Loading...
BCC Minutes 01/14/1997 RREGULAR HEETING OF January 14, 1996 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 CHAIRMAN: VICE-CHAIRPERSON: members present: ALSO PRESENT: Timothy L. Hancock Barbara B. Berry John C. Norris Timothy J. Constantine Pamela S. Hac'Kie W. Neil Dotrill, County Hanager David C. Weigel, County Attorney Item #3 AGENDA AND CONSENT AGENDA - APPROVED AND/OR ADOPTED WITH CHANGES CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I'm going to call the Tuesday, January 14, BCC meeting to order. Mr. Dotrill, would you lead us in an invocation and pledge, please. MR. DORRILL: Heavenly Father, we thank you this morning for the opportunity that -- that we have as elected and appointed officials to be able to make a difference in this community. Father, as always, as this board deliberates over the important business and land use matters that -- that you have a guiding hand in their decisions and that they would have the conviction to do what is right this morning. As always, we thank you for the support of not only our families who support us as public officials, but the support of this community and the hard work of our staff. Father, this job couldn't be done without a -- a teamwork and a collaborative effort. And we thank you and we lift those others up this morning. Father, finally ask that you bless our time here together this morning. We pray these things in your son's holy name. Amen. (The pledge of allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you, Mr. Dorrill. Would you be so kind as to lead us through the changes we have on the agenda today. MR. DORRILL: Yes, sir. Good morning, Commissioners. Just a couple of changes this morning. The first one is an add-on item that will be added under proclamations and presentations. It is a proclamation designating January -- the week of January the 20th through the 26th as the Dr. Martin Luther King Week in Collier County. Lorenzo Williams will be here to accept that on behalf of the NAACP. That will be 5-B. Asked to delete Item 8(A)(1) on the regular agenda under community development, as it has been previously approved, and it is shown there in error this morning. I have a request to continue for two weeks Item 12(C)(3). That's under advertised public hearings. And the other portion, which is a recommendation to consider an ordinance amending Ordinance 89-11 as it pertains to beach and water safety and vessel control. And then, finally, this morning, Mr. Chairman, that we continue for just one week until your meeting of the 21st of January Item 16(B)(ll), which is on the consent agenda under public works, which is a road impact fee contribution agreement between -- as part of the 951 four-laning. That's all that I have this morning. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Additional changes to the agenda, Commissioner Hac'Kie? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: None. Thank you. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Norris? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: None. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Constantine? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No changes. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And Commissioner Berry? COHMISSIONER BERRY: No. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Need a motion. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, I'll make a motion we approve the agenda and consent agenda as amended. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Second. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We have a motion and a second. All those in favor please signify by saying aye. Opposed? (No response) Seeing none, motion carries. Item #5A1 PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING JANUARY 12-18, 1997, AS YOUTH HAVEN WEEK - ADOPTED Item 5(A), proclamations, Commissioner Berry. COHMISSIONER BERRY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We have a proclamation before us this morning regarding Youth Haven proclaiming January 12th through the 18th as Youth Haven Week. And if Ms. Ryan would come up, please, we'll read the proclamation. Whereas, children are the most precious resources of our society; and Whereas, providing each child with the love, support, and opportunity to grow up as a contributing member of our community is our foremost challenge and mission; and Whereas, Youth Haven provides our community's only all-children's emergency residential shelter for those children who are abused, abandoned, and neglected or who are at risk of abuse and supports low-income working parents by paying for child day care; and Whereas, Youth Haven has, since its founding in 1970 by Judge Stanley, Bea Hatper, and Judy DeTurk, along with the support of our entire community, been home to more than 3800 abused, abandoned, and neglected children. Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that the week of January 12th through the 18th be designated as Youth Haven Week in Collier County and encourage all members of our community to join in the events that are scheduled in celebration of our children and the work of Youth Haven. Done and ordered this 14th day of January 1997, Board of County Commissioners, Collier County, Florida, Timothy L. Hancock, chairman. MS. RYAN: Thank you very much, Barbara, and all the other commissioners. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: If I -- if I may, real quickly, may I ask for a motion on the proclamation? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll make a motion we approve the proclamation. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: All those in favor please signify by saying aye. (Applause) CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Please feel free to make any comments at the podium for the benefit of our audience. MS. RYAN: Thank you all very much for this proclamation. By recognizing Youth Haven Week with this proclamation, you're helping Collier County residents to become more aware of Youth Haven and to understand that as long as there is a child in need, there will be Youth Haven. Thank you all very much. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you. (Applause) MR. DORRILL: I understand our rubber ducks have -- I thought that was a cruel joke on my part this morning, that somebody left a lame duck, it says here. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We'll need to save that for a couple weeks from now. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yeah. This is the lame duck call. But thank you for Youth Haven, and good luck with your -- your event. I was in Tampa when it was started up there in that community, and it was very successful, and it's been done well here; so congratulations, and good luck. MS. RYAN: Thank you. Item #5B EHPLOYEE SERVICE AWARDS - PRESENTED CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We have -- I tell you, why don't we go ahead to the Martin Luther King proclamation next. Commissioner Norris, do you have that? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Chairman, we're expecting Mr. Williams to accept this. I don't see him in the audience right now. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. We'll hold that until he arrives then. We'll move to service awards. Miss -- Commissioner Constantine. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Sure. One of the things you'll see, whether it's in the newspaper or -- we do our Phoenix awards annually -- is our EHS gets a lot of attention for the good work they do. I think one of the reasons for that is the stability we have, and one of the reasons for that stability is week after week we're giving away employee awards for longevity within EHS. And we have another one this week. Steven Epright is with us, and he's been with us for ten years. Steven, we have a certificate and a pin for you, and thank you very much for your service. (Applause) CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Some people you always want good relationships with. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We have less turnover there. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: It's amazing. Item #5Cl HAROLD WHITE, FLEET HANAGEHENT DEPARTHENT, SUPPORT SERVICES DIVISION, RECOGNIZED AS EMPLOYEE OF THE MONTH FOR JANUARY, 1997 We'll move on to recognition for employee of the month for January 1997, Commissioner Hac'Kie. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I'd like to ask Harold White to come forward. And while he's coming forward, I'd like to tell you that he's been selected by his peers as Collier County employee of the month. He's been a Collier County employee for five years. He was nominated by his supervisor. Harold's hard work, expertise, and supportive attitude have been invaluable to county operations. His enthusiasm, motivation, and relentless pursuit of excellence has been an inspiration to other county employees as well as management and has served as a catalyst for improving efficiency and increasing productivity within his department. Harold constantly strives to improve his personal capabilities, and he is an extremely important asset to the fleet management department. Without any reservations he was nominated and selected as employee of the month for January 1997. And we have a plaque for you recognizing you -- my favorite part -- the check, and a letter for your personnel file, and our congratulations and thanks. (Applause) Item #5A2 PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING JANUARY 20-26, 1997, AS DR. HARTIN LUTHER KING WEEK - ADOPTED CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I see that Hr. Williams has arrived. Lorenzo, if I could ask you to come on up and accept a proclamation. Commissioner Norris has the pleasure this morning of reading a proclamation regarding Martin Luther King Day. The good news is the paper won't write about you being late. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Anyway we're glad you're here. The proclamation reads: Whereas, the Congress of the United States of America has designated the birthday of Dr. Martin Luther King Junior as a national holiday; and Whereas, the president of the United States signed legislation authorizing Dr. King's birthday as a national holiday with observances to commence on January the 20th of 1997; and Whereas, Dr. Martin Luther King Junior received national and international recognition for his stirring struggle against injustice and his leadership in espousing brotherhood, self-discipline, and nonviolence; and Whereas, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, NAACP, will hold a commemorative celebration of Dr. King's birthday by sponsoring the Martin Luther King Day -- Martin Luther King Junior Day parade on Monday, January 20, 1997, honoring his lifelong efforts to achieve freedom for all. Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that the week of January 20 to 26, 1997, be designated as Dr. Martin Luther King Junior Week in Collier County, Florida, and urge all citizens to remember Dr. King's outstanding accomplishments by participating in commemorative celebrations to be held during Dr. Martin Luther King Junior Week. Done and ordered this 14th day of January, 1997, by the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida. Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a motion that we accept this proclamation. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Second. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We have a motion and a second. All those in favor please signify by saying aye. Opposed? (No response) Congratulations. (Applause) MR. WILLIAMS: On behalf of the NAACP and the community at large -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Williams, if I could ask you to be on the microphone, that way we can have it on the record. MR. WILLIAMS: I was told that I speak loud anyway. On behalf of the NAACP and the community at large, we thank the county commissioners for proclaiming this the Martin Luther King Junior Week. And actually I do want to thank you for your prompt response to this. I know we have had problems in the past, and we were sort of reminded at the last minute, but this is very much appreciated by the organization and the community. And we look forward to everyone's support, and the NAACP looks forward to providing an enjoyable occasion for the entire community. Thank you. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And just so board members know, I think Miss Filson deserves the congratulation for the response. She tickled the file and said, hey, this needs to be done and worked well with them and got it done; so, Miss Filson, thank you very much. Item #5C2 LINDA DENNING, PUBLIC SERVICES DIVISION, RECOGNIZED AS EMPLOYEE OF THE YEAR FOR 1996 Now comes something good, the chairman gets to do only once in their one-year term. And this year I'm pleased to have the opportunity to embarrass someone I know very well. Linda Denning, let me ask you to come up and face the music, so to speak, up here to my left. Each year a -- an employee is nominated employee of the year, and understanding that we have some 900 employees, plus or minus, throughout the county, it's a feat in itself. But the fact that it's Linda this morning is special to me because of her involvement with the 4-H and the county extension office. And I don't think a day or evening has gone by in which Linda hasn't put in a couple extra hours at a minimum. And particularly now that the fair is going on, you can find Linda, if not in the office over at the fair running things, over there some 12 to 14 hours a day. So, Linda, it's my pleasure to sign a letter congratulating you for the following: It is indeed a pleasure for us to announce your selection as Collier County's employee of the year for 1996. This well-deserved recognition is for your valuable contributions to the county through your work in the agricultural department. You are truly an outstanding employee in all aspects and well respected by all those with whom you come in contact. For these and many other reasons you exemplify what an employee of the year should represent. This honor also includes a cash award of $250 which I am proud to present to you today. On behalf of the Board of County Commissioners, I offer our sincere congratulations and also our gratitude for your dependability and dedication. Linda, it's my pleasure to present you with this letter of congratulations, a check for $250, and of course, the most valuable item, a plaque, for presentation. (Applause) CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. That's always fun. Item #SB1 RESOLUTION 97-43 AUTHORIZING THE ACQUISITION BY GIFT, PURCHASE OR CONDEMNATION OF FEE SIMPLE TITLE FOR ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY FOR PARCEL 102A REQUIRED TO COMPLETE THE FOUR-LANING ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS FOR C.R. 951 PHASEII FROM RATTLESNAKE HAMMOCK ROAD TO DAVIS BOULEVARD - ADOPTED All right, Item 8(A)(1) has been deleted. We'll move to 8(B)(1). MR. GONZALEZ: Good morning, Commissioners, Adolfo Gonzalez, capital projects director. Staff is requesting you to adopt a resolution to acquire by gift, purchase, or condemnation a fee-simple title for road right-of-way parcel for the County Road 951 project we just completed. Staff has looked at the environmental factors, cost variables -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Excuse me just a minute. I'd like to make a motion we approve the item. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. MR. DORRILL: No speakers. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Any discussion? All those in favor please signify by saying aye. Opposed? (No response) Wonderful presentation, Mr. Gonzalez. Item #882 RESOLUTION 97-44 FOR THE TENTATIVE AWARD OF A CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT AT THE SOUTH COUNTY REGIONAL WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITY - ADOPTED Item 8(B)(2). MR. GONZALEZ: We're requesting you to adopt a resolution to tentatively award the south county regional wastewater facility construction contract. This is not an expansion project inasmuch as we're not adding any additional capacity to the plan. These are consistent with your previous directions to do some what we would call good-neighbor improvements on the site. The attached resolution is the final item we need to submit for the Florida Department of Environmental Protection loan application checklist for that. If you have any questions, I'd be glad to answer them. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: It's my understanding that this is a previous commitment by this board to the folks who live in that area to spend a significant sum to address a serious community concern. I think -- I think everyone is going to be glad to see it come through the agenda today and finally get approved. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I think it's important and highly recommend it. I now make a motion we approve the item. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Just a question. Does this involve the -- does this include the scrubbers and the smell reduction? MR. GONZALEZ: Yes, ma'am. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Is that basically what this is? MR. GONZALEZ: Yes. We're relocating the plant and adding some additional called environmental enhancements as far as noise and odor. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Okay. Second. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion and a second. Is there any further discussion? MR. DORRILL: No speakers. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: No speakers. I'll call the question. All those in favor please signify by saying aye. Opposed? (No response) Seeing none, the motion carries unanimously. Thank you, Mr. Gonzalez. Item #8C1 DETERMINATION MADE TO PROCEED WITH A PETITION TO THE COLLIER COUNTY LEVISLATIVE DELEGATION HEARING CONCERING A SPECIAL BILL THAT WOULD ALLOW FOR THE USE OF TOURIST TAXES FOR THE ACQUISITION AND IMPROVEMENT OF BEACH ACCESS AND PARKING-RELATED FACILITIES CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We are now into Item 8(C)(1), recommendation to the BCC to determine whether to proceed with a petition of the Collier County legislative delegation regarding a special bill for the use of tourist taxes for acquisition and improvement of beach access and parking-related facilities. Mr. Olliff. And shorter -- shorter descriptions would be helpful in the future. MR. OLLIFF: We'll do our best. For the record, Tom Olliff, public services administrator. This item was one that you had heard three weeks ago and then directed staff to go to the Tourist Development Council and to get a recommendation from them and bring that back to you so that you could decide whether to proceed with this to the legislative delegation meeting which is scheduled for this Thursday. The item was presented to the TDC last evening at a special meeting that they were kind enough to have for this particular item. And their recommendation -- and for some of the explanation I may rely on the chairman who was there at the meeting to be able to explain a little more about some of their discussion. But their -- their recommendation was that the board not proceed with this item. The vote was, I believe, 4 to 2 -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: You mean 6 to 2. MR. OLLIFF: -- 6 to 2, I'm sorry -- in that regard. Primarily the rationale that was given was that they did not feel that the tourist development taxes were an appropriate funding source for the purchase of land for beach parking. They felt that there were other sources that the county had access to. The one in particular that was mentioned was the use of boat ramp fees that the county charges as -- as perhaps a source of funding for -- for either beach parking or improvements to existing properties that the county may own. So with that, I -- I would like to pass out a draft bill. It's a very simple bill that I can show you that was also provided to the TDC last evening. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner, did you have a question for Mr. Olliff? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I had a question for Mr. Olliff; so I'll wait until he returns to the electronic podium. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I will take the opportunity to try and -- I explained to the TDC, although I was in the minority opinion last night on this particular issue, that I would do my best to convey the majority opinion. It was more or less talked about that TDC funds, we -- there's a pattern of kind of going to TDC funds for additional or new items. I think that causes them some concern, and it was the consensus of the motion maker -- the feeling of the motion maker and consensus of the majority that there are other avenues that may be more appropriate than TDC funds for the purpose of beach parking. I think that encapsulated what the motion was intended to state, and again, the vote was 6-2. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Who were the two? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I was one in the minority, and the second was the young lady two seats to my right. I'm still learning names there. I apologize. Hiss Gansel, could you help me with that name? I've only met her twice. MS. GANSEL: Jean Gansel. Julie Butt, B-u-r-t. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And she represents? MS. GANSEL: She's one of the tourist representatives, tourist-related representatives. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Which would be either attractions or -- or that -- those types of things, so -- COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Olliff, this -- this is to be dedicated now to Category A, is it not? MR. OLLIFF: Well, what we've actually done -- if you'll look at the bill, the language that you had in your executive summary a couple of weeks ago is just the language that is underlined there in a new paragraph 4. The county commission would then, after assuming this bill were passed by the legislature, still have to amend its local ordinance, and you would have the option to be able to put that in any of the three categories or four categories that are now in the ordinance. It is a separate paragraph that we're proposing to -- the section of the statute that outlines the authorized uses of revenue. One of the recommendations that I believe you got yesterday was from the City of Naples Beach Renourishment Committee. They supported the idea, but they were recommending that these monies not come out of the Category A funding, but if it were coming out of B or C, that they were recommending support of the item. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Hac'Kie? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: That was -- I just wanted to ask him to make that a part of the record as well. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I put a little bit of thought into this as to which category would be appropriate, assuming this board were to move ahead. I agree that A is most appropriate, but only if it does not jeopardize the purpose of Category A funds, which is beach renourishment. I think it's important that if we move ahead on this, that it be in a position that -- that Category A would be the more appropriate category, but only if and when the amount is set aside for beach renourishment should we have a storm event, and if that's not the case, then in fact, no monies are available for additional beach parking. I don't think we want to sacrifice the actual intent and purpose of the tax solely to accomplish beach parking. Commissioner Constantine. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I agree with you. And I would submit, though, that we do have a plan, and we do have uses for A. We've struggled for years with Category C and what the appropriate uses are. I'm like you; I don't think we should be doing this in the first place. However, if it passes and we have to decide from which source to use it, I'd be more comfortable using a source that we've floundered around with and not had an appropriate use for, being C. But I'm like you; I'm not going to support the motion, because I don't think we need to be tinkering with the tourist tax. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Well, I probably will support a motion if it's to move ahead. I'm just saying that to do that, my sense is not to sacrifice any beach renourishment funds that go directly toward putting sand on the beach for the purpose of beach parking. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Is there a motion on the floor? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: There is not. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Okay. MR. OLLIFF: The only other thing that I need to make the commission aware of is that there was actually -- and we found this out since the last time this was presented to you. There was an amendment to this section of the statute actually approved by the legislature last year. And it included in the -- what we considered the Category A paragraph, the inclusion of the word "beach parks." In other words, these funds can be used for beach parks. That was done on the floor of the legislature last year, and it was specifically done -- in fact, by Representative Livingston is my understanding -- to address some improvements that Lee County and the state wanted to make to the Carl Johnson Lovers' Key Park in Lee County. When we tried to get some -- some definition about how far we could stretch the word "beach parks," we didn't feel comfortable that it was intended to be able to be used to purchase land or do the type of capital construction improvements that we had intended; so we're still progressing or at least proposing to you this -- this bill amendment. But because of that, you -- you also need to be aware that this proposal was supported and submitted to the legislature on -- on probably two other occasions and failed. But because of that new language where the beach parks was added, we feel like there may be the impetus there to get some approval from the legislature this year. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: The purpose for my support on this, as I stated to the TDC last night, has been that to spend $14 million renourishing a beach and then not really have a way to address the ability for people to access that $14 million renourishment to me is -- is problematic. I liken it to having a county fair but not building a road to get there. The fair's going on, and you can enjoy it if you can find a way to get to it or if you live next to it, but we're not going to build a road to get you there. We don't have a problem in access right now per se more than two months or three months out of the year, but I think we have to look ten years down the road. And I think beach parking is, in fact, an associated use to beach renourishment, and the two go hand in hand. That differs philosophically from what Commissioner Constantine has said, and I don't disagree with that. But that was really my reason for supporting moving ahead with this to the TDC last night. And I feel pretty much the same way today. It's only been eight or nine hours; so -- COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Do we have any speakers on this? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Do we have any speakers, Mr. Dotrill? MR. DORRILL: No, sir. Not for this. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Is there any further discussion or a motion on the matter? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Motion to move forward with it -- with a petition. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. We have a motion. Is there a second? I will second the motion. Is there any discussion? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just briefly. I'm not going to support it. I agree with you that we'll need more beach parking. I'm just concerned when we tinker with the tourist tax that the people voted on. I realize this first step is at the state level, but we're doing that so that we can change it again at the local level. And I just worry when we change -- continually change what it is they voted on. That's just a philosophical thing. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. discussion? I'll call the question. signify by saying aye. Opposed? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: COMMISSIONER NORRIS: COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Is there any further All those in favor please Aye. I was with the majority. Which was the majority? I was for it. Oh, okay. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: The motion passes 4-1. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's safe. Stay silent until after and then just say I was with the majority. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's my new -- that's my '97 resolution. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: You never lose a vote that way, do you? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's a plan. Item #8C2 RFP #96-2482 FOR GRANT APPLICATION SERVICES FOR THE PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT - REJECTED CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you, Mr. Olliff. We're on to Item 8(C)(2), a recommendation regarding RFP No. 96-2482 for grant application services. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Motion to reject. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Second. MR. DORRILL: You have a speaker, Mr. Chairman. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Hang on. I brought this up. That's why I asked we take this off the agenda and the consent agenda last week, because I wanted to talk about it. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Maybe you can give it back -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Olliff. MR. OLLIFF: This is a recommendation to reject an RFP. As the executive summary indicates, the staff went out for an RFP to look for grant application services. In having discussions with the board during budget workshops, I think we clearly got the indication that should we ever hire consultants for our grant application-type work, that we wanted to do it on a contingency-fee-type basis. So that's the kind of an RFP that we put together. In response to our RFP, we only received one bid or proposal package, and that is the one that we're actually asking that you go ahead and reject. The only issue -- and I will tell you we struggled with this one. The only issue that we had was actually the fee schedule that was associated with this, and we were just simply uncomfortable in recommending to you that the -- the fees that were going to be charged by the consultant for applying for county grants could be considered reasonable. We have been fairly successful in-house trying to apply for grants in the past, and I'll tell you the most recent one that we were able to obtain was the one for Sugden Regional Park which was in excess of an $800,000 grant. And using some local environmental consultants, we ended up paying -- $1800 was our cost outside for that grant application, which we were successful on. And we think we can continue down that -- that track. And in addition, we also found out that the Florida Association of Counties now has developed a similar service that is available to counties that we can piggyback and use some of their grant application processing people. So we think that there are a couple of other options that we would like to consider before we came to you and recommended some sort of contingency-fee-basis contract, and it was for those reasons alone that we're recommending the rejection of that RFP. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Constantine. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just make sure I understand. The primary concern is -- I don't know. Have you changed your mind since what the RFP stated, or you're uncomfortable with the specific response that came back? I heard two different things here. MR. OLLIFF: No. We've not changed our mind about the RFP. The RFP was based on a contingency fee basis. And I understand what the consultant was saying. The consultant came back and indicated to us that if you're asking me to take the risk as the consultant for the grants, then my fee is going to be higher. However, the -- the similar-type fee would have ranged somewhere between 150,000 and 80,000 dollars, depending on what was actually negotiated in the way of contract for that same grant we ended up paying less than $2,000 for. So we were -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: May I ask you just a moment -- Miss Filson, I don't know what's going on back there, but I can hardly hear Mr. Olliff. MR. OLLIFF: Just based on that we were uncomfortable that, one, we couldn't either hire someone in-house to serve as a staff grant writer for significantly less than we expect we would have to pay for this contingency-fee contract or that we couldn't continue with our current process of hiring as-needed environmental-type services or some small grant-type related contracts or using the Florida Association of Counties for less money than we could with this contract. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: A couple of questions. Did we -- you said we didn't know about the Florida Association of Counties situation before we issued the RFP; so that's new news. If we hired someone in-house, obviously we'd pay them whether they get any grants or not. MR. OLLIFF: Correct. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So we take a risk there. Did the Florida Association of Counties or -- or I think the memo you had sent out said we could piggyback on other projects. Did either one of those respond to our RFP? Did we -- MR. OLLIFF: No. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We weren't aware of that at all? MR. OLLIFF: No, we were not. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I guess my problem here is we may or may not have an appropriate response, but it seems as though it was dragged out. And in this case, the vendor, the responder, was dragged out over a long period of time. I know we've had some changes within the department there, and that may have contributed to that, but I just don't want someone who is taking the time to respond to our RFP, to our government, to pay a penalty because of all what's going on here at the county. Did staff ever indicate along the way in writing what was the county's scheduled or desire -- if there was a desire to do some sort of negotiation on this thing? From when we get a response back, you said it wasn't -- you didn't like the fee schedule. Did we say we'd negotiate? Did we say we want to talk about that, we'd look at that, or did we immediately reject it out of hand? MR. OLLIFF: I had got involved in the process late in the fall, and I believe there was some questions up front, and Steve Camell was here. Maybe he would answer that maybe better than I. But in terms of whether or not the actual proposal responded to the RFP -- and I think there were some questions about whether or not we could even negotiate. And I don't know whether he was responded in writing in that regard or not. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Was there a draft agreement put together by the -- MR. OLLIFF: Yes, there was. In fact, the consultant probably provided two, maybe even three different drafts of agreements. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Did the county have a proposed draft? I mean, did we go through those or -- I'm just trying to get a feel here for what went on between the county and the person who proposed. MR. OLLIFF: We did. And I think we tried to work with the consultant to develop an agreement. And I think in good faith we were trying to -- to make this thing work. I think we were trying to develop something that we could propose to you and then feel good about, because the argument here is that there are perhaps grants that go by that we wouldn't apply for. And regardless of how high the fee might be, if the county generates some revenue, it's revenue that might not have been generated otherwise. So that was the difficulty that we had. I think we tried to look at it from two or three different perspectives, and I think the consultant was very good about working with us and redrafting contracts to try and see what we were trying to accomplish. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What it boiled down to is you just weren't comfortable with the compensation level? MR. OLLIFF: Yes, sir. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I guess -- and, again, I don't want to go too far specific. They've dealt more on this than I have. There's a couple of things in the information Mr. Carnell's provided, and I realize a few months ago we had a couple of letters indicating that perhaps we should reject the RFPs, but then as late as October we have things that appear to be going back and forth to the vendor still negotiating. And so I hesitate to use the June memo saying we're going to reject if we were still negotiating in October. I think it was October 23rd. I just -- I guess I have a -- two questions, one -- two concerns, one being how -- how long this seemed to go on before we came to this conclusion. And the other is kind of a philosophical thing on this. And I worked -- when I worked with the airline, I worked -- a big part of my compensation was based on how much I succeeded in the marketing sales efforts. And the more business you bring in, the better you were paid. It's a simple incentive program. I just -- I'm not in favor at all of hiring on someone at a standard salary for grants because you have no incentive there. You have someone who is looking but yet absolutely no incentive. They may or may not bring anything in, and we still pay them. I don't think there's anything wrong -- and I don't know what the compensation levels were. And if you say we were unable to ultimately come up with something that you were comfortable with or that the vendor was comfortable with, then that's one thing. But just philosophically I hope everyone isn't opposed to the idea of having some compensation level related to whatever it is they can bring us. If somebody brings us a million dollars and gets 30,000 or 50,000 or whatever the amount is -- I don't know what that is -- then I don't have any problem with that as long as the county still gets the other 970,000. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I think part of the issue -- correct me if I'm wrong, Mr. Olliff, but if this RFP were awarded and the county saw that we had internal ability to pursue a grant, would we be able to pursue that grant, or would the grant writer automatically pursue it and be paid their compensated level if they achieve the grant? MR. OLLIFF: That was one of the issues that we never came to ultimate resolution on. It was an issue about who found the grant first. And if the grant were brought to the county's attention by the consultant, then I felt the consultant felt he had the first right of opportunity to be able to apply for that grant. We had to give him approval to go ahead through the process, but the county staff wouldn't have the ability, based on the contract that he was proposing, to be able to bid that grant. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Because if the fees are initially at first blush excessive, then my choice would be much like yours is, well, if we didn't know about the grant anyway, then it's not a loss to us. But you need the flexibility there to say, well, this isn't worth going after and paying the fee of the grant writer on, and we want to do it ourselves, or you know, you're ending up with a hybrid relationship there, and so I can understand how the clarity is sacrificed a little bit. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I just -- maybe I misunderstood. I thought you said when you answered Commissioner Hancock's question that in the event the vendor brought it to the county's attention, you would expect to be the one who could pursue that. I don't think that's unreasonable. But I think you're right. If there's something the county either doesn't want to do or found on their own -- MR. OLLIFF: The issue there from our perspective was that if he were tuned in to Tallahassee and got his mail a day faster then we did and brought it to our attention before it hit our desk, then he would automatically be given the first right to be able to apply for that. And I understand his point, too. He didn't want to end up bringing to the county all these opportunities and then we just snatch them off his desk and make the application and not pay him for them either. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Are there any further questions? Any speakers, Mr. Dotrill? MR. DORRILL: Mr. Hemphill. MR. HEMPHILL: Good morning, members of the commission. My name is Stan Hemphill. I reside at 11441 Southwest ll0th Lane in Hiami. My first opportunity to ever appear before your commission. I wish I were out here in the middle of the room receiving a proclamation for having generated several different grants for you, and we could all feel good about that. I find myself in an unusual position this morning. I'm a professional grants manager, have been for 25 years, working at the state level awarding grants for park and recreation purposes, working for 19 years with the Dade County park and recreation department, spending 100 percent of my time there pursuing grants for that department. For the first time in my 25-year career, I find myself standing before a legislative body asking you not to support a staff recommendation. As a longtime state and county staff individual I feel very uncomfortable having to recommend that to you. I thank Mr. Olliff for his comments this morning. I feel that they were fairly accurate and fairly fair. I do think that a couple of clarifications are necessary. I had the opportunity to speak with your staff before this RFP was ever even drafted. They invited me to come over. They're aware of my reputation in the state. I have generated $128 million through some 77 funding programs for these very types of projects. They spoke with me about various ways to structure RFPs to obtain consulting services, and we discussed a number of options and alternatives, and I shared with them some of those that I use with different communities here in the south Florida area and what the ramifications of those various options are as far as compensation. They drafted the RFP. We indicated to them that the way that it was being drafted would necessitate a very high form of compensation. Because of that, I was the only consultant in the south Florida area that was even willing to respond to this RFP. It has been a -- a lengthy, but an enjoyable process. I've had the opportunity to meet Mr. Olliff, Mr. Camp, Mr. Brinkman, Mr. Franco. We've all tried to move this forward, maybe not quite as fast as I would like to have. I won't go through all the details, the things that took place with this. I would only represent to you that in November county staff submitted to me what I considered to be an official draft agreement regarding the services. I responded both verbally and in writing that I have no major problems with that agreement. I have indicated to them that the compensation that was in that draft agreement that they submitted to me is acceptable. I have even indicated to them that I am willing to restructure the compensation to a lower amount that is in both your best benefit and mine. Everything was moving along well. I was asked to come over for what I had been led to believe was the final meeting of about, I'd say, 12 meetings over the last year to finalize the language in the agreement. There was minor wordsmithing and minor corrections and typos that were necessary. When I arrived, I found that, once again, we completely started all over with the discussions. This was the seventh county representative that I had been asked to work with on this. It's been a constant process of start over. In the last year we have forfeited the opportunity to pursue approximately $2 1/2 million of grants for the county. I simply stand before you this morning indicating I'm still willing to accept the compensation that was in the written draft that county staff submitted to me that I responded in writing I had no major problems with; that I indicated to them in a subsequent meeting I had no major problems with; that I have indicated and will state to you publicly this morning, I still am willing to restructure the compensation to an even lower amount. My interpretation of your RFP gives you the flexibility. Collier County retained the right to accept any proposal. Staff has indicated that they don't feel you have the flexibility to accept a restructured compensation. I'm willing to work with you any way I can to move this forward. We've spent approximately 15 months on this. We've reached a conclusion that I feel is a negative conclusion, and I'm very willing to work -- work with you at any accelerated pace to move this to a positive conclusion. Thank you. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you. We seem to be talking around the numbers here. Can we get down to brass tacks on -- on compensation, please. Hillion dollar grant, what's his compensation under the contract or under his proposal? MR. OLLIFF: Eleven percent. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: So $110,000 of a million dollar grant? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Can I ask a question? MR. OLLIFF: I believe he would have been willing to negotiate that down, but he also indicated that he needs to try and keep some equity of parity between all of his clients so that one client's not getting, you know, some unreasonable deal compared to the others. So I think there was some room for some movement on that number. And there's a sliding fee schedule that I can provide for you that you can look at. The other -- the other difficulty that we had was in most cases the grants themselves allow for maybe up to 3 percent administrative costs that you can actually pay for. So in most of the cases we were struggling with where would we find the money to actually pay for the consultant, the consultant money or the fee would actually to come out of, and we didn't have any other idea, other than -- than general fund sources in order to be able to pay the consultant for his services. And that was the other and probably fairly difficult thing that we had to deal with. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, I guess what it boils down to is, did the staff submit a written draft, your -- your -- you know, our draft. Because what I don't understand is if we submitted a draft and he accepted that and then after the fact we said, wait, we've decided we don't like that, then that's -- I'm just terribly confused by that. MR. OLLIFF: I don't know that we ever drafted an agreement. Steve Camell, the purchasing director, doesn't recall us ever drafting an agreement; and even if we did, normally we will send something as something to negotiate and still bring forward to the board for final approval. We don't sign and approve agreements. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Oh, no. Just in this pile I think I have something, and I'm sure I can't find it on short notice, but it has a -- in the second paragraph of it, if I recall reading it, it specifically says, you know, don't take this as a sure thing. If it works out, great, but realize that the Board of Commissioners doesn't always agree with what the staff suggests. But -- and that I don't disagree with at all. What I don't understand is why staff would offer some particulars, the vendor says, okay, I'll do that, and staff says, wait, maybe we don't want to do that after all. MR. OLLIFF: Again, I don't recall us ever submitting an agreement that didn't come from Mr. Hemphill. I thought all of the agreements came from Mr. Hemphill. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: For me this -- your last comment is rather pertinent. If 11 percent is the fee associated with it and there's a 3 percent administrative cap, why don't we just put a grant writer on staff? That's kind of -- that's a simple economic equation for me. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I guess -- do you have a copy of whatever -- you said there's -- a draft was submitted to you because -- and I realize the numbers are pertinent, but if staff submitted something, we may or may not accept that. But I just want staff making a habit of submitting things to our vendors and them accepting them and then staff pulling it back away again. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We may have an administrative issue here, but I think what's before us is whether or not to accept this, and then if there's an administrative difficulty, we can follow up on that at another time. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And my question is, what is "this"? If there was something submitted, I'd like to see what it was, and if there wasn't something submitted, there's nothing to look at, and we can go with that. But if something was submitted from the county to the vendor, we ought to know what that was. I don't -- I mean, you've said they submitted something. Do you have something? MR. HEMPHILL: Yes. With your permission -- and I want to compliment Mr. Olliff. I met with him in July after many months of this not moving forward and asked for his assistance and went back and met with him again in October and asked again for his assistance to move this forward, and we talked about the necessity having -- me having been run several different -- through several different representatives of the county, that we really needed to identify who is it that I'm supposed to negotiate with. And I was very candid with him. I'm not going to put my lowest numbers on the table until I know who it is I'm supposed to negotiate with. I did receive a call from a member of the park and recreation department a week or two later, indicated that he had been instructed to work out a contract with me. He gave me his general signal on the kind of compensation that we were looking for, and the compensation that I proposed was lower than that. We have had informal verbal conversations. He said, "You more than met me halfway on this." I have in front of me a copy of the draft agreement that was submitted to me by county staff, including their compensation. It was sent to me on November 15th of 1996, just a couple of months ago. I also have a copy of my letter responding three days later -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. I'm going to interrupt here because I think -- we're dealing with two separate issues here. We're dealing with an administrative process within our RFP that apparently there's a rub here on. You feel that there's something that was done that shouldn't have been done and needs to be corrected. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I do. But I don't know what that said -- Mr. Olliff, I want to see the agreement that was submitted. Did the agreement that we submitted say 11 percent? Did it say 3 percent? What did it say? I mean, it is still pertinent to the issue at hand, I think. If it says 11 percent and we can't pay that, great. I completely agree, then we need to go back and decide the issue of whether or not we're going to have a consultant separately. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: What does it say? MR. HEMPHILL: It says the numbers that he indicated. And I just -- I think maybe to be helpful to you -- I am not standing here today saying it's these numbers or no numbers at all. I'm saying that I applaud staff. After many, many months, and I had prepared many drafts of this, we had gotten nowhere. Staff then took the initiative to prepare a draft, and I responded to them in writing underlined in a letter, I have no major problems with their draft, and I represent to you I am still willing to negotiate the compensation on this. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Mr. Chairman, with all due respect, I think we have as much information as we're going to be able to get today, and there's a motion and a second on the floor. And I'd like to call the question. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: If I can make a suggestion as an alternate, what I heard was that in the past year while all this negotiating was going on, we've missed $2 1/2 million in the parks grant cycle. If we were fully able to do it ourselves -- and I compliment the job we did with Sugden Park and all, but if we were fully able, we wouldn't have missed all that. And if Mr. Hemphill has said he's willing to still talk, rather than simply reject this and not have anything going to pursue grants, I'd like to give our staff direction to sit down and see if there is something -- a compensation level that makes sense on our end that he'll accept. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Does the motion maker wish to amend the motion? COMHISSIONER NORRIS: I don't think the motion precludes that course of action. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: If we reject the RFP, though, that would mean we'd have to start all over and put a new RFP out. I think it may preclude that. Maybe Mr. Weigel can answer that, but if we reject the RFP -- MR. WEIGEL: If you reject the RFP, this process is closed -- create an opportunity for the initiation of a new process. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Does the motion maker wish to amend the motion to give staff direction to continue working on this matter and bring it back to this board? COMHISSIONER NORRIS: No. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Does the second maintain? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: The second stands. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We have a motion and a second on the floor. COMHISSIONER BERRY: And what is that motion? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: The motion is to reject the RFP before us today, which means that any further negotiation regarding this would have to come after a new RFP is issued. Is there any discussion? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah. I guess I'm curious as to what the harm is in giving our staff and this gentleman some time to work out a number that works for everybody. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, it's my understanding we've been working on it for about a year. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: My understanding that there -- there's -- I don't know who he's worked with lately, but there's been seven or eight people -- we haven't had a -- what is an appropriate working relationship from the county's side with the vendor who's attempted this? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Olliff, have you received correspondence from the applicant that is in your mind satisfactory for the board's financial position? MR. OLLIFF: No, sir. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: So nothing has been submitted to you that you feel is to the financial advantage of Collier County? MR. OLLIFF: No. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: After 14 months? MR. OLLIFF: (Mr. Olliff shook head.) CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And the vendor has closed out all possibilities of that? MR. OLLIFF: I believe in -- and in his indication that he needed to remain in certain parity, and he showed me some of his other contracts that -- there's not any of those contracts that I would have felt comfortable recommending to you. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. I'm going to call the question. All those in favor of the motion please signify by saying aye. Opposed? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Aye. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Four to one, the bid is rejected. COHMISSIONER BERRY: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to just comment on this. I happened to work -- before I became a county commissioner, I worked in another government institution here in Collier County. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: No. COHMISSIONER BERRY: We had a grant writer. That person was a salaried individual. And by the grants that we received, we more than were compensated. And so this is -- I just throw this out for food for thought for future thinking when we get into the budget process that we might want to consider that. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Except that -- do the administrative fees when grants are received, can they subsidize ad valorem expenditures? MR. OLLIFF: In most cases. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Well, it's worth looking at as we get closer to the budget process. COHMISSIONER BERRY: It really is, and I obviously have -- we have access to the salary and that kind of thing. But I think that's something -- I think you will avoid this kind of situation in the future. And I really think that if you want to pursue it -- and there certainly are a lot of grants out there. There are some grants you obviously do not want to get tangled in because there are a lot of strings attached to them, but there are others that are certainly worthwhile, and I think that this may be a better way to proceed. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: So we thank you for your involvement and attention, and the book may not be closed as yet. MR. HEMPHILL: Thank you your consideration in the future. If you need this service, I'd be happy to consider resubmitting my qualifications. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you. MR. HEMPHILL: Thank you again. Item #9A AMENDMENT TO THE CONTRACT BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY AND THE PGA TOUR, INC., FOR THE FUNDS OF THE 1996 GREATER ANPLES INTELLINET CHALLENGE AND OTHER AMENDMENTS TO CATEGORY B CONTRACTS - STAFF RECOHMENDATION APPROVED CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Moving on to Item 9(A), recommendation BCC consider an amendment to contract between Collier County PGA Tour and I believe four other grantees. MS. ASHTON: That's correct. Good morning, Commissioners. For the record I'm Heidi Ashton, assistant county attorney. The first item, 9(A), was before you in December on December 17th. As stated by the chairman, it proposes to amend four formerly Category B contracts to allow them to be payment con -- contracts instead of reimbursement contracts. And it also includes an amendment to the contract with the PGA Tour, Inc. I've identified two of the amendments in the executive summary. There's a third amendment that's been recommended by the clerk's office, which is we amend the contract to correct -- actually it's an error on my part in waiving Guideline 7 and 9 which were intended in the original contract that would preclude an audit. And if there's no audit, the clerk's department has stated that they wouldn't be able to identify whether there are excess revenues. Therefore, Section 13 of the contract would need to be amended as well, which would delete the reimbursement requirement. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Pause for a question on that point. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Briefly. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: So your -- your staff report is now -- you're amending it to delete No. 1 on the bottom of page 17 MS. ASHTON: No. One and two are still proposed amendments as well as a third amendment which would delete Section 13 of the contract, which says that excess revenues have to be repaid. These items did go to the TDC yesterday, and the TDC proposed -- approved the amendments except for the second amendment, which is a budget amendment to include as an expenditure operation expenses. The contract provides for production costs, and this amendment would also allow for operation -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: At the TDC meeting last night, we discussed this matter, and I'll go ahead and advance the unanimous TDC recommendation to you. We had to wade through all this to figure out what it meant and so forth. What it comes down to is, as I understand it, Items -- Guidelines 7 and 9 were waived originally at the -- when we originally approved the initial contract, 7 and 9 were mentioned as not being applicable, but they were -- when the contract came through, they were back in, and that's more or less a change to reflect initial action than it is removing responsibility. Is that a correct -- MS. ASHTON: If I could clarify that, yes. The -- the portions in the contract that deal with 7 and 9 were removed, and in its place the language "provided grantee shall submit any additional documentation requested by the county to complete its final accounting of this grant." But because the last section of the contract, Section 15, incorporates the guidelines into the contract, the guidelines require an audit. So there was an internal conflict in the contract. So this first amendment is attempting to address that conflict. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: The second item, which the -- and the TDC had no problem with that item. The second item the TDC discussed was the budget amendment to include tournament operations relating only to the PGA as an expenditure. In a nutshell, out of the $500,000 the invoices submitted totaled $500,000, but 32,000 were in such a form that the audit identified them as either not qualifying or not qualifying without additional information. In other words, of what the contract spelled out initially, 32,000 was questionable. Number 2 is to ask that the -- that tournament operations relating only to the PGA as a expenditure be included in the contract so that 32,000 then qualifies. The TDC took a position that -- and I'll be honest with you, there wasn't a lot of detailed information available, and I'm looking for some of that today -- that we not do that, that we not go back and amend the contract to make something a qualified expenditure. The reason we were given is, this was a bulk contract. In other words, the PGA hired someone to do five tournaments and to do a service for those five tournaments, and individual expenditures for each tournament are not attainable. That was the explanation we received. And I guess the TDC in whole said, well, that's not good enough. We want more information before we say we'll just include that in the contract. Section 13 being deleted, the TDC did recommend that, because we -- the discussions centered on the fact that of -- of all the Category C events we've done, none have repaid anything. None have provided any audit saying this is the money that was made and here's a check back. None have been required to. And that -- that's more or less the discussion and -- and, again, they recommended that that third element, which is Section 13, being deleted be approved. So of the three elements for the PGA contract specifically, 1 and 3, which is Section 13 and then guidelines for 7 and 9 being waived were recommended by the TDC. Number 2 was not recommended by the TDC, and that vote was unanimous. I think with the benefit of information regarding No. 2, maybe that would shed some light. And then the rest, the other four applications, were not questioned. MS. ASHTON: If I could also comment on the TDC's position, they basically said either produce documentation or repay thirty-two, roughly, thousand dollars. But one of the items they did discuss was some sort of a letter or -- or something that would address the contract items. And I am not sure if that would be acceptable to the clerk's office because that was something that we did discuss. So that was, you know, what the TDC had recommended, but it still wouldn't fall under our contract as being acceptable as it's currently written. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Any further questions for Miss Ashton? Commissioner Mac'Kie. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Actually, I just have some general comments, not for Miss Ashton. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Would -- why don't we try and hold those until after we've heard from speakers. Mr. Dotrill, do we have speakers? MR. DORRILL: Not on 9(A), Mr. Chairman. I've two on 9(B). COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Then I guess I'm up. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: No. I got a question for Heidi. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: For Heidi. Okay. COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Yeah. For Miss Ashton or perhaps Mr. Mitchell. I don't know who would be appropriate, but these $32,000 worth of expenditures that are in somewhat of question, is that because of this particular contract, or would these expenditures for the 32,000 be somehow otherwise prohibited by TDC rules? MS. ASHTON: It's the contract that prohibits the -- COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. So they're appropriate TDC expenditures; it's just that this particular contract had some language in there that made them open to question? MS. ASHTON: Right. We had four narrow categories in the contract that dealt with the production. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Can I ask clarification from Mr. Mitchell, because a lot of the questions last night centered around what is this $32,000 and why is it -- you know, does it qualify the wording is -- in other words, are we dealing with wordsmithing here, or are we dealing with someone made an inappropriate expenditure and it needs to be blanketed out completely? That was kind of a question last night. We didn't have a feel for what is this 32,000 we're talking about and how can it be rectified. MR. MITCHELL: Commissioners, good morning. For the record, Jim Mitchell, director of finance. The original contract between the PGA Tour, Inc., and Collier County Board of County Commissioners specified four specific expenditure categories. One of them was for television production, which was the coverage of the tournament itself, I think a two- or three-day coverage. The other one was for international broadcast. Another category was the Inside the Senior PGA Tour coverage; and the final was for an administrative fee that went right to the PGA Tour, Inc. The documentation that was submitted to us highlighting the -- the expenditures that were incurred by the PGA highlighted two additional categories which were not contemplated in the contract. One of them was for management and other expenses, and another one was employee travel expenses. And if you go back and look at the documentation that was provided to us, what we're looking at is the cost of the cost and travel related to rules officials, tournament operations, media officials, and agronomy or whatever the word is. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Greenskeepers. MR. MITCHELL: Exactly. So that's what the 32,000 is. And as you can see, it's very clearly outside of the four categories that were specified in the contract. It was in -- an expenditure in regard to the tournament, just outside of the contract as it was executed by this board. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: But nonetheless, Mr. Mitchell, those are allowable expenditures under TDC rules. Just -- just because of the language in this contract, there was some sort of a -- MR. MITCHELL: That's my understanding, sir. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And those are -- according to the PGA Tour, are those standard expenses with every PGA event? MR. MITCHELL: I don't know. I didn't -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. The second question is, PGA is not for profit; is that correct? MR. MITCHELL: It's my understanding they're not. They're a Maryland corporation, 501 C-6, I think. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Have we required an audit for the purpose of repayment of excess funds of any not for profit in Category C expenditures to your knowledge? MR. MITCHELL: Not to my knowledge. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Commissioner Hac'Kie, I sense you might have a statement down there. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Yeah. Just some questions actually. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: When might we expect the final audit, Mr. Mitchell, on these TDC expenditures? MR. MITCHELL: That's a question for Mr. Titus. I think that it is in draft form right now -- COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I've seen the draft. MR. HITCHELL: -- just waiting for responses from various parties. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Is that question for all five, you mean? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: The audit, of course, incorporates all of these items, not just the golf tournament. And my question is, just when might we get the final audit? MR. HITCHELL: The audit is outside the purview of my department -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Then I'd ask him to come up so he can answer that question and -- and maybe a couple of others. Hy -- my concerns here are just generally it appears that what we're doing is saying we made several mistakes in our contracts. I don't have an objection to the change from a reimbursement basis to an invoice basis of payment. Due to the nature of these events, that makes some sense. I do have an objection to removing the financial auditing or financial reporting requirements and to removing paragraph 13 from all of these. Paragraph 13 says that if the -- if the event makes money, then that portion -- that profit is returned to the county. That's important in this with regard to the golf tournament just because it's the only one I have information about at this point with regard to the commitment that was made by the promoter to make a $500,000 contribution. That's -- I want to read from his grant application. The economics are straightforward. Production costs are approximately 2 million. We propose to continue, and then it lists Intellinet and developer partners will pay $500,000. Although I absolutely agree that any lawsuit that's filed is outside the purview and scope of this -- of our analysis, because I've been sued for things I didn't do and those -- I never want to give any sort of credence to that. But the exhibit to the lawsuit is a letter agreement signed by Bill Rasmussen reducing his sponsorship fee from the $500,000 represented in the grant application to $150,000. That is, to me, a very significant change, and I don't want to do anything to the 1996 contract that diminishes our ability to get the financial data necessary to analyze who contributed how much money and where did the money go. Because of that, the only change that I would like to see us make in all of these 1996 contracts is merely the change from the method of payment from invoice to -- I mean, from -- from reimbursement to invoice, that the method of payment change is appropriate, but that any of the changes in financial reporting are not a good idea. And, again, to focus on the PGA, because it's the one I have information about as a result of this lawsuit, there is a signed agreement that shows that the Intellinet's contribution was $350,000 less. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Where'd you get a copy of that lawsuit? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I -- anybody can get a copy of this lawsuit. It's filed in federal court. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: When was it filed? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Sometime in 1996 in December. I got a copy of it on December -- actually, it was filed on December 20th. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Regarding your -- your comment regarding really Section 13, we are not -- it is my understanding, and someone correct me if I'm wrong. We are not exempting the event sponsors or holders from an audit. The PGA is a not for profit. I'll give you an example. The Naples concert man that had their concert and got a -- a Category C funding for it, because they're not for profit -- in other words, they can't use the money to do anything other than their 501 C-3 designation allows, we did not require and do not require them to repay. If their event made any money, we're not requiring an audit for the purpose of repayment because they're not for profit. And that change was made -- that was the first change we made to Category C funds, if I remember correctly, because we have a problem that if you're not for profit and you can't make anything, why are you holding an event. If there are going to be no revenues for your not-for-profit organizations like a church or Youth Haven or if anyone were to have an event and there's no fiscal benefit to you, why would you hold the event? And I remember that's when we looked at the repayment issue. Should we require not for profits to repay anything over -- over expenditures, and the reason not to is because they're not going to hold the event then. There's no reason to do it. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Nevertheless, it's real important in this case to know -- since we have an ongoing relationship with this tournament, it seems real important to me not to diminish the financial reporting requirements. The financial reporting requirements will allow Mr. Mitchell's department to get the answers to the questions that we continue to ask, which are, were the financial commitments made in the grant application? Were they honored, or were they not? That is something that the community deserves an answer to. If we eliminate Guideline 7 -- I don't know what Guideline 9 is, but Guideline 7 says a complete and verifiable audit is required on each grant by the recipient and is due to the administrator within 60 days at the completion of the grant. I know that the Chamber of Commerce does that, because we have them here. You know, we -- it was in my in box today as -- from Jean Gansel to the Board of County Commissioners, which is a certified audit, includes grant money from the tourist tax paid to the Naples Area Chamber of Commerce. So it is done. It's not difficult to do. It's a reasonable request. Because we have some genuine issues about whether or not the $500,000 commitment from Intellinet and/or consortium of developers at Intellinet was actually made, I would ask again that we not remove the audit requirement. We leave that in, we change the method of payment. I understand that that's appropriate. And I don't intend to single out just the golf tournament. I would make that suggestion for all of the -- all of the expenditures. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Let me ask -- I think I'm not following you correctly here perhaps. You say there's an agreement that you have a copy of between People and Properties and Intellinet? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Uh-huh. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: That's not a part of our TDC expenditures. Why would that have any bearing on what we're going to do here today? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Because -- COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Is that not an agreement between two private parties? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Yes, sir. But the agreement between those two private prop -- parties had to do with the commitment that was made to the county on page 3 of the grant application last year. And that's in our packet, if you want to look at it, page 16 of this item where it says "The economics are straightforward. Intellinet and developer partners commits $500,000 to this tournament." Their commitment was modified through an agreement with People and Properties, or it appears to me that it was, and that may -- that may be incorrect. But don't eliminate the audit requirement so that we can find out if that's true or not. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Excuse me if I'm still not following you, but I don't think we have the ability to audit private entities -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: No, sir. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: -- just because they were indirectly associated with our TDC grant. I don't think we have that ability. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I want to audit the grant. I want an audit of the grant to show what money came in, what money went out. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: And Mr. Hitchell has done that for you. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Actually, Mr. Hitchell, could you come back to the podium. Or maybe it is Bob, but could you also -- could you share with the group -- there is a letter -- the most recent correspondence to the PGA was requesting the information, and as I understand it, there's been no response. MR. HITCHELL: We have had one piece of response, and that had to do with -- the way this contract was written, as you're all aware, it says any revenues in excess of expenditures shall be returned to the county. The -- the largest expenditure that we -- that the PGA Tour incurred was for television production. That was for $435,000. Included on the invoice that was submitted to us was a credit for $45,000, which was a -- classified as a rights fee, which is revenue going back to the PGA Tour. So in turn the total cost to the PGA was $395,000 for that production. They, in turn, billed us the full $435,000. The concern with the audit is we can look at the expenditures, but we have no idea what the revenue side is. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Right. MR. HITCHELL: We have invoices that total $500,000, including the $45,000 in there. There's other revenue sources that we have seen. We've not been able to get our fingers around them. That's where the concern is at from the audit standpoint. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I wish that we had the benefit of having the update on the Category C subcommittee recommendations before this item, because that discussion has very much involved exactly what we're talking about. When -- and this is -- this is really my -- my take on Category C today. When someone stands at that podium and says for your TDC grant of $100,000 you will get X, Y, and Z, that is a contract between the applicant and the county. That contract has every, every right to be audited to the fullest extent to insure that the county got what it was told it would be getting in exchange for the TDC funds. If during that -- that statement the applicant says it will cost me $200,000 to hold this event and it cost them $100,000 to hold the event, tying that materially to the application or to the -- the contract between the county and that entity, I have a difficult time with. As I try and draw a correlation outside of this event, since we seem to be centering on it, I look at -- at the -- what is it? -- Was it the Fill-a-Belly? They told us it would cost a certain amount of money to hold that event. If it costs less to hold that event, is that a default on their application, and does that affect the contract between the county and that entity? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: No. But I'd like to have the right to know that. I'd like for the public to have that information. And if you remove the accounting reporting requirements, we will never know, and it's appropriate for the community to know. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: So it's not as material; did we get what we told we were going to get for our money? You want to spend time and money auditing the entire entity that involved the tournament COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: No. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- to find out what they spent and made in the way of revenues? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: No. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I'm seeking to understand what you're asking for. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Okay. What I'd like is what Mr. Hitchell described a moment ago. I'd like to know how much money came into this event and how it was spent. To date we have not gotten that information from PGA. MR. HITCHELL: Correct. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I'm asking you just to leave in -- in the contract the right to get that information. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, don't we -- aren't we leaving that right in there with the substitute language that says we have the right to ask for other documentation to support the expenditures? MS. ASHTON: That was the intent of the language, that we would be able to get whatever we needed, but we wouldn't need an audit. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And let me comment on that, Commissioner Norris -- COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Uh-huh. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: -- that my concern about changing the language is this. We have currently in the contract very strong, very specific language, says thou shalt give us an audit within 60 days of the end of the event. We didn't get that. Our finance department has written to the PGA and said please give us this information. We have strong language in our contract, and they have not given us the information. Why would we weaken the language in the contract? Instead we should be insisting that in the '97 contract our language is more specific about exactly what we want when we want it. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Which has been done. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: But let's don't weaken the '96 contract until we have a response. Mr. Hitchell, again, I don't think you answered this question. We wrote to PGA and said here's a list of questions that we have. What's been the response -- and ask them for some specific financial information. What was the response from PGA to that letter? MR. HITCHELL: We sent certified mail to all of the people outlined in the contract requesting three specific items. Those items -- if you'll give me just one minute, I'll get a copy of the letter. It said copies of all paid invoices as required by the provisions appearing in the contract. Number two was an accounting detailing all revenues of whatever form, type, or nature, including, but not limited to, any entry fees, insurance fees, dues paid, service fees, rights fees, credits, discounts, rebates, or offsets against expenditures. And the third item was an accounting detailing all actual costs incurred and monies expended by the PGA Tour, Inc., in staging the event or project. The only information that we have received to date is a letter from Edward Moorehouse, who is with PGA Tour, highlighting the $45,000 rights fee. That is the only thing that we -- we have received, and this letter was sent certified to PGA Tour on November 8th of 1996. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Mac'Kie, if your only concern is to make sure we don't weaken the contract until it was executed a year and a month ago, I don't have any objection to that. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I'd like for the only change to be that we change the method of -- of payment from -- from invoice to -- I mean, I'm sorry, from reimbursement to invoice. We can certainly waive our right to a certified audit. We can certainly say that we don't have to have everything, every bit of financial data, but we shouldn't weaken our position when we are already not getting responses from our other partner in this event. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: And that -- that applies to these category B events? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Absolutely, absolutely. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: They have not been audited, and they have not supplied us with any information like you're describing. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Actually, I have -- as I have here and you have in your in box, is the audit on the Naples Area Chamber of Commerce money. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Does that say audit on it? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Yes, sir. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Where? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Also included is a certified audit, which includes grant money from the tourist tax paid to the Naples Area Chamber of Commerce. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Let me ask you a question on this lawsuit. It appears to be dated on December the 20th. How did it happen to become media fodder yesterday? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I have no idea. I was contacted by the media and have no idea how they got it. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: COHMISSIONER NORRIS: that? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: responsibility for that. It wasn't your doing? Absolutely not. You're denying responsibility for Absolutely under oath I have no CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Will you raise your right hand? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I do. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We have -- there are -- the issue before us is $32,000 that is subject to the contract, the 1996 contract, and an audit by our -- the clerk's office that says that 32,000 -- need to do the remedial work in the contract or needs additional invoices. What I hear Commissioner Hac'Kie asking is, there's already a requirement to provide an audit, is there not, in the contract -- MR. MITCHELL: (Mr. Mitchell nodded head.) CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- that an audit be provided. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: But that's because of the inclusion of Guideline No. 7. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Is an audit still required with the changes that are being proposed today? Is the answer just simply no? MS. ASHTON: If the changes that are approved today are approved, then an audit is not required, but additional documentation which is requested by the county is required. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Does this language exist in other Category C events that we have perform -- that we have handled and no audit was provided? MS. ASHTON: Yes. This is the standard contract that we use for what was formerly the Category C local activities. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: So now we need to go back and require audits of every single Category C expenditure since the inception of this concept to be fair. MS. ASHTON: I guess the answer would be yes. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Mr. Mitchell, are the other Category C events sponsors included in the -- in the -- audit's not the right word -- in the review that your department has done? MR. MITCHELL: Once again, Commissioner, the internal audit department is doing that review, not the finance department. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm sorry. MR. MITCHELL: I think it would be more appropriate for Mr. Titus to address that question. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Mr. Titus. MR. TITUS: For the record, Bob Titus, director of internal auditing. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thank you. Are other events in addition to the Senior PGA Tour included in the internal audit being done by your department? MR. TITUS: Yes. I think it would be good to clarify. We say audit -- we throw in the word "audit" all over the place. What the clerk of court's internal department did was audit the TDC expenditures, all of the TDC expenditures, all of the Category B and Category C expenditures. The PGA Tour and Marco Island was just some of it. We did not audit the individual grantees as required in their con -- in their grant documents; so we did an overall audit. That's the type of audit we did. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Could you perhaps give me a better description of what it is -- what would we call it? What do I need from PGA, and what do I need from all of the Category B and C grant recipients in order to know what money came in and what money went out on each event? Is that an audit? MR. TITUS: When we use the word "audit," we usually mean that there is a third party, an independent party, who was preparing the information and submitting it to you. You can decide whether or not you want a third independent party, in effect, certifying for the information, or you can accept the information that's -- that's submitted by the -- by the grantee. That's a decision on -- on your part. You can get the information without being audited, but if you have some sense that your request could not be relied on, then you can request an audit. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And I guess the reason that I respectfully continue to request an audit of the PGA event is because of my concern that instead of $500,000 from the sponsor -- from the -- from Intellinet for the payment for getting to be the -- the title sponsor to the event, that instead of $500,000 as represented in our grant application, there is now an allegation that that was contractually reduced to $150,000. Actually, there is a signed agreement that we have a copy of that indicates that that was contractually reduced to $150,000, and there is even an allegation that that amount wasn't paid. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Hay I see that? Do you have that? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Uh-huh. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: How is that any of our business? We paid $500,000 to get our community promoted on television over a three-day event, and we received that. Now, how is a dispute between two private entities any of our business? I just don't see it. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Berry. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Pam, are you looking for accounts receivable and accounts payable? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yes, ma'am. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Then that's not an audit necessarily. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, the reason I'd like to leave in an audit is because I would like to have third-party independent certification as to this particular event because of the -- to say red -- red flags are flying here I think is a bit of an understatement. I think we are a genuine -- we're genuinely on notice that a representation made to the board of a $500,000 fee being paid CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: To a third party. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- to the PGA -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Well, it's not a contract with us. It's a third party. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: But it should be. It was incorporated into our contract. The grant application is a part of our contract. Surely you expected Intellinet to pay a sponsorship fee. They represented that they would pay one equal to ours, asked us to match their contribution. I would just -- I'm confused why anybody COMMISSIONER NORRIS: COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: not. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: our business -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Do you know that they didn't? I have no idea if they didn't or And that's my point. It's none of It is. It is our business when it was represented to us as a part of the grant application. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. Let's see if anyone agrees with you. I'll make a motion that -- that we approve staff's recommendation -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: On the point of -- COMHISSIONER NORRIS: -- concerning all five expenditures. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: On the point of discussion, -- if -- if this motion is successful, it's a moot point. But if we are going to single out this contract and require an audit based on information contained in a yet uninvestigated legal complaint by a third party, and that's the nexuses. You're basing your entire singling out of this contract on a one-page letter from People and Properties, a complainant in a lawsuit that is yet to be heard by any court. In fact, People and Properties was dismissed from Tour management. We have, in essence, a disgruntled party here. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: May I -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: If you're going to require an audit for that event because of that information -- yet every other Category C expenditure to date you're asking that no action be taken whatsoever to audit those in any way. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: No, sir. Let me correct that, because that's very important. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm going to second the motion. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I'm not asking -- first of all, I'm basing my concern on two -- I have two bases. One is this People and Properties contract with Bill Rasmussen. The second is their lack of -- PGA's lack of responsiveness to the certified letter sent from the county's internal audit department, their lack of responsiveness despite language in the contract requiring a certified audit. Based on that -- based on those two pieces of information, this event does require a third-party certification and, therefore, an audit. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Constantine. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Hitchell. MR. HITCHELL: Yes, sir. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Would you be comfortable labeling the PGA as unresponsive in this matter? That's a yes-no question. MR. HITCHELL: In regard to the memo sent to them in November, yes. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Overall? I mean, not -- not in regard to one thing. We have an issue here. In regard to the issue, are -- have they been wholly unresponsive? MR. HITCHELL: No. They have not been totally unresponsive. They have provided all the documentation that we have asked for with the exception of the last memo we sent to them in November. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you. I'm going to second Commissioner Norris's motion. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. On the -- on a point of discussion, I am concerned that the picture that Commissioner Hac'Kie has painted is that if you support this motion, you're saying audit's not necessary. We trust you. Have a nice day. I'm for the concern that a -- a commissioner or more than one commissioner is going to hold a contract to a litmus test that they have not held any other contract to. If the rules are the rules, let's play by them. If we don't like the rules, let's change them. But to step back and because of a third-party legal suit -- and the second issue you mentioned, by the way, applies to every Category C expenditure that's ever occurred. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: The lack of responsive to the internal audit? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yes. How many audits have been submitted -- third-party audits have been submitted on Category C expenditures in the past? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Actually, this issue, this lack of response, is on -- not on a third-party audit. This is on the internal audit that you received a draft copy of that audited not just the PGA, but all of the B and C category events, and it's PGA that the internal audit department -- it's from them that they sought additional information. I didn't do that. This was your internal audit department. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Either we have an audit or we don't. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We have a copy of the audit for the Marco Cat display last year? Do we have an audit from that? MR. MITCHELL: You're referring to the audit as defined in the contract where the grantee is required to submit an audit within 60 days of the completion of the event? Those audits are to be provided to the county manager's office. We have never received any in our shop; so I can't really tell you if it has been received or not. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I think Commissioner Hancock's point is that PGA is not alone on this thing. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Let me ask one more question. Mr. Mitchell, this -- this piece of information or pieces of information that you -- you have not received from the PGA, is that the same pieces that we've heard about before that -- that they are unable to supply because of the format that they expend funds? And I'm referring to the bulk buys, contracts, and that sort of thing that they -- is that what we're looking for that we can't get from them because they can't break it out? MR. MITCHELL: That could be. We don't know. We have not heard any response from our letter sent; so I really can't address that. COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: And then my last comment, and then I'll stop, is that I want us to be careful and -- in confusing the two audits that are being discussed. There is the audit of -- by -- by a third party that's required in all of these contracts to be submitted within 60 days, none of which have. I am more -- I am more concerned that the internal auditor of the county be able to get the information necessary to complete their internal audit because they have questions. Why would you reduce the financial reporting requirements of the PGA when they are to date unresponsive to our internal auditing department? And I'll stop. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I'm going to ask the motion maker to make a slight amendment for the simple reason, I don't care how much money they made in concessions. I don't care how many hats they sold. It doesn't mean anything to the county's contract, and a full-event audit will go to that level of detail which has no bearing on the contract with the PGA that the county signed. However, that contract does include, according to the auditor, thirty -- or according to Mr. Mitchell's department, 32,000 that there still need to be some answers for. I would like to have more solid answers regarding those 32,000 before just completely saying it's -- it doesn't -- I understand what you're saying. It isn't a TDC expenditure. I mean, it's approved as a TDC expenditure, but it wasn't included in the contract. I guess I would like just a better -- a better accounting of those 32,000 is -- you know, I'd like to see something like that incorporated into the motion. I just feel a need for that information. COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. Well, why don't I leave the motion as it is with the added language that -- that our finance department or internal audit department supply you with that information. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I'm more interested in the PGA supplying our internal auditor with that information -- or the internal audit department with that information. I want that to be pursued, is what I'm asking. I don't want to just leave it fallow and change the contract wholly to not address that. I think it needs to be pursued further. Mr. Mitchell -- MR. MITCHELL: Commissioner, we have documentation that supports the $32,000. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Right. MR. MITCHELL: The only concern we had is that it is outside of the four categories specified in the contract. Included in our documentation, we can tell you everything you wanted to know about the $32,000. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: The issue -- MR. MITCHELL: The dollars were expended in favor of the event. It's just expenditures that were outside of the -- the provisions of the contract. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Yeah. The -- the issue is that the contract was originally written unnecessarily restrictive with -- especially with regard to those $32,000 of expenditures. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: So the audit isn't really questioning whether the 32,000 should have been expended; it's just that the contract doesn't specify individual -- MR. MITCHELL: The contract doesn't allow for operational-type expenditures. It allows for production-type expenditures. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. MR. MITCHELL: The $32,000 is classified as operational. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Without which the production wouldn't occur. SO -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I have a question. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yes. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Could someone tell me if we -- if the motion passes and -- and the requirement for an audit is eliminated but there is this special language that says we can get -- we can ask for what we want as far as financial data, what will we be asking for? Or maybe it would help, Heidi, if you would read that language to me, the special language. Adequate financial records '- MS. ASHTON: It's under Section 9, and it says, "Grantee shall also submit any additional documentation requested by the county to complete its final accounting of this grant." COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Might that be a stronger provision if we said in the contract as we're amending it today what it is we want to see and by when, within what time period it should be provided, and what the penalty is for failure to provide it? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Hac'Kie, I think you've actually hit on the division that I've heard here today. You want to audit everything that occurred with the event. I'm only concerned with what -- what did we contract to get. If I signed a contract with someone to get 16 apples for 10 bucks, I want 16 apples, and I'm going to pay you 10 bucks. And if you gave me that, what do I care whether you sold oranges to my neighbor. I mean, the two are not related. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: But if you and I have a contract that I'm going to provide some services and some cash, you only care if I provide the services? You don't care if I provide the cash? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: If you're providing the cash to someone else, pretty much yes. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'd like to call the question. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I would too. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We have a motion to call the question and a second. All those in -- COMMISSIONER BERRY: Restate the question, please. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Restate the motion, Commissioner Norris. COMHISSIONER NORRIS: The motion is to -- to approve staff's recommendation, that would be No. 1; No. 2, and the additional language Miss Ashton gave us concerning alternate information versus audit. COHMISSIONER BERRY: This is for the '96 contract or and all new contracts? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: No. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: No, this is just for last -- for '96. It also includes the contract amendments on these four Category B -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We're not going to make this problem again in the new contracts. This is just to go back and fix the '96 contract to correct it to reflect the changes we make today. COHMISSIONER BERRY: And by correcting this contract you hope to gain what? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: A functional contract. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: $32,000 fell outside the written parameters of the contract. We're trying to correct that so that it falls within so we don't have to go recollect that 32,000. It met the intent but not the letter of the contract that was signed last year. COHMISSIONER BERRY: It met the rules of the TDC, but it did not meet the rules of the contract? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Correct. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: The letter of the contract, that's my understanding, correct. COHMISSIONER BERRY: Do you do this often? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Nope. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Not in my recollection. COHMISSIONER BERRY: It may sound funny, but I have a real -- I have a problem with going back when you have an existing contract to go back and change a contract. A contract is drawn, and it's -- and that's the reason I asked. I'm not trying to be funny here. I have a real concern about going back and changing a contract that's been in existence -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Well, under -- COHMISSIONER BERRY: -- and to meet -- to fix it up to meet a category that obviously wasn't provided for in the contract. The more serious problem here is a contract was drawn that did not and was not appropriate for this kind of an event obviously, and -- and I have a real problem with that. I don't know who's to blame, but there is a problem here. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Well, under Item 10(A) you're going to hear an update on why -- how we can avoid this situation in the future. To be quite frank with you, Category C has been nothing but a problem since we started. COHMISSIONER BERRY: Oh, I'm -- I'm aware of that. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And I think we as a board who, by the way, 5-0 approved the contract, need to shoulder some of the blame. I mean, you know, it is our responsibility to insure that these things get done. And if we make errors in the initial contracts, rectifying those errors, again, lies with us as a board. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: For the record I'd like to enforce the contract that I voted for. COHHISSIONER NORRIS: Well, you'll get your chance. Call the question. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: The question has been called. All those in favor of the motion please state aye. Opposed? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Nay. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Nay. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: The motion carries 3-2. The nays were Commissioner Mac'Kie and Commissioner Berry. COMMISSIONER BERRY: And I wanted it noted on the record that my opposition is for going back and changing the in -- existing contract. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We have 10:35. Let's take a 10-minute break and return at a quarter till. (A short break was held.) Item #9B AGREEMENT BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY AND THE CHALLENGE FOUNDATION, INC. FOR THE FUNDING OF THE 1997 PGA GOLF TOURNAMENT WITH TOURIST DEVELOPMENT TAX FUNDS - APPROVED. AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE GREATER NAPLES CHAMBER OF COHMERCE, INC. AND COLLIER COUNTY FOR FUNDING OF FULFILLMENT WITH TOURIST DEVELOPMENT TAX FUNDS - CONTINUED ONE WEEK CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Call the Tuesday, January 14, 1997, Board of County Commissioners meeting to order. We have moved right along at the rapid snail's pace up to Item 8 -- or excuse me, 9(B). This is consider approval of an agreement between Collier County and the Challenge Foundation for funding of the 1997 PGA Golf Tournament. Miss Ashton. MS. ASHTON: There are two contracts attached. Since the initial application the -- the application has been broken down into two. One is fulfillment, which is in the amount of $100,000, and that will be -- we'll be entering into a contract with the Naples Area Chamber of Commerce. We're working out some of the details of the contract; so we're asking that you approve substantially the form that's in here subject to minor amendments that we can approve by my office. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And I have clarifications on the contract with the chamber that need to be put on the record for inclusion into the contract; so at the appropriate time, Miss Ashton, I'll do that before the board takes a motion. MS. ASHTON: Okay. The second contract is for $500,000, and instead of PGA Tour, Inc., this contract is with the Challenge Foundation, Inc. The contract is substantially the form of the contract that you just approved as amended for 1996. And this contract -- the section regarding incorporating the guidelines into the contract was left out. And the -- the purpose for that was the understanding that I thought I had or misunderstanding that the board was looking at funding just the production and the operations of the tournament and that it would be getting, you know, the promotion and the advertising through the airing of the tournament and that that's what you were looking at. So I -- I con -- I structured this one so it would satisfy some of the problems that we identified this year with this year's contract. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Miss Ashton, has Mr. Hitchell's department reviewed this contract, since he has already gone through one audit of a PGA contract and identified problem areas? Has he -- his department reviewed the contract? MS. ASHTON: Yes. I did provide a copy of the contract. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I was trying to avoid you having to get up again, Jim. Sorry about that. You can avoid the Stairmaster today. MR. MITCHELL: Commissioners, Jim Mitchell, director of finance. We have had an opportunity to review it, and we do not really have any concerns with it. The only thing that we require is that any contract that is executed by this board regarding expenditures precludes lump sum payments, and this one does preclude it. We do have the right to obtain all of the documentation that's necessary to support any expenditure made out of county funds. from that standpoint we have no problems with it. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: So the public understands the process, what will happen is when an expense is made, an invoice, either paid or unpaid, will be submitted to your department. That invoice will be checked against the contract to make sure it complies with what is set forth in the contract. If it does, the invoice is then paid. MR. MITCHELL: That's correct, Commissioner. The other stand is that it cannot preclude us from doing our preaudit. And that is one of the factors that we do in the preaudit. We look at the contract components. We look at the approval process. If someone in the county is approving it, then that is a legal payment, that is that monies have been properly appropriated for it. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. The lump sum payment is kind of what got us into the issue on the previous contract, is it not? MR. MITCHELL: Yes. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Any questions of -- of staff on this? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Nope. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I do have a clarification to the contract with the Chamber of Commerce. The package you have on page 15 actually has the wording and -- and statements from last year regarding the number of commercials that Mr. Rasmussen put forth and so forth. This year what has changed -- and I need to state this so that it can be incorporated into the contract with the chamber, and then I'll ask Mr. Wheeler if my statement meets to his satisfaction. As you remember, there was some questions about fulfillment and heads and beds and traceable, and it was quite a quagmire last year on how -- what exactly did it do, and did it do what it was intended. What has been arrived at this year is an agreement between the Challenge Foundation and hopefully the Chamber, that I intervened on, to provide the Chamber with six 30-second spots throughout the tournament. They control the content of those 30-second spots and are able to produce the commercials with whatever information they deem appropriate. Both the production of those six 30-second spots and the fulfillment of inquiries generated by only those six spots is the purpose of the $100,000 expenditure. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I think we could get someone from the Chamber to agree to that on the record here today. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Wheeler, could I ask if what I have just summarized satisfies the concerns the Chamber had with being lumped into other areas of the tournament that you -- you really have no responsibility for? MR. WHEELER: Good morning. My name is Steve Wheeler. I'm director of tourism for Naples Chamber of Commerce. That is one of the concerns. We had several concerns in the -- the wording of the contract. That was particularly one of the concerns as far as being limited to only six commercials. I don't have all the wording with me as far as recommendation, and I'm not sure if an attorney that's been helping us with the contract has had time to speak with Miss Ashton. As of last evening he had not. So until that wording is -- is changed to our satisfaction, we're not prepared to go ahead with this agreement. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: So, in essence, we don't have an agreement today to approve regarding the hundred thousand dollars because I have received no fax from his office this morning. I'd talked to you last night about suggested language for incorporation into the contract. We have one of two ways to go, as I see it. One is to approve or agree in concept with what the contract is to reflect and then to ask the county attorney -- or to approve the contract substantially and to ask the county attorney to incorporate that into the contract, or we have no contract. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, considering the detail with which we've scrutinized all of the other activities and considering the surprises that have popped up having to do with TDC dollars in the past several weeks and months, I'm not comfortable simply doing a concept and hoping that we meet that goal. If we don't have a contract today, we won't approve any of it. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Absolutely. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I won't anyway. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Period. I want to vote for something that I can read it. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And then -- so basically -- and I'll tell you that the time frame alone, not approving a new contract today, eliminates -- in my understanding, eliminates the opportunity to use the tournament as a vehicle for advertising. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: My suggestion would be, who -- who was the attorney to the Chamber? MR. WHEELER: Tom Garlick. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Might he be available to review this so that we could look at it toward the end of the meeting and continue this portion of the item until that -- until that review has taken place? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: If that's -- if it's of interest to you, Mr. Wheeler, to do that. If you'd just as soon not deal with it and not have a contract at all -- I guess I'm looking for some direction from -- MR. WHEELER: I think that I had demonstrated to the county through several letters and phone calls that I had interest in it, but was -- there was no response until yesterday afternoon. Our attorney was home with the flu since Friday and didn't have the opportunity to have any conversation with anyone about these items. I am interested very much in participating in this if we can come to an understanding on the wording of it. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I like the suggestion of continuing this item until later in the meeting to determine whether Mr. Garlick has the opportunity to suggest language for the contract for inclusion that specifies what the Chamber's responsibilities are because I will tell you, there has been contact, Mr. Wheeler, because it was from me. It was to you and Miss Keller periodically, and maybe the timing wasn't what everyone wanted but -- MR. WHEELER: I think we spoke yesterday about 4:45, to my recollection. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Correct, and to Miss Keller one week prior to that. MR. WHEELER: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Is there a motion? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, I -- a question. Are we continue -- is this discussion going to put off the entire item or just the Chamber portion of the contract? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We have two contracts in front of us; is that correct, Miss Ashton? MS. ASHTON: That's correct. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I believe we can -- not necessarily continue the item, but defer a decision on this contract to a later point in the meeting and then move ahead with the -- the contract with the Challenge Foundation? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: If the motion is appropriate, I'll move to that effect. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Hay I ask a question? What happens if the first contract goes and we don't have a second contract so no one is responsible for doing fulfillment? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Then there will be no commercials aired that have any fulfillment requirement. The separation was if there was going to be some fulfillment, the entity to best handle that and design it would be the Chamber or its designee. We had a problem in the relationship between the tournament and then the fulfillment side last year. In an attempt to avoid that, we said if we're going to have any -- any proposal that involves fulfillment, that should rest solely with an entity that can handle all of it and make those decisions. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: If those don't air, does that simply mean we don't expend those funds? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: That's correct. Well, with the exception of there have been some production costs already, if I'm not mistaken. And those are -- would be subject to reimbursement. We'd have to have some contract to that effect. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm not big on conspiracy theories, but my recollection was that there are a number of entities unhappy with the fact we were doing ads and trying to do fulfillment last year anyway. Some of those people involved are involved with the Chamber, and I hope it's not the case, and I would hate to think that the reason we haven't had any agreement presented to the county as an alternative is to just make this go away. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I -- I can say there's always been enthusiasm upon the part of Hiss Keller on behalf of the Chamber for pursuing this, and Mr. Wheeler has already attested that he certainly has an interest. He just has concern that the Chamber gets stuck with liabilities that they don't want to be stuck with. I think we all share that. In continuing this I'm confident Mr. Garlick can at least propose some language that answers that in the meantime. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So we'll go ahead and table that half till later today? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: If that is the -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: That's my motion. COHMISSIONER BERRY: I'll second it. MR. DORRILL: One additional speaker -- COHMISSIONER NORRIS: We're going to go forward -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: We're going to go forward with that portion. We're just going to let the Chamber -- MR. DORRILL: He said he was registered. I'm just trying to get a feel for -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Why don't we -- I think Mr. Ayres was actually registered to speak on this item, not necessarily on the other one? MR. AYRES: No. It was on the first item. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: The PGA Tour? MR. AYRES: On the Chamber issue. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Please. MR. AYRES: I'm John Ayres. I'm the president of Visit Naples Inc. In -- in response, Mr. Constantine, to your -- to your comment, I wanted to just give you the comfort level that there really is -- we have been favorably looking at this for some time. Obviously when you have an opportunity to put any advertising out in the national media and especially if that opportunity is gratis, one would want to take advantage of that. The concerns, of course, of the Chamber in -- in any contractual situation, as evidenced by the conversations here today, is that everyone wants to clearly be able to understand what their role is and what their relationship is to -- to whatever they're working with. Certainly the fact that -- that the -- that the contract is between the county -- and I can't speak for the Chamber, but my opinion is that because the contract is with the Chamber of Commerce, that's -- that's the relationship that we were all looking for. The real -- the real challenge here is that -- no pun intended, is that the wording, unfortunately, in the document speaks to what was originally proposed by Mr. Rasmussen, which is a duplication of last year's effort which -- which, of course, none of us really wanted to get back involved in again, but just for clarification. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's all I'm looking for for an answer. Thank you. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We have a motion and a second regarding the tabling of this contract till a later point in the meeting. Is there any discussion? All those in favor please signify by saying aye. Opposed? (No response) Seeing none, that item is tabled. Second item is a contract between Collier County and the Challenge Foundation regarding the 1997 PGA Golf Tournament. Before that, Commissioner Mac'Kie, let me ask Miss Ashton, is there anything you want to add? We've already discussed this contract a little bit. Is there anything else from the staff perspective you -- MS. ASHTON: No, not unless anybody has any questions. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Commissioner Mac'Kie, you raised your hand. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yes, a question actually. It's probably a legal question. Paragraph 14 of the contract refers to amendments. And one of the -- one of the amendments -- well, the paragraph says that any changes in the event -- and then it lists some examples -- must be submitted first to the Tourist Development Council and then to the Board of County Commissioners for consideration, approval, and contract amendment by the board if applicable. One of the things that is listed there as an amendment that requires that process is an amendment in the key participants. My recollection of the application that was that there was no title sponsor at the time of the application, of the grant application, that there was the Challenge Foundation, and there was Collier County. And subsequent to that a group called LG something has come in, happily, and become a major sponsor, title sponsor. I don't know what they call themselves. Was that process in paragraph 14 complied with, or will we be in default when we sign the contract? MS. ASHTON: Well, since we hadn't entered into a contract yet, it's my opinion no. And I did provide under the second paragraph of the considerations that since the board approval, the Challenge Foundation, Inc., has obtained a significant sponsor of the 1997 and future tournaments. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So the -- the obligation -- so what we're going to do is sign a contract in January for an event in February, but the grant application is not relevant to -- the representations made in the grant represent -- grant application are not relevant to whether or not there were changes. See, that troubles me. I can see from a -- from a legal interpretation standpoint that that could be arguably correct. My problem is that when this group came to the board, they came without a sponsor, had to have this money or the event wouldn't occur. We didn't get an opportunity to review that change. We got informed of that change. And I think that that's material and should have been -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Do you have an objection to that change? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yes, I do, based on the fact that I believe our money is no longer necessary, that the LG group could back the entire event without the need for the tourist tax money. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: That's pretty impressive. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, the purse doubled, didn't it? I mean, it was a $500,000 purse; now it's a million-dollar purse. What was it last year? COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Six hundred. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. It went from six hundred to a million, so how about if we get four hundred thousand dollars back and the purse stays at six hundred thousand? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: But, see, you're missing the whole point with all this nitpicking that you did on last year's tournament and what you're trying to do here. You're missing the whole point. The point is to spend $500,000 of tourist tax money to promote Collier County, Naples, and Marco Island as a tourist destination. Now, if we don't pay any of that tourist tax money in there, they're not going to promote it. We're not going to get TV exposure which, by the way, you said gave you goose bumps last year it was so good. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: It did; it was beautiful. COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. The point is that that coverage last year during the three days was audited at $7.2 million worth of exposure that we got for $500,000. Subsequent to the tournament, when tourist tax revenues had previously been going down, down, down, immediately after the tournament they went up, up, up. And if you figure an average of a hundred dollars per room night, the tourist tax collections over the summer will show that you had an extra 49,000 room nights in the summer of '96 over 1995. So the point is, let's spend some advertising money, get some advertising on worldwide television, Mr. Ayres, not national, and get some exposure and get some people to come to Naples. If we accomplish that, all the little nitpicking that you're doing on it really is pointless. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And I -- I agree -- had the same impression as you did, Commissioner Norris, when I first looked at those tourist tax -- I'm sorry, the tourist revenues, how they went up so significantly, until I looked a little further in my nitpicking way and found that there -- that was also the time for the results to come in from the excess money, the windfall money that had previously been tied up in a lawsuit that was then used to target those specific markets. And if you look -- if you nitpick even more, you can look and find out that the responses -- those increased room nights -- COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Wait. Please let me finish. Those increased room nights came from markets that were not targeted by the PGA-related expenditure, but came from markets that were targeted by the windfall. So -- COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. Well, I'm not going to sit here and try to tell you that the golf tournament was totally responsible for those 49,000 room nights. But I'm also not going to let you try to tell me that it was some other advertising that was totally responsible for those 49,000 room nights. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I'm not trying to say that. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: You don't know, I don't know, and there's nobody on this planet that can tell you which advertising brought in which room nights. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: While we're trying to discuss whether Elvis is alive -- you're not going to put your finger on this. If you're looking for result X, I want 10,000 room nights from that money, you're not going to find it. Commissioner Norris has cited that the Category B and C funds were set up to increase shoulder-season and off-season tourism. Now, it has occurred to a good extent. Whether you want to blame one entity and congratulate another is your -- your personal -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Right and -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- how you want to do that. The bottom line is it's working in some way. Could it work better? I think it could, and we can find ways in the future to tailor it better. But we've seen success. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: But let me just clarify that that wasn't the point that I made. The point that I brought up was was there a change in the major sponsor and should this board have participated in that change, and I think we should have. And I have one more question, and then, again, I'm going to stop. I can count. But -- and -- included in our packet today is a requirement for -- is a proforma budget that indicates revenue sources. Now, the title sponsor for a million dollars, presenting sponsor for a half million dollars, some revenues for $2,500,000, is it a part of the record based on the last discussion that we don't care whether or not that revenue is actually contributed to the event? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: It's not an element of our contract how much they charge for hot dogs. It's not an element of our contract on how revenues are generated and how they go into the event. Otherwise we would be holding the event; we are not. Our contract deals specifically with a payment to a not for profit in exchange for promotion and advertising. So that -- that's where I'm -- I do draw the line there. You know, how much -- how much it costs to run the event, if we want to get into that, we need to be the event sponsor. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: No, that's not my question. My question is, Collier County is going to pay a half a million dollars for this advertising. An equal or greater amount of advertising last year was available for Intellinet. We paid a half a million dollars for theirs. I'd like to know how much they paid -- Intellinet paid for theirs. I'd like to know if we got the benefit of our bargain. Did we get or did they get an inordinate amount of benefit based off the county shareholders' -- the county taxpayers' back? Same question with this year. Do you care whether or not LG actually spends a million dollars, or shouldn't we be concerned that they might be getting some of the value of our exposure they might be getting for free? I think they should make an equal or greater contribution. And I think that that's relevant to the value of what we're getting. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: If they're upping the purse increases viewership, should we pay more? COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: You're making the argument that we should get something back if someone else contributes more. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: I just want to know -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: If we get more than we bargained, we should pay more. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman -- COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: I just want to know if the revenues in the staff report are relevant to the discussion or just information that may or may not ever be applied. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I realize that Commissioner Mac'Kie may have more on this issue, but I'd like to go ahead and make a motion we approve the contract. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We have a motion. Is there a second? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Approve the contract as recommended in our executive summary? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Correct. COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Second. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We have a motion and a second. COMMISSIONER BERRY: We have any discussion? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We certainly do. COMHISSIONER BERRY: Good. I'd like to know, does the TDC -- are they recommending this? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: The TDC, I don't believe so, no. And I -- I wasn't at that meeting when the contract was discussed. The TDC has not recommended expenditures for the Intellinet Challenge or the LG Championship. COMMISSIONER BERRY: CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: TDC purposes, yes. COMHISSIONER BERRY: this event? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: COMHISSIONER BERRY: CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: COMHISSIONER BERRY: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: This is funds from the TDC? This is funds collected for -- for And yet they're not recommending That's interesting. Is there any further discussion? Is there any reason -- do you know, Boy, you're getting into -- you're kind of opening up -- there's been a division of decisions between the TDC and the board on these -- on these types of issues that goes back a ways. I -- we're currently in the process of trying to bridge that gap, a little bit of refining -- Category C got kind of opened up at one point where things were being funded and recommended -- I mean, there's even -- there's no consistency to -- to TDC Category C funds since they've actually been in place. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Could I just -- one -- one of many, but the more blatant, I would think, perhaps, reasons why TDC does not support or doesn't encourage this expenditure is that the -- the funds were voted on in Collier County to promote -- for the specific purpose of promoting off-season tourism. And because this is a February event, it is arguable whether or not it promotes off-season tourism. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well -- COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: And that -- I'm just -- I'm not COHHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah, but that's no different -- I mean, we did the Marco Cat last year, and TDC fund -- that was strictly in season. That was expended on capital expenditures which is prohibited under the guidelines, and you voted in favor of that. I mean, the commission has not been consistent, and -- and that's the bottom line. It's through our guidelines. This -- this happens to meet the guidelines through the advertising package. The event is in February. The advertising package advertises summer rooms, and -- and that's what it boils down to. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Actually, this year the advertising package doesn't. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You don't mind if I finish my comments, Commissioner Hac'Kie. You've had several on this topic. The -- there are any number of events that we've spent Category B and Category C funds on that haven't met the guidelines. This one -- COHMISSIONER BERRY: Why? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I haven't supported them. I voted against them. The Marco Cat's the best example. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: You didn't vote for this tournament? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I did, and I just explained to you, because it's for a summer -- I'm sorry. I missed the eye-rolling down at that end. The summer event -- or the money goes toward advertising for a summer golf package -- COHMISSIONER BERRY: I understand that. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- off-season golf package; so, yes, I did support that. It promotes off-season tourism in Collier County, which is the purpose of the TDC funds. COHMISSIONER BERRY: Excuse me, Commissioner -- and there was some documentation, was there not, that there was something realized that -- where did I see eighty something? Is that -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's what Commissioner Norris was commenting just a few minutes ago. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Eighty-seven of those packages were sold. COHMISSIONER BERRY: Okay. I guess one of my big concerns is we're up here as the guardians of these funds, and yet the TDC has not come with a recommendation for this particular event. I'm not opposed to this event. I really and truly am not, but it concerns me that the TDC is not taking a role if -- and -- and coming forth with some kind of guidelines for these kinds of funds. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yes, we are. COHMISSIONER BERRY: They are coming? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: That's why I said there's an item later in the agenda that should have come before all of this, and it's a recommendation for new guidelines regarding Category C funds because it has been so broad. And there's a history here that it was too restrictive initially, became broader -- and actually I think it was broadened a little too wide because enough events weren't qualifying for those funds, weren't getting the promotion. And now we're saying, well, look, you know, this is a little too broad, a little too subjective. Let's bring it back a little bit. And you will receive those recommendations. The TDC is meeting on them one week from last night; so we should receive them either one week from today or two weeks from today on adopting new guidelines for Category C for this same situation. COMMISSIONER BERRY: And I truly believe you cannot underestimate with the advertisement that goes on during this golf tournament that's done nationwide, and I don't know if it's done internationally at some point in time. I don't think you can underestimate that. I wish we could get a better handle to see what is actually generated; and perhaps with a little ingenuity from the hotel industry, they could certainly come up with something to find out how much is generated from this particular event, which might give us a little more help in terms of -- of -- of seeing whether this is an event that we should under -- you know -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I remember a newspaper article the day -- a couple days after the event last year that had comments from the Chamber of Commerce and comments from actually all the chambers talking about how the phone lines were lit up and how they were jammed and how so many people had called. COMMISSIONER BERRY: I remember they were overloaded and COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Overwhelmed. COMHISSIONER BERRY: Right. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And so I think to suggest that this had no response and got no attention is ridiculous. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Norris. COMHISSIONER NORRIS: I just had one comment for Commissioner Berry as far as the TDC. By ordinance the makeup of that board has dedicated seats and -- and, frankly, there's -- there's a problem with objectivity because of some of the dedicated seats, and so the -- the decisions, I don't think, are always made in a completely objective manner. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Mac'Kie. COMHISSIONER BERRY: I think we definitely -- you know, I would like to see this really looked at and -- and Mr. Chairman says that there is something that's going to be forthcoming -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Certainly make our meetings a lot shorter, wouldn't it? COMHISSIONER BERRY: Yes, it would. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Mac'Kie. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Last is on the issue that Commissioner Berry asked about, about how does this conform with the guidelines this year as far as promoting off-season tourism, and Commissioner Constantine referred her to last year's advertising package which did promote specifically off-season golf packages. Ms. Ashton, does this year's advertising, this year's fulfillment with the Chamber of Commerce, require advertisement for off season, or is it contemplating general promotion of the Naples-Marco area? MS. ASHTON: It's my understanding that the commercials were run during the tournament, which is February 7th through 9th, and last year there were some commercials that were broadcast in designated market areas after that. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's not my question. Last year's commercials said, if you would like -- please come to Collier County in the summer. Please come to Collier County in the spring. I believe that the advertisements proposed under this year's contract just say please come to Collier County. So I just -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Advertisements by whom? COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: By the Chamber in the fulfillment contract. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: So -- COHHISSIONER HAC'KIE: They promote, generally, tourism in Collier County. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So your objection is that this isn't an off-season thing? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Correct. And I -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Where was that objection last year for two or three events that you supported? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: If you don't mind, I was trying to direct my comment to Commissioner Berry to her question about whether or not this met the -- this event meets the guidelines. We can't rely on the fact that last year's tournament promoted off-season tourism. This year's does not. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I'm trying to avoid the hang all the laundry on a single day. But the truth here is that last year Mr. Rasmussen put together 13,000 spots that aired in markets all over the United States. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Do we have affidavits about those? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yes, we do. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I'd like to see them. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: They're in the office of OHB as they have been since the last time you asked about them. They've been there, Pam. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Okay. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: There was some complaints from the hoteliers that that couldn't be tracked enough, the fulfillment plans were not good enough, and I think some of those complaints were very valid. So this year rather than reliving that monster, what I said is let's take six 30-second spots that are shown worldwide and give the total content control of those spots to the Chamber of Commerce, total content control. The tournament has nothing to do with them. If those spots say come to Naples, have a nice day, and don't mention the off season, unless the Chamber refuses the contract altogether today, that's within the control of the Chamber of Commerce. And if anyone should understand the intent of TDC Category C funds, it is the Chamber. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And -- and lest everybody get way too defensive, all I was trying to do was answer a specific question by Commissioner Berry. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, I have a question too, Commissioner Hac'Kie, and that is, where is the consistency? If your primary concern is that this isn't off season, why have you supported any number of other events that requested money that weren't off season? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: We don't have time for that whole discussion today. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, no, I'm just saying if that's your primary concern, you didn't have that concern with other ones. I'm curious why. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And it's not really pertinent to the contract -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I'd be happy to talk to you about it anytime. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Unfortunately, we have to do that on the record so -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: But I'm not going to waste this board's time, Commissioner Constantine, just for you to get -- COHHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You can't answer why you're not consistent? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Yeah, yeah, yeah. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Excuse me. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I'll tell you one thing, folks -- just a second, Commissioner Norris. I'll tell you one thing, if you want to bicker, that's one thing. But it better have something to do with the item on the agenda. I am not going to spend a year doing this. So let's stick to the issue, and let's stop the personal comments. Commissioner Norris. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Commissioner Hac'Kie, you made the flat statement that the commercials for this year's golf tournament, the one that's coming up in 20 days, does not promote Collier County in the off season. We don't know that. You don't know that. But it's up to the Chamber of Commerce to decide the content of those commercials. So you need to, I think, for the record retract that statement. It's just not correct. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I'm sorry, but I did meet with representatives of the Chamber and the groups who are putting these advertisements together yesterday, and I was told and -- and they may change their mind. But as of yesterday the ads were designed to be extremely generic. It was a -- I was advised by the representatives of the Chamber and the Visitors Bureau that the ads were not specifically promoting an off-season package. So I'm representing what was reported to me yesterday in a meeting with the representatives. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Constantine. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I certainly appreciate your comments on trying to keep this to pertinent issues. I do think consistency of voting -- and if there is a primary reason why we're dealing with an issue or why we oppose an issue and that's not consistent, that's a pertinent question. But obviously we're not going to get an answer. So I'll go ahead and call the question that's on the floor. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: The question has been called. COHMISSIONER BERRY: Would you restate it, please. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Would you restate the motion. I believe it was your motion, Commissioner Constantine. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That was to approve the contract. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And the second was -- COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Approve staff. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Approve staff recommendations. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And the second was Commissioner Norris? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Yes. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. All those in favor please signify by saying aye. Opposed? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Aye. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion carries 4-1. Item #10A RESOLUTION 97-45 APPOINTING ALAN VARLEY, GEORGE WERNER, JOHN HOYT, EDWARD GRIFFITH, AND HERBERT HASSON TO THE PELICAN BAY MSTBU ADVISORY COMHITTEE - ADOPTED We are -- let's see, it's 11:20. We will keep going at this blazing speed on to Item 10(A), appointments of members to the Pelican Bay MSTBU Advisory Committee. Commissioner Norris. COMHISSIONER NORRIS: I will move staff recommendations and waive the limit on consecutive terms for Mr. White. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Do we have a second? We have a second. Any discussion? All those in favor please signify by saying aye. Opposed? (No response) Item #10B BOARD ACTION REGARDING CHANGE OF USAGE FRO HOPEWOOD FOR USE BY THE QUADALUPE CENTER TO ESTABLISH CHILD CARE - APPROVED Seeing none, on to Item 10(B), board action regarding change of usage from Hopewood for use by the Guadalupe Center to establish child care. Who do we have? Mr. Hihalic, are you the appropriate staff member to give us some background on this? MR. HIHALIC: I'm here to answer questions, Commissioners. The chronology that was in your packages is correct and appropriate. And this building was built partially only a small part with Pocket of Poverty funds that were granted by the State of Florida in 1989 for use as low income housing for primarily farmworkers at the time. It has since changed use, and Hospice took it over, and the board considered that an appropriate use for the grant funds. And -- and as I understand the letter that was received, Guadalupe Center is asking that the board consider their childcare facilities also an appropriate use in the spirit of the grant funds. I'd be happy to answer any questions you may have. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Norris, go ahead. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: This approval of this item today will not have any danger of making the county repay the $300,000? MR. HIHALIC: Commissioner, when the first amendment occurred a few years ago between the county and the Four Seas Corporation and Hospice of Naples, the State of Florida said they were not interested in any way in getting the money back. They would not put that in writing from the Department of Community Affairs, but that was their oral representations. I'm -- I still believe those representations are correct. The contract that we have with the State of Florida has expired, and there is no more Pocket of Poverty program. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: So they don't even have a way to track it then? MR. HIHALIC: To the best -- in my professional opinion, Commissioner, yes. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Motion to approve. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Second. COHMISSIONER BERRY: Second. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We have a motion and a second. Is there any discussion? Any speakers, Mr. Dotrill? MR. DORRILL: No, sir. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Call the question. All those in favor please signify by saying aye. Opposed? (No response) Seeing none, thank you, Mr. Hihalic, and good luck. Item #10C RESOLUTION 97-46 APPOINTING JACULYN DERING, DORIS LEWIS AND HARTHA GORDON TO THE LIBRARY ADVISORY BOARD - ADOPTED Item 10(C), appointment of members to Library Advisory Board. We have openings in Districts 4, 2, and 5. I personally have experience with Miss Dering and would like to see her reappointed in District 2. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And in 4, the staff recommendation of Doris Lewis. COMMISSIONER BERRY: And in 5, Martha Gordon. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's a motion. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: That is a motion by Commissioner Mac'Kie. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Second. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We have a second. Any discussion? All those in favor please signify by saying aye. Opposed? (No response) Seeing none, congratulations to the Library Advisory Board. Keep up the good work. Item #10D DISCUSSION REGARDING 2ND DISTRICT ASSOCIATION REGARDING LEGISLATIVE DELEGATION MEETING IN REFERENCE TO BEACH ACCESS EASEMENT AT DELNOR WIGGINS STATE PARK - SUPPORT REGARDING BEACH ACCESS TO BE PRESENTED TO LEGISLATIVE DELEGATION On to Item 10(D), discussion regarding Second District Association legislative delegation meeting in reference to beach access at Delnor-Wiggins State Park. I have seen Terry Tragesser and Art Jacobs. Are any of the faithful left? COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah, Chris is here. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Rallying the troops here. This is a request by Second District Association for the board to take up this issue at the legislative delegation. MR. DORRILL: You have a speaker. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Who is the -- whoever their spokesman is for the Second District Association. John, if you'll step up to the microphone please. MR. McGUIRE: My name for the record is John McGuire, and I'm here representing the Second District Association. And I have -- you probably all -- I think you've all had a copy of this. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: John, you can just hand that to David -- Mr. Weigel there or Mr. Dotrill, and we'll just need you on the microphone -- MR. McGUIRE: We're only talking about one part of this. And I'm here representing the Second District Association, and we've outlined a comprehensive plan to expand the public access to the beaches in the northern region of the county. Today the Second District is requesting your cooperation by taking a proactive posture in securing an easement at the southern end of the Delnor-Wiggins State Park for the purpose of providing an access point for beachgoers. This easement is an important part of the county's objective for providing adequate public access to our recreational facilities. Your active participation as a supportive element in securing this easement is solicited. The Second District will bring this request to the legislation delegation on the 16th, and we're here today to request, you know, your support with us at -- with the legislative district. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you. This is something that you've heard a lot of -- if you've been reading letters to the editor, there seem to be pros of this that are lovers of the park. And there's been some misinformation disseminated regarding destruction of habitat due to the 10-foot boardwalk easement. It's kind of silly. We have property there that is prime for beach parking somewhere in the future. If we don't have access to the beach, it renders that -- that plan moot. And what the Second District Association is asking for this board to support their efforts, possibly in writing to the legislative delegation, indicating their -- requesting their assistance in establishing that easement to the south of Delnor-Wiggins State Park for public beach access. Since this is something I'm intimately familiar with, though it's not traditional, I would like to make a motion that this board take that position with the legislation delegate to present it. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We have a motion and a second. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Can I ask you a question before you go on? Just as I look this over, I like the proposal. My only question is on 4, 5, and 6 -- and I realize there's a long time frame with all this, but on 4, 5, and 6 do we have suggested fund sources for those? Do we know where that money will come from? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: No. This is basically a blueprint to get started. And to go out and acquire the funding sources to accomplish additional beach parking is something that will fall to us. But at this point we don't even have a place to get to the beach. So this is one necessary step. If we are successful at the delegation and we do gain the easement, we then will have to tackle the issue of funding. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I liked the looks of this a lot, and I didn't know where we were going with that. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Well, might be TDC funds; it might not. It depends on what the state says. If it's not, then we've got our work cut out for us in other areas so -- that was part of the discussion this morning. And I'm sure we'll audit those spaces on a regular basis. So, again, it's just a starting blueprint. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: My final question is the part about the proposed new green space tax dollars. I assume that's moot now? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yeah. This might be a dated publication. You know, we have a motion and a second. Is there any further discussion? All those in favor please signify by saying aye. Opposed? (No response) Seeing none, Miss Filson, would you prepare a letter to the legislative delegation for my signature regarding support of the access to the south of Delnor-Wiggins on behalf of the Board of County Commissioners, please. I said that in one breath. Item #10E UPDATE ON PROGRESS REGARDING COUNTY MANAGER SELECTION PROCESS - COMMISSIONERS TO RETURN THEIR QUESTIONNAIRE TO HUMAN RESOURCES BY FRIDAY AND SELECT A NAME FOR AN APPOINTEE TO A COMMITTEE TO REVIEW THE COUNTY MANAGER SELECTION PROCESS On to Item 10(E), update on progress regarding county manager selection process. I've asked Mr. Dotrill and Miss -- is Miss Edwards here? -- to give us an update on where we are, and we're going to have to decide a path, and I think time is not on our side here. We need to move quickly. Miss Edwards, would you please give us a synopsis of where we are. MS. EDWARDS: We have advertised in two publications. We have now begun receiving applications. We've received approximately 30 from all over the country. We have a January 31st time frame on our advertisement. We have forwarded to you questionnaires that need to be completed, and those we critically need because we're going to use that information to develop a profile of what we know that you're looking for. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: What I'd like to ask is that the commission provide the responses on those profiles to human resources, Miss Edward's attention, by Friday of this week so that those can be processed. The applications, the deadline is the 31st. There may be some stragglers that come in after that due to a recent notice sent out to both cities and munici -- municipalities of certain sizes. Has that mailing occurred, Miss Edwards? MS. EDWARDS: That mailing has not occurred. We're working on that now. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Is there a separate deadline set for those applications, or are they still set for January 31st? MR. DORRILL: They would be expected to be in on January the 31st. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Do they include a fax number on that one? MS. EDWARDS: Yes. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. MS. EDWARDS: I would not recommend extending beyond January 31st. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Good. No, that was my misunderstanding. My apologies. What I'd like to do is ask the board for direction at this time. We've talked about citizen committees. We obviously have a very cumbersome task initially in reviewing the applications, comparing them with the standards set by the board, the questionnaires in your in boxes or that you may have already completed will establish. Commissioner Constantine. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: As you complete your comments, I got a couple -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yeah. My first blush is that each of us should have the responsibility for appointing an individual on that initial review board to go over the resumes with human resources to determine consistencies with our goals that are set forth. So my first blush was that we appoint a person each to do that from the community, but I'm certainly open to ideas. It's not received extensive thought, but I think that's a good way for citizen involvement in the first step of this process. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: A couple of questions along that line, one I mentioned before, and my only concern -- I think it's great having the citizen involvement, my only concern being if they are people who practice regularly before the board. And we have several people who are upstanding citizens and participate in a number of our committees and all but who also come before the board. And I think the perception more than reality -- I don't think those people are going to try to set themselves up, but perception to the public may be if certain people are on that committee, they're trying to choose a candidate that fits whatever their agenda is when they come to the board. So I just think we need to be a little careful there. Secondarily, this goes back to your comment saying let the TDC deal with this. I assume we're not -- are we binding ourselves to whatever they finalize? Are we just trying to save ourselves the work and as they go through each -- if we end up with 50 or 70 or however many candidates? Are individual commissioners prohibited from going through those? I'm not sure where we're headed with the citizens' committee. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: That's the purpose of today's discussion, to define that, because we're quickly approaching the deadline, and I don't want one or two weeks to pass beyond the deadline before we undertake the task of refining the pool of applicants down to a considerable amount. Commissioner Berry. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Mr. Chairman, I think that one of the advantages of having an initial screening committee is that when you do look at applicants, it probably becomes pretty evident those that are in the running and those that are not. And so it's a time-consuming measure. My concern is I don't know how you've done when you've appointed members in the past to any committee, though you haven't done this particular type, if you have stayed strictly within your districts or if you have gone out. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: It's -- it's -- there's really no rule there such as the landfill advisory committee I appointed from outside of my district because there was an interest that I felt needed to be represented, and so it's really an individual question for each commissioner. COHMISSIONER BERRY: All right. Then I plead a case in my particular situation. My particular district is two-thirds of Collier County with entities that are 40 and 50 miles out. Would you consider them representation from those areas? Do you feel like that's necessary, or should it just be one person if -- if we're looking at this? And it's something I -- you know, initially, you know, one person and I agree; you don't want a committee that is so cumbersome that you can't get anything accomplished. On the other hand, because of the size of Collier County and the fact that you have these entities that are a distance and should have some type of representation, just exactly where in my district would you find one person that can represent all of the interests in that particular district? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: In this chair right here. COHMISSIONER BERRY: But I'm not going to be on the initial screening committee. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Berry, I don't look at -- every time we make a board appointment, I don't look at that person acting as -- as a representative of every single entity within the district. What I hope to find are people whose judgment will benefit the community. And that's how -- how I individually approach those decisions. I'm sure my colleagues are much the same way. You're not going to get "a person" who represents your entire district. The closest thing we have to that is the five of us up here. COMMISSIONER BERRY: I understand. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: What we're looking for here is -- is the five of us have different circles within this community that we have contacts. And in those circles there are people that may have background and experience that would help in the selection process tremendously. I personally am not limiting myself to my geographic election district. So I think the approach is simply to garner five talented people to sit and pour through these applications as a screening committee to make the recommendations in the community's best interest. I don't think geography has anything to do with that. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Okay. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: But is there a general agreement that we should be careful in our appointments as far as people who practice regularly before the board? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I think the perception, but -- and I'll just say it. The perception that the development community should select our county manager needs to be avoided at all costs, because we don't want our leading official, our -- our leading salaried official, to start with that kind of a black eye. I think that would be a huge mistake; so we need to be careful in those types of appointments. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Great. COMMISSIONER BERRY: But I think we need to move on this, Mr. Chairman. I think we -- because there are several counties in the state now that have vacancies, and I think I would rather be on the cutting edge than picking up crumbs. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Let me ask this. Let me ask for each -- if this is an acceptable procedure, that each commissioner bring their appointment to the meeting, not physically -- you don't have to carry them in -- but bring the name of your appointee next Tuesday. We will slate them. You may want to bring two in case there is an objection. You may want to think beyond that, but let's get a slate of five individuals for that initial review and then ask them to convene one week later during that week to review the -- the questionnaires that each board member has returned by this Friday and meet with Miss Edwards to discuss how the process should occur so that we can begin the review of those applications the very first week in February. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just some questions on the questionnaire. Some of it seems kind of -- sounds wonderful but kind of generic. I'm looking at Question No. 2 here, and it says "Please check the personal traits of a candidate you would favor." I don't know why you wouldn't check any of these for projects -- integrity and honesty in all -- of course you're going to want that; Self-confident without being arrogant or an egotist. You don't want someone without self-confidence. Of course, you're going to check that. MR. DORRILL: I'm 0 for 2, but keep going. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Projects a neat, clean, well-groomed personal appearance. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: One for three. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We don't care. He's not confrontational but not a pushover. These are all things, of course, we're going to want. It just seems kind of silly to be going through a process of checking those, yes, that's something I want. MS. EDWARDS: Well, what we had planned to do is just -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Dorrill, last week you might have some suggestions, either additions or changes to this, and I'd like to hear those today. MR. DORRILL: The intent behind the questionnaire is for the board to either rank or see if there are not some traits that are more important to this board than others so that you tell the short-listing committee or the citizens' committee what are the traits you want to see in the pool of finalists that you will then determine who gets invited to the interview. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: The way I've looked at that questionnaire -- and I looked at it and felt much the same way, okay, yes, E, all of the above. But I have every intention of crossing out those three and writing my own description under that. These are the traits most important to me. And where commonalities are found among the majority of this board, those will probably be what the selection committee then lists as what we're seeking. So -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And it doesn't ask us just to check. It asks us to rank, you know, in order of importance. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It does on No. 1.; it doesn't on No. 2. Number 2 simply says "check." I think you're right on the order of importance -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: What I would ask is that as you go through the questionnaire, if you feel that a question is too confining, open it up yourself. Take some time on that because it is the professionals in human resources that are going to provide the profile to this selection committee that is important. So if you don't like the choices, enter your own. And Hiss Edwards will -- will be able to compile that with her magic wand. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And I did want to share my thoughts on one of the questions and I know we're all going to write about. But on No. 11, would you prefer that each commissioner have a one on one in addition to a full board interview? I just think that's important because people respond differently to a personal confrontation than they do when they're on stage and on the grill; so I think that's a pretty good idea to do both. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Are there any other further discussions? Then let me -- let me summarize the course. The course is that each commissioner will return their questionnaire to human resources, either answered or amended or both, by this Friday at five o'clock. Next Tuesday we will appoint -- each have one appointment to a screening committee. That screening committee will meet the following week with human resources and then will convene as soon after the 31st as possible, understanding all five schedules, to initially screen the applications down to what I would expect to be probably 10 percent of the total submitted. If 200 are submitted, I would expect them to get down to 20 or so. If 300 are submitted, get it down to 30, something in that line. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: If only 30 are submitted, can we keep more than 37 CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yes. We can keep hopefully all of them. But I don't think that will be a problem. There is something that Mr. Dotrill expressed to me yesterday that adds a sense of urgency to this, and if I may convey that, Mr. Dotrill, there are currently ten counties in the State of Florida seeking county managers. All but, I think, two of them are coastal and many of them comparable such as Sarasota County and what I would call desirable places for county managers to be. And so we need to -- to approach this with a significant resolve to get it done, not hastily, but efficiently and -- and done well. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just one comment. I think in terms of a couple of years ago Neil had applied at Hillsborough County, not so much because he was unhappy here, but because that was a great job. And while I realize there are a number of other counties that have openings right now, I don't necessarily want someone who has applied at ten counties and is just trying to go somewhere else. And I like to think of us -- and I think we all do -- as something special. And I think there are -- Sarasota is a good example. It's a comparable community, but many of those communities I do not think of as Collier County's equal -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: No. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- and I hope -- I agree with you that we need to move in a -- in an aggressive manner, but I want to make sure we make the right choice rather than a quick choice, and I don't think anyone is suggesting anything otherwise. But I don't necessarily want someone who has applied for all ten of those positions or for several of those positions. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: On your questionnaire it will say you can only apply for seven of the ten vacant -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No. Just a suggestion, if they're looking and they think we're a quality community, that's great, but they're just not looking for a job anywhere. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Again, that would probably be a part of the interview process I would guess. Hiss Edwards, have we given you sufficient direction for you to act upon? MS. EDWARDS: Yes, you have. If I have any questions after this, I'd like to be able to communicate with you directly. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Certainly. And if I have any questions, I'll bring it back to the full board on Tuesday. MS. EDWARDS: Okay. Very good. Thank you. Item #10F REPORT OF TDC SUBCOHMITTEE REGARDING CAREGORY C - PRESENTED CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you. Item -- up to Item 10(G), motion for reconsideration of Agenda Item 12(C). Commissioner Constantine. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Both these items. COMHISSIONER NORRIS: What about -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Oh, yeah. I'm one check -- one check ahead. My apologies, Item 10(F). I'm going to do my best to summarize what the subcommittee for the TDC regarding Category C discussed at their most recent meeting, and these are the recommendations that will be coming to the full TDC this coming Monday, recognizing as we have discussed at length today the fact that Category C in the past has been a little broad in interpretation, that allows for significant interpretation. The crux of what is being proposed, quite simply, is that Category C be limited so that those funds can be expended only for the purpose of promotion and advertising of -- of events. In other words, they cannot be used for the physical operation of the event. And this has been kind of a mixing that has occurred in the past. This is very limiting, and I understand that, but if the goal -- and, again, I'm trying to convey the subcommittee's sense on this. If the goal is to bring people here in the shoulder season and off season, the best way to do that is promote or advertise occurrences in that time period. The problem we run into when we begin funding portions of event is I think what Commissioner Hac'Kie was getting at earlier. It then puts you in a position of answering for all the expenditures and revenues of that event. If, however, you limit yourself to the promotion and advertising of same, that is an easily traceable but beneficial element. How does this play out? Well, if we take something like -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The epic drama. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Well, a good example actually, the epic drama. If during -- if they are up and running and have off-season events and want to promote and advertise then to bring people in for them from out of the area, that is a reasonable expenditure of Category C funds, according to the subcommittee. What is not reasonable is to fund feasibility studies. And by the way, the TDC recommended it. COHMISSIONER BERRY: They recommended that? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: They recommended it, and this board approved it. We're getting into the consistency problem -- COHMISSIONER BERRY: Yeah. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- that what we have been doing in the past is deciding whether or not something is a good event, not necessarily whether it has the absolute potential to bring shoulder-season or off-season visitors here. And we are all guilty of it. Members of the TDC are guilty of it, that whether it's a good event or not has been the crux of the decision. No one has argued that the PGA tournament is not a good event. And, likewise, with the -- the study for the epic drama, everyone felt that it was a good approach, almost everyone. I don't remember if you voted for or against it; so I don't want to speak for you. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I voted against it. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. So what is being discussed now is, look, we had the reins too tight. We then opened them up, and what we're getting is too broad a spectrum. Let's bring it back, and what I like about this is that if you cannot financially hold an event -- in other words, if you're going to have a ticket-based event and you can't come in and hold it and sell enough tickets to pay for the cost of the event with someone else paying for your promotion and advertising, you probably shouldn't hold the event. And I think Fantasy and Fire comes to mind. We should have been paying for promotion and advertising in that sense, and had we, the auditing procedure then is to audit the advertising you were told up front you would get. Did you get it? Was it an appropriate fee? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: These are scheduled to come to us how soon? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: This will come to the TDC on Monday. I assume then -- Mr. Dotrill, help me with the scheduling on this. Would that be one week from -- two weeks from today that the board would hear it? Okay. I don't know if the TDC is going to change materially what is being proposed, but in a nutshell that's it. Refine it to promotion and advertising related to off-season events. The one -- one point of discussion we'll probably have is should the events be solely confined to the off season, or should other considerations be allowed. I'll let the TDC banter that one around before bringing it back, because I think there are arguments on both sides of that. That's it in a nutshell. Are there any questions? COMMISSIONER BERRY: I would just ask you to convey to the TDC to try to become a little more consistent, stress that point, please, because we are -- again, we're handing out the money, but I think we're doing it and should be doing it on the recommendation of them. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Well, and that's the purpose -- COMMISSIONER BERRY: They need to be consistent. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: They're probably asking you to convey the same message to us. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yeah. They're asking us to be consistent with them, which has not happened. The purpose for my initiating this -- this guideline approach was simply that that gap between the board's decisions and the TDC's decisions was wide and needs to be resolved. And if we can all agree on what are reasonable Category C expenditures, then we can stop talking about whether something is a good event and talk about what is it they want to spend the money for; and the audit process and everything else becomes so much simpler, and we can actually spend the money promoting Naples, not holding events. Item #10G MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF AGENDA ITEM 12(C)2 OF THE DECEMBER 17, 1996, BCC PUBLIC HEARING PERTAINING TO TEEN COURT - NO ACTION COHHISSIONER NORRIS: Next. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Next. All right. Now we're up to Item 10(G), motion for reconsideration. Commissioner Constantine. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Both Items G and H I'm bringing back as a courtesy to Judge Baker. I have not changed my mind on these and, frankly, have not seen substance which would lead me to change my mind. However, he indicated there may be some folks who would like an opportunity to speak on this who didn't have the opportunity before, and -- and I wanted to afford them that opportunity. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Why did they not have an opportunity before? COHMISSION CONSTANTINE: I don't know. Again, it's a courtesy to Judge Baker because it's his item. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: For the purpose of reconsideration, Mr. Dotrill, do we have registered speakers on this matter? MR. DORRILL: You have one. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. MR. DORRILL: Ms. Passidomo. MS. PASSIDOHO: Good morning, Commissioners. In the light of the time frame, I'll be brief. My name is Kathleen Passidomo. I'm here for Judge Baker who is in trial this morning. We're asking you to reconsider this matter. Unfortunately, we -- none of us were able to attend the December 17th meeting at which this was discussed, and we apologize for that. We believe it is vital to the issue of juvenile crime and delinquency in Collier County that the commission address this. I believe after having read the transcript, that perhaps the commission may not have had as much information as we should have given to you -- and I apologize for that -- with regard to the statutory framework behind it, and we're asking you to reconsider this next -- I guess in two weeks, because I think it has to be readvertised. And I think there was a little misunderstanding of the basis of where the funding would come from. I mean, basically as a practical matter, it would be from law breakers. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Actually, if my -- my recollection or discussion was more on the line of how is it applied. How are these kids selected? What is it -- in other words, we're adding a level, another chance, if you will, for a certain portion of -- of kids being affected or kids breaking the law and having to answer for it in some form. And my question to Mr. Brock was, the state has employed in the past something akin to a first offender rule that there is a legal out for you if you -- if you're someone who hasn't gotten in trouble and you do it the first time and they can put you on a probationary situation, then the record is closed after a period of time if you don't get into trouble. And if I recall the consensus of the board, this was kind of another feel-good project that what was it really accomplishing. It wasn't so much dollars. MS. PASSIDOHO: Commissioner Hancock, there are really two issues. One is the teen court issue, and the one is the juvenile assessment center. And I think unfortunately it wasn't made clear to you that we are really addressing both those issues. The juvenile assessment center is probably the best -- the single most important thing that we're going to have in our community in the future in terms of assessing the problems of juvenile crime, delinquents in our community, and we need to be able to fund this as -- and I'm sure Commissioner Constantine will remember this. We had said a long time ago we don't want to come back to the board and ask for money. We want to have funding from various sources, and this funding, the filing fee funding, is not ad valorem taxes. It's not asking the board for money. It's basically a filing fee based on people who have been convicted of misdemeanors for various traffic offenses and the like. And so, you know, those of us who don't commit criminal offenses won't have to pay it. And that -- the assessment center is absolutely vital to this community. I know we've -- and I don't want to take a lot of your time today because I know we want to bring it back. But the Juvenile Justice Council has appeared before this board on several occasions about the assessment center and how important it is and what we hope to provide to the people of Collier County, because the bottom line is the single most serious criminal problem in this community is juvenile crime, and if we don't take ahold of it, everything you've talked about this morning with the tourist development and the like is going to go down the drain because nobody is going to want to come here. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: There's a rotation here, if I may. Commissioner Berry. And there are two issues, as I understand it. One is the teen court, and one is the juvenile assessment center. MS. PASSIDOHO: Oh, I can address the teen court, but Judge Baker is much -- and I'd love to have him come and speak with you. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Berry. COHMISSIONER BERRY: Okay. I took -- Judge Baker and I made contact finally yesterday after multiple phone calls, and I had the opportunity to speak with him about it. When I initially -- when this came before us, I was not at all impressed with the idea, to be honest with you. And the teen court, unfortunately he gave us some backup material. And when I read the backup material, I really got a little upset and very concerned about it because it gets into school disciplinary problems, and in Collier County, as you know, most of the high schools have code -- student code of conducts. Even though they are at times controversial, these are something that have been drawn up by the schools. And I saw conflict in what this particular article that Judge Baker had provided for us in regard to teen court. After speaking with him, he told me more -- a little bit more about teen court, that teen court is for the young person out there who does something kind of stupid. It's a first offense. It is, in most cases, a misdemeanor. It is something that because these children come before him, he would be making the decision -- it's my understanding from what he told me, that he would be making the decision whether they would be eligible for teen court or not. So it was not something that was automatic, which helped me a little bit. Even though it is another layer, it's for that kid who decides to walk down the street, and he sees a garbage can laying out in the street and for some unknown reason, whatever goes off in his little head, decides to jump up and down on this garbage can and dispose of it. Well, that is a problem. What he's done is a vandalism kind of act or whatever. And so this is a kid that normally could be -- if he's caught could come before Judge Baker. Does he really need to go through the court system for an act like this? And correct me if I'm wrong, but this is my understanding from what I gleaned from what he was talking about yesterday. This might be a situation where this child is then referred to teen court and is dealt with by a court of his peers. From that standpoint it sounded pretty good. Still the thing that concerns me, Kathleen, is -- is accountability, whether it's in the teen court or even in the juvenile assessment and creating more layers of trying to rehabilitate and to do all these wonderful things. They sound great, but they get so voluminous. And how can we streamline to make sure if this is enacted that we don't get totally out of line on it? And that is a concern that I have, both with -- with teen court and with juvenile assessment. It seems like once these things come on line, they take on a life of their own. And I don't think that that is the objective here, and I don't think it's the objective of the commission to give their blessing to this kind of an event. On the other hand, speaking to Judge Baker, when he tells me -- and I had someone else confirm it as to his docket yesterday over in juvenile court, that it's standing room only, and -- and I know this is not our problem, but it is a problem for the court system. Now, whether the Board of County Commissioners solves this problem or whether the courts solve this problem, I don't know where the responsibility lies there. Frankly, I wish the parents would take care of their kids so they wouldn't have to go to juvenile court. But being that what it is, he still has to deal with these children, and maybe there are some of them in there that really don't need to be there. Maybe there is another venue, and maybe this teen court would be that. I don't know. I think that if we're going to consider this, we need to have a full-blown report on this and have more information, certainly, than what we had before, because what we had before was a yea or a nay, up or down kind of thing with very little input as to what is going on in the court system in regard to the teen situation. So at this point, you know, I -- that's just my comment on -- and my concerns, and I'll listen to the rest of the -- MS. PASSIDOHO: Could I -- you know, Commissioner Berry, you really bring up a really terrific point, and the bottom line is that we're all in this together. And you're right. The commission doesn't have an obligation to solve the problems of juvenile crime. The court system doesn't have an obligation. I think we all do because we all have -- we all know of children that are committing crimes out there. And so let us bring it back to you and get some input. You know, we're -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I think we're heading -- we may be heading in that direction. Just a second. Let me kind of get through some of these comments. Commissioner Constantine. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: There were two primary objections that I recall when we discussed this before. One was creating a new government program because we, quote, weren't reaching the kids currently. But no one was telling us what existing programs weren't working or what existing programs we were going to remove. And so you have another government program -- well intentioned as it may be, you got another government program. You haven't replaced the others; so we're still spending the money. So you have a new program and new money. And the new money is of concern, too; and we're told, well, criminals will pay for it. That's a little -- that's not exactly accurate, because we're talking about additional money on traffic tickets, and those aren't criminals. MS. PASSIDOHO: Well, criminal offense tickets. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Can I finish my thought? MS. PASSIDOHO: Sorry. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: If someone is 35 in a 25 zone or parks in front of a pharmacy and runs in a fire lane, they're not criminals, and I don't see the direct correlation between them paying for the children. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: You've never had one of those tickets, have you? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I certainly have. But I don't -- I don't see the direct correlation. What it is is still hitting up for more money. There are already monies being collected to pay for the other programs. And I'm not comfortable until we identify -- we've already acknowledged on the record a couple of weeks back that the current programs aren't working. Well, great, let's get rid of them before we put a new one in place and start instituting new taxes and new ways of paying for it. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I think you synopsized that meeting very well right there. Commissioner Hac'Kie was next. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I just wanted to say if we need three votes to support bringing it back for reconsideration, I'll be the third. I'd like to just hold this discussion for the reconsideration. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I think it's a question of actually getting answers to the questions we posed. Mr. Brock was not the appropriate person apparently to answer those, and we really didn't get them answered. And if -- as -- as you did, as you brought back as a courtesy to Judge Baker at his request, if he feels those questions can be answered effectively, I'm -- I'm comfortable giving him that opportunity. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So are we -- if we bring this back, Judge Baker will be here to speak on that item? Are we -- I mean, if it's going to be you that's comes back, let's get the questions on the table today, and maybe we can answer them. MS. PASSIDOMO: I could answer as much as I could, and I probably -- with regard to the assessment center. Judge Baker's -- is much more familiar with the teen court, and he has indicated to me that he would like to come back before you. He is also on the Assessment Center Advisory Committee. We have a lot going on. I'd like to be able to present it to you all because, you know, maybe we haven't done that in a year anyway. There's a lot -- you know, when you talk about programs that aren't working, you know, the assessment center, we don't have such a program. There never has been -- that's the problem -- a coordinated effort to deal with juvenile criminals in this community. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That isn't what I asked. MS. PASSIDOHO: I know. But I just want to say I'd like to bring us all back, bring Judge Baker back, and let people that are actually working on it -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: If the majority of the board wants to, I'm not going to object. But it just -- it seems to me we had a public hearing in December. I think most of us have had a sit-down with Judge Baker in the meantime and had those discussions one on one. And if there's something that we still don't know now, fine, but we talk about our agenda going on today. And if there are questions that aren't answered, maybe we need to get what those are out so Mrs. Passidomo can take those to Judge Baker, and he can be prepared. But otherwise I'm not sure if we need to bring it back. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Is there a motion regarding reconsideration of teen court? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I think I can't make that motion, Mr. Weigel, can I, since I voted for teen court the first time? MR. WEIGEL: Right. A member in the majority is the one who can make that motion. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Is there any member that voted to deny teen court that wishes to make a motion for reconsideration? Item #10H MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF AGENDA ITEM 12(C)3 OF THE DECEMBER 17, 1996, BCC PUBLIC MEETING PERTAINING TO JUVENILE ASSESSMENT CENTER - APPROVED AND TO BE READVERTISED FOR 1/28/97 MEETING CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Seeing none, moving to Item 10(H), is there anyone voting in the majority on that that wishes to make a motion of reconsideration regarding the juvenile assessment center? That, I -- I put a different line on that one. I would like to know more about the juvenile assessment center because I remember talking about teen court on the 17th. I don't remember talking about the assessment center per se; so I'm going to move reconsideration of the juvenile assessment center. Is there a second? COHMISSIONER BERRY: I will second your motion only because I don't know anything about it and -- and if it was lumped together with the other one the first time around, then I think perhaps, you know, I'd like to hear more about this. But I don't recall that we got a lot of information on this before. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. There's a motion and a second. Is there discussion? All those in favor for reconsideration please say aye. Opposed? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Aye. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion carries 4-1. The juvenile assessment center will be scheduled for reconsideration. MS. PASSIDOHO: Thank you. MR. WEIGEL: Mr. Chairman, we will advertise that, as it was originally an advertised item, for two weeks from today. And if there's any request for time certain, we can include that in the advertisement or at -- at least work with Judge Baker in case he has a particular time -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Weigel. Mr. Dotrill, are there any registered speakers under public comment? MR. DORRILL: No, sir. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: With that, we are right on the button at noon. Why don't we take a one-hour lunch break and reconvene at 1 p.m. MR. DORRILL: Hey, does our chairman know how to run a meeting? (A lunch break was held between 12:00 to 1:09 p.m.) Item #12B1 ORDINANCE 97-3 RE PETITION R-96-14, AMERICAN ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS, INC., REPRESENTING HARIO CURIALE, REQUESTING A REZONE FROM "A" TO "C-5" FOR A BUILDING SUPPLY STORE FOR PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF TAMIAMI TRAIL SOUTH, 1/4 MILE EAST OF ISLE FO CAPRI ROAD - ADOPTED WITH STIPULATIONS CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We're going to call the Tuesday, January 14, 1997, meeting of the Board of County Commissioners back to order. We are in the afternoon agenda in the afternoon. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: What a concept. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: What a coincidence. Item 12(B)(1), Petition R-96-14, American Engineering Consultants. Miss Student, do we need to swear witnesses on this item? MS. STUDENT: Yes, you do, and I've so informed the court reporter. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Madam Court Reporter, would you be so kind? I'd like to ask all individuals who are going to be testifying or speaking on this matter to please rise, stand, and raise your right hand. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: That includes you. MR. HOOVER: Is that the other petitions too? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We're doing it one at a time here. (The speakers were sworn.) CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you. MR. NINO: Mr. Chairman, members of the commission, Ron Nino, planning services department, presenting Petition R-96-14. I'd like to hand -- give you a handout which complements the report that we're going to make. This petition seeks to zone approximately 8 acres of agricultural land to the C-5 zoning classification. The land is located on East Tamiami Trail, further east of 951 (indicating) and Isle of Capri -- here is 951 -- roads. Is that correct, Commissioner? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yes. That's -- that's 951 south to Marco. MR. NINO: I mean, the Isle of Capri Road, because I always get that mixed up. But anyway we're dealing with the property on the north side of Tamiami Trail, east of Isle of Capri Road. The 8 acres is circumscribed in red; and the problem that we have here is this petition seeks to fezone the property to commercial, and only a portion of the property lies within the activity center, approximately 3.7 acres of land. However, with a land development -- with a growth management provision, when a property lies partly within and partly without an activity center, the area may be increased by another 25 percent; and we calculated that that would bring the area up to 4.79 acres that, if rezoned, would be consistent with the Growth Management Plan, Future Land Use Element. In the area we have -- this property abuts the Woodfield Lakes residential project, an approved project. There is an SDP approved for this project. No construction has started on any of the -- of the units or the infrastructure; but as you all know, there is a Falling Waters Beach sales facility located on 951. The frontage of Woodfield Lakes, incidentally, is zoned commercial. And to the immediate west of this property, we have two parcels of commercial zoning as well with a vacant agricultural space in -- in the middle of them. Across the road we have a C-2 parcel. We have agricultural. We have C-4 on the corner. We have C-4 and PUD commercial on the southwest corner, and on the northwest corner we have a large area of commercial zoning via the Lely A Resort PUD partially developed with a shopping center. The -- as I indicated, if the property were approved for 4.7 -- I want to be accurate on that. Five hundred by -- five hundred fifteen by four hundred, 4.74 acres, that that action would be consistent with the FLUE. Anything above that would be inconsistent with the FLUE. Review by various staff members indicates that this petition, if approved, would be consistent with elements of -- all elements of the Growth Management Plan that apply to this particular petition. This petition was heard by the Planning Commission, and they unanimously recommended that the -- that 4.74 acres of land be zoned to the C-5 zoning classification. They further encouraged the board to direct staff to include in the ERA-based (sic) amendments adjustments to how activity center boundaries are determined and that those boundaries be determined more on the basis of property ownerships than the rigid line that is created by going out 1320 feet from the intersection of major roads. No one presented any opposition or communicated any opposition to the Planning Commission or to staff. With respect to matters that determine the suitability of a zoning action, we would have you appreciate that a finding -- finding -- fezone findings were -- were analyzed, and in the opinion of staff, the majority of those findings support an application for fezone -- support a commercial rezoning action. We would have you also appreciate that this petitioner has a rather specific land use, namely, building supply and building home center. And that tends to be -- if you look at the C-5 uses that I gave you, that tends to be one of the more intensive C-5 uses. Therefore, you're probably wondering why staff didn't recommend some fine-tuning of the C-5 uses. It's because, in our opinion, that action would not serve any purpose inasmuch as the lumber and building supply land use is the more intensive of all of the land uses permitted in the C-5 district. You'll note, however, that we did exhibit some concern for contiguous land use relationships and particularly with respect to the Woodfield Lakes. The res -- the resolution or ordinance that -- the draft ordinance that would have you adopt this, if that's your decision, would require a 6-foot masonry wall along the property line that is contiguous to Woodfield Lakes; would prohibit the location of any building or any storage of materials within 60 feet of the Woodfield Lakes property line; would limit the height of any buildings or any stockpiled material to 35 feet; and furthermore, would require that the access point to this property be a shared access, be -- be dedicated as a cross-access easement so that we could hook up the properties to the east and west of this with a more centralized point of entry and departure. One other item that we would have you appreciate in our analysis and staff report, that the building and supply -- home building industry requires C-5 zoning. In all of the southeast quadrant of the metropolitan -- the -- the urbanized area, there really is only one small C-5 zoning district. By virtue of that action, for all intents and purposes, you preclude the opportunity for somebody to build this kind of business. Population projections for those two planning districts suggests that by the year 2000 we could expect upwards of 50,000 people within this market area. We think that the numbers support the opportunity to develop this type of business. The petitioner is -- is currently in the business of doing that, and he will further indicate his commitment to do that to you. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you, Mr. Nino. MR. NINO: Any questions? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Do we have any questions from the board for staff? COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Nino, this -- as I understand it, this parcel is not totally within the -- the activity center. And at the same time, the property owner is asking us to go to the EAR review process next time and change the rules so that this would be -- not only this one, but other ones, would be allowed. But from my perspective we're getting right back to the same thing that we heard a few weeks ago, and that is, expand activity centers and put in more commercial. It's unfortunate that the property doesn't lie wholly within the activity center as it's currently delineated, but that's really not the problem of the county commission. Ours is to make our decision based on what is here today and -- and try to keep it within reason. MR. NINO: Yes. I -- I don't think the recommendation is to expand the activity center; it's -- it's to reconfigure them. And I was privileged to be in a meeting not long ago, and staff is actively doing just that. There are -- there are some activity centers that need to be reconfigured. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: It would probably be -- I -- I'm going to guess there's going to be more discussion on that point as this goes on. Commissioner Constantine, you had a question? COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What adjustment would be made to accommodate Commissioner Norris's concern as far as this activity center? Are we taking something away anywhere else, or are we simply adding that little bit of extra on? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Actually, the action today is not to add anything to the activity center. The action today is to only zone that portion of the property that lies consistent with the -- with the FLUE within the activity center or 75 percent of the activity center. MR. NINO: Correct. And the petitioner is -- wants that action or desires that action and is prepared to live with the if Come. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: It's a sep -- yeah. It's a separate issue and if -- if -- regardless of what the board does today, there's nothing that binds the expansion of the activity center regarding this property by this action today is my understanding. The legal description contained in the document, however, is for the entire 8 acres; is that correct? MR. NINO: Yes. I have a note in my notes -- I have a note here that the -- the legal needs to be replaced, if you so decide to approve this rezoning action, to a legal that describes a property 515 by 400. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. In the application I noted that the projected traffic impact is greater than 5 percent level of service C; and then it goes on to say, but we don't think it will have a -- an effect of -- of creating a deficiency on the roadway or lowering the level of service. This is kind of a -- what I call a -- a checkoff on -- on the -- the planning side that really doesn't mean anything. What I always ask, is it greater than 5 percent level of service C? And many, many applications say no. For those that say yes, so what? We don't do anything about it. I mean, what -- what is -- if you're greater than 5 percent level of service C -- MR. NINO: Policy -- Policy 5.1, 5.2 says what you've indicated; however, it also says but does not -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Degrade -- MR. NINO: You -- you have to -- you have to take the entire policy, which says that the radius -- that the impact that doesn't lower the level of service to a level of service less than D on -- on streets that fall within the radius of development areas. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: If it does, then -- in effect, then it's subject to a moratorium. MR. NINO: Correct. If -- if we have a problem on both of those -- both of those criteria, then we -- and we haven't addressed it in our five-year capital improvement program, then we -- we have a responsibility to look at that area and think seriously about creating an area of significant influence, which would lead to a moratorium. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Am I correct in looking at the plan that the only access to this property is right in, right out only from U.S. 417 MR. NINO: I beg your pardon? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Am I correct that the only access to this property plan is right in, right out only on U.S. 417 MR. NINO: Correct. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: So we have a building supply store that is going to have deliveries by sizable trucks, and the only way they can get in is to come from the Miami side of U.S. 41 up and make a right-hand turn or to come from the Naples side of 41 and make a U-turn somewhere on 41 and come back to the location. That is -- in my opinion, is a -- is a transportation concern because we can expect the type of traffic that this development will -- will generate -- which there is going to be 18-wheeler-sized trucks going in and out of building supplies. Do we have the lane widths and the areas that those U-turns can be conducted safely? MR. NINO: We would -- we -- we have the responsibility at -- at a subsequent site development plan approval stage to make sure the geometry is safe, provides for decel lanes, excel lanes. However, the -- the -- the stipulation that you address is not really quite -- that it's limited to right in and right out. It -- it says that lacking a median opening, which I'm sure they're going to try to get, and that will depend on negotiations with the FDOT and how it meets our access management policy. But it says any approval for this project shall not vest any right to a median opening now or in the future along any project roadway frontage. Access may be constrained to a right in, right out only, and it follows that that right in -- whatever it is, whether it's a full median or a right in, right out, that there will be decel lanes and excel lanes consistent with -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Under the county's access management guidelines currently, does this project fall in a location that the county could -- not would, could -- approve a -- an access anywhere along the frontage of this property? I think a full median opening is 1,320 feet from the full median opening. MR. NINO: This property is certainly more than -- it's about 1300 feet from the intersection. It would appear that that -- under that -- under that criteria that that could very well be a -- a median opening. However, these two are too close (indicating). So that's getting into the area where there could possibly -- oh, I'm sorry. Right here (indicating). This is getting into the area where there could likely be a median opening in any event. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. But that's going to have to meet not just county access management guidelines, but the state also. MR. NINO: Correct. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Is -- are the state's more restrictive in this case? MR. NINO: I can't answer the question. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I see Mr. Arnold shaking his head in the affirmative. Is that -- okay. He signified that -- that, yes, the state is more restrictive. Okay. Six-foot masonry wall behind the building. We know that -- that that's slated for a residential project. MR. NINO: Yes. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And as I think of the back of Home Depot, and I put a 6-foot wall up and a two-story condominium on the other side, I'm looking at complaints, because the open -- the building supply is very much open. Generally, it's a -- a metal roof structure with open -- four sides or two sides open, at least, and -- and I don't know if that 60 -- if that setback is sufficient. I -- those two uses are not compatible, point blank. They're not compatible. Something's going to have to be done to mitigate the impacts of -- of this project more so than what's being proposed, and I'll ask the petitioner to address that, because I don't see a 6-foot masonry wall mitigating the impacts of a building supply operation on that of a residential community. So I'm -- I -- I have a question there. And I'll ask the petitioner to -- I think a 6-foot masonry wall is, at the minimum, a good start, but I think more needs to be done; and I'll have to look for some ideas there. That's all I had in the way of questions. Anyone else? Is the petitioner here? COURT REPORTER: Have you been sworn, sir? MR. PINCKNEY: I have. COURT REPORTER: Thank you. MR. PINCKNEY: For the record my name is Martin Pinckney of American Engineering Consultants, Inc., representing the petitioner, Hario Curiale. The petitioner is present today, and I'm sure he may want to have some comments or to answer some of your questions. I wanted to make my remarks brief. As Mr. Nino has related, I believe that the staff has reviewed this project and believes that this is a -- a reasonable request to fezone this property in this particular area and that -- that the use is a reasonable use that would serve the market area. The issue really boils down to the fact that the entire property does not lie within the activity center. It is my -- it is the petitioner's belief, and it is -- my sense of the outcome of the Planning Commission meeting was that they -- we feel that the -- the activity center boundary is rather arbitrary. It was drawn at -- perpendicular to, at least, nine -- the one portion of 951. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Pinckney, I'm sorry. I'm going to interrupt you. The issue today is not the expansion of the activity center boundary. I think you've already heard that that's something we're -- we're not going to make a decision on today. We'd like to stick to the fezone application for the -- the amount of land that's eligible for the fezone. MR. PINCKNEY: Well, Mr. Chairman, the Planning Commission did include in their recommendation that staff be directed to consider in the ERA (sic) amendment process, which is on -- ongoing, that this be looked at, and that is our intention to ask that also, that the commission take that step that -- direct that this could be looked at as -- as a -- as a part of this -- our presentation today. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I think we all read the recommendation, but you probably heard the previous comments also. We're not looking at any action today binding that to occur. So what I'm asking you to do is, let's discuss the fezone for the parcel that is eligible, and if you want to make a request subsequent to that, then that's fine. I'd like to discuss the merits of the fezone first and foremost. If you would, confine your comments to that, please. MR. PINCKNEY: Okay. Well, the -- the fezone request is -- is as has been presented to you. I don't have any further comments to make about that at -- at this particular time. I will entertain any questions about it. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Commissioner Norris. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Perhaps a question for staff. I don't know. Mr. Nino, if -- if we fezone this to C-5 and they subsequently don't build this -- this building material center here, then there would be a piece of commercially zoned property that you could use for any C-5 application, I would assume. What do we have -- what mechanism do we have to condition a fezone based upon what is presented to us for an ultimate use? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: That may be a question for Hiss Student. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: That might be a question for Hiss Student. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Likewise, I looked at two things that I don't think are appropriate uses that are listed. One is mobile home sales and the other is open storage. I just -- MS. STUDENT: Harjorie Student, assistant county attorney, for the record. With the petitioner's approval -- or consent, rather. With the petitioner's consent, I believe you could limit land uses, but with their consent. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Thank you. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: How -- how would we -- may I just follow up on that question? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Certainly. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: How would we -- how would a record be made of that for future purchases? I mean, I know when we've done this for density issues before we've said RHF-2(1) or 4(2). And this really concerns me. If -- it seems to me if it's a use specific, it needs to be a PUD fezone. MR. HULHERE: For the record, Bob Hulhere. It has been done on occasion in the past, and the methodology that we've used so that a potential purchaser would know of any restrictions is that there's a specific designation on the zoning map. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: So in this case it -- MR. HULHERE: The official zoning map. So when they come in to take a look, there's a designation and a notation. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: It would read C-5(1) and that little one has a notation on the bottom of the zoning map page that says -- MR. HULHERE: That's correct. But we're not necessarily suggesting that we think that that's the appropriate methodology to use. Another option, obviously, is a fezone to PUD with specific uses limiting it. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I -- I do have a problem with some of the C-5 uses in this location, not so much intensity as much as -- as appearance. Let's face it. When you come in from the east coast, which a lot of people do, this is kind of the start of civilization. Boyne South doesn't like that, but this, really, intersection says you're now entering Naples; and so I -- I share that concern, Commissioner Mac'Kie. MR. NINO: If I may have you -- remind you that even as a building supply store, it needs to comply with architectural standards. It also needs to comply with our enhanced landscaping requirements that resulted from the last LD cycle amendment. So they're going to have to make the lumber supply store look pretty. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Let me ask the petitioner, how solid is this -- is the supply store you're talking about, or -- is it going to be developed by the petitioner himself? Do you have a contract to a national chain? What status is that if I may ask? MR. PINCKNEY: I believe the -- he can answer that question best himself, but I -- I think some of the issues related to the outdoor storage versus indoor relate to the amount of area that he has available and how he wants to develop it. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Sir, have you been sworn in? MR. CURIALE: Yes. My name is Hario Curiale. I'm the owner of Marco Building Supply located on Marco Island, Florida. About three and a half years ago I entered a venture personally to start a building supply on Marco Island. Marco Island is kind of a small island. Nobody believed the island would be able to support the full-scale lumberyard, which it does not. I already had a building built in 1988; so I finally decided to open a building supply since I already been involved in building supply all my life. We overgrown the business of Marco Island. The building at present occupies about 14,000 -- about 12,000 square feet and there's only a limited amount of use that you can -- amount of lumber you can bring in, because everything we have, we take inside four walls. I'd like to point out the fact, Mr. Chairman, that you said something to do with the look or whatever, the use of the business, how it works. You have a Pine Ridge which is Home Depot. I mean, Home Depot is a major chain who goes out places and try to put all small business out of commission. I would like to have an opportunity myself to try to get myself ahead of these guys and try to fight against them, and the only way to do it is by being strong and be positive when you want to do it. When I started out three years ago, I'll remind you back again, the supplier were eager to supply me with lumber, like a couple lifts of 2 by 4s or plywood here and there. As time went by -- right now I'm having major problem. The supplier does not want to come to Marco Island and drop off the material to me. Marco Island doesn't have that many C-5 lands available, and in order to develop a full-scale lumberyard on Marco Island is not feasible because the island cannot support a full-scale lumberyard. But the people appreciate my business because more and more contractors and people I supply which are strictly remodeler and also builder, they don't have to go over the bridge and go into Naples, waste a half a day to bring the material in. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let me just ask you a question. MR. CURIALE: Sure. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: If the board were to approve this, do you have any objection to limiting the use within C-5 to your type activity that you requested? MR. CURIALE: Well, the reason why we're going for C-5 is because your guidelines state that building supply has to be located in C-5 zone. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Right. And -- MR. CURIALE: You can give me C-4. As long as I can do the job, that's fine with me. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No, no. You're misunderstanding the question. C-5 also allows things like asphalt plants and -- and -- MR. CURIALE: We're not interested in that. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: If there was a tragedy tomorrow and you weren't around, I wouldn't want your estate to sell it to someone who would build an asphalt plant. MR. CURIALE: Well, that was a -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: All I'm asking is, would you be willing to state on the record that within the limits of C-5, you're willing to say this will just be for the purpose outlined in the application? MR. CURIALE: My project here states that I will personally use -- if somebody dies -- if I die tomorrow somebody else use strictly within a conglomerate building supply business, which it could be building material, could be tile, could be aluminum work, it could be this, only related to the building supply entity, okay, which it -- it varies tremendously. No. We ain't going to have a -- a old body shop. We ain't going to have a car dealership or a junkyard behind the residential. I -- I believe the -- take care of the residential the way it is. It's very unfortunate about -- some division took place that a strip of a mile long was left 400 square feet wide -- 400 square feet deep by almost a mile long. That is not that much to expand it either way, because sooner or later the only thing you can do -- you can't change that to grower to grow potato or whatever, because it's not big enough. So a limited amount of use to that. Come back to the question about the 40-feet trucks, trailer going back and forth. That's one of my main concern, that as soon we feel that we can get an approval from the board will give us an idea -- says, yeah, we are in favor of this, my next move is to obtain permission from the DOT. If the DOT does not allow for me to make an entrance from the southbound or northbound to enter the premises, the building supply business cannot operate. We already well aware of that, but we have to take it step by step where we going. I don't want to jump beyond the limit; so we're here today to try to -- Another thing, too, when I first entered into this piece of land, I made so much researches -- resources. I go all over the place. There is no C-5s. There was another C-5 which I almost entered upon. It was right next to Belle Meade Electrical Stations on 951. Unfortunately, the electrical company did not allow -- they have an easement, a common easement, because they said it was too much liability among themselves because maybe a guy wire could come down or whatever; so that was the end of the issue for me. And this is -- was the only piece of land which in turn would give me an asset. If, in fact, 951 would be closed up to get to Marco Island -- how are we going to bring the material to Marco Island if they do decide to fix this highway within the next future? The only alternative I have, either I'll be out of business tomorrow or search for way for me to have a drop-off for my lumber, use my small truck to bring the material in. This is the only reason it came about to be on 41. I figure the truck come in from 75. We've eliminated the traffic of a semi to go into Marco, because it will drop off within this property, which is about a hundred -- what is it, a couple hundred yards from the -- from the cross section in the road, and the only thing we have traveling to Marco would be a small truck, which could satisfy the roads, eliminates the traffic, and it actually enhance everything, because if 951 gets to be built, the only other way people to get out will be 952 (sic). CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. What I -- I want to do is kind of come back to -- to what you plan on doing on the site if I may. MR. CURIALE: Sure. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Do you plan on having a -- a metal building erected to cover stored materials? MR. CURIALE: Okay. Can I -- excuse me a second. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And I'll -- I'll go ahead and -- I'll go ahead and ask a couple of questions and then ask you to cover them both -- MR. CURIALE: Sure. Go ahead. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- in the site plan. Obviously, I'm, you know, worried about two things. One is, you know, a metal-covered building, has storage inside, forklift running all day close to the property line. Okay? If -- if that's the case, I'd like to see the back of it covered and insulated so that when that property behind you does develop, then you know, we aren't dealing with -- with a lot of complaints and compatibility issues. The second thing is open storage just where you're going to have piles of lumber. What maximum height are you willing to commit to that they don't go above? Those are my two questions. MR. CURIALE: The OSHA requires that you cannot go higher than 28 feet. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Twenty-eight feet? MR. CURIALE: So OSHA already supercedes the height of the -- you know, what the -- the county actually put down on the agenda. We've got 35 feet. The most we can go is 28 feet. Believe me, you ain't going to bring a load of lumber 28 feet high unless you want to kill yourself. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. So let's -- let's talk about the buildings you plan on putting on the site. MR. CURIALE: Okay. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: What kind of buildings and -- and there's microphone right over on the wall if you want to use that. If you could explain in your site plan the type of building and -- and -- in relation to the people that may be behind you someday. MR. CURIALE: We had the site plan already drawn out here. This was supposed to be a two-stage operation. It's impossible for myself to jump and try to develop this all at one time. So what we had is, Stage 1 either could have been a building supply immediately or could have been the small shops, who in turn, will offset the cost to run this operation of a building supply. I imagine you guys know more than I do, but the population around here right now is not strong enough to support a kind of building supply somewhat like Scotty's or Home Depot. And I already -- since I already am well aware of the fact that it is a residential community, after this point it goes down about another thousand feet; so we decided the idea to have an enclosed building supply similar to Home Depot operation. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. So you're not planning any buildings that are open to the rear? MR. CURIALE: The problem I'm having right now is that by limiting the amount of space -- this is 8 1/2 acres. Now, we're only going down to less than 5 acres. It's not suitable enough to accommodate the fact -- to have enclosed building like this design is over here (indicating) because we're limited amount of space in which you can put the material into it. When you have an enclosed structure, you need a big old box so the forklifts can go in there and turn around in order to stock the material on the shelves. By using only less than 5 acres, what is going to happen -- we will have a -- a store, but we not be able to have the whole height en -- enclosed in, because we cannot do it. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. MR. CURIALE: So I already have here with me some kind of a drawing from a manufacturer that makes this -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I tell you what. MR. CURIALE: -- these buildings. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I -- I tell you what. I think we can -- we can actually get to something here. I understand what you're saying. The two things I'm -- I'm kind of looking for -- you understand that you have to get your access permits. You understand that the balance of the property is not the issue today. We're just dealing with the four point -- the -- the property dimensions you've identified, Mr. Nino. If -- as long as you can commit that -- Commissioner Constantine has asked that it -- that it be for the purpose of building and supply stores and that's all. MR. CURIALE: Correct. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And that the side of the building facing the residences over there would be enclosed, not the whole building necessarily, but enclose and insulate the one side facing those residents at least on that piece. I -- it gives me a greater level of -- a greater level of comfort in addition to a 6-foot masonry wall, because people aren't going to be staring at the operation inside the building all day. MR. CURIALE: Well, we have a lot of vegetation in this land right now which we plan to utilize, a lot of palm trees, and buffer the whole entire residential. That way you won't even get a chance to see what's the development on the inside. And I don't know if you guys aware, I have an operation on Marco Island. I really -- I keep it clean, and I don't -- the kind to leave junk all over the place, because I don't believe in that anyway. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We -- we appreciate that. What I'd like to do is go ahead and find out -- Mr. HcNees, do we have any other registered speakers? MR. HcNEES: No, sir. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I'm going to close the public hearing. Is there a motion on the item? Let me frame a motion to get it on the floor, I guess. I'm going to move approval with the following conditions in addition to staff conditions. One is that the uses be limited solely to that of a building supply store. Two, that the -- that the side of the building facing the residentially zoned property to the rear be enclosed -- be enclosed and insulated and with the understanding that the balance of the property is not bound -- this board is not binding itself to grant an expansion of the activity center on -- nor is this a defacto approval of access on U.S. 41 according to county standards. COHMISSIONER BERRY: I'll second that motion. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Is there any discussion on the motion? We have a motion and a second. All those in favor please signify by saying aye. Opposed? (No response) CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Seeing none, it's approved, 5-0. MR. CURIALE: Thank you. Item #1283 ORDINANCE 97-4 RE PETITION PUD-96-5, BILL HOOEVER OF HOOVER PLANNING SHOPPE AND MICHAEL J. LANDY OF BUTLER ENGINEERING, INC., REPRESENTING LEONARD AND WANDA RAICHERT, DARRYL J. AND CARHEL J. DAMICO, LEONARD L. AND LISA C. SWIRDA, JANICE SWEENEY, COTTONGIH REALTY AND DEVELOPMENT CO. AND SID A SKIDMORE, REQUESTING A REZONING OF CERTAIN DEFINED PROPERTY FROM RHF-12 TO PUD FOR JACARANDA CENTER FOR A PROFESSIONAL OFFICE AND COHMERCIAL COMPLEX FOR PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF GOLDEN GATE PARKWAY AT THE NORTHEAST INTERSECTION OF GOLDEN GATE PARKWAY AND 55TH STREET S.W. (COMPANION TO ITEM 13A2) - ADOPTED CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you. 12(B)(2) was continued. 12(B)(3), Petition PUD-96-5, Bill Hoover of Hoover Planning Shoppe. This has a companion item of 13(A)(2), does it not, Mr. McNees? MR. MILK: That's correct. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Does it? Okay, Mr. Milk. Thank you. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let me ask a question on this. This is consistent with the other PUDs for the -- I realize there's one variance they're asking for, a change they're asking here, but the substance of the PUD itself is consistent with the other PUDs we approved on the Parkway? MR. MILK: That's correct. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you. I'd like to ask everyone who is going to be speaking on this item to please stand and raise your right hand. (The speakers were sworn.) CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: It never hurts to swear in more than once. Mr. Milk, please go ahead. Actually, did I sense a -- were you going to expedite this? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We've done four or five of these PUDs on the Parkway. And -- and as you look at your pros and cons on here, it's -- it's fairly clear the only con is perception, and frankly, what's proposed to be out there is considerably best than -- better than the residential multifamily 12 that had initially been out there. And this will -- I just circled an item at the bottom of page 1 that says, "It is the opinion of staff that the proposed project has the components to serve as a bona fide entryway into Golden Gate City and to provide a community focal point and sense of place." And I think that's consistent with each of the PUDs we've done. MR. MILK: That is correct. This is the fifth PUD in this corridor and is the fifth PUD that Mr. Hoover has represented. Based on that, the format, the details, the architectural standards, the land uses, landscaping, access management are -- are roughly identical in nature. The only thing that's unique is the development commitments per each site based on the parameters of the site. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I -- I have some -- some just design questions. On -- I noticed it's only a 40-foot setback. Within that setback you have to have parking and an aisleway; traditionally, 18 foot for parking, 24 for an aisleway. That's 42 feet. MR. MILK: Right. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Is this a one-way aisle that's being reduced in width? In other words, there's just a spatial problem there for me when I look at 40 feet and try to put access and parking in that 40 feet. Have we addressed that, Mr. Milk? MR. MILK: We have. Mr. Hoover usually provides a site plan when we look at these fezones. Being the petitioner he has to make each lot work as far as geometry, access, parking, and landscaping and access management. So what happens is that 40 feet in the front and 25 feet in the rear and 10 foot on the sides represents the building envelope; so Mr. Hoover has the flexibility to massage that as is needed. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. MR. MILK: It's just a representation. So this is a plan -- is a master plan that everybody going in knows that there's vehicular rights in the front and rear and that way the interconnects to both the east and west, it will all be identical in nature. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. This is the site plan that's contained in our packet. So I don't need to enter it into the record. Okay. Because I saw the envelope and that concerned me because I tried to start fitting things in and didn't have a problem. The -- the other thing that causes me difficulty on page 63 is Item No. 2, buffering shall not be required between lots internal to the PUD. Mentally this -- I look at where we have a building and then we have an aisleway and then a building. It's concrete to concrete to concrete. If there are going to be internal lots, I think there should be some softening and buffering in between them. It may be a con -- it may be a single-strip project, but what I'm worried about is that there's no buffering required between them at all. It could just be asphalt, and -- and I think, visually, that's a problem. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Actually, I think part of the reason for that is because it -- in order to make any of these PUDs work, because the lots are so shallow, they've had to loop together four or five lots in a stretch. And if we start putting buffers in between, you can't fit a project in there anymore. You start getting into buffers -- MR. MILK: What's happened -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I think we've done the same thing on each of the other four. MR. MILK: What's happened is we've actually doubled the landscaping requirements for the project. In other words, the trees in the front will be placed at one per 20 linear feet instead of one per 30, and the buffer requires a double hedgerow in the front and in the rear with a 6-foot opaque fence as it does down the particular rights-of-way on 55th Street. The -- the trees will be cjustered. Each project has to provide a front and rear pedestrian pocket which includes two shade trees both front and rear. It -- it requires accent lighting along the perimeter of the backyard. So what in hap -- what, in fact, happens, those projects are about a hundred and twenty-five, a hundred and thirty feet long which typically requires four trees. Those four trees are more uniformly put adjacent to the buildings that way for the interconnects and the water management plan. That -- that additional buffer requirement with the hedge will not completely work as far as the holistic site goes. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. I was just afraid the lots would be sold off individually and there would be no buffer required between them at all and visually we'd have a problem, but I -- I understand your -- your response. Do we have any speakers, Mr. HcNees? MR. HcNEES: No, sir. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I'll close the public hearing. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Motion to approve 96-5 -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: PUD-96-5. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We have a motion and a second. Any discussion? All those in favor please signify by saying aye. Opposed? (No response) CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Seeing none. Do we want to make a motion on the companion item? Item #13A2 RESOLUTION 97-47 RE PETITION V-96-7, BILL HOOVER OF HOOVER PLANNING SHOPPE AND MICHAEL J. LANDY OF BUTLER ENGINEERING, INC., REPRESENTING LEONARD AND WANDA RAICHERT, CARRYL J. AND CARHEL J. DAMICO, LEONARD L. AND LISA C. SWIRDA, JANICE SWEENEY, COTTONGIH REALTY AND DEVELOPMENT CO., AND SID A SKIDMORE, REQUESTING A 9 FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE REQUIRED FRONT YARD SETBACK OF 40 FEET TO 31 FEET ON LOT 28 AND A 3 YEAR DELAY FROM THE REQUIREMENT TO HOOK UP TO EXISTING CENTRAL WATER FACILITIES ON LOT 28 FOR PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF GOLDEN GATE PARKWAY AT THE NORTHEAST INTERSECTION OF GOLDEN GATE PARKWAY AND 55TH STREET S.W., LOTS 28-31, BLOCK 219, GOLDEN GATE, UNIT 6 - ADOPTED COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: 13(A)(2), I'll make a motion we approve Petition V-96-7. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Second. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Did I need to open a public hearing on that, Mr. Weigel? MR. WEIGEL: Well, I think -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Or since we mentioned they were companions before the first motion -- MR. WEIGEL: You had mentioned companion before. If there are no other speakers that are signed up, you can actually go forward. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. We have a motion and a second. Is there any discussion? All those in favor please signify by saying aye. Opposed? (No response) CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Seeing none, 13(A)(2) is also approved. Great presentation, Mr. Hoover. MR. HOOVER: Thank you. Item #12C2 RESOLUTION 97-48 RE PETITION AV-96-032 VACATING A PORTION OF A FIVE FOOT UTILITY EASEMENT ON SITE 5, BLOCK D, PELICAN BAY UNIT 4 - ADOPTED CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Item 12(C)(1) has been continued. Item 12(C)(2), Petition AV 96-032 for a 5-foot vacation. Mr. Mullet, anything unusual on -- or strange about this? It looks pretty straightforward. MR. MULLER: No. Straightforward. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Speakers? MR. McNEES: No, sir. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: No speakers, Mr. McNees? MR. McNEES: No, sir. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Motion to approve. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Any discussion? All those in favor please signify by saying aye. Opposed? (No response) CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Seeing none, motion carries. Fine job, Mr. Mullet. Item #13A1 RESOLUTION 97-49 RE PETITION CU-96-19, DONALD P. RICCI, REQUESTING CONDITIONAL USE "1" OF THE RSF-3 ZONING DISTRICT FOR PROPERTY LOCATED ON LOT 20, BLOCK 414, HAROC BEACH UNIT 13 - ADOPTED Item 13(A)(1), Petition CU-96-19, Donald Ricci requesting Conditional Use 1 of RSF-3 zoning for a lot on Marco. This is for a boat dock. We need to do a swearing in on this one I take it? Madam Court Reporter, if I could ask all individuals who plan on speaking on this item to stand and raise your right hand, please. (The speakers were sworn.) MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows from current planning staff presenting Petition CU-96-19. The petitioner is requesting to construct a 13.5-foot-by-33-foot boathouse and dock facility on property that's located on Block -- Lot 20, Block 414 in Marco Beach, Unit 13. The boathouse will be 13 feet tall and open on all sides. The subject boat dock complies with the policies listed in the Growth Management Plan, and it's consistent with the conditional use requirements contained in the Land Development Code. The Collier County Planning Commission reviewed this petition on December 5th, and they recommended approval by a 7 to 0 vote. I'd be happy to answer any questions. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Norris. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Just a couple of comments. A couple of things are going on right now. The Marco Island community is working on a zoning overlay plan which they're getting pretty close to having completed. In the meantime, the Marco Island Civic Association has sent us a letter. I don't -- did you all get a copy of this letter -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I did. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: -- from the Marco Island Civic Association? They -- I think it came in yesterday, and I'll just read it into the record. Dear Commissioner Norris, please be advised that the Marco Island Civic Association is opposed to the above request. Boathouses are potential obstructions to navigation. They are also unsightly and block the views of other residents. Boathouses are not architecturally harmonious with the neighborhood and are not in the best interest of the residents of Marco Island. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at any time. Because of the ongoing discussions with the zoning overlay and because the Marco Island Civic Association is opposed to boathouses in general, it might be best at this time to -- to delay action or -- or -- or deny on -- on this particular petition. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: What time frame do we have on the civic association formulating a -- a specific position? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I think Mr. Mulhere could probably give us a clue to that. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Obviously, if there's an ongoing effort and we can do something in harmony with that, great; but we obviously can't stop everything. MR. MULHERE: The committee that is -- has -- had been working until the -- the division committee was recently disbanded with the board's approval, the Marco Island Master Plan, the subcommittee, which was -- the land use subcommittee which was looking at the overlay, did not address specifically boathouses. They felt as though the board's recent action making a boathouse a conditional use was sufficient that they be looked at on a case-by-case basis. they have not addressed boathouses. Genetically the -- the overlay district -- that's not to say that it couldn't be addressed through the public hearing process; that will be, you know, part of the review of the zoning overlay. And the time frame on that is scheduled to be brought forward in this LDC amendment cycle, heard by the Planning Commission in probably the latter part of March and heard by the board in either late April or early Hay. We are -- the staff is intending to hold a public workshop, if you will, a town hall meeting, on the overlay in late February. And -- and so we -- you know, I suspect that there will be some input from the public, and this may be one of the issues that comes up. So I think it's -- it's accurate to say that we haven't really fully addressed the issue at this point in time. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioners Constantine. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I guess -- what would be consistent with what we've done in the past? As this gentleman's already been through the system and has made his way to us, it's probably not appropriate for us to hold him up. We should make some decision yeah or nay for him today, and then -- but if there are others just starting in the process, then it's probably appropriate that we make them aware that we're -- we're looking at doing that in March and that they need to be aware that they're going to be slowed down. Until we have some clarification, I just don't know if it's appropriate to hold this gentleman up until that time. MR. HULHERE: I just wanted to add that, you know, the county code as it stands right now, as you know, applies countywide, and in -- in placing the boat dock, there is another factor to consider, and that is that this board directed the staff to look at the whole issue of the boat docks, boathouses, how we treat them, and what criteria we use for approval. We are doing that. We are also bringing that forward in this cycle, and there, obviously, may be some impacts establishing new criteria. So, again, I -- I recognize that this one was in the works, and as it came through the works, we were -- our only criteria to review were things such as whether or not there was a view impact. And I think the staff report considered the wide expanse of the waterway and things like that relative to this petition. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: The other -- the other thing we need to keep in mind is that the Marco Island Civic Association was charged by Deltona with the responsibility of enforcing deed restrictions and other architectural matters on the entire Marco Island less -- less some commercial parcels along the beach. So since this falls within that territory, it might be worthwhile to take their -- their comments into consideration on the -- the matter. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Do you know if this is, in fact, in violation of deed restrictions on Marco Island? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: All I know is what the Marco Island Civic Association wrote us: that they're opposed to it. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: That's not going to -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Let's please not go there. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Frankly -- well, it's not our job, but it's nice to know if -- just as we did in -- in Bonita there was a request for one, and we looked at the character of that canal, what has occurred there, what's consistent with that character, and made a decision based on that. I don't know if there are other boathouses along this -- Caxambas Pass. Is this the -- is this the norm? Is it way outside of the norm? I -- I don't have a feel for that. MR. BELLOWS: On my site inspection, I did not notice any other boathouses along this particular road. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Why don't we hear from the petitioner? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Let's -- if there's no objection, why don't we hear from the petitioner on this matter. COURT REPORTER: Have you been sworn? MR. RICCI: Yes, I have. COURT REPORTER: Thank you. MR. RICCI: My name is Donald Ricci. I'm acting as agent for Gene Logghe, who owns this property. Basically, there is not another boathouse on that actual street, but one street over the same type condition, same view, there is one. Basically, with this -- this condition and the placement of this property, he has shifted the boathouse over not to hinder anybody. He is facing mangroves, which they'll never impact anybody's view. So he's made concessions for that so it doesn't -- it doesn't hinder Mr. Parrago (phonetic), who's on the point, because he kind of put his house in a position to look out into the pass. Other than that, you know, these people purchase the property with the idea that they can have a boathouse, and now with these new rules come up -- I understand that in the -- in canals with people who live on the end, they're looking right at the boathouses, and that's a big concern. But in this area there's nobody that is actually looking right at him. Everybody looks straight out into the waterway, and it doesn't impact anybody in any way. And as -- as you can see, none of the neighbors have come forward at either -- either the Planning Commission or this -- this commission meeting to state their case. If you have any questions -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Any questions of Mr. Ricci? Do we have other registered speakers, Mr. HcNees? MR. HcNEES: No, sir. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. I'll close the public hearing. Is there a motion on this item? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm going to make a motion we approve the item based on the staff report and based on the fact that no neighbors have voiced any objections. And I -- I do appreciate what Hike is doing, but I guess with that in the works, I don't feel it's appropriate for us to penalize Mr. Ricci in the meantime. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Actually, I'm -- I'm sorry. I do have a question of -- MR. RICCI: Okay. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- of the applicant, if I may. The -- I see on here roof tile as a treatment on the boathouse. Is that roof tile intended to match the house? MR. RICCI: Yes. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And did you say that the -- the boathouse is more or less hidden by mangroves? MR. RICCI: No. He's facing out into a waterway that -- it's not a canal. He's facing islands. If you're familiar with the Caxambas boat ramp, the gas docks, he's just next to that and looking out the same way. So it'll never impact anybody in that respect. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And we have no letters of -- of objection with the -- MR. BELLOWS: No letters. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- exception of the Marco letter asking us just -- MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- not to do it -- MR. BELLOWS: That's correct. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- on the -- the basis that it's a boathouse, and they haven't reviewed -- COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Not they don't -- they're philosophically opposed to them on Marco Island. They don't want boathouses down there, period. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I'm -- I'm inclined to agree with Commissioner Constantine. It's in the code that you can request it until we say you can't. With none of the neighbors being affected or complaining, I'm -- I'm inclined to approve it with the architectural constraint that it match the house, the roof line match the house, the roof material. Is there any further discussion? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Was there a second? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I'm sorry. We need a second on the motion if it's to move forward. COHMISSIONER BERRY: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? All those in favor please signify by saying aye. Opposed? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Aye. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Four, one the petition is -- is approved. Item #13A3 PETITION V-96-27, HARIO LAMENDOLA REPRESENTING GUY FRACASSO, REQUESITNG A 10 FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE REQUIRED 15 FOOT SIDE YARD SETBACK TO 5 FEET FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 10823 TAMIAMI TRAIL NORTH, LOTS 6-12, BLOCK 3, NAPLES PARK, UNIT 1 - DENIED 13(A)(3), Variance 96-27, Mario LaMendola representing Guy Fracasso. This also, I believe, requires that witnesses be sworn in. All those planning to testify or speak on this item, please stand and raise your right hand. Madam Court Reporter. COURT REPORTER: Is she speaking? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I imagine she is. COURT REPORTER: Ha'am, are you speaking? MS. FITZ-GERALD: Yes. This is 13(A)(3)? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Correct. This is 13(A)(3). Go ahead and raise your hand. (The speakers were sworn.) CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you. Mr. Reischl. MR. REISCHL: Good afternoon, Commissioners. Fred Reischl, planning services. This is a request for a 10-foot variance to a 15-foot side yard setback in the C-3 district of Naples Park. There's an existing -- there's an existing building at the northwest corner of 108th and U.S. 41 you'll see on the diagram in yellow (indicating). In order to construct this 693-square-foot addition that you see in pink at the same building line of the existing building, this vat -- variance is being requested. At the time of construction of the existing building, there was a 5-foot side yard setback. Since that time the code restrictions have changed and a 15-foot side yard setback is now required. The petitioner feels that by shifting the addition 10 feet over (indicating), it would not be architecturally or -- it would not be architecturally compatible or fit with this site plan; and therefore, he's requesting the 10-foot variance to line the wall of the existing building with the line of the proposed addition. Two other things that are being proposed would be the -- in the parking area, there are -- there are currently two entrances and exits on 108th Avenue. One of those is proposed to be closed, which would make the entire parking area internally accessible. Currently, if someone comes into this area (indicating) and the parking spaces are all filled, they would have to come out on to 108th and back into the other parking area. Code on new buildings prohibits that; so this new parking reconfiguration would add additional parking by reconfiguring and making all parking spots internally accessibly. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Reischl, what is immediately adjacent on Lot No. 57 Is there a use there? It's -- it's the lot directly behind the -- the proposed expansion. MR. REISCHL: It is another retail center which was -- it's been a few months since I've been up there. I don't recall exactly, but it's a retail center. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. So it's not next to anybody's home? It's next to another commercial use? MR. REISCHL: No. All uses are C-3 uses except for 41 to the east. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: The -- has there -- will there be updating and improving of landscaping on the balance of the site as a result of this application? MR. REISCHL: Yes. The landscaping will be brought up to code, and the parking will be reconfigured in addition to the addition. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Anybody have any further questions? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, I have received some correspondence on this; however, as required by the state statutes of the State of Florida, I'll base my decision solely on the information provided during this public hearing. But I will make that letter part of the public record for this hearing. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Berry. COHMISSIONER BERRY: Well, I think I do, too, but if I know exactly what parcel we're talking about here, I don't know what the business -- I've received -- I received a letter in this area, but I'm not sure if it's pertaining to this particular project. MR. REISCHL: The -- when I got calls from members of the public, the business that seemed to jog people's memories was Domino's Pizza. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I've also received correspondence and will base my decision on the information presented today. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Same here. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Same. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Applicant. Yes, sir. MR. LaMENDOLA: Well, I'm Mario LaMendola, the architect representing the owner, and basically, as staff stated quite well, the building was there. The -- the only reason for the variance is to -- because the building was built according to zoning laws at that time, and I felt that we did improve the situation by reducing the one access from the side street and making all the parking internal. So I -- I feel that this would be an improvement for the area along with the expansion. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Will this expansion encroach further into the utility easement which seems to already be a problem? MR. LaHENDOLA: No. I saw that on the -- the survey, and we're moving it enough to keep within the -- so it won't encroach. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Any questions for the petitioner? Seeing none, speakers, Mr. HcNees? MR. HcNEES: Just one, Vera Fitz-Gerald. MS. FITZ-GERALD: My name is Vera Fitz-Gerald, and I live in Naples Park, and I apologize for the confusion about the letter from the property owners of Naples Park. I've tried very hard to get information out of the planning department on this variance, and I simply couldn't. There just seemed to be so much confusion, then it was over Christmas, and I couldn't find anybody, and I couldn't get the information. I have since spoken to Vince Cautero about this and Bob Hulhere, and they assured me that they would be able to deal with these types of problems better. So the one I mentioned in the letter stated Sri Da's Restaurant, which was undergoing yet another change, and so we said, God, don't tell me they're at it again. The PONP has discussed variances in general at -- at their regular meeting, and we have to -- almost to a member stated that we oppose any of these variances. Now, the developer of these lots has already maxed out this site, and if he's being allowed to build right up to within 5 feet of the lot line, I mean, think about what he would be allowed to build now when he had to have a 15-foot setback all the way around. The building would be considerably smaller. The parking area would be considerably less. The only good thing I can hear is that they may bring up the landscaping to code, because there's nothing there now. The building is not very well maintained. It's not a very nice strip mall, believe me. I don't want to see it expanded. We're also opposed to any expanding and maximizing of the small lots in Naples Park on the basis of the traffic impact on our community. Bigger and better leads to greater traffic impact, and I'm sure you all know that we have a mega traffic problem in Naples Park. Trucks servicing these commercial establishments or this strip one mile long always use Naples Park as a means of getting to these businesses. They rumble down 91st, whatever, and then they use 8th Street and then they deek (phonetic) up. A lot of them come up from the beach, and this is their place of choice. So we just don't want this to be increased. I know this looks innocuous, but as I said, compare it to what he could do today. And it -- it just -- he couldn't get anywhere near the building that he's already got; so I don't know why he should be allowed to add to it. The commercial strip in general has a detrimental effect on our community, and as I said, we simply don't want to add to this. And so we ask you not to approve this variance. Thank you. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Other public speakers, Mr. McNees? MR. McNEES: No, sir. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: The board may know that I -- you know, particularly in the commercial section, we had somebody come in and want to maximize a lot and they asked for a number of variances to build a much larger structure than the code allowed for, and that would -- that clearly -- I think it was unanimous. This board said that's -- that's out of place. Here what I'm looking at is a minimal expansion. How old is this project? How long has it been in place? MR. REISCHL: I don't know exactly. Mr. LaMendola might know. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Can I get an answer to that? When was this -- when was this project built? MR. LaMENDOLA: I don't know myself. The owner is here, and he -- he hasn't been sworn, but if you'd like, maybe he could -- he could speak. You might want to swear him. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yeah. If he's going to speak, we're going to have to swear him in. Madam Court Reporter. (The speaker was sworn.) CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: When was this -- this structure originally built? MR. FRACASSO: It was originally built in 1980. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: 1980. MR. FRACASSO: And I guess I purchased the property -- oh, my name is Guy Fracasso. I'm the owner. And I purchased the property in March, and I do take kind of offense when the woman says that it is not maintained. John R. Woods manages and maintains that property for me, and you know their reputation. They do an excellent job. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Reischl, does this expansion trigger in any way the architectural standards, or is it too small to do that? MR. REISCHL: Seven hundred foot. MR. MULHERE: For the record, Bob Mulhere. I -- I don't believe it would; it's 693 square feet. It's based on a percentage of the size of the structure, and I -- I don't believe it would. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: This -- this doesn't trigger that? I didn't think so. I just wanted to get that on the record. That -- that's really all the questions I have for him. Any other questions? I'll close the public hearing. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Well, just a comment. Philosophically I -- I have an objection to giving a variance, because otherwise -- if -- if we continue to give variances, we'll never get this area brought up to current code; and if there's something I'm missing here, Commissioner Hancock, I wish you would help me see it. If there's some great improvement to the property being proposed here that's so good that it, you know, outweighs the -- the negative impacts of allowing any variances in that area, I'd like to see this area improved up to current code, and this won't help that. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: That's -- that's exactly what I'm wrestling with. And -- and if I'm not mistaken, there's -- Mr. Reischl, is there any vegetation on that site right now? MR. REISCHL: Yes, there is. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: There's -- there's a little bit? MR. REISCHL: There's a hedge and several trees. Not -- not to code, but it does exist. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: That -- that's what I'm wrestling with. MS. STUDENT: Just -- for the record I just need to remind this board that you're to be guided by the criteria that exists in the staff report as a basis for making your decision. Thank you. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And with that -- but what I -- you know, what I'm wrestling with is, you know, every conditional use has attributes and detriments to it. And, you know, are the attributes sufficient here to overcome the detriment? And I'm having a tough time with that. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I -- I don't see that they are, and I guess based -- based on that, I'd make a -- a motion to deny. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We have a motion to deny. Is there a second? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We have a motion and a second. Any discussion? All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Aye. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion -- Variance 96-27 is denied by a vote of 4 to 1. Item #13A4 RESOLUTION 97-50 RE PETITION CU-96-22, MILES SCOFIELD REPRESENTING DAVID M. OGILVIE, REQUESETING CONDITIONAL USE "1" OF THE RSF-4 ZONING DISTRICT TO ALLOW FOR A BOATHOUSE FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 279 3RD STREET IN BONITA SPRINGS - ADOPTED WITH STIPULATION THAT ROOFING MATERIAL FOR THE BOATHOUSE BE THE SAME AS THE MAIN HOUSE Next petition, CU-96-22, Miles Scofield representing David Ogilvie, Conditional Use 1 of RSF-4 to allow for a boathouse. This is in Bonita Springs, I believe. Would all -- would all individuals who are speaking on this item please stand and raise your right hand. (The speakers were sworn.) CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you. Mr. Badamtchian. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Good afternoon, Commissioners, Chahram Badamtchian from planning services. This is a conditional use for a boathouse. Mr. Scofield representing Mr. Ogilvie is requesting this variance for a prop -- this conditional use for property that's located at 279 Third Street in Bonita Shores. This -- this is a boathouse 25 by 13 and the height of the structure is 10 1/2 feet. It's going to be an open side to the structure. There are three other boathouses within the close -- within the vicinity of this proposed boat dock. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Did you receive any letters of objection, Mr. Badamtchian? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: No, I haven't received any letters of objection. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Is the -- MR. BADAMTCHIAN: The Planning Commission reviewed this, and by a unanimous vote, recommended approval. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Is the material to be used on the boathouse consistent with the material used on the -- the main structure, or do we know that? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: I believe it's going to be lumber. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I'll save that petitioner -- that question for the petitioner. Are there any other questions of Mr. Badamtchain? Let me ask the petitioner, Mr. Scofield, what materials are planned for the roof of this boathouse? MR. SCOFIELD: Miles Scofield for the record. Right now, to be honest with you, I'm not sure. I know that the owner just renovated his house, and I would assume that it's going to match the shingle, the roof, on his -- of his house. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Would you be able to commit to integrating the roofing material on the boathouse with that of the house? MR. SCOFIELD: Yes. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I don't have any other questions. Any registered speakers, Mr. McNees? MR. McNEES: No, sir. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I'll close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Move approval. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Would the motion maker add the stipulation that they integrate the roofing material on the boathouse with that of the house? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yes. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I will second. Any discussion? All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? (No response) CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Seeing none, 96-22 is approved. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Rocky, that was worth waiting the day, wasn't it? Item #13B1 RESOLUTION 97-51 RE PETITION CU-95-16, TERRANCE L. KEPPLE REPRESENTING CYPRESS WOOD PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH, REQUESTING AN EXTENSION OF CONDITIONAL USES "1" AND "3" OF THE "E" ESTATES ZONING DISTRICT TO ALLOW FOR A CHURCH AND CHILD CARE FACILITY THAT HAS PREVIOUSLY RECEIVED CONDITIONAL USE APPROVAL FOR PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF GOLDEN GATE BOULEVARD - ADOPTED CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Item 13(B)(1), Petition CU-95-16, Terrance Kepple requesting an extension of Conditional Uses 1 and 3 of the estates zoning district to allow for a church and related facilities. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: This is simply extending an existing conditional use? MR. BELLOWS: That's correct. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: First extension? MR. BELLOWS: First extension. They have submitted their site development plan, and it's in the process of being reviewed. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Wonderful. Any questions of staff? Do we have any public speakers? MR. HcNEES: No, sir. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Close the public hearing. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Move approval. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Motion to approve. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion and a second. Any discussion? All those in favor please signify by saying aye. Opposed? (No response) CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Seeing none, CU-95-16 is granted an extension. Item #14 (1) BCC COHHUNICATIONS - COHHISSIONER HAC'KIE PRESENTED A COPY OF A REPORT FROM DR. STOKES REGARDING THE LANDFILL We are on to BCC communications. Commissioner Hac'Kie. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I have just one thing that I want to share with you. I have made copies of -- let's see. Do I have copies made for everybody? Yeah. This is -- this is something that Dr. Stokes, who's -- I've referred to before about the landfill, has volunteered and for free done a study of the landfill odor problem, and I just want to provide copies of the report to all of you for information. After you've reviewed it, I just think it's something that will probably factor into your decisions on -- on the landfill. I just wanted to provide it for your information and thank him for doing it for us for free. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you. Commissioner Norris? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Nothing. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Berry? COHMISSIONER BERRY: Nothing. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Constantine? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Nothing. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And nothing from me. Mr. Weigel? MR. WEIGEL: Nothing, thank you. Item #15 (1) COUNTY MANAGER REPORTING ON INCIDENTS AT THE IHMOKALEE COHMUNITY AQUATIC COMPLEX THAT ARE BEING CHECKED INTO CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Hr. HcNees. Oh, Hr. Dorrill might have something here. Oh, we still have an item. MR. WEIGEL: The tail end of that item. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Have we heard anything? Miss Filson, would you check with Miss Ryan to see if we have heard anything from the Chamber of Commerce. MR. DORRILL: They -- they have -- they -- they may be outside. Would you mind just going down and see if Steve Wheeler or the other lady from the Chamber are here? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Dorrill. MR. DORRILL: For informational purposes you may be receiving a letter this week from a Mr. Wilson, who is a black attorney and representative of your Black Affairs Advisory Board alleging a -- a great deal of concern on the part of a disciplinary series of events that transpired at the Golden Gate Community -- not Golden Gate, the Immokalee Community Aquatic Complex. Aside from Mr. Wilson's concerns and an ongoing letter-writing campaign with the county attorney's office, we are in the process of -- of researching and looking to determine if there are any trends. The period in question was a one-year period that went from the first summer that the pool was open to last summer. It involved 29 different incidents for which an incident report was written by a member of the staff. Of the 29 incidents, there are 10 that are attributable to one employee; and the majority of those, the vast majority of those 10, all deal with young, black patrons at the swimming pool in Immokalee. We do not, apparently, have information on the racial makeup of patrons who come to the pool; so I can't tell you on any given day, you know, what the racial breakdown of patrons at the pool is. But it is a matter that is serious enough to have warranted some staff analysis to determine whether we have proper procedures in place. The incidents run the gamut from physical assaults on the part of staff, to threats that result in the Sheriff's Department being called to respond to the facility for fights and the like, to a series of incidents that are referred to as verbal assaults. And for anyone who has spent their summers around a pool during a summer rec. league, some of those may be significant; some of those may not be significant. And that's what we're trying to get to the bottom of. Mr. Wilson has sort of taken this to a new level and -- and is quite concerned, and I'm sure you'll be given a copy of his letter this week. He happens, though, to be representing a number of -- or he claims to represent a number of the patrons from the pool. And so I have a separate question as to whether or not he should be, on the one hand, allowing himself to be involved in an inquiry as a matter of record as a member of the Black Affairs Advisory Board, but also be looking to retain clients to potentially bring a claim of action against the county. There is some correspondence there between Mr. Weigel's office and this gentlemen; and if you would like any additional information, we'd be happy to share it with you. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: That -- that was really my question. Obviously, we appreciate his efforts on the Black Affairs Advisory Board, but has he -- is he representing any of these complainants at this point legally, or do we know that? MR. DORRILL: He -- he claims to represent a number of -- of young patrons at the pool. I cannot give you any specifics on that. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Because I sense a conflict there: sitting on an advisory committee to the board yet representing clients. And I don't know if that's true or not. MR. DORRILL: I don't either. I don't think that -- that we have enough information yet to determine yet whether we have a -- a single individual who is a little heavy handed in terms of, you know, dispensing justice at the pool there. Aside from the information that I've given you, we have about 30 incidents that occurred over the course of -- of a year; 10 of those are attributable to one employee. But sometimes they're quite severe and -- and run the gamut from the -- one or two assaults and fights that could not be broken up to theft but -- but then a number of other things that I think need a little -- a little further analysis, and we're doing that. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Can we expect a report from you at the appropriate time -- MR. DORRILL: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- on the results of that investigation? MR. DORRILL: Yes, sir. And that's all that I have. Item #9B NAPLES CHAMBER OF COHHERCE, INC. AGREEMENT CONTINUED ONE WEEK CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you. Mr. HcNees, what's the result of our -- MR. McNEES: No word and no representatives of the Chamber that we can find. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I don't know what the timing issue is on this, but rather than throw the baby out with the bath water -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I make a motion we continue the item for one week. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We have a motion and a second. Any discussion? All those in favor -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Just one -- one other question. Might we want to -- we approve the contract that's drafted by our attorney and -- and make that as an official offer? They can accept or reject. If they reject, we come back and -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: My concern is readvertising. Does this have to be advertised, Mr. Weigel? MR. WEIGEL: No. It's just an -- it's just an agenda item to be continued. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: You said it yourself earlier, no sense approving something that isn't right in the first place, or was that you? COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: That was both of us. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Well, if we -- if we continue it for one week, we've hurt nothing and accomplished -- COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. I was afraid we had lost the ability to advertise if we continued it. COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Well, I think the deadline for getting those TV spots in is tomorrow. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: That was my -- that was my udnerstanding which is why I will -- COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: My thought is though -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: That could still occur. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- that for the cost of a FedEx envelope, they can still send those in, don't have to air them, don't have to spend the money if we don't have the agreement, but at least ESPN will have them and be prepared to -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: This just seems like such an important part of the marketing package. Why it wouldn't be followed through -- I -- I feel I need to get an answer to that. COMHISSIONER NORRIS: You know, it's just -- it's unfortunate because that is the purpose for which we're spending the $500,000 is to get these TV spots out there with a phone number that -- that people can call up and get directly connected to the Chamber of Commerce. Now the Chamber of Commerce doesn't want to seem to do that and -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Let's -- let's -- we have a motion and a second. We will -- we'll get -- get a result on it next week, and I -- I hope it'll be favorable. Is there any discussion? All those in favor please signify by saying aye. (Unanimous response) COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Hancock, you had -- you had indicated that you had spoken with Miss Keller before, and she was fairly enthusiastic; so perhaps you can follow up with her. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I -- I certainly will. This is something that -- I tried to avoid the problems that we had last year by putting this together, and now it doesn't seem to be coming together. And so it's a -- it's a -- it's something I will follow up on individually. Okay. Miss Filson, can we go? MS. FILSON: We can go. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you. Meeting adjourned. ***** Commissioner Constantine moved, seconded by Commissioner Norris, and carried unanimously, that the following items under the consent agenda be approved and/or adopted: ***** Item #16A1 AUTHORIZATION TO RECORD THE FINAL PLAT OF "SABAL LAKE, UNIT TWO" - WITH LETTER OF CREDIT AS SECURITY, CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT & STIPULATIONS Item #16A2 RESOLUTION 97-16 THROUGH RESOLUTION 97-34 AUTHORIZING THE WAIVER OF ROAD IMPACT FEES, LIBRARY SYSTEM IMPACT FEES, PARKS AND RECREATIONAL FACILITY IMPACT FEES, EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES IMPACT FEES, AND EDUCATIONAL FACILITY SYSTEM IMPACT FEES FOR NINETEEN (19) SINGLE FAMILY HOUSES TO BE BUILT BY IHMOKALEE HABITAT FOR HUMANITY, INC., IN THE BULLARD SUBDIVISION IN IHMOKALEE AND TO FUND SAID WAIVERS FROM AFFORDABLE HOUSING TRUST FUND, FUND 191 Item #16A3 AUTHORIZATION TO RECORD THE FINAL PLAT OF "PELICAN LAKE R.V. RESORT, UNIT ONE" - WITH CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT AND ESCROW AGREEMENT Item #16A4 RESOLUTION 97-35 RE PETITION AV-96-031 TO APPROVE THE RECORDING OF THE FINAL PLAT OF "NAPLES HERITAGE GOLF & COUNTRY CLUB TRACTS 'B' & 'C5' REPLAT" AND APPROVE THE VACATION OF PORTIONS OF THE RECORDED PLAT OF "NAPLES HERITAGE GOLF & COUNTRY CLUB, PHASE ONE" Item #16A5 ACCEPTANCE OF WATER FACILITIES FOR DIAMONDLAKE, PHASE I (MIRAGE) - WITH CASHIERS CHECK IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,322.00 AS SECURITY AND STIPULATIONS Item #16B1 IMPLEMENTATION PLAN FOR A DRAINAGE OUTFALL TO SERVE THE WEST END OF ERIE DRIVE THROUGH WILLOUGBY ACRES Item #1682 APPROVE THE PURCHASE OF READY MIX/MOBILE CONCRETE FROM FLORIDA ROCK INDUSTRIES, FOR THE ROAD AND BRIDGE SECTION IN ACCORDANCE WITH BID #96-2610, IN THE NET AMOUNT OF $25,000.00 Item #1683 - This item has been deleted Item #1684 CHANGE ORDER NO. 1 TO WORK ORDER #VB-15 (UNDER ANNUAL GENERAL CONTRACTOR CONTRACT #RFP 95-2334) TO VANDERBILT BAY CONSTRUCTION, INC., IN THE AMOUNT OF $13,334.00 Item #1685 - This item has been deleted Item #1686 - This item has been deleted Item #1687 APPROVAL OF BUDGET AMENDMENTS RECOGNIZING CARRY FORWARD AMOUNTS FROM FY 1996 FOR PARKS PROJECTS IN FUNDS 306, 345, 365, & 368 Item #1688 - This item has been deleted Item #1689 WAIVE THE COMPETITIVE BIDDING PROCESS AND APPROVE A PROPOSAL FROM HASKINS, INC., FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF RECLAIMED WATER FACILITIES WITHIN THE RIGHT-OF-WAY OF DAVIS BOULEVARD - IN THE AMOUNT OF $20,830.00 Item #16B10 LANDOWNER CONTRIBUTION AGREEMENT FOR THE NORTH NAPLES ROADWAY HSTU (LIVINGSTON ROAD) PROJECT - WITH STIPULATIONS Item #16Bll ROAD IMPACT FEE CONTRIBUTION AGREEMENT FOR S.R. 951 FOUR-LANING WITH 951 LAND HOLDINGS JOINT VENTURE Item #16B12 PROFESSIONAL AGREEHENT WITH COASTAL ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS, INC. TO PROVIDE PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING SERVICES RELATED TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE WIGGINS PASS INLET MANAGEMENT PLAN - IN THE AMOUNT OF $518,243 Item #16C1 CONTRACT RENAMING DR. HARTA U. COBURN, M.D., AS FLORIDA DISTRICT 20 MEDICAL EXAMINER Item #16C2 CONTINUATION CONTRACT FOR THE OLDER AMERICANS ACT GRANT FUNDING AND RELATED BUDGET AMENDMENT DOCUMENTS Item #16D1 RESOLUTION 97-036 AUTHORIZING CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COHMISSIONERS TO EXECUTE LIMITED USE LICENSE AGREEMENTS FOR THE CURRENT CHAIRHAN'S TENURE ONLY Item #16D2 RESOLUTION 97-037 DECLARING THAT A FEE SIHPLE INTEREST IN REAL PROPERTY IS THE PREFERRED INTEREST SOUGHT FOR THE ACQUISITION OF RIGHT-OF-WAY FOR TRANSPORTATION CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS; RESOLUTION 97-038 DELEGATING AUTHORITY TO THE CHAIRMAN TO EXECUTE CERTAIN DOCUMENTS INCIDENT TO PROPERTIES ACQUISITION ON BEHALF OF THE BOARD, AUTHORIZE STAFF TO PROCEED WITH CERTAIN ACTIVITIES TO EXPEDITE SAID PROPERTY ACQUISITION, AND WAIVE CERTAIN PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE C.I.E. OF THE COUNTY'S GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN; RESOLUTION 97-039 PROVIDING FOR THE ACCEPTANCE OF ALL CONVEYANCES MADE TO COLLIER COUNTY AND ALL CONVEYANCES MADE TO COLLIER COUNTY WATER-SEWER DISTRICT Item #16D3 RESOLUTION 97-040 AUTHORIZING THE CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COHMISSIONERS TO EXECUTE DEEDS AND AGREEMENTS FOR DEED TO RIGHT OF INTERMENT FOR THE PURCHASE OF BURIAL LOTS AT LAKE TRAFFORD MEMORIAL GARDENS CEMETERY Item #16D4 RESOLUTION 97-041 AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF PURCHASE AGREEMENTS AND STATUTORY DEEDS FOR THE G.A.C. LAND SALES TRUST CONVEYED TO COLLIER COUNTY BY AVATAR PROPERTIES, INC. (AGREEMENT DATED NOVEMBER 15, 1983) Item #16D5 RESOLUTION 97-042 AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF AN AGREEHENT BETWEEN THE STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF COHMUNITY AFFAIRS AND COLLIER COUNTY REGARDING CERTAIN EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT RELATED ACTIVITIES Item #16D6 BUDGET AMENDMENT REALLOCATING FUNDS FOR THE SOFTWARE UPGRADES TO THE NAPLES AND IHMOKALEE SCALEHOUSE COMPUTER SYSTEM Item #16El BUDGET AMENDMENTS 97-094, 97-097 AND 97-101 Item #16G1 MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE - FILED AND/OR REFERRED There was no miscellaneous Correspondence submitted for this meeting. There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 2:23 p.m. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS CONTROL TIMOTHY L. HANCOCK, CHAIRMAN ATTEST: DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK These minutes approved by the Board on as presented or as corrected TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF DONOVAN COURT REPORTING BY: Barbara Donovan and Barbara Drescher