT YARD OF 30 FEET TO 16 FEET FOR GAS PUMP ISLANDS AND A 12 FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE REQUIRED CANOPY SETBACK OF 20 FEET TO 8 FEET AS ESTABLISHED FOR AUTOMOBILE SERVICE STATIONS FOR AN EXISTING GAS STATION ON U.S. HIGHWAY 41, APPROXIMATELY 12 MILES ESAT OF C.R. 951 AT THE CORNER OF U.S. 41 AND C.R.92 - ADOPTED Petition V-95-8, Refek Peksen requesting a 14-foot variance. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Good afternoon, Chahram Badamtchian from the planning staff. This variance is for a gas station built in the '20s. In the '50s they changed the use in the gas station to a weigh station. Over the years the state acquired a right-of-way causing the nonconformance. Right now one of the gas pumps is located 8 inches from the right-of-way -- 8 inches from the right-of-way. The petitioner is requesting this variance in order to remove that island and build it 16 feet from the right-of-way. Today's setbacks are 30 feet. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: So they're asking permission to take it 8 inches from the right-of-way and move it 16 feet further from the right-of-way? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Correct. Unfortunately, we don't have any other mechanisms in what the variance in question can do that. The planning commission heard this petition and recommended approval. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Any questions? Public speakers, Mr. Dotrill? MR. DORRILL: No, ma'am. I have no more public speakers today. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I'll close the public hearing. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Motion to approve. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Constantine -- Commissioner Constantine. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What was the vote of the planning commission? Do you know what the vote was at the planning commission? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: 7 to 0, I believe it was. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Okay. Thank you very much. I'll second the motion. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second to approve petition V-95-8. If there's no further discussion, all those in favor please say aye. Opposed? Motion passes 5 to 0. Item #13A3 RESOLUTION 95-462 RE PETITION V-95-10, Q. GRADY HINOR 7 ASSOCIATES, P.A., REPRESENTING VICTORIA PARK DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, REQUESTING A 23.28 FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE REQUIRED 30 FOOT FRONT YARD SETBACK TO 6.72 AND A 5.81 FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE REQUIRES 30 FOOT FRONT YARD SETBACK TO 24.19 FEET FOR CARPORTS FOR PROPERTY LOCATED ON AIRPORT ROAD APPROXIMATELY .75 MILES SOUTH OF IHMOKALEE ROAD - ADOPTED Thank you. Next item is petition V-95-10, another variance. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: In the nature of variances and so forth of a public judicial nature, I just wanted the record to state that I have had one discussion with the petitioner on this item in my district that wanted to talk to me about it, showed me an exhibit of what it was. But I will make my decision based on the information presented today. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. Is there anyone else who has had communication? I presume not. We'll continue. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: V-95-10. This variance is for carports for a new development under construction. They are trying to provide 72 carports for 72 units which are under construction; 36 of those require a variance. They are requesting a 5.81 foot variance from the required 30 feet. The carports are going to be 5.8 feet from the right-of-way, however, they are going to be around 30 feet from the edge of the pavement. This is a minor local street that -- length street and -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Are there any letters of objection? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: I received one letter of objection from someone saying that they are opposed to any variance, any deviation from what the code is. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Do they live in the building or in the neighborhood? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: In the subdivision, behind it. The planning commission reviewed this variance and by a vote of 7 to 0 recommended approval. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Questions of staff? There are no public speakers. I'll close the public hearing. Discussion? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Madam Chair, in light -- I have actually lived in developments where we had carports all over the place, and they were closer than 30 feet to the road. But with the landscaping that is shown here -- Mr. Anderson, can we assume that the landscaping shown in this exhibit will become part of the record and that will be adhered to so that we're going to have it exactly like that? (Indicating) MR. ANDERSON: Yes. It is one of the stipulations that we agreed to at the planning commission was to double the amount of landscaping required around the carports. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: With that being the case, I'm going to move approval of petition V-95-10. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll second that. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second. All in favor please say aye. Opposed? There being none, motion passes 5 to 0. Item #14A TDC UPDATE - PRESENTED Next item. That's it. The next one is continued. That concludes our agenda for today. We are at communications -- Board of County Commission communications. Commissioner Norris? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Nothing today. Commissioner Hancock. Nothing. Commissioner MAc'Kie. No, mawam. Commissioner Constantine. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No, nothing. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: You hesitated. I just wanted to let the board know that the TDC did meet last night as we already know. We did form a subcommittee of the five members, and they will be addressing the list of concerns that the county commission discussed at the last workshop and whatever concerns they also may have regarding category C funding. And we're also going to look at the frequency of the TDC meetings whether quarterly is ample, because our meetings are getting quite long and whether quarterly is sufficient or whether we should look at bimonthly or even monthly. I believe that's all I have. Item #14B GOLDEN GATE COMMUNITY CENTER OPENING DISCUSSED Mr. Dotrill, we have to discuss August 22nd. MR. DORRILL: A couple of quick things. For those of you who were not there last night, we did have an outstanding opening of the Golden Gate Community Center. The shot was unbelievable. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It was three points. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: A three-pointer. How long did you practice? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: 30 years. MR. DORRILL: It will go down similar to the catch between Dallas and -- (Laughter) I did want to thank Commissioner Constantine in particular. He had some very kind words to say about Tom Donegan, who is one of those special, unique people that work for you, and who at the age of 74 still loves to come to work more than any employee that you have. And, Mr. Constantine, I wanted to thank you for that. Item #14C PUBLIC WORKS ADMINISTRATOR UPDATE - PRESENTED A couple of other quick things. The progress report on public works administrator. I'm down to two finalists and I wanted to report that to you first as opposed to Carl Loveday who bugs me about that every Friday. We have one internal candidate in Tom Conrecode who has expressed interest and whose qualifications are equal to the task. It is always good to have talented in-house people who have opportunities that present themselves like this. We have another external candidate from the private sector who is a managing principal of a division of one of the largest private civil engineering firms in the state, but who happens to also be a former county public works director. And he has asked that his name for the moment be confidential. We have asked that individual for some supplemental information. And I would like to be able to report and nominate someone very quickly one way or the other here. If you have any questions, I'd be happy to talk to you privately about those and let you know. But we're coming down the home stretch on that. We're having some minor, but typically seasonal flooding problems in northeast Golden Gate Estates. We've been working some overtime hours out there on Friday and Saturday. Nothing serious, but in particular, the area from Golden Gate Boulevard and its intersection with Desoto north up to about 12th Street Northeast. I've discussed that with the chairman. It's in her district, but I just thought I'd let you know about that before, you know, you see it in the paper. You'll also see evidence of that in our operations report. Item #14D BCC WORKSHOP MEETING - REGULAR MEETING TO BE HELD ON AUGUST 22, 1995, IN THE BOARDROOM WITH ONE PUBLIC HEARING RE NAPLES PARK DRAINAGE AND THEN A WORKSHOP WILL FOLLOW SAID MEETING On August 22nd, the board had never voted not to have a meeting on that particular day. It was going to be a workshop in lieu of your normal fifth Tuesday workshop, which would have occurred on the 29th, but you've already said you weren't working on that date. I think we still need to accommodate that. We have advertised that previously to be the public hearing on the Victoria Park -- Naples Park drainage assessment districts. And if you don't mind, I'd like to keep that one regular item, because first-class notifications went to about 3,000 residents, and we hate to reschedule that and notify them. And then the balance of your morning session could be for whatever workshop topic that you would prefer. You did not identify a topic at your last meeting and so I'd -- if you are prepared to give me some suggestions here today, fine. If not, I'd like for you just to contact me before the end of the week and see if we can get some consensus on what you would like to discuss on the 22nd. A final point on that is since it will be a combined meeting and workshop, we do have some other routine business that we would like to get your approval on on that date. And I'd like to be able to have a consent agenda in accordance with your policy for other items, because we won't meet again until September the 5th. I would just as soon disclose those to you as opposed to me trying to approve them, administrate and then get after-the-fact approval. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Sounds fine to me. As to the content of the workshop following our hopefully short meeting on the 22nd, the commission did rank groupings of categories, and I believe I shared them with you two or three months ago. I haven't looked at it recently but in mind I believe it was growth management and LDC was next on the priority list of what we're meeting. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: A couple of things. We might not want to necessarily spend the entire session on but kick around is a direction we want to head -- some of the specifics we want to do as far as our Tallahassee efforts so that we're prepared when we next sit down with the other counties with four or five particular ideas on what we want to do. And also -- this may be for another workshop but for economic development with some of the others. I think probably we need to start the ball rolling on our Tallahassee one. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: That's very good. In fact, we were hearing last week that those of us that attended the meeting up in Lee County that the group of us should only concentrate on two, at most three, items that we really want to work at. Commissioner MAc'Kie. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I was going to say it might tie in with the growth management -- more than growth management as a general topic. I wish we could use that as an opportunity to talk about priorities for this board as a body if we want to identify what are some focus areas that we want to prioritize as maybe something that is similar to what -- and not anywhere near the detail that Commissioner Constantine does for himself on an annual basis -- but as a board I wish that we would adopt some priorities and goals and maybe that would tie into the workshop. MR. DORRILL: We could certainly give you some suggested areas. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: The one element that I wanted to ask on the growth management side of things -- as Ms. Filson shakes her head -- her newly permad head -- as we talk about growth management, I think we all sit up here and at times find the chinks in the armor of our growth management plan or possibly our LDC. We probably have a short list ourselves. We may want to prepare that list for that meeting to discuss those with staff, although we're going to count very heavily on the EAR through citizen input. I think we're going to have some input, and we may want to make that known ahead of time so that staff is aware of it. MAybe some background and research can be done. I personally have commercial siting criteria on my mind and other elements such as activity centers and so forth that I would like to flag as areas of discussion as we look to amending the growth management plan on its cycles. So I would like to have a condensed version of that discussion to target areas, and then we can do the work necessary in the remaining weeks. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: What I've done in that regard is something that I want to see in the comp. plan revisions, is some redevelopment criteria for parts of East Naples or all of East Naples, but begin to look at some redevelopment concepts for portions of the county that need that kind of attention whether it's through a redevelopment district or some other mechanism, court or management systems. So I have met with Mr. Cautero and people in that department to ask them to be sure that our subcommittees are working on that, because we all know how -- as you're saying once the committees and subcommittees get going, we need to have our input early on. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I think we're all saying it is a complicated issue and perhaps a growth management with the LDC will develop those ideas on the 22nd, and we may very well be handling this over the next several workshops. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: At least prepare a board laundry list. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah. Item #14E OPTIONS RE COUNTY ATTORNEY VACANCY DISCUSSED MR. DORRILL: Two more quick items. I discussed with the chairman yesterday, and she asked me to explain to you briefly today some direction in terms of how you would like your human resource department to proceed in the executive search process for the county attorney. Ms. Edwards has given me three options for the board, and we don't need a final position if you can begin to at least point me in one direction, we'll be prepared to have them assist you. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Didn't last week Commissioner Hancock suggest that next week we have a discussion on that item? MR. DORRILL: You are, and I'm trying to anticipate that preliminarily -- and I've discussed that with the chairman. I can tell you just real quickly what the three options would be. First, we're not recommending would be to recruit a headhunting executive placement firm. We're not recommending that to you. Second one would be for you to attempt to impanel some type of blue ribbon committee to prequalify or provide to you a short list that you would interview, and the last one would be to do it strictly in-house for the first phase which would be to let your personnel department solicit resumes or letters of interest either locally or regionally or nationally as you determine, and then go through the pre-review of those and submit qualifying candidates to you for final consideration. So those are your three macro approaches, and we will follow and be prepared to discuss anyone that you see fit. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I assume you're not asking us to discuss those now. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: No. MR. DORRILL: No, other than if you think we have left out something. Otherwise we will be prepared to do as the board sees fit with or without the assistance of your human resources department. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah, I think it would be good for the members of this board to contemplate and ponder the three options that Mr. Dotrill has just laid out, keeping in mind what we're trying to accomplish, and we'll be ready to discuss those next week, and I think we can probably come to a fairly quick decision. MR. DORRILL: I'll have an item then under the BCC for discussion and have you give us direction as to how you wish to proceed. Item #14F CITY OF NAPLES WORKSHOP FOR AUGUST 14, 1995 - BCC TO ADVERTISE THEIR PARTICIPATION HR. DORRILL: The final area that is one that just came up yesterday, also discussed with the chairman. The city, as some of you know, are going to reconsider and have a workshop on the Gordon River Bridge this coming Monday the 14th. There had been some discussion as to whether that should be a joint workshop and advertised as such so that you could participate in the discussion or deliberations. It is currently not advertised to be a joint workshop, but there has been an expression from I believe Councilman Korest that each one of you be invited to participate in their workshop. But then I was told the workshop will not otherwise be a public workshop and that they do not take public comment. And so I'm bringing that to your attention to see whether three or more of you have a preference one way or the other, because I had promised to call Dr. Woodruff back and express your interest to him concerning advertising and your participation. Iwm sorry -- and I think they will have a time certain. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Nine olclock. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: One suggestion would be that rather than formally going and sitting down as a board and doing that -- I think that because ultimately the Board of County Commissioners has to make decisions on what happens on this whole process -- then we are not simply members of the public for the purposes of speaking and providing input on Monday. Just as we close a public hearing here, we will have the opportunity to ask the petitioner. He is not a member of the public at that point. He is still the petitioner and an active participant, so we still have an opportunity. So my suggestion would be if any members of the commission that are so inclined would go but rather than have the board go as a whole and advertise that as such. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Well, I had intended to go to the workshop for no other reason than to hear the comments for the various arguments on whichever side people intend to go. Iim a little bit confused that if the city doesnlt take comment from the public during their workshops, and I am not a member of their counsel, that other than my sitting there and listening, I would not be allowed to participate without it being a -- being at least advertised as a joint city-county workshop. So I mean -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I think that was my point. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Whatever their druthers are and the way they are going to do it -- but I mean if itls not a joint meeting then I fully anticipate not speaking, just simply listening. COMMISSIONER MACIKIE: My thought on this is what is the harm in advertising it as a joint workshop so that we have full, free reign to participate in the discussion? It is obviously not mandatory. If you donlt want to go, you donlt go. But I would like for it to be advertised, frankly, if for no other reason -- if this -- if itls only necessary to have the discussion once -- if, in fact, we could review this issue and find out that there is a fatal flaw in the reconsideration, letls just talk about it once and try to shut down the discussion. And if itls an advertised hearing with both bodies, then maybe we can accomplish that goal. If not weill -- it will keep dragging. People will keep wondering what does the county commission think about it. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Itls the cityls meeting. They can make it a joint meeting or not. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Iim not going to pretend to make a decision for the city but from what I have seen, you know, itls a line on a map. Itls not a substantive element for discussion. And, you know, for us to join in a joint workshop that would imply that we believe that there is information out there that is at a level that its consideration would be equal with what we have seen before. My opinion that hasnlt been prepared. We have a very preliminary -- something -- somebody working on something very preliminarily out there. So, sure, Iim interested in listening to it, but itls not from what I have seen at a point that Iim ready to reconsider. So I donlt feel comfortable entering a joint workshop when -- you know, if the city wants to reconsider something, thatls completely up to them. But as far as this board taking a step and saying, yes, I think there is information out there that fully warrants a complete and new look at this item, I am not comfortable with that. So by calling it a joint workshop, I think we would, in essence, be doing that, and I'm not terribly comfortable with that. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Well, I guess that the point that I am hearing Commissioner MAc'Kie make is merely that if being advertised as a joint workshop would allow whatever county commissioners who did attempt to participate -- if it's only a city workshop under their own rules, because we don't live in the city other than Commissioner MAc'Kie. Well, you're not on the council so she -- COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: I can't talk. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: -- is not allowed to participate. I think that is the only point that we are making is that do we go, sit, and listen. And at what point would we be allowed to stand up and say this is full of hogwash, we're not going to do it. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, you can say that now. I don't think that members of the county commission would be strictly considered in this context members of the public. I think we would be considered more almost in the vein of staff or something. People that they are soliciting input from such as their staff members or engineering firms or anybody else that they may solicit input from during this workshop, I think that's the category we would be considered in and not just strictly members of the public. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I think we may also be into another area of problems possibly with the Sunshine Law. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Right. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Cuyler, if this is not a publicly advertised meeting where two or more county commissioners may be there voicing opinions -- MR. CUYLER: It depends on whether you are going to participate or not. If you are going to participate, you could put out a general advertisement. You could either advertise it as a joint workshop, or you could say two or more commissioners -- county commissioners may appear and may speak and just leave it at that so that it is not a, quote, meeting but, you know, falls in that category where two or more people who are present give an opinion. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: If I could just offer that as the liaison to the board -- from the board to the city council, I have met with them at their workshops and have been permitted to speak in that capacity as the liasion, but they are really strict on that speaking rule. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: The city got this ball rolling by themselves not with the intent of having a joint workshop. In other words, it was an internal consideration that the city wanted to make. I didn't read the motion as we would like to have joint workshop with the county. I read the motion that they as the city council would like to discuss this item. So I say let them do what they intended to do and if we want to participate, and we want to sit and listen to it, then that is all we're going to glean anyway. So rather than trying to change the animal half-way through, just let them have their workshop. If they want us to speak, they can request it from us. If there is a problem with that, Mr. Cuyler will say we can't do it. Rather than change the animal half-way through, I think we can participate in some form. But I just don't think that a joint workshop -- changing it to that at this point is going to work. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Then I think this board then needs to advertise that at a minimal that two or more county commissioners may be present and may voice their opinion. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm going. Commissioner Matthews says she is going, and I want to be able to talk. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let me ask you a question, Mr. Cuyler, because you have issued a memorandum or someone on your staff has issued a memorandum in the past in regards to this, that it is acceptable in a public forum, for example, more than one commissioner has appeared at a civic meeting, for example, and expressed general opinions on topics of interest or answering questions on topics to the civic meetings. There is no decision making going on. There is no -- so I'm wondering how this differs. MR. CUYLER: In those cases it's true there is no decision making going on. This stuff is not black and white, and I tend to always try to be on the conservative side of these Sunshine issues. In the case you are talking about, your input -- one commissioner may stand up and say something, and somebody else may say something and that may go into the decision process of the city, and I'd be a little concerned about that. You know, it is not clear, but I'd probably do it just to be safe. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: So I think to be safe, we probably ought to do it. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Should do what? I just want to be clear. MR. CUYLER: We'll just give a real general advertisement. It is not going to call it a meeting. It will just say two on the Sunshine law -- or two or more commissioners who are present may be discussing something, you're hereby on notice. Something along those lines. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So we are not participating. That is simply a safety -- MR. CUYLER: You're not as a board meeting representative. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's what I meant. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: It's just a safety for the ones who do it. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: That's fine. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I have a further item from the Audubon Society, but I'll pass it by memo. It's not that critical. Are we finished? Mr. Cuyler, do you have anything? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I think Ms. Filson does. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Ms. Filson, I can tell you have something. MS. FILSON: I have two quick things. I wasn't real clear on where the workshop will be held on the 22nd. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I would imagine it would be right here. MS. FILSON: Right here. Okay. And the second thing is the LDC amendments are -- will be advertised, and they are currently on all your calendars for Wednesday, October 4th and Wednesday, October 18th. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Everybody has made note of that I presume? We're adjourned. ***** Commissioner Norris moved, seconded by Commissioner Constantine, and carried unanimously, that the following items under the Consent Agenda be approved and/or adopted ***** Item #16A1 WATER FACILITIES ACCEPTANCE FOR STONEBRIDGE CLUBHOUSE/TRACT C - WITH STIPULATIONS O. R. Book Pages Item #16A2 CARRY FORWARD FOR THE ARTIFICIAL REEF PROGRAM GRANT TO ENABLE MAINTENANCE ACTIVITIES Item #16A3 REPLACEMENT MAINTENANCE LETTER OF CREDIT FOR THE INFRASTRUCTURE WITHIN "VILLAGE WALK PHASE ONE" See Pages Item #16A4 WATER FACILITIES ACEPTANCE FOR DOVER PARC, PHASE II - WITH STIPULATIONS O. R. Book Pages Item #16A5a RESOLUTION 95-442 RE COMPLIANCE SERVICES CASE NO. 41117-096; OWNER OF RECORD - PETERR CONCANNON, A. T. DELAGNY, DERECK HOLMAN, KENNETH EBBRELL, GRAHAM GIBSON ASSESSING A LIEN TO RECOVER FUNDS EXPENDED TO EFFECT THE ABATEMENT OF A PUBLIC NUISANCE See Pages Item #16A5b RESOLUTION 95-443 RE COMPLIANCE SERVICES CASE NO. 50106-076; OWNER OF RECORD - ROSA DE CORES, TERESITA HENDEZ ASSESSING A LIEN TO RECOVER FUNDS EXPENDED TO EFFECT THE ABATEMENT OF A PUBLIC NUISANCE See Pages Item #16A5c RESOLUTION 95-444 RE COMPLIANCE SERVICES CASE NO. 50118-007; OWNER OF RECORD - DONNA DICKSON ASSESSING A LIEN TO RECOVER FUNDS EXPENDED TO EFFECT THE ABATEMENT OF A PUBLIC NUISANCE See Pages Item #16A5d RESOLUTION 95-445 RE COMPLIANCE SERVICES CASE NO. 50324-038; OWNER OF RECORD - VAL SCIONTI, PAUL G. SCIONTI ASSESSING A LIEN TO RECOVER FUNDS EXPENDED TO EFFECT THE ABATEMENT OF A PUBLIC NUISANCE See Pages Item #16A5e RESOLUTION 95-446 RE COMPLIANCE SERVICES CASE NO 50403-014; OWNER OF RECORD - MARION KOZIOL AND BARBARA F. KOZIOL ASSESSING A LIEN TO RECOVER FUNDS EXPENDED TO EFFECT THE ABATEMENT OF A PUBLIC NUISANCE See Pages Item #16A5f RESOLUTION 95-447 RE COMPLIANCE SERVICES CASE NO 50420-017; OWNER OF RECORD - WILLIAM H. BERNER ASSESSING A LIEN TO RECOVER FUNDS EXPENDED TO EFFECT THE ABATEMENT OF A PUBLIC NUISANCE See Pages Item #16A5g RESOLUTION 95-448 RE COMPLIANCE SERVICES CASE NO 50426-025; OWNER OF RECORD - MICHAEL F. SMITH AND MARGARET M. SMITH ASSESSING A LIEN TO RECOVER FUNDS EXPENDED TO EFFECT THE ABATEMENT OF A PUBLIC NUISANE See Pages Item #16A5h RESOLUTION 95-449 RE COMPLIANCE SERVICES CASE NO 50510-037; OWNER OF RECORD - NOEL M. WILLIAMS ASSESSING A LIEN TO RECOVER FUNDS EXPENDED TO EFFECT THE ABATEMENT OF A PUBLIC NUISANCE See Pages Item #16A5i RESOLUTION 95-450 RE COMPLIANCE SERVICES CASE NO 50502-035; OWNER OF RECORD - SUSAN DOWNS, MARION TUZZOLO ASSESSING A LIEN TO RECOVER FUNDS EXPENDED TO EFFECT THE ABATEMENT OF A PUBLIC NUISANCE See Pages Item #16A5j RESOLUTION 95-451 RE COMPLIANCE SERVICES CASE NO 50501-084; OWNER OF RECORD - GERALDINE DOESLAERE ASSESSING A LIEN TO RECOVER FUNDS EXPENDED TO EFFECT THE ABATEMENT OF A PUBLIC NUISANCE See Pages Item #16A5k RESOLUTION 95-452 RE COMPLIANCE SERVICES CASE NO 50501-087; OWNER OF RECORD - EDWAR PELC AND LAVERDA PELC ASSESSING A LIEN TO RECOVER FUNDS EXPENDED TO EFFECT THE ABATEMENT OF A PUBLIC NUISANCE See Pages Item #16A6 RESOLUTION 95-453 RE FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE ROADWAY, DRAINAGE, WATER AND SEWER IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE FINAL PLAT OF "TIGER ISLAND ESTATES" See Pages Item #16B1 PETITION AV-95-010, JACK NOLD AS AGENT FOR OWNER, EAGLE CREEK PROPERTIES, INC., REQUESTING VACATION OF A UTILITY EASEMENT LOCATED ON TRACT B, OF THE PLAT OF EAGLE CREEK COUNTRY CLUB AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 14, PAGES 1-5, AND AS RECORDED IN OFFICIAL RECORD BOOK 1346, PAGE 1683, OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA See Pages Item #1682 - This item has been deleted Item #1683 AMEND THE EMERGENCY MEDIAN LANDSCAPE CONTRACTS FOR THE MARCO ISLAND HSTD AND THE GOLDEN GATE HSTD TO INCREASE SERVICES Item #1684 RESOLUTION 95-454 RE TRANSPORTATION SERVICE'S POLICY FOR ROAD MAINTENANCE ACTIVITIES INVOLVING PRIVATE DRIVEWAY DRAINAGE FACILITIES See Pages Item #16El BUDGET AMENDMENT TO APPROPRIATE THE MAINTENANCE SERVICES REVENUES THAT ARE IN EXCESS OF THEIR BUDGET Item #16E2 RESOLUTION 95-455 RE UTILITY EASEMENT AND A TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT TO SOUTHERN STATE UTILITIES, INC. FOR THE PLACEMENT OF WATER FACILITIES IN FRANK E. HACKLE PARK, MARCO ISLAND, FLORIDA See Pages Item #16E3 TRANSFER OF FUNDS FOR STARTUP OF THE INFORMATION TECHOLOGY DEPARTMENT Item #16E4 BUDGET AMENDMENT TO MEET THE FUNDING NEEDS OF THE HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT Item #16H1 AGREEMENT WITH JOHNSON BAY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION TO INSTALL AN AIRCRAFT INSTRUHENT NAVIGATIONAL LANDING AID (LOC/DHE) AT THE MARCO ISLAND EXECUTIVE AIRPORT See Pages Item #16H2 - This item has been deleted Item #16H3 BUDGET AMENDMENT 95-413 AND BUDGET AMENDMENT 95-418 Item #16J MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE - FILED AND/OR REFERRED The following Miscellaneous Correspondence presented to the BCC has been filed and or referred to the various departments as indicated on the miscellaneous correspondence: Item #16J1 CERTIFICATES OF CORRECTION TO THE TAX ROLLS AS PRESENTED BY THE PROPERTY APPRAISER'S OFFICE 1994 REAL PROPERTY TAX ROLL NO. DATE 174 07/12/95 Item #16J2 SATISFACTIONS OF LIEN FOR SERVICES OF THE PUBLIC DEFENDER See Pages There being no further business for the Good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 12:51 p.m. BOARD OF COUNTY COHMISSIONERS BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS CONTROL ATTEST: DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK BETTYE J. MATTHEWS, CHAIRPERSON These minutes approved by the Board on presented or as corrected as TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF DONOVAN COURT REPORTING BY: CATHERINE H. HOFFHAN