Loading...
BCC Minutes 11/08/1994 RREGULAR MEETING OF NOVEMBER 8, 1994, 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 of such special districts as have been created according to law and having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 a.m. In regular session in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following CHAIRMAN: VICE-CHAIRMAN: members present: ALSO PRESENT: Timothy J. Constantine Bettye J. Hatthews John C. Norris Michael J. Volpe Butt L. Saunders Neil Dotrill, County Hanager Ken Cuyler, County Attorney Sue Filson, Administrative Assistant CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Good morning and welcome to the Board of County Commissioners Meeting of November 8, 1994. Mr. Dotrill, if you would be so kind to lead us in the pledge and an invocation. MR. DORRILL: Mr. Chairman, I have a note that Father Spinnelli -- CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Father Spinnelli, my own pastor. Father Spinnelli, if you'd be so kind to lead us in an invocation. FATHER SPINNELLI: In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, Amen. Heavenly Father, in Your goodness you have given human beings the capacity to better their earthly lives even as they make their way to you for eternity. Grant that true progress that is made till now will not stop, but be intensified; eliminate the natural evil that still exists; fill the material needs of all who are deprived, even of the basic necessities of life as well as the moral needs of those steeped in pride; let all people be free from misery and find substance in fulfilling work; may every human being be able to do, know, and have more in order to obtain the self-fulfillment that You desire; inspire everyone to know higher values, to be open to Your grace and the gift of faith and to live in communion with You and their neighbor; prompt all persons to make regular use of the means required to reach their own full development as well as the development of others. Gracious Father, You created this vast and wonderful universe, redeemed it in the blood of Your Son, now guided by Your Holy Spirit. It is Your will that we live as brothers and sisters, building up the world by the marvelous powers that You have graciously given us. Look graciously on the representatives of our County who have gathered today for the good of all; enlighten them to put forth wise proposals in accord with Your will; teach them to deliberate with honesty and with a genuine respect for one another; help them to make just decisions that will be done for the good and welfare of all. We ask this in Jesus' name, amen. (Attendees invoked the Pledge of Allegiance in unison.) CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Father Spinnelli, thank you very much. You said mass at 8:00 a.m. This morning, and you told me you had to do the drive-through version in order to get here on time. So, thank you very much, Father. FATHER SPINNELLI: No collection. Item #2 APPROVAL OF AGENDA AND CONSENT AGENDA - APPROVED WITH CHANGES CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Mr. Dorrill, I understand we have a few changes in today's short agenda. MR. DORRILL: Good morning, Mr. Chairman. We have just a few changes. The first two are Items 8 A-2 and 3, will be add-ons under the regular agenda, Community Development portion, which are the recommendations for the recording of the final plats for Fountainhead Subdivision and Tiara Largo, respectively 8 A-2 and 3. I have one additional add-on item; it will be under Constitutional Officers this morning, Item ll-A, which is a request to have the Board sponsor and execute a grant application for the accelerated hiring and training for additional Sheriff Deputies. I have kind of an odd request, but for purposes of the record, we need to add and then continue an item under Public Hearings, which was 12 C-2. We are continuing this for two weeks to the regular meeting of the 22nd of November. It's an ordinance, Amending Ordinance 86-887, as it pertains to the County water and sewer service agreements. I have two items that are on the Consent Agenda and will be moved. The first one is 16 H-2; it's moving and will become 8 H-3 under the County Hanager's portion of the agenda for the executive office. It's a recommendation that the Board select the short list of consultants for aerial and ground surveying as part of a request for Proposal 942252. Mr. Chairman, you may need to help me with the other item. It was 16 E-27 CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Correct. MR. DORRILL: And 16 E-2 will become 8 B-i, under Administrative Services, which is a recommendation to establish the job description for the information technology director's position. 16 E-2 is moving and will become 8 B-1. And that's all that I have. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Mr. Cuyler, any changes? MR. CUYLER: No, sir, no changes. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Norris? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Nothing. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Volpe? COHMISSIONER VOLPE: I have nothing. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Matthews? COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I have a couple of questions. Mr. Dotrill, we have -- we did have on the Consent Agenda the job description and budget amendment for the information technology director. When is the director for the department -- MR. DORRILL: It's next week, I think, it's coming. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Next week? MR. DORRILL: Next week. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Okay. The other question was Items 16 B-2, 3, and 4, Subordination Easements dealing with State Route 90 and State Route 84. State Route 90 is U.S. 41. Are these Subordination Easements related to the discussion we had about three months ago on the widening of 41, where we had wanted a visual idea of what these Subordination Easements were going to look like if we went forward with them? MR. DORRILL: I do not know; and I'll see whether Mr. HcNees is aware whether it relates to U.S. 41. And if you can -- if you can help with that, Mike, if not then we ought to pull them and add them as part of the regular agenda and this -- MR. MCNEES: I'm sorry, Commissioner, I didn't hear the entire question. It does relate to U.S. 41. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: All right. Two or three months -- I know it's 41. Two or three months ago the D.O.T. Had asked us to subordinate the easements for this area, in fact to subordinate the entire County. And we said, no, that we would not do that; we wanted to have a better handle on what they were doing and what it was going to look like -- what your proposal was going to look like when it was finished. And now I see these on the Consent Agenda where we just kind of acquiesced. MR. HCNEES: No, I am not prepared today at length; I will be glad to pull these and bring them back in another week and answer that question. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Okay. I would like that. MR. DORRILL: Those are 2, 3 and 47 COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Yes. 16 B-2, 3, and 4. MR. DORRILL: We will continue that for next week. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: In that case we need approval of the Consent Agenda and the Regular Agenda minus those items and with the changes. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Motion. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Second. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Motion is seconded. All those in favor of the motion state "Aye." (All answered in unison.) CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Anyone opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: The motion carries 5-0. Item #3 MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 20, 1994 AND VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD OF SEPTEMBER 26, 1994 - APPROVED AS PRESENTED We need approval for the minutes for the regular meeting of September 20th. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: Mr. Chairman, I'll make a motion that we approve the minutes of our meeting held on September 20th and September 26th. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Second. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Okay. There is a motion and a second. All those in favor of that motion, if you'd be so kind to state "Aye." (All answered in unison.) CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Anyone opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Motion carries 5-0. Item #4A1 PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING NOVEMBER 6 THROUGH NOVEMBER 12, 1994 AS ZONTA INTERNATIONAL WEEK - ADOPTED Proclamations and Service Awards. We have Ellie Dagle from Zonta International, if you could come up. I understand there are a number of other folks from Zonta as well, who are all welcome to come up. Come on up, turn around so everyone gets a good look at you. And we'll read the following: "WHEREAS, Collier County has approximately 100 women who are members of the Zonta Club of Naples, Naples on the Gulf and Bonita Springs; and WHEREAS, these members are executives in business and the professions conducting same in the proximity of Collier County; and WHEREAS, these members give many service hours and dollars to the community in the name of Zonta International; and WHEREAS, Zonta International is a worldwide service organization for executives in professions working together to advance the status of women; and WHEREAS, Zonta International is composed of 1,138 clubs in 56 countries with more than 36,000 members .... several of them here today, and WHEREAS, Zonta International was organized in Buffalo, New York, on November 8th, this very day, 1919; and WHEREAS, Zonta International celebrates its 75th birthday today, now therefore be it proclaimed by the Board of County Commissions of Collier County, Florida, that the week of November 6th through 12th, 1994, be designated as ZONTA INTERNATIONAL WEEK. Done on this 8th day of November, 1994, Board of County Commissioners, Timothy J. Constantine, Chairman." I would like to make a motion that we accept this proclamation. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I second the motion. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Motion to second; all those in favor say "Aye." (All answered in unison.) Motion carries. Thanks. MS. DAGLE: We'd like to thank the County Council for this opportunity to make the People of Collier County more aware of Zonta International and specifically the clubs that serve this County in many ways. I would like to introduce the president of the Naples on the Gulf Club, Linda Luxs; and the president of the Naples Club, which is the founding club of the other two, Harla Ramsey. We have many women who cannot attend because, as we said, they're women in business and the professions. We are volunteers, but only when we are not working at our regular positions in careers and business. We wanted to tell you that as a worldwide service organization we touch many lives around the world, and not just in Collier County. For over twenty years we have given over $1.5 million to UNSEH, which is the United Nations agency that helps women in thirteen developing countries. We've had various projects, which I will not go into. We've also have an Amelia Earhart Fellowship, which we have awarded to 433 women all around the world who are doing graduate study work in the Aero-Sciences and Technological areas. This was established in honor of Amelia Earhart, who was one of our members in the New York City's Zonta Club. We also have several other scholarship programs on an international level. We try to serve our community, but each club selects areas in which they see a need and work toward it. So on a local level, it's up to us to make those decisions. One of the things we are looking at very strongly is the violence against woman. So the Zonta International Organization is sponsoring a summit in D.C., June of '95, on violence against woman. We are hoping to bring international focus on this problem. So we look for support from people in local communities as well as across the world. Again, I thank you for this opportunity to bring the People of Collier County a little more awareness of Zonta locally and Zonta internationally. Thank you so much. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Thank you. I have become much more aware of Zonta in the last few months; I'm kind of partial to one of the members. Fran, we have to give Mary Ellen a little difficulty, too, for not making an appearance this morning. Item #4A2 PROCLAivLATION DESIGNATING NOVEMBER 13 THROUGH NOVEMBER 19, 1994 AS VOICE OF DEMOCRACY WEEK - ADOPTED Commissioner Saunders, you have an item for Voice of Democracy Week. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Yes, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to ask John Withers and Rick Nelson of the Veterans of Foreign Wars if you'd come forward. While they are -- or one of them -- is coming forward -- before I read the proclamation, this is just another example of Veterans and what Veterans have done for this country and what they continue to do, both in the service and once they're out of the service. And I think this is just a tremendous thing that you are doing. Let me read the proclamation. "WHEREAS, one of the basic aims of the Veterans of Foreign Wars as set forth in its Congressional Charter is to foster true patriotism; and WHEREAS, the Voice of Democracy Scholarship Program sponsored by the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States and its Ladies Auxiliary, has proven to be an effective instrument for putting these words in action; and WHEREAS, the Voice of Democracy Scholarship Program, in this 48th year, provides an opportunity for high school students to think, write and speak up for our country and for freedom and democracy; and WHEREAS, this year's theme, "Visions in America" focuses the attention of youth on their role as the leaders of tomorrow and how their guidance will preserve democracy as a way of life in our Republic; and WHEREAS, an active, dedicated and resourceful citizenry is vital to the preservation of freedom as our nation embarks upon its third century. NOW THEREFORE, be it proclaimed by the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that the week of November 13th through 19th, 1994, be designated as VOICE OF DEMOCRACY WEEK and commend the Veterans of Foreign Wars and its Ladies Auxiliary for their sponsorship of the 48th annual Voice of Democracy Program and call on the 10th, llth, and 12th grade students in our schools to think, write and speak up for freedom and to address the theme "Visions in America." Done and ordered this 8th day of November, 1994, Board of County Commissioners, Collier County, Florida, Timothy J. Constantine, Chairman." Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a motion to approve the proclamation. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Second the motion. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: There's a motion and several seconds. All those in favor of the motion say "Aye." (All answered in unison.) Motion carries. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I would like to present this to you. MR. NELSON: Thank you very much. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: If there is anything you'd like to say about the program, feel free to use the microphone over there. MR. NELSON: We'll make this short and sweet right here. Basically, this is what we're trying to create, Americanism, in the school themselves and let the young people realize the value of what we have done for the country; and what we hope is continued protection for our country. There are many scholarships, and hopefully we will get participants -- as many participants as we'd like. It's been kind of light the last couple of years, but we're doing as much as we can to get more people involved, more young people involved, in the program. Thank you very much. COHMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Thank you. Item #4A3 PROCLAivLATION DESIGNATING NOVEMBER 9 THROUGH NOVEMBER 15, 1994 AS WOMEN VETERANS RECOGNITION WEEK - ADOPTED CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Matthews, you have a proclamation for Women Veteran's Week. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Indeed I do. Gert Mangan, who is with the AIR/WAC, is here to receive this. Kate Nolan, Army Nursing Corps; is she with us this morning? Anita Schneider, WAC, Women Army Corps, is with us; and Kay Flynn, a WAC and Co-Chair of the Florida WIMSA, Women in Military Service for America. I have a proclamation to read to you. "WHEREAS, 1.8 million women have served in the U.S. Armed Forces, and women have served in all of America's major conflicts beginning with the American Revolution; and WHEREAS, women were hired in medical service in the wars of the 18th and 19th centuries and, during the Civil War, as foragers for supplies, cooks and seamstresses, as well as saboteurs, scouts and couriers; and WHEREAS, the Spanish-American War contributed to the creation of the Army and Navy Nurse Corps in the first decade of the 20th century; and WHEREAS, women were first recruited as members of the armed services in World War I in which more than 35,000 served in roles ranging from nurses to telephone operators and was the first war in which American women served overseas with three receiving the Distinguished Service Cross; and WHEREAS, World War II, in which more than 350,000 women served, saw the first female officers, and was also the first time a large number of black women could serve in the American military; and WHEREAS, the majority of women sent to Korea during the war were nurses, and again, throughout the Vietnam War, mainly nurses were deployed; and WHEREAS, the Vietnam Women's Memorial was dedicated on November 11, 1993, honoring women's military service personnel, of whom 14,571 live in Florida; and WHEREAS, in Grenada and Panama, the lines between combat and non-combat duty became blurred as women led troops and faced enemy fire, Operation Desert Storm became the key turning point; however, when more than 41,000 women filled combat-support positions- the largest single deployment of military women in American history and 7.5 percent of the total force; and WHEREAS, today more than 200,000 women are on active duty, comprising 11.6 percent of the total force, and approximately 150,000 women in the Reserves- 13 percent; and WHEREAS, November 11 is designated by Congress as Veterans Day, a day we pause to reflect on the many men and women who fought to protect and preserve the American way of life, and this week the women veterans deserve our deepest respect and thanks for their many sacrifices. NOW THEREFORE, be it proclaimed by the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that the week of November 9th through 15th, 1994, be designated as WOMEN VETERANS RECOGNITION WEEK in Collier County, and urge all our residents to participate in special services paying tribute to Collier County's women veterans. Done and Ordered this 8th day of November 1994, Board of County Commissioners, Collier County, Florida, Timothy J. Constantine, Chairman." Mr. Chairman, I move that we accept this proclamation. COMHISSIONER VOLPE: I second the motion. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: I show a second on the motion. All those in favor, please say "Aye." (All answered in unison.) Motion carries. Item #4A4 PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING NOVEMBER 6 THROUGH NOVEMBER 12, 1994, AS NURSE PRACTITIONER WEEK - ADOPTED COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: We have a proclamation for you. I have been to the Nurses Memorial. It is a most moving experience, very much so, in Washington, D.C. I was there about a week after it was dedicated last year, and it's most amazing. The women are there in this bronze statute, and there's this little area, kind of like a bowl in the middle of it, and somebody placed earrings and lipstick in a tribute to women. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Volpe, Nurse Practitioner Week. COHMISSIONER VOLPE: Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Hay I ask for Mary Nichols? Proclamation: "WHEREAS, a Nurse Practitioner is a Registered Nurse with advanced training skills and education in a specialty health care area. Health promotion and disease prevention are the cornerstone of their practice; and WHEREAS, Nurse Practitioners practice under the rules and regulations under the Nurse Practice Act. Many are nationally certified. Nurse Practitioners serve as health care providers to all; and WHEREAS, Nurse Practitioners obtain medical histories and perform physicals, diagnose and treat common health problems as well as chronic diseases; and WHEREAS, Nurse Practitioners order and interpret diagnostic studies, prescribe and order medications and treatment; and WHEREAS, Nurse Practitioners collaborate with other health care providers; and WHEREAS, Nurse Practitioners provide quality health care and services to the community, NOW THEREFORE, be it proclaimed by the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that the week of November 6th through the 12th, 1994, be designated as NURSE PRACTITIONER WEEK, done in order this 8th day of November, 1994, Board of County Commissioners, Collier County, Florida, Timothy J. Constantine, Chairman." Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a motion that we accept this proclamation. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Second. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: All those in favor of the motion state "Aye." (All answered in unison.) Motion carries 5-0. COHMISSIONER VOLPE: Thank you very much. Item #4A5 PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING NOVEMBER 11, 1994, AS VETERANS' DAY - ADOPTED CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: And of course Friday will be Veteran Day. Commissioner Norris, our own resident veteran has a proclamation. COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Do we have Mr. Ruben Vogel of the Collier County Veterans? Mr. Vogel, if you would stand here and face the camera for us, we have a little proclamation for you. MR. VOGEL: Where is the camera? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: If you could stand here and face that direction, all the folks at home will be able to see you. WHEREAS, at 11:00 a.m on November llth, 1918, an armistice between the allies and central powers ended the fighting of World War I, and in the eleventh hour of the eleventh day of the eleventh month was subsequently declared a federal legal holiday to be known as Armistice Day; and WHEREAS, the 67th anniversary of Armistice Day, now celebrated as Veterans Day, will be observed on November 11, 1994, to remember and honor the millions of brave men and women, outstanding American patriots, who served in this nations armed forces and who offered their lives for the sake of their children and countrymen for the preservation of freedom; and WHEREAS, the spirit of liberty, the freedom of the individual, and the personal dignity of man are the strongest and most enduring forces in all the world; and WHEREAS, national freedom is a precious heritage and our ultimate strength lies not alone in arms, but in our faith, our inspiration, and our indomitable determination to continue to build on a two-century old foundation of peace and prosperity; and WHEREAS, this nation owes an eternal debt to all who wore their nation's uniform and to their spouses, widows, widowers and children of all uninformed services who have fought to defend American shores and those of its allies and to those former prisoners of war and to those still missing whose sacrifices are a lasting reminder of the price of freedom; NOW THEREFORE, be it proclaimed by the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that Friday, November the llth, 1994, be designated as VETERANS DAY. And all citizens are urged to renew a Pledge of Allegiance to our great nation by remembering the values we hold, the beliefs we cherish, and the ideals to which we are dedicated; and to show gratitude by demonstrating faith in all American veterans, living or dead, just as they once demonstrated faith in us by putting their country first through their love of liberty, country and union. Done in order this 8th day of November 1994 by the Board of County Commissioners, Collier County, Florida. Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a motion that we accept this proclamation. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I second. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: All those in favor of the motion state "Aye." (All answered in unison.) Motion carries. MR. VOGEL: I have a few words. COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Please, as many as you'd like. MR. VOGEL: There are some representatives of the various veteran groups here. I would like them to stand, in the back here, including the ladies, please. If they would just stand. Thank you. This is but a small representation of the 25,000 veterans we have in Collier County. I would like to thank the County Commissioners for their continued support of veteran affairs within the County. Also, I would like to invite each and every one of you to attend the ceremony to be held Friday, at Cambier Park, beginning at ten o'clock, whereby all of the veteran representatives will be there. Our featured speaker will be Senator Porter Goss during that presentation. I did receive your letter, sir, about your other commitments, Mr. Constantine, and regret that you can't be there. But, again, thank you for your continued support of veteran affairs. COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Thank you. MR. VOGEL: I salute you. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Thank you. Item #4B EMPLOYEE SERVICE AWARDS - PRESENTED We have three service awards this morning. Each of the three employees have been with us for five years. From Courtroom Operations, we have Sharon Telly. From Pollution Control, we have Janet Go. From Community Development, we have Sonia Grafton. And we have a pin and a certificate for each of those three. (At this time all recipients receive awards and shake the hands of the Commissioners.) Item #4C PLAQUES PRESENTED IN APPRECIATION TO OUTGOING COMMISSIONERS SAUNDERS AND VOLPE CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Before we move on to the budget item, there is one other item that did not appear on the agenda. As those employees celebrate their fifth year with us, we have two employees celebrating their last day with us. Commissioner Volpe and Commissioner Saunders as of midnight today, tonight, their resignations are effective. And I wanted to go on record, on behalf of the Board and the People of Collier County, thanking both of you for your service. Commissioner Volpe, of course, you have been doing this for six years; and Commissioner Saunders for eight years. And having agreed or disagreed on any given issue, I have enjoyed working with both of you very much. It has been an enjoyable two years, and I'm sure whatever you do in the future you'll do well. We have a couple of items here for you, if I could find them down here. Commissioner Volpe had joked, beforehand, he wished we had a picture for 100 years from now. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: To put in the time capsule. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: So for whatever purpose it might serve, we have pictures of this Board, as is constituted, from the commissioners and also from the County as a whole. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: For the record, all five of us are awake here. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: None of us are smiling, though. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: And we have a plaque from Collier County for each of the Commissioners. It says: "For distinguished and dedicated service to the citizens of Collier County as County Commissioner," for the dates that are effective. And there's one for you and one for you. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: Thank you very much. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Thank you very much. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: If I could. Obviously there are a number of people that I would like to thank for the six years that I have had the privilege of representing the community on the Board of County Commissioners, but of all the people I would like to extend my appreciation to the residents and the taxpayers of Collier County for allowing me to represent their interest on the Board during the last six years. It's been a challenge, and I've enjoyed it. I leave with mixed emotions, but some degree of satisfaction that over the last six years we as a Board have worked together with the community to make Collier County a better place for all of us to live and work. COHMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I too share Commissioner Volpe's sentiments. I would like to thank the Commission for the plaque and the photograph and the opportunity to serve with all four of you. I have enjoyed it, going back perhaps a little longer as County Attorney, and then as County Commissioner for eight years. I also want to thank the public for the support and the input and the efforts of the public over the years. And I also want to particularly thank our staff, Mr. Dotrill and all of our staff, for their support. You have truly made it a pleasure to be an employee of Collier County. And I, like Commissioner Volpe, will be leaving with mixed emotions, having enjoyed it very much. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: One of the things as you look around the State of Florida or around the country, "Politician," that word is not particularly popular. And sometimes you can see why; we don't have to stray too far from Collier County to see that even local politicians who try to take advantage of their situation -- I think we have been lucky here, especially with these two gentlemen. They have continually put the community ahead of themselves and tried to make what they believe to be the best decision possible. So, again, thank you. Item #5 BUDGET AMENDMENTS 95-40 AND 95-44 - ADOPTED With that, we will move on to the budget, Mr. Smykowski. MR. SHYKOWSKI: Good morning, Mr. Chairman. For the record, Michael Smykowski. There are two routine budget items that require the Board's attention this morning. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Questions for our staff on those items? COHMISSIONER VOLPE: Mr. Chairman, I make a motion that we approve the two budget amendments. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I second. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: All those in favor, please state "Aye." (All answered in unison.) Anyone opposed? (No response.) Motion carries 5-0. MR. SHYKOWSKI: Thank you. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Thank you. Item #SA1 EXTENSION OF BUILDING PERMIT NUHBER 92-9477 REQUESTED BY KHOSROW MOAVENI - APPROVED County Manager's Report, Item 8-A 1, a request for extension of building permit. Has the request been withdrawn? Mr. Smith, how are you this morning? MR. SMITH: Good morning, Commissioners. My name is Bill Smith. I am the acting director of building permitting and planning review. Collier County, as you can see by the executive summary, Collier County has an ordinance in place, it's 9156; it's the Administrative Code. And the Administrative Code, it's outlined that a building under construction, in section 103.6.1.2, talks about the intent and the life of a permit and whether the permit -- what time frames the permit is considered abandoned or suspended and the permit becomes null and void. The permitee on this site has had two extensions. He received a grace period in the middle of his two extensions and, for all intents and purposes, almost got a third extension. The construction site -- I have submitted photographs of the construction site -- in my opinion, would be considered to have been suspended or abandoned. I would like to remind the Commissioners that since the hurricane, we have passed more stringent building codes. The building codes have definitely changed since this permit was issued. In addition to that, within the last month and a half, we have sent an additional fourteen letters out to people with similar circumstances as this. In addition to that, we've had people in Marco Island, along with other areas of Collier County, who have actually had to remove either portions of their houses and also slabs that they've had to remove because their construction site was considered abandoned, and their construction permit had become null and void. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Your recommendation, then, is to decline? MR. SMITH: Yes, sir. COHMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Mr. Chairman, let me make a comment; and perhaps this may end up with a question mark at the end. My understanding of the particular circumstances is that there was a red tag or some notification that the permit was expired. There was communications with the principals in Haravista. And that notification, the red tag if you will, was rescinded; and some work proceeded on the project. So I think what we're dealing with is was this a permit that had expired or not. And I think under the set of facts that I've reviewed, the permit had not expired. Had it expired, the staff would not have lifted the red tag. And we have routinely granted permits -- building permit extensions. As a matter of fact, I don't know that this Board has ever rejected a permit extension request, certainly not since I have been on the Board. Mr. Cuyler, you may have some additional information on that. But I believe that we have routinely granted these as long as the property owner has been able to show good cause for that. We have accepted, repeatedly, good cause being the down turn of the economy; the fact that property owners and developers have needed some additional time in order to generate sales. Economic issues have been fully accepted by this Commission repeatedly as a basis for extending a permit. So I would suggest that we grant the request. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Mr. Smith, is that an accurate portrayal? Was there a red tag rescinded? MR. SMITH: Well, the red tag was issued and lifted, because they were going to apply -- it was my understanding that they were going to apply for a new extension, and they were going to submit a schedule which still would have to be brought before the Board of County Commissioners. It is not in the purview of the authority of the building officials to make that determination once they have had two extensions. The purpose of their work -- or under the Code it says that they must make at least 60 percent progress, which would be common to the industry, in order for that permit to stay active. And as you can see by the photograph -- COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I understand what you are saying. But the issue becomes had the permit expired. And when that red tag is lifted, the permit is still alive. You may have expected certain work to occur; you may have expected a schedule to submitted, but the permit was still alive for purposes of being able to apply for an extension. MR. SMITH: You may misunderstand. When the red tag was lifted and taken from the job, it did not constitute a reenactment of the permit or the issuance of a permit. The permit still became null and void if they failed to meet the criteria in 9156. So regardless of whether the red tag was physically on site or not, the permit had become null and void. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Just one more quick point and I'll shut up. As you said, if they failed to meet the requirements of the Code, then the permit would be null and void. MR. SMITH: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: And the point is, they have applied for an extension; they are not going to meet the requirements of the Code. They need the extension, and that's why we're here. MR. SMITH: Which is the Board's pleasure. My only concern with that is, like I say again, we have had several changes of the Building Codes, especially after the hurricane. We have stricter Hurricane Codes, stricter hurricane requirements now. If you grant them an extension at this time, besides the economics of just the permitting value, we are allowing them to progress on a building -- which the building is not even started -- we are allowing them to progress on a building under '92 criteria when we have '94 criteria. As you'll find out next month, I'm coming back before you again with more Code changes, and we will have even stricter Code changes again. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: Mr. Smith, as a practical matter, if this application for an extension were not granted, as I understand it this building is part of an improved condominium project, could the owner of the project apply for a new building permit to construct the building? MR. SMITH: No. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: At that point he or it would have to, perhaps, amend the plans and specifications to update them to reflect whatever changes that occurred in the Building Code? MR. SMITH: Yes, sir, and pay additional impact fees besides. It's a cost factor of approximately $51,000 to pay for just the permitting fees because of impact fees that were not paid at the time because they were not applicable at the time as opposed to a $500 fee that he would have to pay to -- or the person would have to pay to have the permit renewed. COHMISSIONER VOLPE: Is the impact fee for the single building or is it for -- MR. SMITH: No, sir, for that building. COHMISSIONER VOLPE: Just that one building? MR. SMITH: Yes, sir. COHMISSIONER VOLPE: Because Commissioner Saunders is correct that there are instances where we have in fact, for various reasons, either revived a building permit -- but in each instance that I can recall, we have tried to address the changes, certainly, in the Building Code. MR. SMITH: I think you may have an option if you'd like to extend the permit and let the applicant, if it's the Board's pleasure, let the applicant pay for just the renewal of the permit. However, let there be a new permit issued and let them fall under today's Building Codes as opposed to giving a number and fall under the '92 Code. If you want to go ahead and extend, and if that's your pleasure to extend the permit, the applicant would still have to apply for a new permit, be issued a new permit number, and fall under today's code. And that's an option which you may have. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: But if we were to do that, he would get -- he would get two more 90-day extensions if he got a new number; is that correct? MR. SMITH: Depending on what stipulations you might put into that, that's correct. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Norris. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Dorrill, refresh my memory, but it seems like we had a case similar to this last year. But not only did we make the -- request that the applicant come up to today's code, but also to pay the balance of today's impact fees; is that correct? MR. DORRILL: That's my understanding. The scale of this is perhaps a little different. This is a condominium project, as I understand it, that is in progress. But you're correct; it's been within the last twelve months or so. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: So what would be the effective difference of requiring the applicant to apply for a new building permit or to do -- to take the action that we took back whenever that was, last year I believe, that we required them to come up to today's code plus today's impact fees schedule? What else would be different? MR. DORRILL: From my perspective nothing. I would ask Mr. Cuyler if legally the circumstances are similar for you to make that type of finding. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Cuyler, do we -- does the Board have the legal ability to continue this building permit or is it null and void? MR. CUYLER: Well, that's, first of all, an issue that you have to decide. COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Well, I'm asking you if we have the ability to decide that issue. MR. CUYLER: You have the ability to decide whether it's null and void. If it is an active permit, yes, you have the right. And as Mr. Dorrill indicated and Mr. Smith, you can put conditions on it if you wish. The code doesn't specify specific conditions; it leaves that up to your discretion, and time restrictions as well. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Excuse me. Let's hear from the petitioner. MR. MOAVENI: Good morning, sir. My name is Khosrow Moaveni; I am the applicant on this permit extension application. There is a little bit of confusion here. I would like to take your time a little bit and explain what's going on. Mr. Lynch and Mr. Tafugi (phonetic), officers of Lynch Construction, who are the contractors on this project, are here for any questions. I have a list of exhibits -- CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: If you want to give them to Mr. Cuyler, he will hand those up to us. MR. MOAVENI: Thank you. -- That I would like to have you take a look at. I didn't think that this was going to become a serious issue. And as I read the staff's recommendation, I thought that the staff was recommending your consideration of our application for extension. This is the last building in a three-building project, totaling 93 units. The other two buildings have been completed and were CO'd this summer. The design is the same for all three buildings. And we started construction on this building in August of last year, but did not continue because we were continuing with the other two buildings. In August of this year there was a request for inspection. The inspector observed that there was not adequate progress, and therefore yellow tagged the project. This description here, in the staff memo, that the building permit became null and void in February is somewhat surprising to me. We did -- number one, we were not noticed of that; and, number two, we don't know why. There was an inspection in February without much of a problem; there was an inspection in August. In August the project was yellow tagged during -- due to inadequate progress, insufficient progress. There was discussion between the contractor and the staff, the inspectors. The inspectors required that a schedule be submitted before the yellow tag is removed and the inspection awarded. A schedule was submitted. These are all -- I can go through the list of exhibits that are with you. The schedule is Exhibit Number 2, a letter dated llth. On August 10th the project was yellow tagged due to insufficient progress. On August llth a letter was written by Lynch Construction submitting a progress schedule. We were told -- the yellow tag was removed, the inspection was carried on. In other words, that problem was resolved. The Exhibit 3, the permit, the inspection history, shows that on August 12th the inspection was given and the yellow tag was removed. The -- we were under the impression that the schedule that was submitted is the schedule that was acceptable to the staff. And that if we need any extension to that schedule, we need to come to the Board of County Commissioners for an extension of that schedule. That schedule required that we -- we were going through certain insubstantial changes, which were completed last month. The project plans were signed and approved last month and given to us. And as far as we know we could proceed with construction today. It was our understanding that we could proceed with construction today and would still be ahead of the schedule that was submitted before the yellow tag was removed and was accepted by the staff. The footing on the project is supposed to be accomplished sometime during the month of November, and we have already done some footings in there. The reason we are here is to ask if you would grant us a six-month extension from pouring the footing in April instead of pouring the footing, the remainder of the footing -- the pad is there, and some footings are there. The balance of the footing can be accomplished in November according to the schedule that, as far as I understand, has been approved by the staff. We are asking if you would agree with the extension of the schedule so that we would pour the footings and proceed in full force with the building in April or May of 1995 and complete the building by December of 1995 rather than proceeding, as it's my understanding, with the construction forthwith today. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Would you have any objection -- and I assume you wouldn't, but would you have any objections if we said we would go ahead and continue the permit, grant the extension, but we would require you to live up to today's hurricane standards? MR. MOAVENI: Sir, it would require a significant change of the building plans and drawings and specs. It would throw the whole thing into a -- CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: When was the permit initially issued? 19927 MR. MOAVENI: In 1992, together with the other two buildings. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: When was the Hurricane Code updated? MR. SMITH: In '93 and again in '94. And we have had handicap -- CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: And the suggestion is that you probably wouldn't complete this until December of '95. And if we keep a calendar the way we have so far, that could well be 19967 MR. MOAVENI: No, sir. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: I'm not comfortable granting an extension if you are not willing to live up to today's hurricane standards and the code changes that have been made. This isn't 1992; we are almost into 1995, you will be a few days from 1996 by the time this is completed, according to your own schedule. As long as you're willing to live up to the codes that everybody else is required to live up to when they build today, I am happy to grant the extension; otherwise, I can't support it. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: May I ask Mr. Moaveni a question? CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Yes. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: I was just a little -- I think I understand your request. But your request -- you assume that you have a valid building permit for this building; and what you are asking for is an extension of the existing building permit to allow for a CO on this building to occur sometime in December of 19957 MR. MOAVENI: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: Let me just -- I think a part of the concern that I have is the length of time of the extension. If you said that you are ready to move forward; you've got your plans that are approved; the staff has, notwithstanding the issue about the extension, has recently approved the insubstantial change to the plans. I'm just not sure why you require an additional twelve months to complete the construction of the building. MR. MOAVENI: It's only a matter of six months, Mr. Volpe. And the question is, as I understand it, we have a valid building permit. This -- I really am not very comfortable with the statements in the staff report. We received a letter dated October 27, 1994. The letter was dated October 27, 1994. Unfortunately, I was away in California; I was on a trip; and I don't have copies of it. Here is just the fax transmission of a letter dated October 27, 1994, which was only last week, and was mailed via Certified Mail and did not get to us until a few days later, I think November 2nd or 3rd. The letter said the date of cancellation of the permit is 10/27/94. And the letter says, "There's been insufficient progress at this point in time, and therefore your permit is now null and void." And the date of cancellation is right on it. This was after we submitted a request to the Board of County Commissioners for an extension of the permit. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: Yeah, I'm -- I'm really questioning the period of the extension. As I read the ordinance, we are talking about maybe a six-month extension. MR. SMITH: That's the Commissioner's pleasure. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: Right. MR. SMITH: If you issue him a new permit, the life of the permit would be another eighteen months. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: I understand that, but we're not talking about -- right now we're talking about Mr. Moaveni suggesting that upon the sequence of events that he believes he still has a valid building permit, and he is requesting an extension of -- it sounds to me like twelve months. You say it's only six months? MR. CUYLER: What he's talking about is instead of doing his foundation now and completing it six months from now, starting his foundation six months from now and completing it a year from now. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: Yeah. And that's where I'm having -- just in terms of the events, I'm asking you, a six-month extension would mean you would have to complete the construction within a six-month period from the date on which you get the extension, if there is a majority of the Board that's willing to do that. MR. CUYLER: He's talking, basically, about a stay of any requirement that he would have to move forward until April of next year. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: And the question is, is there a reason why, at this point in time, you feel you need an extension of twelve month, really, is what you are asking for. Because what I'm saying, Mr. Moaveni -- MR. MOAVENI: Yes. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: -- Is if I were inclined to grant the request, the maximum obviously would be six months. Otherwise, it seems to me, if you want eighteen months, then the alternative is just to go back and apply for a new building permit and start the whole process, and you'll get eighteen months -- MR. CUYLER: Well, you could look at it as a six-month extension. Because once he starts active construction, then he doesn't have to worry about an expiration at that point. So if he started active construction in April or May of next year, the staff wouldn't be inclined to say the time is a problem. So he's worried about the period of now and when he can move quickly to construction. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: This particular application, again, I don't think is significantly different than a lot of other applications that we have reviewed. Mr. Moaveni got an application in for extension prior to the permit becoming null and void. The record, I think, is very clear on that. There's a -- the letter that Mr. Moaveni mentioned, dated June 29, 1994, is talking about the revised plans. There is a letter of October 27, 1994, by our staff that acknowledges receipt of the request for the extension, and says, "If you don't get the extension, then your permit is going to be null and void." To me that is an indication that when that extension request was filed, the permit was active. I'm kind of mystified as to why we are dealing with whether this was an active permit or not. It's an active permit until it is declared to be null and void. Once it's null and void, you don't amend plans; you don't write letters saying if certain things don't happen that the permit will become null and void. So I think this is identical to many of the permit extensions that we have gotten over the last several years. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Again, as Commissioner Norris pointed out, the last couple of times we've done this we required those people to come up to today's standards. And I don't see any reason why we should make an exception here. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Mr. Cuyler, is that -- what have we got on these? MR. CUYLER: The one that you've -- you've done different things on different permits based on what the Board felt was appropriate, a lot of times, depending on how long the people expected before they would finish the building; whether you expected them to move in good faith; sometimes -- since it was economic reasons, in terms of the downturn in the economy, you've taken the fiscal impact of changes to a permit. In other words, I don't recall the exact situation. I do recall -- COMMISSIONER VOLPE: It was Mr. Savage (phonetic) down on Marco Island, is the one that comes to my mind. Commissioner Norris, you may remember Mr. Savage. MR. CUYLER: Do you remember what kind of building it was? COMMISSIONER VOLPE: It was a condominium project that he had had a building permit issued several years ago, and there was a question about whether the permit had been extended. And I think that may be one of the ones where I recall we were discussing the conditions. MR. CUYLER: On some occasions you have done that; on some occasions you haven't. You have the ability to have them comply with some of the requirements -- for example, handicap requirements -- and not comply with other requirements because it is an existing permit. But the fact is that if you continue the permit, it is an existing permit and it falls under the '92 regulations, and that's legal. I mean, that's if somebody had a '92 permit that they were slowly continuing on, but still meeting the time lines, they would be under the '92 requirements; and they would be allowed to build. So it's really at your discretion. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Unless the Board stipulates otherwise? MR. CUYLER: Unless the Board stipulates otherwise. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: On the last one that we listened to, we required the petitioner to not only build to current standards but we required them to also pay any additional impact fees that were due. Keeping in mind that the people who buy these units will have an impact on Collier County in 1996; that's four years away from when the building permit was issued. And the impacts in 1992, the costs of those impacts was substantially less than the costs of those impacts will be in 1996. I would also want to see this condominium pay any additional impact fees that have become due since 1992. I mean, we've got four years here that we're looking at, not eighteen months. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Commissioner Matthews, perhaps the solution to this is to extend the permit for six months, but require the recalculation of impact fees as opposed to requiring a redesign of the facility; because they have already done all their design work. The designs have already been approved; they've actually already begun construction. And I think that that's, perhaps, a reasonable -- COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Let me ask one more question then, if you don't mind, of our attorney. If we issue a CO in December of 1995 and people purchase those condominiums based on that CO in 1995, is it not reasonable that they would expect that building to meet 1995 standards? MR. CUYLER: Not necessarily, they would have the ability to go and check when the permit was pulled. And it would have to have met -- at the time it was issued, it would have to have met the -- COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: They have the ability. I'm asking is it reasonable that they would expect. MR. CUYLER: If the question is does the County have any liability, then the answer is, no, in my opinion you have no liability. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: That's what Dade County thought, too. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Norris. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: We still have an unresolved dispute here on whether or not the permit was ever expired and null and void. How can we get a definitive answer here so we can go forward with our decision? Have you looked into it, Mr. Cuyler? MR. CUYLER: I was under the impression it was a valid permit. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. MR. CUYLER: You know, I haven't researched the matter, but I was under the impression that staff acknowledged -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Then the issue -- MR. CUYLER: -- That today was the day that the Board was going to make a decision. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Then the issue becomes, have they had their administrative extensions; have they exhausted their administrative extensions. Which means that the similar circumstance that we've had in the past wherein we required the petitioner to come up to today's code standards plus the difference -- to pay the difference on today's impact fee calculations. And if that's acceptable to the petitioner, I will make that in the form of a motion; that we require those two things in order to grant an extension of the permit. If the petitioner does not feel that that's in his best interest, then he may reapply for a permit at some future date. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: Commissioner Norris, I don't disagree with the suggestion or motion. The only circumstance here that seems to be just a little different -- and I agree with the issue about the impact fees. But here our staff has approved those plans with some changes and has been discussing those changes with the petitioner, it sounded to me, up through October 24th was the date. So in terms of reliance upon the plans and specifications, it seems to me at some point, you know, this gentleman has gone through -- or the builder has gone through some recent changes, and they have been discussing with them those changes, which I think is a little bit different than the situation where someone has not actually just recently gone through a recent revision of the plans at the request of our staff. And I don't know how many of those changes are of a life-safety issue. I mean, if it's life-safety, I have a different feeling; but if it's, you know, minor changes within the building, than I think it's a little unfair based upon what I'm told has been the -- MR. SMITH: Specifically I don't know what the changes are, Commissioner. There is a safe period that the gentleman has, the permit has, because they can come in -- the ordinance is clear, it's the contractor's responsibility. The contractor, when he picks up that permit, agrees to abide by all the codes and all the ordinances of Collier County. And I realize that that may be a magnitude. But the ones related to permitting are very simple, very explicit. It talks about time extensions; it talks about being able to come before the Board of County Commissioners for a third -- so they get a stay. So did he pass his stair inspection? Yes, he did. However that project was still abandoned, but the work that was actually inspected was met according to the plans. That didn't keep the permit alive; the permit became null and void as outlined in the Administrative Code. When they come in for plan review -- when people come in, I mean, it's a courtesy, every day, that we offer to the community and the public and the consumer -- to come in and have questions answered, to have pertinent questions answered, and to have plans looked at. So to be specific, without reviewing it, I don't have an answer for you there. COHHISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Smith, what you are saying is one of my points that I was going to make, that simply plan review and approval of proposed plans does not constitute a building permit. MR. SMITH: That's correct. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: I'm going to -- MR. SMITH: It's my opinion that the permit is null and void. I stated that it's up to the Commissioners to decide what you'd like to do. I just have to remind you that we've had Hurricane Code changes; we've had Handicap Accessibility Code changes. There are no walls up; so, yes, he would have to redesign on paper. But we are not retro -- we are not redoing the building that is already standing there. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: I am going to second the motion. Our responsibility is to protect the public, not to protect individual contractors. Hopefully, the two go hand in hand. But when they clash in any way, as it appears in my mind they are now, I am going to opt for the public and those people who may be buying these units. When this Board voted to change the Hurricane Codes, I am going to guess, they thought those were a safety-related issue. MR. SMITH: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: And I think it's our responsibility, then, to uphold those and require that these units that wouldn't be on the market until 1996 meet the current codes, not codes from 1991 and 1992. I think you are correct when you said the changes will be on paper. You've said you don't intend to do any more work until April or Hay anyway, so you can certainly do any changes on paper in the next six months and have that accomplished and still stay on the calendar you've got outlined here. I think to suggest that we owe it to someone that has gone beyond what is allotted as their right under the local ordinances for permits -- and now you are asking for an extension again, and -- but saying, "Gosh, I don't want to meet today's codes." I think that's shirking responsibility. COHMISSIONER VOLPE: Mr. Chairman, I wasn't suggesting that we owed anything to anyone. I was just trying to look at the good-faith reliance on the activities that occurred between the contractor and our staff. And, in fact, what I understood is that there was some ongoing -- and you're telling me it's a courtesy now to review plans. It seems to me that if your building permit has, in your opinion, expired and is null and void; then to carry on that good-faith discussion with a person who is submitting plans and specifications in the belief that he still has a building permit -- that's what -- really I was just trying to identify what reliance there may have been, but certainly not at the expense of the safety of those who would -- CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: And I think Commissioner Norris's motion is predicated on the belief that we have the ability right now to extend the permit. And as the motion states, I'm willing to do that, but only under the criteria that you've laid out. COHMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Mr. Hoaveni, you have heard the motion. In terms of the redesign, are you familiar with what you have to do to bring this up to code and are you in agreement with the motion? MR. MOAVENI: Sir, I'm not familiar fully with what needs to be done to the plans. We -- I am under the impression that we have a valid building permit; and that we could proceed with the footings today; and that there would not be any problem. We submitted a schedule to the staff. You have a copy of that schedule. It said that the planned revisions will take place during this period of time; the building pad will be done at this point in time; and the footings will be poured at this point. That point is November 1994. We can proceed with it; we were told by the staff that any extension to that schedule would require the Board of County Commissioners approval. That is why I wrote my letter prior to all this discussion about building permit becoming null and void and cancellation of the building permit. The letter that says the building permit is now canceled is dated 10/27/94. All I'm saying is we are under the impression that we can proceed with this building permit, and that there is no problem. We can go ahead and build this building. MR. CUYLER: I don't think the Board has found that the permit has expired. I think the basis of their motion is that if you want a six-month extension, apparently, the majority of the Board -- I guess we'll have to wait until a vote is taken. But apparently a majority of the Board thinks or has found that if you want the six-month extension, they are going to put conditions on it. One condition is bring it up to code; the other condition is payment of the difference in impact fees. COHMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Mr. Cuyler, when a building permit is determined to be null and void by our staff, I presume there has to be some notification of that? MR. CUYLER: That's my understanding. COHMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Is there any -- is that a notification that if something doesn't happen within a certain period of time it becomes null and void? Or can staff simply write a letter saying as of today, right now, this is null and void? Is there typically a warning period associated with that? CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: You can certainly answer the question, but I don't think the motion indicates -- I don't think the motion indicates in any way that it's null and void. There is a request for an extension, which would indicate -- and I think you're right -- that it must still be active in order to get an extension; because the extension wouldn't be allowed otherwise. I don't think we are arguing that. COHMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I said that. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: If you want an extension there are going to be some conditions. COHMISSIONER SAUNDERS: The Board agrees right now that right now Mr. Hoaveni has a valid permit irrespective of that October 27th letter? CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: That's what the motion indicates. I don't know if the Board -- COHMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I want to get to the heart of whether there is -- before we vote on the motion -- whether there is an active permit. And, Mr. Cuyler, I am concerned, quite frankly, because that letter of October 27th appears to have been generated by our staff in response to his request for an extension. And that's not particularly fair. If he's got a valid building permit that is going to expire at some point in time, the staff should not simply say that today your permit is void because you have taken the liberty of asking for an extension. And my question to you is when we indicate that permits are invalidated, how do we typically do that? MR. CUYLER: You may have to address this to staff, but I believe we have done both things. And this is that if it is well overdue -- I think there was a point in time where staff was basically cleaning files, and there were projects that were abandoned, and they sent letters saying your project has been abandoned and your permit has expired. I think we also sent letters out that indicate that nothing has been done on your property, and if you don't move forward, the County will declare it null and void. You may need to address that question to Mr. Smith. COHMISSIONER VOLPE: But I think the issue about the permit is a separate issue from the issue that has been raised, in my opinion, about the schedule. Did the staff accept a schedule that was submitted at the time that the petitioner asked for an additional six-month extension? Did the staff actually accept his schedule, which is an exhibit to the materials that have been presented us by the petitioner? MR. SMITH: I don't know what schedule you are looking at. COHMISSIONER VOLPE: It's a -- it's right there. As I understand the petitioner, he is saying that you all accepted that schedule; they were proceeding based upon that schedule. MR. SMITH: The schedule was submitted. COHMISSIONER VOLPE: Right. MR. SMITH: Our office then had some discussion with them and told them we didn't have the authority to grant any more extensions; and that they would have to come before the Board of County Commissioners. There's a stay that happens in the permitting process. The building commission is allowed to grant two extensions; they had three. And I don't know why that happened, but in the changing of whatever, that happened. Now, after they had their third extension, that project became null and void. Because under the ordinance, they didn't meet the requirements; that project became suspended or abandoned. In an effort to try and keep life into the project, they called for a stairwell inspection. The work that was done for the stairwell met the plan. It did not keep the permit active, but it met what the plan was, which is what they were advised. They were also advised that in order to have any more extensions and to keep that project alive, the permit would be on a stay; and they would have to appear before the Board of County Commissioners; because the Board has the authority to grant him the extension or not grant him the extension. And that's probably where we are at. The letter that was submitted that asked for the extension, as outlined in the ordinance, has to be done before the permit expires. There is criteria on this that the contractor has to follow. And the contractor knows what he follows and what he doesn't follow; and it was not followed. And that's why this gentleman is here today to ask for an extension. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Saunders you wanted to comment. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Well, I think Mr. Clark is getting ready to say something in terms of the -- CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: In terms of this particular issue, I think there may need to be some additional information that the County Commission needs in order to rule on this. I think we've heard from the County Attorney that in his opinion the permit is not invalid. The motion, if it's approved, would reflect that the permit is not invalid. There certainly is a question as to the motivation of the October 27th letter, as to whether that letter should have been sent in the first instance. I think the County Commission needs more information on how these types of applications have been handled in the past. My recollection of the vast bulk of these applications for permitting extensions is that sometimes we require the payment of impact fees, but I don't recall the majority of these instances where we say to a developer who has already had plans approved and has already began some work that he has to redo the plans. And that's the component of this application of the motion that's troubling. I understand the Board's statement that if someone buys a building in 1996 they expect it to be built at 1996 standards. But we have never required builders to redo their plans under circumstances that we're dealing with right now. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Well, I don't know that we've ever had these exact circumstances that we have right now, so that's a fair statement. But we have required people, when we have granted an extension, to live up to the current standards. And I think we are asking the same thing here. I think there are two separate questions. One is there is a request by the petitioner for an extension. And we need to deal with that -- either "yes" we grant; or "no," we don't. And if we grant one, it appears that the majority of the Board would like some conditions with that. Separate from that -- and I think you're right, we need to deal with this -- is what were the procedures; were they followed appropriately and so on? But I think those are two separate questions, and we need to pin that down so that we don't get in a circumstance where someone is coming to us needlessly. But there is a petitioner asking specifically for an extension, and we need to answer that question first. I will call the question. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Before we do that -- CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Again, this is -- COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: -- Mr. Clark is -- CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Mr. Clark, do you have anything on the extension request? The other issue we will handle after we've done this motion. So if you want to deal with the procedure, if you'll wait -- do you have anything on the extension request? MR. CLARK: I'll wait. COHMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Mr. Chairman, on the motion -- COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I second the motion. COHMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I would like to ask that we table the motion for one week. I realize there is going to be two new commissioners here at that time, but I think Mr. Cuyler -- COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Not in one week. COHMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Or in two weeks, in two weeks. But I think Mr. Cuyler and Mr. Clark need to provide this Board with a little bit of history as to what we've done on these permit applications. We've had a lot of discussion -- well, we've done this one time; and we've done this one time. Mr. Cuyler, you've got the history of that. And I think that's important. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Is that a motion to table? COHMISSIONER SAUNDERS: It's a motion to table. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Is there a second to motion -- a second to table? (No response.) CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Motion to table dies. Commissioner Norris, if you would, repeat your initial motion. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. My motion is to grant the petitioner an extension of six months under the condition that he brings his plans up to current code and requirements and pays the upgraded impact fee schedule of the difference between what he paid originally and today's schedule. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: All those in favor of the motion state "Aye." (All answered in unison.) All those opposed? COHMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Aye. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Motion carries 4-1, Commissioner Saunders opposed. Item #8A2 RESOLUTION 94-783 APPROVING FOR RECORDING, THE FINAL PLAT OF FOUNTAINHEAD SUBDIVISION - ADOPTED The next item, 8 A-2 and 8 A-3, are both routine. We'll take them one at a time. 8 A-2 is Fountainhead. COHMISSIONER VOLPE: Motion to approve. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Second CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Motion to second. All those in favor of the motion state "Aye." (All answered in unison.) Anyone opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Motion carries 5-0. Item #8A3 RESOLUTION 94-784 APPROVING FOR RECORDING THE FINAL PLAT OF TIERRA LAGO - ADOPTED 8 A-3, Tiara Largo. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Hotion to approve. COHMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Second. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: There is a motion to approve. All those in favor of the motion state "Aye." (All answered in unison.) Motion carries 5-0. MR. SAUBE: Mr. Chairman, may I make a statement, please. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Certainly Mr. Saube (phonetic). MR. SAUBE: This is the last chance I have in public forum to -- and not to be redundant -- but I don't think it can be said enough. Thank you, Commissioners Saunders and Volpe, for an excellent and dedicated service for Collier County. And I want to wish them the best of luck in their future endeavors. Thank you very much. COHMISSIONER VOLPE: Thank you. COHMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Thank you. Item #SD1 STAFF REPORT ON PROPERTY BELONGING TO LOUISE TIFFY - STAFF TO COHMUNICATE WITH PROPERTY OWNER CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Next item is 8 D-l, staff report on property belonging to the Tiffys. MR. CLEHONS: Good morning, Commissioners. I'm Tim Clemons your wastewater director, before you this morning, coming back with a staff report on property belonging to a Ms. Louise Tiffy. If you recall back in August of this year, Ms. Tiffy appeared before you under public petition to discuss the sewer pump station located on property belonging to her, located off Thomasson Drive, actually the corner of Thomasson and Normandy, in an easement that was obtained as part of the County's South Naples Sanitary Sewer Collection Project. The easement is twenty foot by twenty foot, and it's located on the southwest corner of the property facing Thomasson Drive. Mrs. Tiffy was approached originally regarding the granting of a 20-by-25 easement for this pump station. And she sold the easement to the County Water Sewer District for $4,515, which was the cost of the assessment for her property. In other words, we went ahead and traded that off. The County then proceeded with its plan and installed the pump station within the proposed easement. And as part of that, we installed the wet wells, the dry wells, all the normal pump station equipment, driveway for access to the pump station, a telemetry antenna for monitoring purposes, and some minor landscaping around the pump station because the lot was vacant at the time. Mrs. Tiffy's petition centered around her inability to then sell the lot. It's a 75-by-100 foot corner lot. Her claim -- and she claims that the installation of this pump station and telemetry antenna has limited and has caused her to be unable to sell the property. She further cited the assessed value of the property decreased from $11,025 on the tax rolls to $5,525 over a period of a couple of years. You directed staff, at that time, to go back and look at this and come back to you with a report, and we've done that. We are back today with a report. Members of the County Attorney's office, the Real Property Management Department, and the Wastewater Department and Utilities reviewed this item. From an operation standpoint, from the Wastewater Department, there is not much we can do as far as removing physical components of that station to keep it functional. We could, in the future, if the lot sold or if you directed us to, plant some additional landscaping around this. However, we don't have water up to the site or an irrigation system or anything. It was our intent to work with whoever the future homeowner was or whoever constructed on that lot as to what we could do to buffer the station. The Real Property Management Department has prepared a valuation memorandum, which is attached to your executive summary. The purpose of this was to communicate an appraisal of the market value of the property. In preparing this, Mr. Hendricks of the Real Property Department went out and looked at the property and went through all the tax rolls. And he spent a lot of time looking at it, and he's here today if you have any questions on it. But when he was finally done, he took into consideration the location of the lot and everything that is around that area. It had an estimated market value -- and I use the word "estimated" market value -- of the property of approximately $8,000. After reviewing this in more detail and recognizing that the County has already, in essence, paid $4,515 toward the assessment on the property, the entire assessment on the property, the Utilities Division staff believes at this time that no further compensation is warranted. We have looked at Mrs. Tiffy's communication where she had listed the lot for certain prices and then over time has had to reduce the price -- or has reduced the price in efforts to sell it. Trying to reconcile that, along with the valuation that the Real Property Management Department has done, again, we believe that the County has compensated all that it should for that property. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Mr. Tiffy. MR. TIFFY: Our petition, of course, is that if we had a building there and they put a pump station on it, it would be compatible with like. Evidently, it would reduce the value of resale. Our petition today is that we are unable to sell the lot, so that we have a total loss. The appraiser assessed the property at 5,500 currently; it was $5,025. There's $4,500 granted for the easement; so they're saying the lot is valued at $500. And we have had it up for sale for three years and have been unable to get a buyer at any price. MR. CLEHONS: I need to point out further in Mr. Hendricks' valuation investigation, he discovered that the property appraiser's office has, for several years, been reducing the assessed value of vacant lots in that area. And what it appears they were doing was they were doing this in recollection of the sluggish market when that property sold and a structure was built on it, they went back and reassessed its full value. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: This is something -- MR. TIFFY: They reassessed it at my request. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Excuse me, just a minute. Do you have some examples of that? I know in here it states the property appraiser's property counterpart has been reduced 50 percent. Similar reductions of assessed value -- you've mentioned that there are several in the area. Do you have any examples? MR. CLEHONS: I would ask Mr. Hendricks to address that, if he could. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: All right. MR. CLEHONS: He's spent time looking at that. MR. HENDRICKS: I'm Kevin Hendricks, the Review Appraiser, Real Property Department. I think on that same page there are mentioned two other vacant properties located on Thomasson Drive which have, approximately, the same unit value. Yes, that's on Page 4 in the 4th paragraph. I refer to two other properties, two other vacant properties on Thomasson Drive that have the same -- MR. CUYLER: That's Page 4 of the memorandum? MR. HENDRICKS: Yeah, it's Page 4 of the valuation memorandum. As you can see in comparison, the subject property is currently assessed at $32,500 an acre. And these other properties are assessed at $34,125 an acre and $31,756 an acre. COHMISSIONER VOLPE: Mr. Hendricks, what is your opinion of the value of this piece of property? MR. HENDRICKS: The subject property suffers from having two road frontages, and therefore it's set back 35 feet from each frontage. And it has a building envelope of only 1,250 square feet, unlike its neighbor next door which has a building envelope of over 1,575 square feet. So understanding that a duplex can't be built on it, because you need a minimum of 750 square feet in each unit, you're down to a single-family home. So it reduces its potential relative to that of the competing properties. Further because it only has 1,250 square feet, period, after you take away exterior walls, interior walls, and partitions, and any other features you might want to put on there, I think you're down to the size of a dwelling which is probably only going to be a two bedroom and not a three bedroom. So it further reduces the marketability of this property. So it's not the pump station, per se, that has created damage. It's the fact it sits -- it's a corner lot. And in comparison to today's standards, it's less desirable. COHMISSIONER VOLPE: Are you suggesting that maybe this is an unbuildable lot? MR. HENDRICKS: No. COHMISSIONER VOLPE: I'm only trying to get an opinion -- your opinion, and maybe we've gone through that. Essentially, what I heard Mr. Clemons say is that the value of the property is what has already been paid for the easement. And I'm just trying to -- is that your opinion then, that the value of the property is approximately $4,500? MR. HENDRICKS: No. I think the value of the property -- I think I'd raise it to about 8,000 after you look at all of the other influences that detract from the value relative to other lots in the neighbor. COHMISSIONER VOLPE: Is Mr. Tiffy asking that the County purchase this property from him? Is that what you are asking, Mr. Tiffy, that the County purchase the property? MR. TIFFY: Basically, yes. COHMISSIONER VOLPE: And, Mr. Clemons, your recommendation that --MR. CLEHONS: We have absolutely no use for the property. I mean, we have looked at it; it's too small for any type of little park in the neighborhood. It sits right down from East Naples Community Park. There's no value to -- COHMISSIONER VOLPE: It's not a question of value; it's a question of whether there would be any use for the property. MR. CLEHONS: There is no use for the property for us, no, sir. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: How large is the pump station? MR. CLEHONS: It's in a 20-by-20 foot easement. It's in a 400 square foot easement. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Does it use that entire 400 -- how large is the physical -- MR. CLEHONS: The wet well, I think, is eight foot in diameter. There's a small space between that and the dry well. The dry well is probably another 6-by-9; it's probably 15 foot. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: One of the things you mentioned was that we had done minor landscaping. I am assuming we met our own minimum requirements? MR. CLEHONS: Yes, sir, we did. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Would it be helpful if we had -- and I realize there's no water there -- but perhaps some zero-scape or perhaps a trellis that you could have some sort of vine growing on or something to make it more palatable to the eye? MR. CLEHONS: We could do that. The only reason I would hesitate is if someone came in and bought it, they may want to tear it out and have us rework it. But, you know, whatever direction you want to give, we can look to, sure. My biggest concern is that I don't have people to maintain landscaping, and there's not a water supply or an irrigation system. So I need to look at, like you said, zero-scape type product, if we do that; that doesn't take a lot of maintenance. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: My thought is just if it is truly the size of the lot and the corner and the setbacks and so on, there's not much we can do about that. But if it's the appearance of what we've created here, then perhaps we can correct that to some extent. I'm not sure, but John Beggamin (phonetic) or somebody may be able to help us come up with something that would be useful there without water running to it. MR. CLEHONS: That's true. One of Mrs. Tiffy's complaints was on the antenna, which I think is probably 15 feet in the air. I don't know what we can do at this point to hide that. Over time the trees would mature and things would hide it. But I'm not sure what we could do for it today. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Did the $4,400 that was referenced, did we pay that in cash to the Tiffys? MR. TIFFY: An abatement. MR. CLEHONS: It was an abatement of their assessment, which was the assessment on that property as part of that sewer project which was $4,515. The assessment was abated in return for the pump station. It was not -- COHMISSIONER NORRIS: It wasn't a cash payment, but it was in lieu of cash? MR. CLEHONS: Right. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: What's the pleasure of the Board? COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I have a question. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Go ahead. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: The $4,500 abatement, was that on the lot in question or was that on the lot they live on also? MR. CLEHONS: I don't believe they live in the area; I believe they live in Sarasota. It was on the lot in question. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: The lot in question? MR. CLEHONS: Yes, ma'am. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Is there any level of comfort in my suggestion that we try to correct the visual appearance? COHMISSIONER VOLPE: Yeah, I think if, in fact, there is, you know, something within reason that can be done to minimize the impact, I think we have an obligation -- or we should try to address that. But based upon what Mr. Hendricks has said, there are other physical constraints with respect to that particular lot that, obviously, the location of the pump station is not, according to the opinion of our expert, the reason why Mr. Tiffy is having a difficult problem selling it. MR. HENDRICKS: The pump station lies within the setback area, anyway, so it doesn't preclude anyone from building. MR. CLEHONS: We could do something there to screen it from, perhaps, Normandy to the west and even then from the east, where a home would sit looking at it from the other direction. From Thomasson, we cannot screen it simply because it would take away our access. So you would always see it driving down Thomasson. We could, perhaps, do something about -- COHMISSIONER VOLPE: Mr. Tiffy, you may want to contact Habitat for Humanity. There may be something Habitat could do with the construction of some type of home in that area. MR. TIFFY: Well, it limits the size of the home that you can put up there. If you look out your window, you see this unsightly pump station. Even if it's landscaped, it's still there. COHMISSIONER VOLPE: I'm just suggesting, with those limitations, it may be -- MR. TIFFY: In my community a plot has been set aside, away from the home, and the pump station is installed there, not on the lot where there is a house. They just don't co-exist. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Well, you just said it limits the size -- MR. TIFFY: Of the home. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: -- Of the home. Mr. Hendricks, you said that's not the case. The size of the home is limited, but not by the pump station. MR. HENDRICKS: That's correct. You have to set the location by the size of the home. MR. TIFFY: You have to set your location in conjunction with the location of the pump. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: No. No, that's not correct. The setback is from the road. MR. TIFFY: I'm not talking about a setback. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, you're saying -- MR. TIFFY: No, the location of the -- COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Excuse me. Mr. Tiffy, you just said right here, about two minutes ago, that this pump station limits the size of the house you can build; that's not correct. MR. TIFFY: Oh, all right. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: What is correct is the setback from the road, and you have two of them, one to the south and one to the west. MR. TIFFY: I think that's correct. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: That's what limits the size of the home that you can build on that lot, not the pump station. MR. TIFFY: Yeah. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: I think the second point that you made, that most people would not want to look out on a naked pump station, if you will, is probably correct. So I think that's where, perhaps, we can come in with some landscaping or beautification there. And, again, we have people on our staff who can probably help with that problem. MR. TIFFY: If we had a house there today and they put the station in, we would be saddled with it; we have no option. But no one wants to buy this lot. They won't buy it, because there is a pump station. There are other sites available. You know, why chose this one? Would you personally like to live on a lot with a pump station? I guess the answer would be "no," you wouldn't. I know I wouldn't. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: But I personally wouldn't build a 1,250 square foot house either. So, I mean, there is more than one reason. MR. TIFFY: True. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: I think we need to do something to try to visually correct it. I don't know that we have the ability now to purchase the lot. I don't know if that's the appropriate -- but I think we can try to correct. COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Do we need a motion or can we just give staff direction by consensus? CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: If we have an agreement. COMHISSIONER NORRIS: If we have a consensus. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: There appears not to be any disagreement. COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: Fix the landscaping or whatever? MR. CLEMONS: We'll look at it and see what all we can do to cover, as best we can, the 15 foot high tower. We'll go from there. COMHISSIONER VOLPE: Mr. Clemons, let me suggest you need to talk to Mr. Tiffy. Mr. Tiffy may have some suggestions as to what may be appropriate. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: I would suggest that we do exactly that, if we can have our staff communicate with you. I understand that you didn't find out about today's hearing until yesterday. MR. CLEMONS: It was late yesterday before I was able to get -- and I didn't talk with him, I left a message on the answering machine at the time. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: If we can try to work the communication as we go through this, that would help. MR. CLEMONS: Thank you. MR. TIFFY: Thank you for your indulgence. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Let's take about a ten minute break. (At this time a short recess was taken.) Item #8D2 AUTHORIZATION TO SOLE SOURCE PURCHASE REPLACEMENT PUMPS, REPAIR PARTS AND MATERIALS FOR APPROVED SUBMERSIBLE LIFT STATIONS - APPROVED IN THE ESTIMATED AMOUNT OF $225,000 WITH ELLIS K. PHELPS & CO. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: The next item -- the next item -- we don't have anybody over there -- can you flip the little microphone. The next item, 8 D-2, authorization to Sole Source to purchase replacement pumps, repair parts and materials for approved submersible lift stations. MR. CLEHONS: Good morning, commissioners. Again, I'm Tim Clemons, your wastewater director. Now, 8 D-2 is back before you. We come each year with this item. It's to receive continued authorization to Sole Source, for our replacement pumps for our lift stations along with the necessary repair parts and materials that are used in those pumps. The Utilities Ordinance 8876 specifies a flight or equal pump. At this point we are using only flight pumps, and are looking to continue Sole Source for the replacement of those. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Questions for staff on this item? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Clemons -- MR. CLEHONS: Yes, sir. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: This Sole Source authorization, is for one period -- for a one-year period only? Is that the normal course of it? MR. CLEHONS: For the last three years we have been coming back each year, Commissioner. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Is that standard County policy, that any Sole Source has to be done on an annual basis? MR. CLEHONS: Yes, until you extend it beyond that. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. Motion to approve this. COHMISSIONER VOLPE: Second. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: There is a motion and a second. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Which one is this? CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Sole Source. All of those in favor of the motion, state "Aye." (All answered in unison.) Anyone opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Motion carries 5-0. MR. CLEHONS: Thank you. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Thank you. ITEM #8D3 RECOHMENDATION TO PURCHASE CUNO PRE-FILTERS FROH THE GEORGE S. EDWARDS CO., INC. - COMPETITIVE BID PROCESS WAIVED; PURCHASE APPROVED IN THE ESTIMATED AMOUNT OF $73,354.05 Item 8 D-3, recommendation to purchase Cuno Pre-Filters from the George S. Edwards Co., Inc. MR. NEWMAN: Good morning, Commissioners. I'm Mike Newman. What you have before you this morning is a request to extend your previous authorization for us to buy the Cuno Betapure Pre-Filters for the North County Regional Water Treatment Plant. Back in Hay you had originally authorized staff to buy one set of those on a trial basis to help try to prevent sand from intruding into the membranes. That has been very successful. We are now asking for you to, basically, buy an annual supply, up to three sets, on an as-needed basis. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Question for staff? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: This is the same item that we looked at a few months before? MR. NEWMAN: Yes, sir. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Motion to approve. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: All those in favor of the motion state "Aye." (All answered in unison.) Anyone opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Motion carries 5-0. MR. NEWMAN: Thank you very much. Item #BE1 RESOLUTION 94-785 ESTABLISHING THE POSITION CLASSIFICATION, PAY RANGE AND BUDGET AUTHORIZATION FOR THE POSITION OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY DIRECTOR - ADOPTED CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: 16 E-2 is now 8 E-1. This has to do with the creation of a pay range for Information/Technical Director. I just wanted to -- I pulled this out to ask how this pay range compares to our other department pay ranges, realizing that Mr. Lorenz thinks we should pay $150,000 for one of these. MR. OAKS: Yes, sir. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Board. For the record, I'm Leo Oaks, Administrative Services Administrator. The recommended pay range assignment is Range 139. In terms of the other department director positions that are in that same range, we have the budget management director position; we have the transportation director position, we have the assistant accounting -- excuse me, Assistant County Attorney 4 -- CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: So this is consistent with what we are doing in other departments? MR. OAKS: Yes. We've used and applied the same market survey methodology to assign a pay range to this job classification as we do for the other benchmark positions that our annual survey -- CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: COHMISSIONER VOLPE: CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: (No response.) CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: state "Aye." I will move the item. Second. Any discussion? All those in favor of the motion (All answered in unison.) Motion carries 5-0. Thanks, Leo. MR. OAKS: You're welcome. Item #SH1 - Deleted Item #8H2 RESOLUTION 94-786 AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF A NOTE WHEREAS $8,500,000 OF TAX EXEMPT COHMERCIAL PAPER WILL BE ISSUED TO PROVIDE INTERIM FINANCING FOR THE 800 HHZ RADIO - ADOPTED WITH STIPULATIONS AND CHANGES CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: 8 H-2, a recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners to adopt a resolution authorizing the execution of a note whereas $8.5 million of tax exempt commercial paper will be issued to provide interim financing for the 800 HHz radio system. MR. YONKOSKY: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, good morning. For the record, my name is John Yonkosky. The agenda item 8 H-2 -- CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: John, if you could hang on just for a second. Does anyone know where the County Manager is, and perhaps they could track him down on this item. Go ahead. MR. YONKOSKY: The recommendation is for the Board of County Commissioners to authorize the execution of a resolution. And the resolution itself would be to provide the permanent financing -- or the interim financing of the 800 HHz system. It would approve an execution of a note by the Chairman or a series of notes; and it would also allow the County Administrator to authorize a draw schedule on these notes. In the way of background, on September 20th, when the Board approved staff to negotiate with Ericsson G.E. And to return to the Board on October 25th with an agreement, they did. At that time the Board continued it until October 26th; and the Board approved the agenda item on the 26th authorizing the execution of the agreement with Ericsson G.E. And that was pending. The actual issuance of a Notice to Proceed would be after we get our financing in place. After looking at the type of interim financing that was available, the lowest possible interim financing that's available to the Board of County Commissioners and that's a cost-effective method would be to enter into an agreement for draw or draws on the tax-exempt commercial paper program; whereas the Board has the flexibility of drawing that money in accordance with the actual -- in a series of notes in accordance with the actual payments that would be made to the vendor. The interest rate is a variable interest rate. Over the last six months, the interest rate as gone from a low of 3.30 percent -- that's all in. It includes the interest, plus the LOC provider pays -- the LOC is the Letter of Credit provider, which in this case is First Union National Bank -- from a low of 3.3 to a high of 4.09. These rates have constantly tracked below the State Board of Administration rate. As of today, the State Board of Administration is 4.37 percent. So there is a possibility of arbitraging some of the interest earnings on the money over the next month. We have got, I think, a three month or a ninety-day window before the first payment will have to be made; that's at the end of the design acceptance portion of the system. So in that time, we will take a look at the market and the interest rates and come up with a draw schedule that will approximate the schedule to the vendors. There's a -- the note itself and the resolution authorizes an amount not to exceed $8,500,000. $8 million is for the -- plus $223 -- is the actual construction amounts. $500,000 of it is designed to make the interest payments. And, again, on the way that we schedule the draw down, we could actually go ahead and pull the entire amount down right now, after the Board approves it, and arbitrage that interest earning. But we really do want to take a look at what direction the market is going. The permanent financing portion of it is a very complex arrangement, and it has a series of options that staff will be putting together and coming back to the Board, in the next few months, so that the Board will have a shopping list to chose from, in the type of permanent financing, that could range from a wide variety of things right up to some very complex inter-local agreements. But that will be -- those options will be developed and optimized over the next few months and brought back to the Board with that list. The issuance costs associated with this particular draw or this particular note is $4,500 per million. And that is the total, all-in issuance costs. That rate, compared to the last funding that the Board approved, the $31,000,000 sales tax refunding actually had $12,900 per million for a 1.29 percent cost of issuance. This 4.5 thousand dollars per million is a .45 cost. So that is -- that is very, very good; that rate cannot be beat any place right now. The recommendation is for the Board to approve the resolution that is attached. And there are two changes in that resolution that I will need to read into the record in a couple of minutes here. Once the Board approves that resolution, it authorizes and directs the Chairman and the Clerk to sign all the necessary documents, which the major one will be a note between the County and the Board of Local Government Finance Commission. And it will also -- the resolution will also authorize the County Administrator to identify and provide a letter to the LOC provider that will determine when the moneys can be drawn to the County. It is for a two-year note. At the end of two years, the entire amount will have to be paid back. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Volpe. COHMISSIONER VOLPE: Just a couple of questions. When we were discussing the funding source for our 800 HHz system, my recollection is there was some discussion about the possibility of our using our existing line of credit at Sun Bank, which is now $25 million. And my recollection is that we have cleared most of that line, because significant projects that had been identified on the line have been paid. Did you explore, and if you did, why did you chose not to use an existing Letter of Credit where the cost of issuance would be zero? MR. YONKOSKY: The interest rate, Commissioner Volpe, is the reason. COHMISSIONER VOLPE: What is the interest rate, Mr. Yonkosky? MR. YONKOSKY: It's a percentage of prime, 6.74 percent prime, which would make the interest rate right now 5.02 percent, and that's 100 basis points above the interest rate on the tax-exempt commercial paper program. In addition, you would have attorney fees for the front end issuance costs that would probably be somewhere in the vicinity of $15,000 for their legal fees. COHMISSIONER VOLPE: It was simply, then, an economic decision made -- MR. YONKOSKY: Yes, sir. COHMISSIONER VOLPE: -- At this point? MR. YONKOSKY: Absolutely. COHMISSIONER VOLPE: The cost of issuance here is approximately $35,000? MR. YONKOSKY: The -- COHMISSIONER VOLPE: Who pays the cost of issuance? MR. YONKOSKY: The issuance costs goes to the Board of Local Government Finance Commission, that's the only source of funding that they have that's available to continue the program. And if you look at the 4,500 per million, it does not mean that we are going to be paying 4,500 per million on the $8 million. As you recall, in 1990, when the Board of County Commissioners entered into the inter-local agreement with Sarasota County and Brevard County to form this tax-exempt commercial paper program, the three counties that went together to form it established, because they were doing the work up front, that there would be a $20 million cap on issuance costs. Collier County will approach that cap. Only five million of this eight million will require the 4,500 per million issuance costs, after that time there will not be any more issuance costs to the County. COHMISSIONER VOLPE: What is the security for the repayment of this note? MR. YONKOSKY: The revenue that is pledged, Commissioner Volpe, is the inavailable Non-Ad Valorem Revenues that the County has available. And the way that is calculated is you take all of the revenues that the County has on an annual basis and project it several years into the future. And that is played against the essential services, and the moneys that are left that the not essential services is actually what you are pledging for the repayment. COHMISSIONER VOLPE: So it isn't the $12.50 surcharge that is the security? MR. YONKOSKY: No, sir, that is not -- the only security for this interim financing is the inavailable Non-Ad Valorem Revenues. What -- the $12.50 surcharge will be one of the layers in the options that is presented to the Board, in just a few months, for the permanent financing. COHMISSIONER VOLPE: And then just two final questions. The first question is, as a part of the request that is being made, are you asking for one note for $8,250,000.00, or are you asking for eight separate notes, each in the amount of $1 million? Because it sounds to me as though you want to make the decision as to how you are going to draw it down, whether you want to have one note; take the eight million and invest it and use the interest earned on those investments for arbitrage purposes. Are you going to tell us what you want to do or are you just -- MR. YONKOSKY: Actually, the authority that is being requested is the authority to draw up to $8,500,000 over a period of time. That may take the place in a series of notes. And the notes could be $1 million increments or they could be $8,500,000 at one time. One of the reasons for looking at that flexibility deals with the arbitrage and interest rate. Under the current arbitrage rules, it's allowable if you break down for construction, for example, this contract has equipment and construction in it. If you break it down between the two component parts, you can arbitrage on the construction side. And by arbitrage, you can keep the interest that you earn if you finish the construction project in a two-year window. And so we have got to look at that. And the finance director and the management staff will take a hard look at, I mean, of putting together a schedule to draw down the money in the most cost-effective manner. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: The repayment schedule, there is none; it's just a balloon payment in three years; it's interest only? MR. YONKOSKY: That's correct. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: And the community is going to incur the expense of up to half a million dollars for the cost of this interim borrowing? MR. YONKOSKY: Actually it could be more; it could be $700,000 based on the assumption that we have used, the 4.5 percent interest. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: There isn't any way -- I mean, that's -- that's going to be money that's not going to amortize? I mean prior to the eight and a half million dollars, that's just -- MR. YONKOSKY: That's correct. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: Is there any other alternative where you get into actually amortizing the loan? I mean, it's troublesome to a point to just pay -- to contemplate the payment of $500,000 or $700,000 just on interest carried for a short period of time, the two years. I realize the amount of money that's involved. MR. YONKOSKY: The $750,000 is a -- is the amount that the County will pay using the 4.5 percent interest rate assumption. The rate right now, today, is 4.9, but it's built in there at 4.5 percent. And that's assuming that you draw the entire $8,500,000 down from day one for the two-year period. It's not anticipated that that will happen. And the other part of it, Commissioner Volpe, is that the Board may decide to go ahead and buy down some of that alone or at least to not draw down the final portions of it if you reach an agreement for financing, for example, in six months. So there's just a tremendous amount of options that are available. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: Thank you. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Norris. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Yonkosky, I'm following up on Commissioner Volpe's line of questioning here. If you drew down the entire eight and a half million today and went to escrow and arbitrage, even with treasuries, you could expect probably 100 to 150 basis points, I would think, if you staggered maturaties out over the draw down life of the loan. Is that approximately where we stand today? MR. YONKOSKY: Yes, Commissioner. I ran it out at 25 basis points, and that's $225,000 in excess of the interest payments if we drew it down. And the concern that I have is that in this interest rate, this rising-interest rate environment, I'm not really sure, you know, the commercial paper generally tracks behind SBA. But as you well know SBA is about six months behind the rest of the investment-interest rate scenario. So it's something we want to take a look at and have several different people look at it that have financial experience. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I think the point that needs to be made, though, is whatever may be earned at arbitrage would then reduce the liability to the taxpayer as far as interest costs goes. I think you mentioned the figure of 500,000 or approximately 700,000. So any arbitrage that you did earn on the transaction, would come off of that? MR. YONKOSKY: Yes, sir, it certainly would. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Matthews. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I have to get my train of thought back. You listed in the pay off for this note, this particular note, all the none-funding sources available to the County Commission. And I think it's time -- we know we've got an $8.5 million debt, and I think it's time we identify how we are going to pay it before we go dip into this. The question, Mr. Yonkosky, the contract that we have with E.G.E., does it require that we identify and have a funding source in hand before they get a commencement? MR. YONKOSKY: As I understand it, it is, Commissioner, but that is a legal question. MR. CUYLER: You need to identify your funding sources, yes. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: When do you anticipate the first payment being made to E.G.E.? MR. YONKOSKY: The first payment is scheduled after the design phase, which is going to be approximately a ninety-day window. It may be less; it may be a little bit more. I think realistically they're looking at a ninety-day window. The system will have to be designed and brought back. And that system will have to be accepted by the County staff. That's one of the milestones for the payment. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: So you're anticipating that to be around the end of January, then? MR. YONKOSKY: Three-month period, yes. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Pretty much? COHMISSIONER VOLPE: So, Commissioner Matthews, are you suggesting that the repayment should be identified within the next ninety days? COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I think the payment source should be identified within the next ninety days. I am not opposed at all to drawing down on our line of credit for this first payment while we get this payment and the funding source totally identified as to how we intend to pay back the note. The bottom line is we have to pay back the note. And, sure, we can keep borrowing money and borrowing money forever, but that doesn't identify a funding source that is going to finally end the cycle. I would like to see us bring the Finance Committee together and identify how we are going to do it and help us identify a myriad of funding sources that will answer these questions. I would also like to know at what point do we involve the other political subdivisions who are going to be using this system, developing what it is that is going to be, what we see as their fair share, and negotiate with them what they see as their fair share. Because I'm not too sure we are all seeing the same numbers. I think this is all up in the air a little bit much right now. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: I concur on that. I have a couple of specific questions along those lines. I don't know, and I don't think it was ever contemplated -- and I've read a couple of quotes in the paper. But I don't think it was ever contemplated that we were presuming it a gift to each and every agency in the County. This is an expensive means, and obviously it's to everyone's advantage to be on the same system. But I -- maybe you can help me, Mr. Dotrill or Mr. Hargett. This 8 million takes into account a particular number of units. I can't remember if it was 1,480 or what, some particular number anyway. Who all is included? Obviously, the Sheriff our own EMS, but who else is included to come up with that -- whatever that exact number was? MR. HARGETT: Predominantly the fire districts were included in that. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: All those fire districts are included? MR. HARGETT: If I might back up for just a minute. MR. DORRILL: Let me say, just for clarification, I think it's easy to say that it excludes the City of Naples. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: We know it does not include the Naples Police Department. MR. DORRILL: The pricing list as you see it there, the $8 million, gets you the towers, the microprocessor, the software, the control centers. It gets all of the itemized hand-held mobile and bay station videos, but does not include the city police. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: So it includes all the fire departments; it include -- MR. DORRILL: EMS. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: EMS, our Sheriff -- MR. DORRILL: All tactical and operating units of the Sheriff's Department. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: We had talked at one point, and I think this was long-range, but this does not yet include anyone from the School Board or any other uses; is that correct? MR. HARGETT: Maybe I could list those for you. The initial uses: Collier County Government, Emergency Management, Emergency Medical, Ochopee Fire Control District, Isle of Capri Fire Control District, the Sheriff's Office, North Naples Fire Control District, East Naples Fire Control District, Marco Island Fire Control District, Golden Gate Fire Control District, Immokalee Fire Control District, and the Big Corkscrew Island Fire Control District. Not included, but what we are listing as the visual potential users in addition to those I have just listed, would be the City of Naples, Police and Fire, potentially; the School Board, their buses; Big Cypress, the federal agency; and the Division of Forestry, which is a state agency. So we have designed the system to accommodate all the initial users, certainly with the potential to expand -- to accommodate the eventual users. If I could, while I'm speaking, maybe follow up on Commissioner Matthews' question, because it was something we've been wrestling with for some time. And backing up to this contract and the 700-day construction period, the requirements of the FCC for having this system up and running by September 30, 1996 --we currently have 722 days left for that. Looking at a 700-day construction time frame for E.G.E., what we have looked at is a very systematic and, I think, methodical approach, step-by-step, as to how do we get this project up and under construction and, obviously, how do we pay for it. And, as you have suggested, we have listed about five or six of what we consider prime interim financing options of which we've brought to you what we believe to be the most economical, this morning, in terms of the Commercial Tax-Exempt Paper Program. From -- with your approval of that, we will then be able to issue a Notice to Proceed, to allow the contractor to begin on his 700 days of work. We also, with that work under way and that design moving, we would immediately begin the process of selecting a long-term financing solution. And there are already a number of options that we have listed. But I think equally important in selecting a permanent financing scheme is the question that you've asked, is really, "We'll just sell some bonds and pay off the commercial paper." What the question really becomes is how do we pay off -- how do we service the debt, whatever selection we might make for long term? That's the process that we think very much involves all of the participants. We need to sit down and talk with, certainly the Sheriff, with the fire control districts, with all these other agencies as to all the pros and cons of each of the various methods of servicing this debt -- whether they're up front or an annual, some kind of amortization schedule for them. How do we handle capital? How do we handle L & M? All of this will be part of a package that it is our intent to bring back to you to say, "Okay, here's how we intend to fund it; here's how we intend to service that debt; here are the players and the shares, and present you with, certainly, more than one option, but to get the input of all the agencies that are going to be involved. And in doing that we have already contacted -- I'm not trying to reinvent the wheel, but we've gone to at least ten other counties who have 800 MHz systems either coming up or on the board already and have done a summary of how they funded and how they financed their systems, so that we can take a look at some systems already in place and evaluate those as we approach it. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: Mr. Hargett, one of the concerns that I have had over a period of time is the direction of Finance Committee and "We have already explored several options; we will bring back to you what we think, more than one option; we'll be talking with other people about how we can finance this and what their level of participation will be; and how we will address the capital costs; and how we will .... and the issue there is within what parameters will we be working and who will be setting those parameters? Because I would like to think that this Board of County Commissions will be setting those parameters. The discussion that was had when we awarded -- when the Board of County Commissions -- MR. HARGETT: Correct. COHMISSIONER VOLPE: -- awarded the contract, as the Chair has said, we were not intending to be very magnanimous, at least I was not, as it related to independent fire control. And I asked the question, "How did we determine that the North Naples Fire Control and Rescue District wanted fifty radios?" Well, "They just asked for them." "Well, did anyone ask whether they had enough money to pay for them?" "NO." Part of this -- we are in the process now of going out and committing to an $8,500,000 contract, and it's on the if come. We might be able to get them to do it, but we don't know we're going to be able to get them to do it; we don't know what their level of participation is going to be. So I have two concerns. One is .... we" is us, right here. MR. HARGETT: That's correct. COMMISSION VOLPE: I won't be here after today, but there will be others who will be sitting here who will be making those policy decisions and establishing the parameters within which you will be working. So that's a concern of mine. I think Commissioner Matthew's point is well made. We are still grappling with the $13 million loan that we are trying to repay, when we borrowed it without having the permanent financing, the identifiable source of the repayment of the $13 million loan as it related to certain road construction programs. We were criticized as a Board for that -- how it happened; when it happened, I can't recollect at this late date. But it seems to me that critical in where we are is, A, we need to get the project going; we need to identify the appropriate interim funding source. But we as a Board need to give you direction, as our staff, as to where we expect you should be working in terms of who you should be talking to, not whether you should be talking to them. Otherwise I feel we would have lost, you know, the level of participation. MR. HARGETT: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: And I don't know whether -- Commissioner Matthews, you mentioned you've been sitting in on these discussions? COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: No. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: I don't know whether the Chairman has been sitting in on the discussions as it related to financing. I'm just suggesting that we work together with our staff to, you know, make sure that we are going to have that identifiable funding source to repay the eight and a half million, of which a significant portion of that, I believe, is going to require participation from the independent fire control and rescue districts. MR. HARGETT: The "we" referenced, as it relates to legwork computation of data, number crunching, presentation of information for the decision-making process, is in reference to your staff. In terms of making decisions of what's the best method; who's involved; who's going to pay what; by what method, that "we" reference is to the Board of County Commissioners. COHMISSIONER VOLPE: I understand that. MR. HARGETT: It is a -- COHMISSIONER VOLPE: I guess the issue is -- and I won't belabor the point. But one of the things that "we" the Board of County Commissioners had asked for is that "we" have options; that "we" can look at what those options are. MR. HARGETT: I understand. COHMISSIONER VOLPE: As I look at this, there is no option. Someone has told me we are going to use the commercial paper program. I can't tell you that I'd like to use Letter of Credit; I can't tell you I want to use the credit line. Whatever four or five options you thought about, nobody told me what they were. You've probably made a wise decision, but I just think that forces the process that we're involved in. I need to say that on my last day here. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Norris. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, I understand the concerns of Commissioner Volpe, and I also recognize the concerns of the other Board members, that we do need, as our next priority, to identify and go forward with the permanent financing source or sources for this project. But that's not really what we've been asked to do here today. We need to go forward with a commitment for interim financing, pure and simple. We are not making the decision today of how this is going to be financed over the long term or the short term or however it's going to be. We just need to go forward with a funding commitment today and for the construction period. But I agree, at the same time, that our very next step in this process should be to get all these funding options together, and let's decide what it's going to be over the long term. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Saunders. COHMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I don't have any doubt about the recommendations of the staff in terms of the most cost-effective way to proceed. At this point, this is what they've recommended, and I am comfortable with that. But having said that, we have a letter from the Clerk's office, in which the Clerk suggests that we need to send this to the Finance Committee, and there's a variety of reasons listed. And I just want to make sure that there is some communication between our staff and -- MR. HARGETT: We did meet with the Clerk and Finance Director yesterday. They have withdrawn any, as I understand it -- COHMISSIONER SAUNDERS: So they're pleased? MR. HARGETT: I spoke with the Finance Director this morning, and their concerns have been satisfied. COHMISSIONER SAUNDERS: So they are supportive of the staff recommendations? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Subject to -- MR. CUYLER: Yes, they obviously want to be informed and participate. And we need to get that on the record. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I just wanted to make sure that everybody was talking to everybody. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: We have two public speakers? MR. DORRILL: Yes, sir. For your own information, the Clerk has an appointee on the Finance Committee. It has not been the Finance Director, but I think he may take some steps to correct that. Because Ms. Hankins (phonetic) is more than well qualified to serve on the Finance Committee. And it's our desire to work with her as his appointee. She has not been prior to this point. Yes, sir, you have two. Now, the first will be Mr. Pointer and then Chief Peterson. While Mr. Pointer is coming forward, the only thing that Commissioner Volpe said that concerned me, at least that it not be misportrayed to the public, is the same thing that I said last week when this issue came up. If an independent fire and rescue district chooses not to participate in the 800 MHz project for the reason that I mentioned last week, and that is you have not compelled anyone to participate in this project; you are not obligated to buy those radios as part of that inventory list. And we have up to, it's my understanding, a year from the date of the execution of the contract to process change orders on the final manufacture and delivery of the individual units. It is very important, though, that the initial design proceed. But I don't want anyone to think that if someone backs out 90 or 180 days from now, that somehow the County Commission is stuck with a bunch of radios that we do not need. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: I understand that that point was made by you when we discussed the award of the contract. And the only point I wanted to underscore was that the quality of the independent fire and rescue control districts have worked diligently with the Sheriff and with our staff to encourage us to proceed with the 800 MHz system. And I believe that they want to participate. I'm just suggesting that -- what I think the other members of the Board are suggesting as well, that we work expeditiously with the independent fire control and rescue districts to find out as soon as possible how many radios they wish and how many they can afford to pay for. And that's what I'm saying, rather than waiting 120 days -- MR. DORRILL: I agree. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: If we are talking about borrowing eight and a half million dollars, and we only need seven million, that's an issue that should be resolved in the process. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Mr. Pointer. MR. POINTER: Good morning, Commissioners. My name is Jack Pointer. I am here to ask that you postpone this. I believe I am supporting Commissioner Matthews in asking that it go before the Finance Committee, if I understand what you said, ma'am. I have several reasons: One, the original RFP provides for 2600 radios, and that's the number that is not included in this. It's about 1000 less than that. It could be that this will increase by another $2 million as far as costs are concerned. I was up with John to Sarasota at the time of the hearings concerning where was this finance money going to come from. And one of the things that I heard there was the investors did not really want to invest for two years; they wanted to invest for eight to ten years so they would be guaranteed interest for a longer period of time. On September 15, 1994, the Sheriff had the Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies from Fairfax, Virginia, down here looking over the Sheriff's office. And they gave him a very good report. At the same time I was up at Fairfax, Virginia, at the Commission's offices, and they gave me Chapter 8 of their particular documents pointing out two things that were required for the Sheriff to get his accreditation. One, that 95 percent of the County be covered by the radio -- or signal by the new radio system. That is not included in this particular contract. And the Third District, or the Third Zone, only 90 percent of the area will be covered. It does not meet the requirements of the accreditation. Number two, in 1998 -- I'm sorry, in 1988 when the RFP 88-1258 was initiated, it included a full back-up system, which the County has had as its radio system all along. That back-up system will be torn down at the time that the Ericsson G.E. System is brought into play. The accreditation for the Sheriff requires a full back-up system; that will cost another $2 million. So we start adding up $2 million here in interest, $2 million there in back-up, a couple of million dollars in another item that is also going to be required for back-up and pretty soon we no longer have $8 million, we've got another nine, ten, eleven or twelve million dollars that ultimately will be needed for this. Further the City of Naples, while they will be involved or may be involved with a number of radios that they purchase, automatically they will be paying -- of the eight or of the twelve million dollars, they will automatically be paying 27 percent of it or somewhere in the neighborhood of two or three million dollars that you will be assigning to the City of Naples. I am suggesting to you to wait two or three weeks until the new Commission gets in, until they have an opportunity to talk with the City; they have an opportunity to talk with the Finance Committee, with some of these other considerations. On December 13, 1988, Commissioner Saunders, then Chairman, signed the order for the present County radio system. The next time that the thing was finalized was when Commissioner Saunders was again Chairman on June 1, 1993. Four and one half years went by before they did all of the things necessary to purchase the radios and purchase the R & D switch. In four and a half years' time, no one seemed to be in a big hurry. There is no reason at all why you can't wait and work out all these details for the next few weeks so that your Finance Committee -- so that you know exactly where the City is going to be. You are going to have a new representative of the City here in the area and another new Commissioner, who we don't know at this particular time. Let them find out what is expected of them, because they will be in office for a four-year period. Please, wait a few weeks before you make your final decision. Thank you. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, I wouldn't be too concerned that the incoming Commissioners are going to miss out on all this fun. I'm sure they're going to have plenty of opportunity to get involved. MR. DORRILL: Chief Peterson. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Chief Peterson. CHIEF PETERSON: Good morning, Commissioners. I'm Don Peterson, president, Collier County Fire Chief's Association. Just real briefly, there has been a lot of conversation, and I think some misunderstanding, on a lot of folks' parts. If we go back to where we started -- for the last several months, I have been directly involved with the 800, and my predecessors for years have been working on this 800 project. It has worked well with County staff and all independent agencies. It's come a long way; it's taken a long time. We are coming down to the wire, and we seem to be getting short circuited, excuse the pun. One of the things that has been very consistent along the way is when we started this project, it was determined that there was a need County-wide. We have had some -- we've had different instances occur in the County. We had an ethyl bromide spill. There was a report that was done that indicated the communication system was -- needed improvement. We did not and could not have communications that were needed with certain agencies. We need that capability. The group has, literally, for years worked on the pretense it was a County-wide taxpayer problem. Therefore all the work we have done, whether it's with County staff or independent agencies and everything, has been on the premise it's a County-wide problem and let's take care of it on a County-wide basis. Setting aside whether one agency has ten radios or one agency gets thirty radios out of it, it doesn't make any difference. The County has a communications problem, and we need to address that problem. So when it first started, the last meeting, unfortunately I wasn't able to make, it kind of started that each agency should pay their own way. I think that's where you will find we need to be able to sit down with you, whether it be a workshop or something, and have an avenue to explain why we have the opinions that we do, the people that have been working on this 800 project for so long, addressing it as a -- not as you pay your fair share, whether you get ten radios or twenty radios or thirty radios. We have a County-wide communications problem that needs to be addressed -- EMS, Fire, Sheriff, the Big Cypress, anybody in the Division of Forestry. And I would hope we could come to the conclusion that all parties -- it's a win-win situation for all political entities. There hasn't, to this point, been any political agency that's been trying to waive the flag any more than anybody else. I think as far as the County goes, the County is taking care of a problem; the independent agencies are working with the County agency; ultimately the County has a responsibility. And, certainly, through your fine mechanisms, can do it a lot cheaper than we can do it. So I just urge you that it's important that -- to change, I think, perhaps the mind set that each agency pay their own equitable way; that we have been proceeding and working, all agencies, as a County-whole-wide project. And I hope we can resolve and come to that conclusion, that there are ways that we could work that out and not -- and not have an adversarial situation here. We need everybody on line at the same time; and I hope that's what we can end up with. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Chief, if my home was on fire right now and I dial 911, where does that phone ring through at? CHIEF PETERSON: Sheriff's Department, dispatch. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: And how do they get a hold of you? By the existing radio system? CHIEF PETERSON: Correct. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: And here in my case, the Golden Gate Fire District, who has paid for that radio system that they call you on? If I call 911, and dispatch calls you -- CHIEF PETERSON: I would say everybody; all the taxpayers pay for everybody's. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Did the fire district pay for the existing hand-held radios? CHIEF PETERSON: Yes. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: The fire district paid for those? CHIEF PETERSON: That's correct. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: My question then would be, what would lead you to believe that would change as we got a new radio system? CHIEF PETERSON: The need to improve that. We have problems out there, where I could key up in this building and I couldn't get into dispatch. We have an major HAZHAT incident, I couldn't communicate to the Sheriff's Department. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: I don't argue that we need an improved radio system. I wasn't arguing that at all. What would lead you to believe who paid for their respective radios would change because the system was changed? CHIEF PETERSON: Primarily because you are going from VHF to 800. You're changing major technology; you're not staying in the same realm. If we were staying in VHF, I would say, then, we are probably in the same boat. But you're talking about changing from one technology to another technology. COHMISSIONER VOLPE: Chief, what -- CHIEF PETERSON: And that's what we had perceived and had been proceeding -- do a current inventory of what is out there today; and that is what would be in the eight million, ten million, twenty million, whatever the project was. If we chose to have new vehicles or new pottables or whatever, then those fire districts would pick it up. But the basic infrastructure, what's in the field today, would be part of that total project package. COHMISSIONER VOLPE: Chief, what I hear you saying then is that the Collier County Association of Fire Chiefs' position is, as a policy of the police -- I'm sorry, of the Fire Chiefs. The policy of the Fire Chiefs is that the system is a County-owned system and that capital costs, in respect to the establishment of the County-wide system, should be born by the County Commission and all of the taxpayers of Collier County. Is that the policy decision that your Board, your committee CHIEF PETERSON: That's the way we had started, and that's the way we have still been proceeding is that way. COHMISSIONER VOLPE: I don't know that the Board of County Commissioners has ever gotten into that kind of policy discussion with representatives of the Fire Chiefs' Association. So that's where we may end up with a little miscommunication, because I'm coming from a little different mind set. And I hear some of my colleagues -- CHIEF PETERSON: I understand. And that's why I wanted to say this morning that we need an avenue to be able to share that with you. Because we've worked with staff, and everyone has worked at that level, and that's the pretense we're working on. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Volpe pointed out earlier that "we" in that contract we signed for eight million plus dollars is the five people sitting here. Did anyone on this Board contemplate that we would be providing radios at no expense to virtually all the users? COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: No. COHMISSIONER VOLPE: No. COHMISSIONER SAUNDERS: No. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: No. COHMISSIONER VOLPE: If I did, I wanted to know if you got fifty. I just didn't -- that's what you told me you wanted. But if I was going to buy them as the purchasing agency -- and I realize you're talking about taxpayers' money. It seems to me that we should have some input; that maybe you're not entitled to fifty to start out with; maybe you could only get twenty. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: The point is just that I don't think the Board ever contemplated that. At this point we need to determine what is fair. If we had contemplated that you would be paying in its entiretyand you all had thought you would be getting a free ride, then we need to find somewhere in between those two that's realistic for the fire districts to pay and for the other users to pay. But, yeah, I think you're right; I think we need to sit down and communicate and make sure that is clear. CHIEF PETERSON: Like I said, I just wanted to let it be known that that's the way the independent fire districts had been working all along, this way, under that concept, and somewhere it got short circuited, that did not occur. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, Chief, I'm sorry to have to disagree with you, but I don't remember ever -- any discussion that we have ever had on this 800 system, that it was stated or implied that we would supply free radios to fire districts. MR. DORRILL: Wait a minute. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I've only been here two years. MR. DORRILL: In fact, I believe, I said just the opposite of that. I believe at the final budget hearing, I think my words were that if the independent districts felt they could come in here and convince you to buy it all, that that's what they would try to do. And I still feel that way. And for no other reason than that I'm the community's favorite whipping boy when it comes to fire consolidation. If I didn't know better, I'd think the Chief was making a case for consolidating the communication system and having it be funded and responsible to -- I do know better, because I have the scars to prove it. CHIEF PETERSON: There are things that are a benefit. And I think it's a benefit to the taxpayers, and that's all we're talking about here, because communications ties everyone together. And, you know, when we have problems, communication is the root of all our problems. And that's why we are trying to tackle this one as a joint effort by all the parties involved, set aside whatever barriers and boundaries that there are, and only going to the taxpayers one time. Because no matter where you are in the County, you are going to experience the same problems. I just wanted to share that with you. If there's an avenue we can sit down with you and work this out, that's what I'm asking for. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Let's go back to the agenda item at hand, and that is if we are going to approve the financing. I have just a couple of comments. MR. DORRILL: You have one additional speaker, someone else signed up. MR. CUYLER: Mr. Chairman, I apologize. MR. DORRILL: Mr. Graham had also asked to speak during the course of Chief Peterson's talk. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Captain Graham. You're going to volunteer that the Sheriff's Department will pay for all the fire districts? CAPTAIN GRAHAM: I'm still worried about the taxpayer, same as you are. Good morning. I'm Captain Graham with the Collier County Sheriff's Department. I have been involved as the chairman of the Public Safety Committee, which Chief Peterson was talking about that we've been working together with staff; then I have the privilege of becoming a part of your staff on the Evaluation Committee. And throughout this endeavor, since August of 1990, when it first began, it has been where we looked at it as a public safety concern with regards to what we were looking into, not necessarily on the administrative side, but that you had a system in place. We were looking at it from Public Safety. During that period of time, Public Safety was all the Public Safety -- Fire, EMS, and the Sheriff's office. It has been brought up on several occasions, when Sheriff Hunter spoke before you, that it was all of Public Safety that you were looking at; and his endeavors were toward making sure that all of Public Safety had the capability of the new technology. And just to let you know, to set your mind at ease, and I appreciate Mr. Pointer's concern with our accreditation, but I'm proud to stand before you today and tell you that we will be -- some of our representatives will be going, later this month, to get it, to get that recognition, and it didn't have anything to do with the 800 and the coverage. So there wasn't a problem there. But what I wanted to tell you is this, and I want to be quick, because I want you to get back to the issue, and that is the interim financing. I just want to go on record that we do support that it is the taxpayers, all the taxpayers, of Collier County. They are all affected by Public Safety. And unfortunately for us, and particularly the Chairman's area of Golden Gate, we had sixteen fire agencies in 1985 out there. And they came from other counties that we didn't even have to pay back when that occurred. It was very, very mutual aid. And that's what we are really looking at here. I think if we could take the time and have the opportunity to expand on that, maybe speaking with you in a workshop; because we all want to get it done. We're here; you're there, and you folks have been great with us. But I think it's important that we get everyone on-board and do it at one time. After that, if we want to expand ours then we should find the budget avenues to do that. Thank you. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Just -- I think Commissioner Matthews hit it on the head. She said we need to figure out how we are going to pay this. No one wants to move forward anymore than I do. I've met with Captain Graham and others on this a number of times. It has been a long haul, and I think we have finally gotten where we need to be as far as the system is concerned. But the thing you always hear during campaign season, and we've heard again this Fall, is government should run more like a business. And all I can think is if it was my business, I would not commit $8 million without having some idea from where and how I was going to repay that two years from now or in whatever the time frame is. I would carefully determine who was sharing in the costs and how much, if it was my business. So I think Commissioner Matthews hit it on the button when she said we need to figure those items out prior to making any commitment to eight and a half million dollars. I'm just not comfortable doing that with those answers still up in the air. MR. YONKOSKY: Commissioner, there may be an alternative that really hasn't been verbalized yet. The way that the contract is structured with milestone payments and the design of the system and the design and installation of the infrastructure of the system, without regard as to who the users would be, if the County is willing to implement a system is that those milestone payments, the payment for the delivery of the pottables and the mobile bases, is not going to be coming for sometime. It's probably fourteen or fifteen months away. The Board of County Commissioners may want to consider that, because of all that information in the contract to go ahead and approve the entire amount, but instruct staff that until the decisions that you are talking about now are made and implemented, you can always tell them they have to go back and modify the contract to where the only radios that would be bought would be those that the Board directs be bought. MR. CUYLER: I think the staff has brought to you a mechanism to give you the time, because we have entered into the contract to give you the time to get the answers that you need without committing the entire 8.5 million. I understand that it's your financing decision, but I think they have tried to provide you with a mechanism to meet your objection in terms of going forward with the contract without making all of your decisions at this point and giving you time to get some information. COHMISSIONER VOLPE: I agree with you to a point. We need to have the funding mechanism in order to proceed with the Notice to Proceed. MR. CUYLER: Correct. COHMISSIONER VOLPE: But Mr. Yonkosky stood there and said, we'll make the decision about whether or not it will be the $8 million or separate $1 million notes. Therefore you are suggesting, Mr. Yonkosky, that we agree to identify this as the funding mechanism to allow for the Notice to Proceed. But there is not going to be a payment due, I think you said, for at least ninety days. So that before you would draw down any funds under the commercial paper program, the then Board would then have the opportunity to explore the various funding mechanisms for the repayment of the loan and also who would be participants. MR. YONKOSKY: The concern about that, Commissioner Volpe, is that before the contract would be executed and the Notice to Proceed would be issued, the Board has to have the cash in hand and/or given an irrevocable commitment to draw down that money, if I understand what Mr. Cuyler said to you a little bit earlier. So we are sort of in a catch-22. The contract is for $8,000,223.00, and the funding mechanism has to be approved. Because the Board may say later on it may not want to do it, yet it has already issued a contract for $8 million. I can -- so you need to ask your County Attorney that. COHMISSIONER VOLPE: But you talked about an LOC. I assume we are either going to draw the money down and have it on deposit or we are going to have a Letter of Credit. Which are we going to do? MR. YONKOSKY: No, the Letter of Credit, the LOC, is the First Union National Bank, they provide the funds, and that's the rate they charge for backing up the payment. If the County for some reason did not make the payment, the credit provider would actually make the payment. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Matthews. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Mr. Cuyler, in order to issue a Notice to Proceed, what is the absolute minimum that we need to do at this time as far as funding is concerned? MR. CUYLER: You need to have the contract funded, if the contract is set out in phases, so you don't have to go beyond a certain amount of money in terms of purchase. That's basically the amount of money you would need. I'm not sure what that figure is in terms of ultimate purchases. But, again, I think that if you want further information from staff as they start to draw these moneys down in terms of coming to you and saying, "Here's where we are. We've taken down one million; we are not going to do anything else until we advise you of your various options in terms of long-term financing." I'm sure they are in a position to do that if they need to do that. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Mr Yonkosky, under the contract, how much is the expected first payment in January? MR. YONKOSKY: The expected first payment is $400,233.00. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Okay. Is there anything wrong with our designating our line of credit as the funding mechanism for the contract and directing staff to bring back to us a myriad of methods by which we are actually going to pay the notes back and direction for them within ninety days to draw down the $400,000; but to solve the rest of this problem prior to the second draw down? MR. CUYLER: That would be fine from the legal perspective. I think staff can accomplish that. They would have to put that on a fast track. But that way you would be fully funded for your contract, and staff would have further directions as to draw downs. I don't have any problem with that. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Okay. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Is that in the form of a motion? COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I'll make that a motion. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I'll second the motion. COHMISSIONER VOLPE: On the motion, when I asked a question about the use of our line of credit, Mr. Yonkosky, you said it would be $15,000 in attorney fees in relation to the line of credit. Commissioner Matthews has suggested that there is a $400,000 amount which would be authorized based upon the motion and a second. Are we still talking about $15,000 in attorney fees for that $400,000? MR. YONKOSKY: I did not understand it that way, Commissioner Volpe. I understood what Commissioner Matthews wanted was before the first payment was actually made to have the staff come back and provide that. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: What the motion is is for the purpose of issuing a Notice to Commence, that we identify the line of credit as the method by which we are going to pay; and that prior to the first payment, and hopefully we get everything done before the first payment is due, we actually come back with an underlying funding mechanism and how we are going to pay the money back. COHMISSIONER VOLPE: So the answer to that question is there would be no cost to doing that; there's not $15,000 in attorney fees due; there's nothing; we just identify the funding mechanism, and you've got ninety days, depending what you do to do due diligence to come up with the options? MR. YONKOSKY: And if it could be fast tracked. But as I understand it, there are two concerns. One is that the contract is between the Board of Collier County Commissioners and the vendor without consideration as to who is going to be responsible for which segment of it. The contract is between the Board of County Commissioners and the vendor; therefore, the Board has to give a commitment to fund that contract. That's one side of it. The other side is you can direct your staff to come back and do this, this, and this in this order, which is what I understand that you have said, Commissioner Matthews. MR. CUYLER: That's my understanding of Commissioner Matthews' motion. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: That we're identifying the line of credit -- MR. CUYLER: You're identifying your funding source to finance your contract. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Okay. And we can legally change that funding source in ninety days or less -- MR. CUYLER: You can change your -- COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: -- As long as we keep it funded? MR. CUYLER: If you have an option to do that, yes. I mean, ultimately, you're always going to have the line -- you're always going to have this funding source if you want to draw on that. That's the identified source. If the staff can provide you with some type of option of some sort and you can proceed to that, that's a legal alternative. COHMISSIONER VOLPE: The motion doesn't contemplate approving this resolution? MR. CUYLER: I thought that it did contemplate approving this resolution. COHMISSIONER VOLPE: It did? MR. CUYLER: That's what I thought, this would be the identified funding source. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: This resolution calls for using the commercial paper. MR. CUYLER: I thought that's what we were talking about. COHMISSIONER VOLPE: We're talking about the line of credit. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: No, the Line the credit. MR. YONKOSKY: The total amount of the contract, $8 million, has to be funded no matter what source you use; whether you take and say you want to substitute other projects that you fund, you still have to fund the contract completely. But what you may want -- I misunderstood, Commissioner Matthews. I thought what you were saying was to go ahead and fund it as you legally can, but before you make your first draw you come back with a plan so that we can substitute other funds for that. And that's what I thought. COHMISSIONER VOLPE: Mr. Yonkosky, then, when I asked about the Letter of Credit, couldn't we do the same thing; just say, we've got room on our line of credit; that is going to be the identifiable funding source? That's it; we don't need to get any attorneys involved; we don't need to do anything; that is going to be the funding mechanism. And then we've got ninety days to come back. Mr. Cuyler, is that -- MR. YONKOSKY: Commissioner Volpe -- and Mr. Cuyler can correct what I'm saying. But you've got a balanced budget; and you've only got the fifteen days of the setting of this project, the offset to that, the revenue sides, the proceeds we're borrowing, if you take and use any other type of revenue, you are going to have to adjust your budget. You're still required to have a balanced budget. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: We have -- MR. YONKOSKY: What I had thought you meant, Commissioner Matthews, was to go ahead and fund it through the legal process of authorizing -- COHMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Well, let's all be speaking the same language here. I think Commissioner Matthews was suggesting the first payment is $400,000 and some-odd in January; we authorize the use of the line of credit for that amount only. What Mr. Cuyler is saying and what you're saying is we have to fund the entire contract, $8 million, not just make a commitment for that first portion. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: No. I'm suggesting that we make a commitment for all $8 million from the line of credit. COHMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Is there $8 million available in the line of credit? COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Yeah, there should be. MR. YONKOSKY: There's $25 million. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: But that we direct our staff to possibly -- to make the first payment if we have to; I'd rather not. But that we direct our staff to come back with appropriate financing and the methodology for funding the debt itself within ninety days. MR. CUYLER: Yeah. And I think the term "line of credit" is what is causing the problem. The staff has recommended this program as opposed to the line of credit program. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: I understand that. I think all she is suggesting is that we use the line of credit for the purpose of meeting what we need to meet with E.G.E., but in the meantime let's -- MR. DORRILL: Actually -- CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: -- Find what our appropriate funding is. MR. DORRILL: And if we would do that prior to incurring the cost to perpetuate the line of credit and specifically the 15,000 that was mentioned for -- COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Yes. MR. CUYLER: We need to do more than designate it; we need to actually get the documents on the line of credit. MR. YONKOSKY: And the line of credit itself has expired; it hasn't been used by the Board for some time. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Let me ask a question, Mr. Yonkosky. Is there any reason why we can't do the same thing with the method that you presented us here with, can we draw down that small -- or can we just do that small of an amount, $400,000? MR. YONKOSKY: Half million dollars. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: We can do it in half million dollar increments? MR. CUYLER: Yes. You can do the same thing with this resolution that you're talking about doing with the line of credit. And that is you designate this as your source, and give staff direction not to -- MR. DORRILL: To only draw -- MR. CUYLER: -- Go over 500,000 until they've satisfied you COHMISSIONER VOLPE: When did the line of credit expire at Sun Bank? MR. YONKOSKY: It has been expired for some time, Commissioner Volpe. I believe it came about in 1990 and had a two-year window. It expired in '92; you extended it for two or three small acquisitions. They have provided a letter to us that said that they will extend -- give us an extension on it. The problem is that if you use the letter -- or the line of credit, is they are a financial institution that is going to commit $25 million or $10 million to us. And if we draw down $400,000.00, they've got component or balance sheets that have $25 million on it or $10 million, and they should be paid for that, for restricting their assets to use that. Whereas with the commercial paper program, that is not a criteria because it is a governmental agency. COHMISSIONER VOLPE: That's fine then. My recollection is that the line of credit extended out to 1995; that we paid $68,000 for the extension; and we increased the amount of the line of the credit. So to learn that it's expired and we can't use it, is something I wasn't aware of. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Commissioner Matthews, would you contemplate extending your motion to go ahead and use this commercial paper program rather than the line of credit -- COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I think my -- COHMISSIONER NORRIS: -- With no other alterations? COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: -- Problem is just losing control of the two-year situation, where I think we need to identify the ultimate payment fund. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I understand that, but that's really not what we are trying to do here today. We have made a commitment over and over and over to do this project. What we need is a simple interim financing while we take ninety days to identify our permanent funding source. That's all we are trying to do here today. It's not that complicated. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: I agree with you, Commissioner Norris, but I don't think all we're trying to do is find an interim. I think that's where the question is. And I think that's what Commissioner Matthews and I are agreeing on is we don't want to commit to eight and a half million dollars if we don't know how we're going to repay it. What's a little frustrating for me is Captain Graham and his people have been working on this thing on the technical side, and I'm wondering who on our side dropped the ball, and it never occurred that we were going to need to finance it until now that we've got the technical thing done. We have had four years to plan for it. And all of a sudden now that we're ready to sign a contract and get the work done, somebody says, "We're going to have to finance it." COHMISSIONER VOLPE: I think we contemplated that when we did our budget this year. I mean, we just popped a figure in the budget, which I think we all expressed some reservations about, and recognized that it had to be done. I'm just not comfortable at this point with what I'm hearing about the line of credit. Maybe I have a fixation about the line of credit. But, Mr. Yonkosky, you said to me, when I asked initially about using the line of credit, that the only reason why we were not using the line of credit was for economic reasons. You identified them to be $15,000 for attorney fees and some other expenses. There was the interest rate, and the interest rate was 4. But you didn't tell me, when I asked the question, that the line of credit was not available and it couldn't be used for this purpose. So that's why I'm trying to do some backing up; I'm trying to put it all together in my mind. I'm not trying to resist what you're doing here. MR. YONKOSKY: And I don't want to mislead you, Commissioner Volpe. When I said that it's for economic reasons, it is. We have a letter on file from Sun Bank that will extend the line of credit; they will allow us to extend it. But the economical reasons are still there and overriding. Their offer at 6.74 percent of prime, comes out to 5.02 percent. That is 100 basis points above what the tax-exempt commercial paper will get us the money for. In addition, they will want a legal document drawn and reviewed by their legal staff that extends that. That in the past has been about $15,000. The other thing is when they offer that to us, that line of credit, they expect us to use the line of credit, because they are taking and tying up part of their loanable assets. And they want a fee for that.And that fee can be negotiated, but they do want that fee. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: So the bottom line for not using the line of credit, according to our staff, is it's not available; we cannot use it for this purpose. I think that's what Mr. Yonkosky is saying. MR. YONKOSKY: You can use it, Commissioner Volpe, it's not -- MR. CUYLER: You can use it. MR. YONKOSKY: -- It's not cost effective. MR. CUYLER: The 8.5 million operates just as a line of credit operates. There may be a misimpression that you have to take out the whole 8.5 million, but that draws down just the way a line of credit does. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: You said we can draw this down in increments of $500,000. I presume that at any point in time we come up with some other source, we can stop utilizing our commercial -- MR. CUYLER: Correct. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: -- Commercial paper? MR. CUYLER: Correct. It's just like a line of credit. MR. DORRILL: And I would equate that -- COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: And that's exactly the same thing, as you said, that would operate as a line of credit? MR. CUYLER: Correct. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I don't see any other alternative -- I -- Wait. I'm sorry. I don't see where we have any other alternative other than to abort this project. We've heard from the Clerk's office and staff and our Finance Committee wisely has concluded this is the most cost-effective way to move forward. We've heard from the County Attorney and Mr. Yonkosky that we have the same flexibility with this -- any other way that we try to finance this; we can come up with other ways to do this. I agree with Commissioner Constantine. I don't like funding projects where we don't have precisely the exact source of revenue to pay back, but we are going to built a 800 HHz system; it's going to cost us $8 million; we're going to pay for it. I would ask you to withdraw your motion and substitute it -- accept the staff's recommendation, and let's move on with this. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: What I would like to do and -- what I understood Mr. Yonkosky to say is that we have to draw down the eight and a half million dollars. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: They have said that three times now. MR. DORRILL: No, that's not correct. MR. CUYLER: You can draw it down -- the minimum increments you can draw down is $500,000. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I thought we were talking line of credit when he said 500,000. MR. CUYLER: To tell you the truth -- MR. YONKOSKY: With the commercial paper program you can draw it down in $500,000 increments. MR. CUYLER: If you would only insert in your motion this funding source as opposed to line of credit, I think the staff would be satisfied and could accommodate your time schedule. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: As long as the commercial paper works the same way as the line of credit, and that we are not going to draw down any money on it within the ninety-day period, and in that ninety-day period our staff brings back to us funding mechanisms to repay the permanent debt that we are looking at. I mean, you are talking about the refinancing of this note in two years. And then somebody out there is going to have to say, "How are we going to pay this back?" And I'm asking that now instead of two years from now. MR. YONKOSKY: Commissioner, the permanent financing for it is still going to have to be in the form of some kind of borrowing. If you take out bonds, it's in the form of borrowing. The concern with the interim financing versus the long-term financing is that there is a contract; that if you want that Notice to Proceed to be issued, the contract has a value of $8,000,223. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I understand that. MR. YONKOSKY: And you have got to fund that. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I understand that. MR. YONKOSKY: But it can be done in the way that you said. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I understand that. I'm looking for a way to get the commencement issued, because 722 days -- you're looking at a 700-day window. So there is not a lot of play time here for difficulties that might arise. But I understand the time line and so forth. I'm just concerned that we are going to get caught two years from now -- if we do this today without laying some firm ground work, we are going to get caught two years from now with a Board of County Commissioners saying, "Oh, my gosh, the prior Board did this; and now we are stuck." Well, I just want to make sure that doesn't happen. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, isn't that the point of your ninety-day -- COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: COMMISSIONER NORRIS: COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: initially Mr. Yonkosky -- COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: have. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Yes. Then what's the problem? Well, the problem that I have is We understand the problem that you Okay. Would you change the motion? Yes, I am about to do that. Please. I would like to amend my motion to substitute the commercial paper program in place of the line of credit with the same provisions that we not draw down on it until -- that we not draw it down. And within the ninety-day period, our staff comes back with permanent funding. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I'll move the second. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Does that include within that ninety days we'll speak with the various agencies that are involved with this? COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I would presume if they are going to pay for their radios and dispatch units and so forth, that we are going to need to know how much we're going to have to borrow. MR. DORRILL: We can do that within ninety days. For purposes of full disclosure, though, we may not come back on the 90th day and then have the permanent financing, for example, if it incurs going into some type of short-term bonds because of the associated paperwork that must be done to effectuate that. I think before ninety days expires, we can come back with what the inter-local agreements and the final pricing and inventory for the number of units for the agencies that want to participate. And, frankly, I don't see that any different than I do building a home. When you go to build a home, you take out a construction loan. At some point during -- at the end of commencement of construction you convert that to a permanent mortgage. I don't think anybody dropped the ball here in terms of permanent financing. We didn't know what you wanted to buy until thirty days ago. And I don't know how you arrange permanent financing until you know what you want to buy. We had always contemplated some interim financing -- CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Okay. That's neither here nor there. Let's see if there's any discussion on the motion. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: Mr. Cuyler, I heard the motion; I believe I understand the motion. Does the motion require some changes in the resolution that is before the Board? MR. CUYLER: No, the resolution is an authorization to borrow up to $8.5 million. How to do that, and what increments you do it, and how often you do it is up to you. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: But that's not what the resolution says. The resolution says that it's up to someone other than the Board. It says that the loan note or notes and it shall be -- the County manager shall make the draw requests in respect to the loan and in accordance with the loan agreement. So it seems to me if we are substituting the Board of County Commissioners, and we're talking about the increments -- draw downs, it seems like the resolution should be clarified in that regard. MR. CUYLER: The chairman has got to sign a note saying your direction to staff is -- I mean, you are designating him as the person to operate this. But you have now given him instruction to do something else. So that's internal; that doesn't need to be in there. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: Okay. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I just want to make one final comment. Mr. Dotrill, it may be that in ninety days when we come back, when this issue comes back to us, that we give direction to proceed and to stay on the commercial paper stream that we're on. I just want to know how we are going to pay it back eventually. MR. DORRILL: That we can tell you within ninety days. I may not be able to tell you on that date that we are also going to be in the bond market with permanent financing. I don't want the Board to think that we have misled them. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I just want to know how -- out in dreamland somewhere -- how we're going to pay it back. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: All of those in favor of the motion state "Aye." (All answered in unison.) Anyone opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Motion carries. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: Mr. Yonkosky, could you -- you said you did have a couple of minor changes to the resolution. I don't know whether -- MR. YONKOSKY: Yes. Mr. Chairman, I'd like to -- you received the execution copy. There are two differences between that resolution and the resolution that you had in the agenda package. The first one is on Page 2, the fourth item down, the line of credit agreement, February 27, 1990 should not be in there. And then on Page 4, under Section 4, the very last line should be changed to read "Be agreed to between the County and the First Union National Bank of Florida." Those are the changes that need to be made. MR. CUYLER: Mr. Chairman, if you'll take a motion approving those changes. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: I'll make a motion. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Second. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: There is a motion and a second. All those in favor of the motion state "Aye." (All answered in unison.) Anyone opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Motion carries 5-0. Item #8H3 SELECTION AND RECOHMENDATIONS OF THE SELECTION COHMITTEE FOR AWARD OF CONSULTANT SERVICES FOR AERIAL AND GROUND SURVEYING SERVICES (RFP-94-2252) - APPROVED WITH COASTAL ENGINEERING, AGNOLI, BARBER & BRUNDAGE AND WILSON, MILLER, BARTON & PEEK The next item was 16 H-2 and is now 8 H-3, a short list of survey. MR. CONIVODE: Commissioners, this is a rather routine item. But due to an abundance of caution in the attorney's office, I recommend we change the listing of the projects so they would specify within the RFP, the recommendations for award remains. However the list of projects we're reducing by five in order to more closely comply with the staff recommendation. COHMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Unless there is any discussion, I will make a motion to approve the staff recommendation. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Is there a second for the motion? COHMISSIONER VOLPE: I'll second the motion. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: All those in favor of the motion state "Aye." (All answered in unison.) Any one opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Thank you. ITEM #gA RESOLUTION 94-787 RE CODIFICATION AND PUBLICATION OF THE COLLIER COUNTY LAWS AND ORDINANCES AND LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE - ADOPTED AND RESOLUTION 94-788 RE THE COST OF BOOKS - ADOPTED 9-A, Resolution adopting the codification and publication of the Collier County Laws and Ordinances. Mr. Weigel. COHMISSIONER VOLPE: Mr. Chairman, if there's no discussion, I'll make a motion. MR. WEIGEL: Good afternoon. David Weigel, Assistant County Attorney. And it's a pleasure to be before you today. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Just a second. I was under the impression you were serious with that motion. COHMISSIONER VOLPE: Well, I am. I think this is just a -- this is a culmination of several months and years of efforts on the part of the County Attorney's office and others. This is the final codification of our Law and Ordinances and our Land Development Code. I think it's simply that, and I would like to make the motion that we adopt the resolution. COHMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I second that. Mr. Weigel and Mr. Cuyler, you're to be commended for a tremendous effort of putting that together. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: And particularly for your great presentation today. Are there any questions for Mr. Weigel? MR. CUYLER: Although, he does have to say a few things. There are some things that you have to decide in terms of price. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Well, let me modify that to a good presentation. MR. WEIGEL: Thank you. It is a pleasure to be here however brief or long it may be. As you're aware the Code Book, the Code of Laws and Ordinances of Collier County, as well as the Land Development Book has been published by Municipal Code Corporation. And the resolution which you have just approved, for the record and for the public, is a resolution adopting the codification and the publication of the Code and recognizing Municipal Code Corporation as the publisher of the Code and all future supplements to the Code. It will be incumbent upon Collier County to be working toward, to work with, and be responsible for the distribution to the Code, not only to Collier County Department employees -- and it was provided in the agenda package, a distribution list, that you have also approved. MR. CUYLER: They haven't approved the resolution yet. MR. WEIGEL: Pardon me. Which you will be asked to approve separately. The distribution list shows distribution for, I believe, about 87 of the 100 volumes of the Collier County Land Development Code. We received 100 volumes of both the General Code -- 100 volumes of the General Code and 100 volumes of the Land Development Code. The distribution list shows 87 departments and persons that would be subject to receiving these. The County Attorney's office has prepared a distribution and solicitation list, which provides a department or individual with the response request of do they just need the Code of General Ordinances, or do they also need the Land Development Code. Some offices will need both; some will only need one. Of that 100 volume pool, 100 volumes of each book, the County Attorney's office will have some books left over. We anticipate about 12 to 13 General Ordinance books, conceivably, and maybe 30 or 40 Land Development Codes. The County Attorney's office will be looking for authorization to distribute and sell those books that remain in our inventory at cost -- this is not a profit-making venture -- and also to provide for the cost of future publication distribution of Code Books to the public at large, developers, attorneys, whoever may so request. I have placed for you, for your information and for the record, that the Code Book -- the Code Book is considered a two-volume set. And that two-volume set cost would be County order for publication in lots of 25 through the publisher. And distribution and administration and handling by the publisher can be handled with an aggregate cost of $215 or a break-out cost of $140 dollars for the General Code of Ordinances and $75 for the Land Development Code. The publisher will be responsible for all updates of both such Codes in the future, eliminating staff requirements or outside attorney relationships that we have had in the past for our Land Development Code. And we think that will greatly facilitate the distribution both to the staff and to the public at large that have interest in these Code Books. The supplemental service charge for these Code books will be dependent upon the supplement to remain useful. The supplement service charge on an annual basis would be $60 a year, both for Land Development Code and the General Code of Ordinances. Our contract with the Municipal Code Corporation approval provides for magnetic media. That is disk availability of the Code books on any of three systems: The Socrates copyrighted system of the Municipal Code Corporation, which has some unique features in regard to retrieval and indexing; or Word Perfect, currently 5.0 or 5.1; or the ASCII II System. These will be available to anyone that wishes to purchase through the Municipal Code Corporation. And we will be asking the Board to adopt the cost price of $565 initial purchase price for the magnetic media format with a supplement cost of magnetic media of $120 a year. The reason behind these costs, for purchase and supplement, the reason they are where they are is the fact that the County will be purchasing additional two-set volumes in 25 volumes or set lots, initiating and requiring a cost of approximately 4,800-plus-dollars per lot. And our relationship with the Municipal Code Corporation is that they don't just sell books; we are their client, and they will sell upon our order, and we will always be responsible for their order of publication. However, as they go forward with the solicitation and distribution of these books to the public at large, they will receive direct payments and credit them to the Collier County account that they maintain for us. And the 25 lot volume purchase price that we must pay, will be reduced by any incoming payments that they have received and cleared for individual orders. MR. CUYLER: What we'll probably do is provide you a memo on some of the this stuff. Because I sat down with David yesterday for about thirty minutes and talked about it, and it took me a little while to understand how the operation works. So we'll probably give you a memo explaining this. I think today what we want you to do, and subject to David wrapping up, is to pass the resolution; approve the distribution list; and establish the price, which David will review again real quickly for you. COMHISSIONER VOLPE: I will amend the motion, Mr. Weigel. I don't want to interrupt your presentation. MR. WEIGEL: No, that's fine. COMHISSIONER VOLPE: To include the costs of the Code books, the two volumes, which I understood was $225? MR. WEIGEL: 215. COMHISSIONER VOLPE: 2157 MR. WEIGEL: Yes. COMHISSIONER VOLPE: Break-out cost at 1457 MR. WEIGEL: 140 and 75. COMHISSIONER VOLPE: 75? MR. WEIGEL: Yes. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: And the cost of the update, annual update, is $60? MR. WEIGEL: $60 printed. It will be $120 magnetic media, and $565 is the cost for the initial magnetic media format. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: And those costs will be embodied within the resolution and as well the approval of the distribution list of H-7 of the additional 100 to the people who are identified on this distribution list? MR. WEIGEL: Yes. And if I may, for the record, I would appreciate that the resolution as presented and previously approved separate and apart from the pricing and distribution list resolution or motion that you may be taking, in the sense that we may at some point, based on economies and ordering in the future, may have an opportunity to change that pricing to keep it at cost. But these are the costs based on the information that we have right now, rather exhaustive information. MR. CUYLER: So you will be approving two resolutions, one that deals with what is in your package and the other being the costs. And the only other thing I want to mention before you take your motion is I am going to be having the various departments sign up for these things to keep track of them. And when they start yelling at me, I want to be able to say the Board approved that they have got to sign up and give me their account number to charge the supplement to. So I presume -- COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I will amend the second to reflect the new motion. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: There is actually now two separate motions. MR. WEIGEL: That's correct. COHHISSIONER VOLPE: One approving the codification and the other being a separate resolution identifying the costs. MR. WEIGEL: That's correct. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: COHMISSIONER SAUNDERS: COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: discussion on either motion? (No response.) COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Do we have two separate seconds? Yes. Okay. Let's call -- is there any Let's call the first motion, and that's to approve the codification. All those in favor? (All answered in unison.) And the second motion to establish a cost. COHMISSIONER VOLPE: And the distribution list. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: And the distribution list. All those in favor? (All answered in unison.) Both motions pass 4-0; Mr. Constantine absent. MR. CUYLER: We'll prepare that second resolution for the Chairman's signature. We won't be bringing that back to you. Thank you very much. ITEM #10A EXTRA GAIN TIHE FOR INMATE NO. 87482 AND 26705 - APPROVED COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: The next item -- let me get caught up with where we are. BCC Extra Gain Time. We have a recommendation for extra gain time for a prisoner in the jail. Is there a motion? COHMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I'll make a motion to approve the recommendation of the Sheriff's office. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Second, anybody? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Second. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: We have a motion and second to approve the extra gain time for this prisoner. All those in favor say "Aye." (All answered in unison.) Opposed, zero; motion passes 4-0; Mr. Constantine absent. ITEM #10B RESOLUTION 94-789 APPOINTING HR THOMAS AND REAPPOINTING HR. JERNIGAN TO THE HEALTH PLANNING COUNCIL OF SOUTHWEST FLORIDA, INC. - ADOPTED Next item. COMHISSIONER SAUNDERS: Madam Chairman, on the next item -- this is in reference to the Health Planning Council. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Yes. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: We had appointed Nancy Lesheid (phonetic), I think, last week; and we have gotten communication from Mary Shultiz (phonetic) as well as from Mrs. Lesheid that they would prefer that Michael Douglas Jernigan (phonetic), as opposed to the appointment of Nancy Lesheid. She is stepping down in order to have the appointment of Mr. Jernigan take place. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Mrs. Lesheid has withdrawn her -- COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: That's correct. So I'll make a motion to appoint Fred Thomas and Michael Jernigan. I'll make the motion to appoint those two. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Is there a second? COMMISSIONER VOLPE: On the motion of -- didn't we as part of that motion last week, didn't we appoint someone -- didn't we appoint Mr. Treble (Phonetic)? MS. FILSON: No, you appointed Michael Jernigan and Nancy Lesheid. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: But we did not appoint Fred Thomas? COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: We did not appoint Fred Thomas. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: So the motion would be to appoint Michael Jernigan and Fred Thomas. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Is there a second? COMMISSIONER VOLPE: I'll second the motion. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Okay. There's a motion and second. Any discussion? (No response.) COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: All those in favor? (All answered in unison.) Motion passes 4-0; Commissioner Constantine absent. Item #11A REQUEST TO SPONSOR GRANT APPLICATION FOR ADDITIONAL DEPUTIES (COPS AHEAD) - LETTER OF INTENT APPROVED I believe -- okay, let's move on to Item 12 C-1. COHMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Actually wewre at 11 A. MR. CUYLER: You've got an add-on. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Oh, I'm sorry. COHMISSIONER SAUNDERS: That's the community policing. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I'm sorry. 11 A. Crystal, you have a presentation for us? MS. KENZEL: For the record, Crystal Kenzel for the Sheriff's office. I might be able to make this short and sweet. And we apologize for the add-on and the urgency of this item, but we were notified by the state of the availability or potential availability of these funds on November 1st. They are requiring a letter of intent be filed on November 10th. They are however now giving us until December 31st to apply or come up with the entire application package. So when I spoke with Commissioner Matthews, and what we would recommend at this point, if you could just approve the letter of intent, we will get the application package. We will fill out the full program and bring that back before the Board for approval before we would actually request any funding position. The Sheriff's office has potential of up to ten deputies. Under their formula, there are some strings attached to their dollars; we need the full application package to really work through all aspects of the grant. COHMISSIONER SAUNDERS: So the Board will have a full opportunity to review that prior to making any '- MS. KENZEL: Prior to submission. COHMISSIONER SAUNDERS: -- Dollar commitments? MS. KENZEL: We just need the letter of intent right now to get the application package. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: That satisfies me a lot better than what I was first hearing. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I'll make a motion that we supply the Sheriff with a letter of intent. COHMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I'll second that. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second. Any discussion on the motion? (No response.) COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: There being none, all those in favor? (All answered in unison.) Opposed, none; motion passes 4-0. Commissioner Constantine absent. That concludes the morning agenda. I don't believe we have anybody here for public comment, do we Mr. Dotrill? MR. DORRILL: No, ma'am. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Let's proceed on with the afternoon or the advertised public hearings. Item #12C1 ORDINANCE 94-59 ESTABLISHING THE COLLIER COUNTY S.H.I.P. DOWN PAYMENT/CLOSING ASSISTANCE PROGRAM, ESTABLISHING POLICY GUIDELINES AND ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE AND FORMS TO BE USED - ADOPTED WITH CHANGE Items 12 C-l, Recommendation that the BCC approve an Ordinance establishing some changes in the S.H.I.P. Program. MR. MILNE: Good afternoon, Commissioners. For the record my name is Don Milne. This afternoon I would like to recommend the Board approve an ordinance which will implement the Collier County S.H.I.P. Downpayment, The Closing Costs Assistance Program. This program targets the very low to low income first-time home buyer in Collier County. The goal of this program is to help that very low and low income buyer realize the dream of home ownership. The County is currently implementing S.H.I.P. Funds utilizing them in two other affordable housing programs. One of those is the Impact Fee Waiver and Referral Assistance Program; the other is the Collier County Residential Rehabilitation Program, which was passed back in August. This program is really designed as a buyer-assistance program. It is unique a little bit, exceptionally, since it is different from the typical downpayment assistance program. There is an ingredient that -- guidelines that require the use of these funds for the rehabilitation or emergency repair of affordable housing. So the way I have designed this is to actually make the assistance available in the form of two separate loans. The first loan of up to $2,500 would be used for downpayment and closing costs assistance. The second loan is to be used for the rehabilitation or emergency repair to that subject dwelling unit. This program is eligible for single-family homes, duplexes, and condominium units. The applicants are actually going to be pre-screened and approved through financial institutions. The security instrument that would be used to secure these two notes would be a second mortgage. And we would actually be getting recommendations on applicants from the first mortgage lender. In the designing of this program, I received input on the County side from the Purchasing Department, Clerk's Finance Department, and also the Attorney's office; and externally I worked with members of the Collier County Banking Partnership. And through their participating members, I expect to be getting referrals. If someone comes into them and they sit down and qualify for a first and the real missing ingredient for them is the necessary funds for downpayment or closing costs, they will in turn be calling the Housing and Urban Improvement Department. And we can reserve the funds for them. Each of these loans will be deferred payment loan at zero percent interest, payable upon the sale of the subject dwelling unit or a loss of the homestead. These two notes, combined value, will be up to $5,000. And as I said, they will be secured by a second mortgage. I have been advised by legal counsel to change one item on the ordinance, which would be your page -- it would be Page 3, the third paragraph down. It states that, "Whereas Collier County has adopted a Resolution Number 9319" that has been changed to Ordinance Number 9319. And I just wanted to bring that out before I get any further into my presentation. As I said these two notes are going to be secured by the second mortgage. They would be recorded simultaneously with the lender's first mortgage. We will have complete documentation in the file from the first mortgage lender, and we will also have Collier County be listed as second mortgagee in the title policy. As far as the actual applicant eligibility, the recipients of this program must declare the subject dwelling unit to be their homestead. They have to qualify as first-time home buyers, meaning that they cannot have owned a home for three consecutive years. And as I stated earlier, they must receive a firm mortgage commitment from one of the local lenders. There are price limits on the sale price of the units. They would be, for existing housing, $83,260; and for new construction, $95,400. We are projecting that the average sale price for the units is going to be in the $60,000 range. As far as the income levels of those assisted, we are hoping to assist forty familes. Of these we anticipate that at least 14 will be classified as very low income; and the remaining 26 would be falling into the low income bracket. As I stated we are really in a situation here where we are looking to assist people who might be able to carry -- or as I said, they will be pre-screened. They would be able to handle the normal monthly mortgage payment, but the major obstacle in obtaining that mortgage would be coming up with the up-front money for the closing costs and downpayment. And I'm hoping that you will recommend to approve this program, so that we can help these families to gain the status of home owners. Thank you. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Questions? COHMISSIONER VOLPE: Just one question. How much money will be allocated for this program in its first year of operation? It looks like it could be as much as $100,000. MR. HILNE: Well, it is actually going to be a total of $200,000. COHMISSIONER VOLPE: I am just thinking about commitments that we have under the S.H.I.P. Program already. Is it realistic to assume that the first year $200,000 would be available on this program? MR. HILNE: Yes, it is. It's available for this year, '94 and '95. It's $200,000. We're hoping that each participating family will receive only up to $5,000. So that's where we come in with the forty families. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Norris. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: How did we come up with the maximum sale prices of $83,000 for existing and $95,000 for new construction? MR. HILNE: That was actually derived from the median sale prices. And there was a correlation that was drawn between that and the income levels of the participants. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: If we did not use this S.H.I.P. Honey for this particular project, is this money that we could use somewhere else? MR. HILNE: It was one of three strategies that was implemented in local housing assistance plan. Those three that have been used so far, as I said, were the Effective Waiver and Referral Assistance; the other one was the Residential Rehabilitation. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: No. My question is if we don't use this particular $200,000 of S.H.I.P. Honey would it be otherwise lost to us? MR. HILNE: In this form? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: No. If we don't use it in this form, can we use it in some other form? Is it $200,000 that we won't see if we don't use it in this form? MR. HIHALIAC: No, Commissioner. The $200,000 was our estimate, what we would spend under this strategy, when we approved the housing assistance program. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: So it's coming out of our S.H.I.P. Pool? MR. HIHALIAC: Yes. And if we don't use it for this program, we will shift it to our -- COHMISSIONER NORRIS: The reason I am asking that is because I don't know that it's the best use of our S.H.I.P. Honey to assist people buying $95,000 homes. I don't think that's really what we have in mind here. MR. HIHALIAC: Those limits, Commissioner, are mandated by the S.H.I.P. Program. Those are statutory rules. And Mr. Hilne is right that they are derived from the median sale price, but there are limits put on us by the S.H.I.P. Program. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: I have got to agree with Commissioner Norris. We want to try to help people out here, but helping someone who can get into a $95,000 home isn't what I had in mind. MR. HILNE: I would say, in response to that, we are really not, probably, going to be addressing -- where we are going to be looking at a low-income person being able to really qualify for that mortgage of $95,400. As I said, that has been stated because it is a guideline through S.H.I.P. However, when we receive input from the first mortgage lender, if we have a situation where the family is -- has a total of combined family income of $35,000.00, in most cases, unless that lender was extremely liberal, they would probably be limiting the mortgage amount that they would be willing to lend to somewhere in the $70,000 range. We are really kind of relying on this. We are working in tandem with the lending institution. And you're right, it would not be realistic to see a household with a $35,000 income -- they would not be able to qualify for that large a loan. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: But the problem is, I think we have seen in the past, there have been people whose income -- some family income is not actually used in the calculation, and therefore some people may have more than $35,000 worth of actual income even though only $35,000 of it is counted for these purposes; is that correct? MR. HIHALIAC: In some categories that may be true. But under this program and under the state program, it doesn't count only the income that is used to pay the mortgage, but rather all the income of the family. So if there is an adult child that works and they live in the household, they must count all that income. If they have interest earnings, they count all that income. So all income would be counted in this program. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: I have just one final question. Can someone qualify for this type of assistance as well as for impact fee deferrals? MR. MIHALIAC: No, Commissioner, they must chose one program or the other, depending on which is most advantageous for them. Generally the Impact Fee Waiver Deferral Program would be more advantageous. COMMISSIONER VOLPE: So there's some concern about their ability to achieve something in excess of 100 percent of financing costs? MR. MIHALIAC: The reason we developed this program, initially, was trying to balance out an existing house program to the new construction program which would be the Impact Fees Waivers and Deferrals. Unfortunately the S.H.I.P. Money is guided toward building construction. That's why we have to have this rehab component in here, which we prefer not to have, to make it qualify under the regulations. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: The trigger mechanism for repayment of these loans would be, I believe you said, sale of the property or loss of home? MR. MILNE: Homestead. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: What about refinancing? MR. MILNE: That would not be permissible under this. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: What about the effect of loss of very low income status? MR. MIHALIAC: Okay. What we're really doing -- we do have, in one of the forms -- the ordinance contains all of the program guidelines and procedures and all the forms that will be utilized in the program. What we're really doing is from the time the applicant is initially approved to when that actual closing takes place, we are asking them at closing to sign an affidavit of no income change at that point. We really do not have, to the best of my knowledge, anything in place that would be able to track that particular household's family income, say, ten or fifteen years down the pike to see if they would be qualifying at that particular point. It's really kind of conceptually right now. At the moment of the applicant being approved is when the S.H.I.P. Guidelines are really asking that they adhere to those guidelines. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Matthews. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I will play the devil's advocate on this for a moment. Suppose we have a couple going to college and right now they qualify for low-income and they purchase this house and they take advantage of this and we have a lien against the property. You are saying that the payback is triggered by the sale of the property? MR. MIHALIAC: Sale or loss of home instead. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: So we are tracking -- we will be tracking -- MR. MIHALIAC: Yes. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: -- These through the property appraiser's office, loss of homestead? MR. MIHALIAC: Yes. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: That was my question, what if they rented the property out. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: We have no speakers on that? MR. DORRILL: No, sir. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: We'll close the public hearing. What is the pleasure of the Board? COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I want to make a motion that we approve this ordinance under the guidelines that have been spelled out for us. COHMISSIONER VOLPE: I will second the motion. This is consistent with the plan approved by the Board members. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Any other discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: All those in favor of the motion state "Aye." (All answered in unison.) CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: All those opposed? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Aye. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Aye. Motion carries 3-2. Commissioner Norris and Commissioner Constantine opposed. Item #14 BOARD OF COUNTY COHMISSIONERS' COHMUNICATIONS Board of County Commissioners' communication, Commissioner Norris, anything? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Nothing other than to say it's certainly been a pleasure working with you two gentlemen. Good luck in the future. COHMISSIONER VOLPE: Thank you. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Hope to see you around some. COHMISSIONER SAUNDERS: You will. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Matthews, anything you want -- COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Again, I just want to reiterate that it's been a pleasure. It's been a pleasure knowing you. And somehow I really think we're going to see a lot more of these two guys -- somewhere, somewhere, somehow. COHMISSIONER VOLPE: Well, it's all been said before, but I've enjoyed, certainly, the experience of working here. The last three years on the Board has been as rewarding for me as the first four years. And I leave with mixed emotions. But then I'm sure all of you and my replacement and Mr. Saunders' replacement will meet the challenges of tomorrow. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: They'll certainly try. COHMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I've enjoyed it also. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: And to everyone out in TV Land, don't forget to vote. Item #15 STAFF'S COHMUNICATIONS HR. DORRILL: Hr. Chairman, I have one issue that I was asked to mention under Communications today, which deals with the fact that we're going to have a three member Board next week. And that being taken into account, what the agenda looked like, whether or not there was an interest in having a meeting. With that in mind, I will tell you, while I haven't seen the executive summaries, there's one proclamation; there are two service awards; there are six resolutions conveying the easements, three of which were the ones that you continued from this morning. This is a -- there is one separate resolution; there is a discussion item under the County Attorney's report concerning the tourist tax case. And that is all that is on the regular agenda. There is a consent agenda that has first blush routine items; there are excavation permits; there are a number of agreements, promises to pay for impact fees. It's rather a routine looking consent agenda. I was asked by Commissioner Matthews to determine, at least bring up today, what the agenda looks like. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Let's do it and set a new world record for a meeting. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: We can, as long as we don't do anything of too much substance. It's probably not appropriate that we do any big issues with only three people. If we can buzz through that in ninety minutes time. MR. DORRILL: There is one public petition, also, and that's the extent of which you have items on next week's agenda. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: All right. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: That's fine. MR. DORRILL: That's all that I have. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Ms. Filson, may we be excused? MS. FILSON: You may. Commissioner Norris moved, seconded by Commissioner Matthews and carried unanimously, that the following items be approved and/or adopted under the Consent Agenda: Item #16A1 RESOLUTION 94-778 GRANTING PRELIHINARY ACCEPTANCE OF THE SEWER IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE FINAL PLAT OF "IMPERIAL PLAZA" AND ACCEPTANCE OF LETTER OF CREDIT See Pages Item #16A2 RESOLUTION 94-779 GRANTING FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE ROADWAY, DRAINAGE, WATER AND SEWER IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE FINAL PLAT OF "SILVER LAKES PHASE ONE" See Pages Item #16A3 RESOLUTION 94-780 RE COMPLIANCE SERVICES CASE NO. 40328-041, OWNER OF RECORD MARIA DEL PILAR RODRIGUEZ See Pages Item #16A4 RESOLUTION 94-781 RE COMPLIANCE SERVICES CASE NO. 40512-011, OWNER OF RECORD BEVERLY A. STEIGERWALD EST. See Pages ITEM #16A5 ACCEPTANCE OF WATER AND SEWER FACILITIES FOR FREEDOM SQUARE - WITH STIPULATIONS Item #16A6 RESOLUTION 94-782 GRANTING PRELIMINARY ACCEPTANCE OF THE ROADWAY, DRAINAGE, WATER AND SEWER IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE FINAL PLAT OF "FREEDOM SQUARE" See Pages Item #16A7 AUTHORIZATION TO RECORD THE FINAL PLAT OF "KETCH CAY AT WINDSTAR, UNIT THREE" - WITH STIPULATIONS, LETTER OF CREDIT AND CONSTRUCTION & MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT See Pages Item #16D1 CLAIMS OF LIEN FOR THE ENFORCEMENT OF THE NOTICE TO CONNECT TO COLLIER COUNTY SEWER FACILITIES AND NOTICE OF IMPACT FEE STATEMENT FOR THE EAST AND SOUTH NAPLES SANITARY SEWER PROJECT See Pages Item #16D2 - Continued to 11/15/94 Item #16D3 - Continued to 11/15/94 Item #16D4 - Continued to 11/15/94 Item #16D5 SATISFACTIONS OF NOTICE OF PROMISE TO PAY AND AGREEMENT TO EXTEND PAYMENT OF SEWER IMPACT FEES FOR HPI INC., AN OHIO PARTNERSHIP See Pages Item #16D6 SATISFACTIONS OF CLAIM OF LIENS FOR ALFRED B. LEVESQUE AND DAVID AND CHERYL REINERTSEN See Pages Item #16D7 NOTICE OF PROMISE TO PAY AND AGREEMENT TO EXTEND PAYMENT OF SEWER IMPACT FEES FOR WESLEY H. SCHUHKNECHT AND JANIS I. SCHUHKNECHT See Pages Item #16El AGREEMENT FOR THE RETIRED SENIOR VOLUNTEER PROGRAM (RSVP) See Pages Item #16E2 - Moved to #BE1 Item #16G1 BID #94-2288 FOR FOUR (4) 40 YARD COMPACTION CONTAINERS - AWARDED TO HESCO SALES, IN THE AMOUNT OF $15,250.88 Item #16G2 ACCEPTANCE OF THE LITTER AND MARINE DEBRIS PREVENTION GRANT AGREEMENT - IN THE AMOUNT OF $20,909.00 See Pages Item #16H1 BID #94-2278 COLLIER COUNTY CENTRAL LIBRARY PARKING LOT RENOVATIONS - AWARDED TO 3-R'S INC. D/B/A RICHARDS CO. IN THE AMOUNT OF $19,700 Item #16H2 moved to Item #8H3 Item #16H3 - deleted Item #16H4 BUDGET AMENDMENT INCREASE OF $5,000 FOR THE COLLIER COUNTY AIRPORT AUTHORITY'S MARCO ISLAND EXECUTIVE AIRPORT FUND (495) Item #16J MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE - FILED AND/OR REFERRED The following miscellaneous correspondence was filed and/or referred to the various departments as presented by the Board of County Commissioners: There being no further business for the Good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by Order of the Chair at 1:00 p.m. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD (S) OF SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS CONTROL TIMOTHY J. CONSTANTINE, 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: SHARON M. LANDIS, CSR 9010