Loading...
BCC Minutes 11/24/1998 RNovember 24, 1998 Page REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Naples, Florida, November 24, 1998 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Board of County Commissioners, in and for the County of Collier, and also acting as the Board of Zoning Appeals and as the governing board(s) of such special districts as have been created according to law and having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 a.m. in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRPERSON: Barbara B. Berry Pamela S. Mac'Kie John C. Norris Timothy J. Constantine James D. Carter ALSO PRESENT: Item #3 Robert Fernandez, County Administrator David Weigel, County Attorney REGULAR, CONSENT AND SUMMARY AGENDA - APPROVED AND/OR ADOPTED WITH CHANGES CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Good morning. I'd like to call to order the November 24th board meeting of the Board of County Commissioners. This morning we're pleased to have with us Tom Olliff, who will deliver our invocation. If you'll rise for the invocation, remain standing for the Pledge of Allegiance. MR. OLLIFF: Heavenly Father, we come to You this morning and lift up your Holy name. And Father, we especially, in this season of Thanksgiving, want to stop and make sure that everyone has an opportunity to take a moment and realize just what blessings you have bestowed on each and every one of us. Father, in this season we especially also pray that you'd give us the opportunity to look out for and help those who are less fortunate than we. Father, we pray that you'd have your hand on the meeting this morning, have your hand on the commission, that you'd guide them and direct them and have them make the decisions that are mn the best interest of this community. Father, we pray these things in your Son's Holy name, Amen. (Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you very much, Mr. Olliff. Mr. Fernandez, good morning. MR. FERNANDEZ: Good morning. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Do we have any changes? MR. FERNANDEZ: Yes, Madam Chairman, we have a couple. The first is to add item 10(D), which is a discussion regarding no parking signs along Hawaii Boulevard, requested by Commissioner Norris. The second is to add item ll(A) (2), which is a discussion with the Board of County Commissioners and the Clerk of Courts regarding bond refinancing, at the request of Commissioner Mac'Kie. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: That will be ll(A) (2)? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah. They asked for that to be on under other constitutional officers, so I appreciate your making that change. MR. FERNANDEZ: The next is to continue to the December 8th meeting, item 16(B) (3) . This is the request to authorize the Transportation Services Department to remove the non-warranted signal at the intersection of Goodlette-Frank Road and Royal Poinciana Drive. At the request of Commissioner Constantine. Also, I'd like to add a note to the record, on item 16(B) (2). This note is to be added to the bottom of the first page, and it reads as follows: The road impact fee credit, if approved, would not be transferable, and any subsequent land use would not receive a refund for any excess unused road impact fee credit. The County Attorney's Office has asked that we add that item -- that note to the item. Also, I understand that there is a request to move 17(D) from the summary agenda to the regular public hearing agenda. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: 17(D)? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: And where will that go? MR. FERNANDEZ: That would be -- let me see, it would be -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: 12(B) (2)? MR. FERNANDEZ: 12(B) (2) is where we would put it. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: 17 (B) , was it? COMMISSIONER CARTER: 17 (B) , Bob? MR. FERNANDEZ: 17 (D) . D, as in dog. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: D? COMMISSIONER CARTER: Oh, D, as in dog. MR. FERNANDEZ: D, as in dog. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: There's two items there? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: This is the Astron Plaza rezone -- MR. FERNANDEZ: Yes. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- is that the one you're moving? MR. FERNANDEZ: There was a change to that item that we need to have that incorporated into the public hearing record. The attorney has asked that we take -- we open the hearing, introduce the information and close the hearing, rather than add it to the record for the summary agenda. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Item 12(B) . CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay, 12 -- now where -- then where are you going to move this? MR. FERNANDEZ: 12(B) (2) is where we'll add that. Madam Chair, I've also been advised that the note that I read into the record for t6(B) (2) should be for item 16(B) (7) . I apologize for the incorrect reference. MR. WEIGEL: It was last week's 16(B) (2) . COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: There you go. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. Is that all the changes? MR. FERNANDEZ: That's all, Madam Chairman. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Mac'Kie, do you have any changes? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No, ma'am. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Norris? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Actually, yes, I do. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Boo. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Boo, hiss. What? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Just remove 16(C) (2), pull that to the regular agenda. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: 16(C) (2)? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: 16(C) (2) . And I guess that will go under public services. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah. Sorry, I rescind my booing. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: And the -- MR. FERNANDEZ: You want to make that 8(C) (2)? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Yeah. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: 8(C) (2)? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: 8(C) (2). And also, I will have an item under 10. 10(E), is that where we are, 10(E)? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: B, C, D, E, yeah. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Concerning a survey conducted in East Naples. And that's it. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. Commissioner Constantine? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Oh, nothing. I was just recognizing Father Spinelli. I have no changes. REVEREND SPINELLI: Are you going to give me a crack at it, or not? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We can use all the blessings you've got, Father. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Please pray more. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Carter? COMMISSIONER CARTER: No changes, commissioners. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: No changes? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I make a motion -- I'm sorry, do you have CHAIRPERSON BERRY: No, I sure -- I wouldn't think of adding anything onto -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Did you make a motion? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I think I'll make a motion to approve the agenda, the consent agenda, the summary agenda, as amended. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: COMMISSIONER NORRIS: CHAIRPERSON BERRY: All in favor? Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Item #4 Okay, we have a motion -- Second. -- and a second. Motion carries five-zero. I guess we'll put it as MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF NOVEMBER 3, 1998 - APPROVED AS PRESENTED COMMISSIONER NORRIS: And I'll make a motion that we approve the minutes of November 3rd regular meeting. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We have a motion. Do I have a second? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We have a motion and a second for the approval of the November 3rd meeting. All in favor? Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries five-zero. I'm carrying on a conversation up here by myself. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Aye. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. Father Spinelli? REVEREND SPINELLI: Yes, dear. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Would you give us a little blessing, please? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We could use all the praying we can get, Father. COMMISSIONER CARTER: REVEREND SPINELLI: CHAIRPERSON BERRY: REVEREND SPINELLI: CHAIRPERSON BERRY: REVEREND SPINELLI: of the Holy Spirit, Amen. Right. This is going to be a double blessing. That's all right. Is everybody going to stand? Sure, we'll stand. In the name of the Father and of the Son and We stand before you, 'O Holy Spirit of God, conscious of our sinfulness, but aware that we gather in your name. Come to us, remain with us, and enlighten our hearts. Give us lisht and strength to know your will, to make it our own, and to live it in our lives. Guide us by your wisdom, support us by your power, for you are God. You desire justice for all. Enable us to uphold the rights of others. Do not allow us to be misled by ignorance or corrupted by fear or favor. Unite us to yourself in the bond of love. Keep us faithful to all that is true. As we gather in your name, may we temper justice with love so that all our decisions may be pleasing to you and earn the reward promised to good and faithful servants. You live and reign with the Father and the Son, one God, forever and ever, Amen. In the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you, Father Spinelli. Item #5Al PROCLAMATION PROCLAIMING DECEMBER 1, 1998 AS WORLD AIDS DAY IN COLLIER COUNTY - ADOPTED Commissioner Mac'Kie, I believe you have a proclamation for us this morning. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I do have a proclamation. I'd like to ask Ms. Andrea Taylor and friends please to come forward to accept the proclamation. If you'll just stand up here and sort of face the audience, I'll read it and then you get to speak to us for a minute. Come on up. WHEREAS, the global spread of HIV infection and AIDS necessitates a worldwide effort to increase communication, education and action to stop the spread of HIV/AIDS; and WHEREAS, the joint United Nations program on HIV/AIDS observes December 1st of each year as World AIDS Day, a day to expand and strengthen the worldwide effort to stop the spread of HIV/AIDS; and WHEREAS, UNAIDS estimates that 30.6 million people are currently living with HIV/AIDS, with young people under the age of 25 accounting for at least half of all new infections; and WHEREAS, the American Association for World Health is encouraging a better understanding of the challenge of HIV/AIDS nationally, as it recognized that the number of people diagnosed with HIV and AIDS in the United States continues to increase, with 641,086 AIDS cases reported as of December 31, 1997; and WHEREAS, Collier County has 612 AIDS cases reported as of July 31st, 1998; and WHEREAS, World AIDS Day provides an opportunity to focus on HIV infection and AIDS, caring for people with HIV infection and AIDS, and learning about HIV and AIDS; and WHEREAS, the 1998 World AIDS Day theme, "Be a Force for Change" challenges young people around the world to recognize the crucial role they play in the ever-changing course of the AIDS pandemic; aims to motivate young people to get involved in reducing the spread of HIV; and encourages them to have compassion for and lend support to those affected by HIV/AIDS. NOW THEREFORE, be it proclaimed by the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that December 1st, 1998 be designated as World AIDS Day in Collier County, and urge all citizens to take part in activities and observances designed to increase awareness and understanding of HIV/AIDS as a global challenge; to take part in HIV/AIDS prevention activities and programs, and to join the global efforts to prevent the further spread of HIV/AIDS. Done and ordered this 24th day of November, 1998, Board of County Commissioners, Barbara Berry, Chairman. I'd like to move acceptance of this proclamation. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Second. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We have a motion and a second. Ail in favor? Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries five-zero. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thanks. (Applause.) MS. TAYLOR: Thank you for supporting the World AIDS Day proclamation and recognizing that HIV is an issue in Collier County. On behalf of the committee, I would like to invite everyone to participate in the observance on December 1st, Tuesday evening, in Cambier Park at 7:00 p.m. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: As somebody living with the virus, I would like to thank you for recognizing World AIDS Day, and again, I would invite you and everybody here to come down to Cambier Park at 7:00 next Tuesday. Thanks. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thank you. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Hi, I'm a retired elementary school teacher, presently living in Naples, and I've been dealing with the AIDS virus and affected with the virus myself for a long time, and involved in AIDS education. And I would like to just extend an invitation for everybody to come to World AIDS Day. And gratefully thank you for your support of World AIDS Day. Thanks. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thank you. God bless you. Item #5B EMPLOYEE SERVICE AWARDS - PRESENTED CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Moving on then to service awards this morning. I have two service awards to present. If we could have Bradie Allen for five years of service in parks and recreation. (Applause.) CHAIRPERSON BERRY: And also Joanne Stanek, in the road and bridge department. Joanne? (Applause.) COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's the real work of county government. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: That was it? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Only two. Item #8C1 APPOINTMENT OF COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE TO THE YOUTH ACTIVITIES ADVISORY COMMITTEE - APPROVED Okay, moving on then to our first item, which is under the item 8(C) (1), which is the appointment of a commissioner to the youth advisory -- activities advisory committee. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I would like to nominate Commissioner Constantine for that. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Would you be willing to serve, Commissioner? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just because I'm so youthful? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: That's it. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's it. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: You are now the youngest on the board. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's right. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And with your midnight basketball and those kinds of things -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No, I'd be happy to. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- I thought it would be a wonderful idea, too. Second. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: By the way, I am no longer the oldest on the board. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Nor am I. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Well, that only leaves me down here, so I guess I got that number. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Jim, I'm so glad you joined us, because that took me off the hook. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Mac'Kie is just comfortably in the middle. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I like it, right here in the middle. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Are you sure you're ready to take on this assignment? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Absolutely. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Okay. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll accept. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay, we have a motion and a second to appoint Commissioner Constantine to the youth activities advisory committee. All in favor? Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries five-zero. Item #8C2 AUTHORIZATION FOR AN AMENDMENT TO THE PARKS AND RECREATION ADVISORY BOARD ORDIANCE TO REMOVE THE SPECIFIC REPRESENTATION FROM MARCO ISLAND AND INCREASE THE REPRESENTATION FROM THE NAPLES AND URBAN PARK DISTRICT - TO BE BROUGHT BACK TO THE BOARD The next item was an item that was moved -- was moved. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Was moved. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Let's see, 16 -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: We have a gentleman that registered to speak on this. I hope he registered -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- (C) (2), which has to do with the parks and recreation advisory board. Is that the one? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Yes. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Norris, I assume you pulled this, too. With the thought being Marco is still part of the county, we still have some parks down there. They probably just don't have a voice on the -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: We in fact operate three parks on Marco, and other than the Little Bay Front Park, I don't think we do in the City of Naples, unless I'm mistook on that. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm sorry, I heard City of Naples and I had been talking to Chris. Do you mind -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: So the reasoning be, if the City of Naples deserves representation -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: City has -- Commissioner Mac'Kie, I think he's just saying City of Naples has somebody on here. The suggestion of this item is to remove the Marco person on here. We actually have more in the way of parks on Marco than -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I can't imagine why we'd want to do that. MR. OLLIFF: The recommendation was only made in -- for the record, Tom Olliff, public services administrator. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Other than to punish them. MR. OLLIFF: Actually, to make the advisory committee ordinance consistent, because we do not have specific representation from the City of Naples. And the only reason we had specific representation from Marco was when the original community park impact fee districts had been created and there was a specific impact fee district on the island of Marco. Now that we're no longer collecting an impact fee for Marco, and there are no community parks being operated there, we were trying to be consistent from city to city. We don't have specific representation from either Everglades City or the City of Naples --COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Maybe we could make it consistent the other way by having a seat for the City of Naples, specifically, and a seat specifically for the Marco. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Well, and one for Everglades City. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I just was going to let you be the one to say that. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: You all forget about that eastern part of the county. I'll tell you -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I like that part of the county. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- I've got to remind you all the time. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: How about we review the makeup of that formally as another agenda item, but we decline to take the action here, and that is to remove the Marco person. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Right. I like that. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: In other words, you're making a motion to continue? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No, I'll make a motion that we don't COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That we deny. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah, that we deny that, that we do not remove the Marco person. Then if we want to review the makeup later and make sure we designate specific ones, we ought to do that as its own agenda item sometime. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'll second it with that instruction to staff. MR. OLLIFF: We'll bring it back. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Does our speaker want to get up and talk us out of this particular action? You can do that. MR. MUELLER: I don't want to talk you out of it, no. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay, fine. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: All right, that's fine. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: He waives his -- MR. MUELLER: I've got a nice prepared speech here. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: About a 12-minute, Gil? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Yeah, we'll vote on it. Do I have a motion? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Yes, and a second. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: All in favor? Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries five-zero. Item #8El RESOLUTION CWS-98-4, REFUNDING THE COLLIER COUNTY WATER/SEWER DISTRICT REVENUE BONDS, SERIES 1991 AND 1992 - ADOPTED Next item, adoption of a resolution refunding the Collier County water/sewer district revenue bond, Series 1991 and 1992. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We're going to save how much money doing this, Michael? MR. SMYKOWSKI: Approximately 1.8 million dollars at the most recent financial runs. Obviously, that will vary slightly, depending on where markets conditions are when we actually close on the bonds. For the record, Michael Smykowski, OMB director. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That savings, Mike, is net of cost of the re-fi? MR. SMYKOWSKI: That is correct. What I'd like to do is -- the action required today is for the board adopting a resolution to proceed with the refunding of the water/sewer district revenue -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So moved. MR. SMYKOWSKI: -- bonds, Series -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. MR. SMYKOWSKI: -- 1991 and 2. Mr. Reagan, I believe, does have a brief presentation, and there may be some changes. I think he's going to walk you through the actual resolution and some changes on the floor. MR. REAGAN: I'm not going to walk you through the resolution, bond counsel will. But I'm ready to answer any questions, since you already have a motion on the floor. I'd be happy to take it. Any questions? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: And your name is? MR. REAGAN: Bill Reagan, for the record. I'm certified financial advisor to the county. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: And your former position here was? MR. REAGAN: You're just going to embarrass me to no end, aren't you? j ob. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Yes. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Got to fess up. MR. REAGAN: Former clerk. MR. FERNANDEZ: Madam Chair? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But you made good. MR. REAGAN: As my wife said, I finally went out and got a real MR. FERNANDEZ: Madam Chair? I asked Mr. Reagan to be here this morning to specifically address the combination of the two issues and to -- when refinancing and the savings that would result as a result of that combination. The reality is, the smaller issue would probably not be cost-effective to refinance by itself and by combination with this issue. Mr. Reagan has advised us that it's probably our only opportunity to refinance. I'd like him to speak to that briefly, if he could. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. MR. REAGAN: Let me quickly go through this. You have two outstanding issues, a '91 and a '92. The '91 has already been advanced refunded. And you're only allowed one under the Tax Code. So what we do, we call it a current -- excuse me, a forward refunding. And you do a forward refunding when the rates are at such low level as you're able to contract with the underwriter and the underwriter contracts with the bond buyer, and you hold that contract until the date that it comes up for the first call. So, in other words, you're just going into a contract taking advantage of today's rates, and you actually deliver the bonds in 1999. We also have a contract with the underwrite that if something happens to them, that they have given us liquidated damages to equal our -- that present value of savings, so there's a security on that end. There is another issue, a '92 issue, which is a small issue. There's approximately a refundable amount of around six million dollars. The finance committee likes to have, and industry standards suggest that you try to have a five percent net present value savings. You're not there in that transaction. However, if you combine these two transactions, it's important to keep in mind that this is a utility system. One system. It's not like individual non-ad valorem revenue systems. The economics of doing them together provide you with a better than five percent savings. In fact, if you were to do the six million dollar transaction alone, it would cost you somewhere in the vicinity of 65 to $75,000 for cost of issuance. Combining it with this is only $20,000. So you have incremental savings there that makes it beneficial to the utility system. Overall, we would expect that by the end of next week, if the market holds in our shape, that you're going to have better than 10.1 percent savings, which will give you well over two million dollars from the 1.8 million in today's market. And also, on the '92, which your administrator's pointed out, we hope that we will come very close to the five percent. We believe that after you calculate the cost of issuance in it, you will be well above the five percent. Importantly to remember is that the utility system in the next couple of years is going to come in for some capital improvements. It is now time for us to take advantage of these lower rates, get your debt service as low as possible. Because my discussions the last 30 days with the rating agencies, we informed them that we would be coming before them, probably soon, to do a show and tell. It's been some -- quite some time since the county has done that. And the lower we can get our debt service, the better off that we are at this particular time. So I have no absolutely no hesitation at all, and I -- and just to recommend that you refund these '92 issues at this time within today's rates. And so you don't think that I'm particularly naive about my brother and I who sometimes were accused that we try to increase the issue size to pad our pockets, in this particular case it would be better for all of us if we were completely trying to do that, to have two separate issues than one joint issue. It is a savings to the county. It's taken us a lot of time to combine the two issues together, and I think you're going to end up with a very attractive result at the end of the day. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Any other questions for Mr. Reagan? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: No, I think he outlined it pretty well. Good work. MR. REAGAN: Bond counsel's going to go through your resolution right now. MR. MILLER: Good morning. Steve Miller with Nabors, Giblin and Nickerson out of Tampa, your bond counsel. Mr. Weigel just handed out to you copies of the resolution. I believe Mr. Smykowski had given you drafts of these earlier. I wanted to point out that as these transactions are wont to do, the insurance company that gave the lowest bid to the county did not give us the final commitment until late yesterday afternoon, so we couldn't complete the resolution until late last night. The provisions of this resolution, just to point out, that would have changed from the draft that Mr. Smykowski had handed out previously are in sections 16 and 17, which basically -- on page 13, which basically lay out who the insurance company is and then the general provisions relating to their bond insurance policies. They're zssuzng one policy for each series. These provisions are standard boiler plate, and just to let you know, they are identical to the provisions that were zn your 1994 water/sewer bond issue. So they aren't anything that you're not already living with with your 1994 bonds. This resolution we refer to as a delegated resolution because of the fluctuating market interest rates as they are right now. If you look at pages seven and eight, there are sections six and seven, which are conditions to execution of the various -- of the two purchase contracts. By delegation, I mean that if these parameters set forth in section six and seven are met within the next few weeks when the underwriters go out to market the bonds, the Chair has the authority to sign the purchase contracts, so long as those parameters have been met. Sometime in the past -- and this has been the process that the county has taken with the last three bond issues, and that is pretty much the standard that's now occurring throughout the state. Historically, underwriters will go out in the marketplace, market the bonds, come to you at your next meeting or at a special meeting, present to you the exact figures, and you would at that time approve them. Because the market is so volatile over the last couple of years, it has turned into this parameter style of resolution where you delegate the authority to the Chair, so long as the parameters are met, she has the authority to award the bonds to the underwriters. So if you want to proceed with the transaction, you'll simply need to adopt this resolution and that will be the last you see of us. Next time you'll have bonds issued and a closing will take place at the end of this year. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Norris? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Yes, just a quick question. I -- we were just presented the resolution, so I don't know the answer. But I assume the parameters are flexible enough to allow the Chair to accept terms that are more favorable to the county? MR. MILLER: Absolutely. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: But restrict on the other side? MR. MILLER: Absolutely. Well, they are usually outside parameters, but with the advice of your financial advisor, your finance director, your budget director, who are all going to be involved in this process, yes, the goal is still to strive to the best interest rates that are possible. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Yeah, the question was -- I think you sort of answered it there -- that the outside on the upside of the rate would be a set parameter, but a lower rate would not be restricted. MR. MILLER: Absolutely not. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. COMMISSIONER CARTER: If I'm understanding that correctly, as Commissioner Norris is pointing out, we're protected on the upside and we can work as far as we can on the downside so that we get the best possible deal for the county. MR. MILLER: Absolutely. We've got a ceiling, but we've got no floors. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Okay. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's a good thing. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Any further questions? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Motion to approve. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We have a motion and a second to approve this item. much. Ail in favor? Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries five-zero. Thank you very COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Item #10A Hey, Fritzy, it already passed. RESOLUTION 98-473, APPOINTING RHONA SAUNDERS TO THE TOURIST DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL - ADOPTED CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Next item on the agenda is appointment of member to the Tourist Development Council. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'd like to nominate Rhona Saunders for that position. COMMISSIONER CARTER: I'd like to second that. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: If there's no other nominations, we have a motion and a second for the appointment of Rhona Saunders to the TDC. All in favor? Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries five-zero. Item #10B RESOLUTION 98-474, APPOINTING FLOYD CREWS TO THE IMMOKALEE ENTERPRISE ZONE DEVELOPMENT AGENCY - ADOPTED Next appointment is a member to the Immokalee Enterprise Zone Development Agency. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: is a one and one, right? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: COMMISSIONER NORRIS: CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Do you have a recommendation on this? This Right. Motion to approve. I believe this is -- Mr. Floyd Crews is the only one that applied for this particular position. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Move his approval. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Second. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We have a motion and a second. Ail in favor? Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries five-zero. Item #10C RESOLUTION 98-475, RE-APPOINTING MARK LINDER AND APPOINTING CHRISTINE CHESSER TO THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING COMMISSION ADOPTED Next is appointment of member to the Affordable Housing Committee. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I move acceptance of the committee's recommendation, Mark Lindner and Christine Chesser. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay, we have a motion. Do I have a second? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Ms. Filson, is this one of the committees that is required to give a recommendation? MS. FILSON: Yes. It's not -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: It is required -- MS. FILSON: -- quasi judicial. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: -- by ordinance? MS. FILSON: Yes. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. Second. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay, we have a motion and a second to approve Mr. Mark Lindner as a reappointment, and Christine Chesser as a new appointment to the Affordable Housing Commission. Ail in favor? Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries five-zero. Item #10D DISCUSSION REGARDING NO PARKING SIGNS ALONG HAWAII BOULEVARD - STAFF TO INSTALL THE APPROPRIATE SIGNAGE Next item is an item put on the agenda by Commissioner Norris regarding parking signs along Hawaii Boulevard. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Yes, ma'am. We were just -- we've had some requests by the neighbors out in that area to put up some no parking signs along Hawaii Boulevard and in the median where people are parking. Instead of parking in the parking lot of St. Peter's church there, and -- they're parking up on the sidewalks and in the right-of-way, and even in the medium. So we'd just like to ask staff to go out and put up some no parking signs in that area for us. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Just curious, I get those kind of requests and usually just forward them through Mr. Fernandez or something. I didn't know -- is that -- is that how we should do this is add it to the agenda? Because I have other similar items that I hear about -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, I think the Transportation Department probably has the latitude to do it unilaterally, but -- administratively, I should say. But in this case, I think I'd like to have board approval to do this particular one, so that if we have any other kind of complaint calls, we'll at least have board action to do it and not leave it on the back of our Transportation Department. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Is it a controversial matter? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Who knows? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Everything we do is controversial. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Everything we do is -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yes. Well, I -- MR. ILSCHNER: Madam Chairman, Ed Ilschner, public works administrator, for the record. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Mr. Ilschner. MR. ILSCHNER: We have received I think one call concerning the parking situation out there. We have hesitated to install signs due to the fact that we feel like if it's a driveway blockage situation -- and I think that's what this gentleman was complaining about -- in that particular case, there is ample existing provisions in the ordinance to have that enforced. If it goes beyond that where they're parking in the swales, then of course we would need to erect signs in order for due process to be afforded to the individuals, knowing that that would be a prohibited act. So we will look into the matter and take appropriate action. If the ordinance allows for us to administratively install them, we will follow the Board's direction and ensure that we do that. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. Well, my intention in putting it under item 10 was to go ahead and make a formal motion, which I'll do. MR. ILSCHNER: Okay, we -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And the motion is? MR. ILSCHNER: -- can follow the Board's direction. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: To direct staff to go ahead and put up the appropriate no parking signage in that area to try to rectify the problem. MR. ILSCHNER: We can certainly follow that direction. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. MR. ILSCHNER: Thank you, Madam Chairman. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We have a motion. Do we have a second? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Sure, I'll second that. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We have a motion and a second to put up some no parking signs along Hawaii Boulevard. Ail in favor? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm sorry, can I ask a question? The motion is to instruct staff to use their professional judgment to interpret the ordinance to do what they need to do, not necessarily -- I'm a little nervous saying where no parking zones belong. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah, I think Mr. Ilschner just said in order to start due process. You can't give people a hard time if you don't have it posted. MR. ILSCHNER: That's correct, yes. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Which is the issue. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. Thank you. I just need to be sure we were giving them the discretion. COMMISSIONER CARTER: So if I understand that, Commissioner Mac'Kie, we're not setting a precedent here that we arbitrarily -- anybody can put up no parking signs wherever they want to. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: We're just directing staff to use their -- COMMISSIONER CARTER: Their judgment. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: -- judgment on how to go about it. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Okay. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thanks. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: You think we can vote now? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Ail in favor? Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries five-zero. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I think that was called a wrap on the wrist from -- with the ruler. Sorry, Madam Chairman. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I don't mind. I approve of anybody -- there's no bad questions. I just -- you know, when we get ready to vote -- that's okay, that's all right. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thank you. Item #10E DISCUSSION OF EAST NAPLES SURVEY - STAFF TO REVIEW CONTENTS OF SURVEY AND PROVIDE INPUT CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Next item is the survey. Commissioner Norris? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Yes. This is a very timely little survey that we had done through the East Naples Civic Association. It was not connected in any way with our tourist development consultant's study that we had here very recently, but it came on a fairly parallel path, because one of the consultants' recommendations was, as you recall, to look very seriously at a civic convention center type facility. And that's exactly what the East Naples Civic Association's been working on for quite some time. And we did a survey of businesses and residential people, 1,000 businesses and 2,000 residential people, and these are the results of the survey, which reflect the consultant's recommendation that we look very seriously at this convention center here in the community. Now, Commissioner Mac'Kie, I think one of the things that you'll be very interested in is that the East Naples Civic Association has sort of targeted the triangle area as the perfect spot to put this civic center, or convention center. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It would be. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: It would be the -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Could you just explain for me, because when we say civic center, it says on the front here, and you said convention center. Could you describe what it is you're thinking of? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, it would function both as a civic center and be large enough for a convention center, and have the facilities for a convention center is what -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Like Harborside. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: In a way. The East Naples Civic Association wanted to accomplish both functions. I think the tourist consultants were more focused on the convention side of the facility. But in any case, the East Naples Civic Association thought that both functions could be accomplished with one facility, if properly allocated to space, and so that's where we were going. Now, my thought that I brought to the East Naples Civic, and we've sort of been hoping to get some support here today for at least looking into the idea, is that if you located this out in the -- let's say the -- probably the ideal location would be west of the little commercial -- is it Commercial Boulevard or Commercial Drive? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Boulevard. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: -- whichever one it is. If you located it out in the west of that, you could have a lynchpin for that whole area that then you could start the redevelopment process really rolling at a much faster rate than you would ever probably imagine. And I think that that whole area then would become one of the newest and brightest spots in our community. And I'd like to suggest that this board ought to take a look at whatever we think is the appropriate level of involvement for the county to get into this and see if we can't make things happen in this area that -- I know Commissioner Mac'Kie has worked very hard to get it going. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: How big a facility are you thinking about? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, that's, of course, some of the questions that need to be answered in the future. This is fairly preliminary. This is really just asking the question do we need it and -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Do you want one. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: -- would it be supported, and would it be functional, and does the community have the need for it. And this is more of a needs assessment here in front of you today than anything else. And -- but of course, you know, the -- it was sort of serendipitous that the tourist consultant was on the parallel path at the same time, so -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Well, you're not confusing this with a convention bureau? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: No. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: No. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: All right. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: No. Convention bureau is another animal. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. Well, I just -- sometimes people get those confused. You say convention bureau and they think you're talking about -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: No, this is a physical facility -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: -- we're talking about here. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: All right. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: What I -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Just to clarify. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm sorry. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Constantine. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just a -- we'll need time to digest this, obviously. But as I look through here, I'm wondering if this actually supports or not, the contention (sic) is needed. Because I looked -- and I'm just going to hit the ones I quickly read through. Naples has facilities that are able to accommodate my size event. Almost 60 percent of the people agree that it already has that. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: No, the -- there's two pieces here you need to be aware of. One is them is survey of the business, one of the residents. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Right. Well -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: And that should reflect a little different numbers. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's residential and it's a bigger number, agree with that, that is business. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Sure. And that's understandable. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And then event planning is difficult in Naples, because space is not available. Residential, only 36 percent agree with that, 41 percent business. And the numbers get even more discouraging. Quality space is limited in Naples. There's only one in three, and both categories agree with that. And we go down below. I would increase the number of events I hold each year in Naples if there was a greater selection of space; only one in five agree with that. But I kind of like the idea, but I don't know if this is helping us. And that's on a 60-second look, obviously, but I don't know if this is supporting the cause, that's all. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, I think that if you look at the overall survey instead of picking out one or two questions and taking a quick look at them, you'll see that -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, I can read through while -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: -- the results are positive. The results are positive. You'll go back to the summary -- if you want to take a quick look, go back to the summary. And I think you'll see that overall the results are fairly positive, and that it does reflect the same results that the tourist consultant pointed out to us. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Madam Chair? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Mac'Kie? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'd like to ask that we -- I'll just go ahead and tell you, I will bring this to the Gateway committee that's already, you know, working on redevelopment. I think it's December 10th -- I wish somebody were here to confirm it for me -- that we have our next community meeting. And this is something that I agree with Commissioner Norris that I hear in the community that there's a great deal of desire for. I've heard it for years. I am unaware of what levels of participation the county might have, and what -- you know, I personally don't think we're going to be building a convention center with tax dollars. But I do think that if there's something in the redevelopment plan that we can do in the zoning overlay to encourage that kind of private effort, I -- that's already something that's being discussed in the Gateway Triangle redevelopment plan, and this is just more fodder, more ammunition to support, you know, as that goes forward. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I would agree wholeheartedly. Why I question -- if you were thinking of something along the lines of Harborside in Naples, we're lucky in that we have the Ritz Carlton or The Registry or any number of other facilities where if someone wants to have a large -- at least there are large rooms to accommodate that. And we have some things that are on a less expensive scale, too. In Fort Myers they don't, for the most part, have that. They all joke about Amtel being their only -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Oh, my God. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- hotel up there. It's a little run down, but the -- even with that fact, the fact you don't have a lot of alternative, Harborside this year has done better than -- the past several months have been better than it initially did, but has struggled to make as many events as they anticipated. And so I don't have any objection to exploring this, I don't have an objection to creating some incentives to make private money make it a reality. I would hesitate and really need some strong numbers to convince me it's something that we should put up millions and millions of dollars for. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, and at this point I'm certainly not proposing that that's what we do. Obviously the range of participation mn the county could be from 100 percent to zero and anywhere in between, and that's something that we want to determine in the future. But I just am asking for board support to start at least being interested in this, focus on that triangle area as the location if the convention center were to come about, and to look at any kind of options that the County Commission may think we could participate at some level. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I particularly like your idea of the location, because if you look -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I think that would change that whole -- our whole community, it really would. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You look at any metropolitan area where they do that and put a successful building in, then it just grows out from there. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: If you -- if I could just take one quick moment there, what I had envisioned from the point of the triangle there from Commercial out to the west of the point there, what I thought is if you could locate this convention center right along Commercial, then you would have access, obviously, from 41 and Davis to the convention center. But that would just be the hub of that triangle. What I would envision -- and certainly I'm not a planner -- but what I would envision was then you could have parking internally there, of course, and you could have sort of one of these little town centers, almost like another Fifth Avenue is developed, but have that on the periphery of the point of the triangle. And have -- you would have your parking already built in there and people could wander about in the middle there and have all the nice boutique shops, the bistro type things, ice cream parlors, that sort of a thing that would really be a community center type operation. I think that that would really get our community looking better in a big hurry. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And I'll tell you, I appreciate so much you bringing this up, because it makes us all start thinking about what could happen there. Because it's just unlimited possibilities. And I've just asked Sue to go out and confirm for me, I think December 8th in this room is when we're going to have the most -- the threshold question about the Gateway redevelopment, and that has to do with stormwater. You know, you can't build a convention center or anything in the middle of a big pond. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Put it up on pilings. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah. So December 8th there's going to be a discussion here, and there'll be more notice of it of a public meeting about the stormwater issues. December 8th, Sue, am I right about that? MS. FILSON: The stormwater. And the other one's the 10th. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: The 10th, at 7:00? Didn't ask you to find that out. But December 10th will be -- as we begin that visioning process about whether or not this is the right way to go, or what is, but let your mind expand itself, because there's unlimited possibilities. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I put this under item 10 so if there was any action we wanted to take today, as far as direction to staff, that we could do that. I don't know exactly, it's so preliminary in our discussions, I don't know what action we want to give today, if any. But I just wanted to make everyone aware that the East Naples Civic has been working for about a year on this project. And this need survey was completely funded independently by them and with some private support. So it -- I just thought it was very interesting that it paralleled what our first consultant said. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Well, I don't think it would be out of order to at least make sure that staff has this and to let them take a look at it and kind of get their opinion on what they think about it. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I think that would be Mr. Mihalic's job, wouldn't it? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I would imagine so. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, make sure he has a copy. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We're having trouble keeping him busy anyway. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Anyway, I think that would be -- I think that would certainly be in order -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- as long as it's gotten to this point, let them take a look at it and see what they think about it. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. That's -- COMMISSIONER CARTER: I would agree. I think it would be a good input from staff, and I think it's an excellent presentation, Commissioner Norris, to share this with us, because in my judgment we have a lack of meeting space in this community, and there's a real need to have something that you have access to. The major hotels, it's tough to go to and it's very expensive. And during season, you don't have a chance for local businesses to get in there. They can't afford it and the space is not even available. So I think this is a terrific idea and I would hope that the staff could give us an input on their judgment on what their perspective on this is. And I think even though it's separate from what we're going to do in our workshop coming up, it still dovetails to that, because it all fits the big picture. You can't attract and do these things if you don't have good meeting space. So I think it's great. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It's nice when good ideas start coming together from different perspectives. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Right. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: And you've got three things coming together all at once. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Got three things coming together here. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: That's great. Thanks, Commissioner Norris. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: You're quite welcome. Item #llA1 DISCUSSION OF FUNDING LAW ENFORCEMENT SERVICES TO MARCO ISLAND - LETTER TO BE PRESENTED TO MARCO ISLAND CITY COUNCIL REGARDING THE BCC DISCUSSION OF THIS DATE AND THE CITY OF MARCO TO DEAL WITH THE ISSUE ON DECEMBER 7, 1998 AND THEN TO BE DISCUSSED FURTHER AT THE BCC MEETING OF DECEMBER 8, 1998 CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Moving on to item ll(A) (1) . The sheriff must be here, we must be gonna talk about the sheriff today. COMMISSIONER CARTER: I see his smiling face. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Funding law enforcement services to Marco Island. SHERIFF HUNTER: My favorite topic. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Ours, too. We love talking about this. Not. SHERIFF HUNTER: Good morning. Don Hunter, Sheriff, Collier County. Thank you for permitting us to get this item on the agenda. We thought we would bring this before the board for further discussion this matter. The clock remains ticking, and we are, as you know, attempting to receive full funding for the -- for this fiscal year that we're currently in. We are, as we said before, approximately a million dollars shy of being able to fund the full budget, and though it is a disputed matter, we have consistently reminded the board that the million dollars is for essentially new positions, because as we said, the legal position of the agency, the constitutional position of the agency, is that we do provide service to Marco Island, as we do to all areas of the county. And we do that under a bylaw in that I cannot remove services from Marco. So I'm asking the board to reconsider their position, in light of your recent discussions with City Council and the discussions that you've been conducting over time pertaining to matters that the board have with City Council. And here I am. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Constantine? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Sheriff, my recollection is that during the budget process, we did go ahead and approve those 17 new positions. And we expressed concern during that process with Marco Island and the fact they weren't planning on paying their fair share. And we've all had dozens of discussions on that since. Recently, the Board of Commissioners sent some correspondence to you in response to your request for a state statute for what we intended that funding to be for. And the letter, signed by Commissioner Berry and approved by the whole board, was very clear that we intended it to be for those 17 new positions county-wide, and that if there has to be a cut, we need to limit that on Marco Island, since they've chosen not to pay their fair share. You have, and your agency has, excellent response time everywhere. And I know you strive to maintain and improve that. That excellent response time zsn't required per state statute. You are far above what the state requires. You guys do a great job. But the point is, you could backtrack somewhat on the level of service that's provided on Marco Island and still be within your state requirements. And so I think I'm a little confused as to what it is you're asking for today, when I think the letter was, just two weeks ago, three weeks ago, was pretty clear that the funding decision we were recommending was get those 17 new guys and gals and get them on the streets and do what we need to do with them to make sure the community's safe. And if there is someplace that needs to be limited, please, stay within your state requirement, don't do that, but surely you can trim some things on Marco and still maintain that requirement. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Madam Chair? Just to follow up on that, Sheriff. I probably wouldn't be talking about response times and calls for service, but I wonder if some of the niceties that are provided couldn't be reduced, and the community policing and some of the things that are greater than the constitutional standard. That's -- I wonder if you've explored that at all. SHERIFF HUNTER: Yes. Well, let me make a general comment, because I believe I owe something to Commissioner Constantine. And let me talk about the so-called -- the niceties, as you phrased them. First of all, I would like to say that the board has been patient, and I appreciate you giving me the opportunity to bring it back before you again. And it is something that you have tirelessly reviewed with me. And unhappily, I haven't been able to persuade you that the 17 positions -- which I concur, you did make statements during the public hearings that you agree with the positions, you approve the positions, and as far as you're concerned, the million dollars goes for funding those positions, and I appreciate that. And I'd like for that to be a part of the record, that I recognize that that's your intention. But as we said before, unhappily the situation with the constitution and the state law, my interpretation, and as well as my legal counsel's interpretation, and I believe the Attorney General's interpretation will also support this, is that the Sheriff's Office will continue to be required to provide service to all of the entities and all of the people and all of the visitors within Collier County until something changes, until the law changes or until the constitution is revised further to suggest otherwise. So knowing that and knowing that you have not funded by your -- it was your determination that a million dollars would be taken from the Sheriff's Office to represent services on Marco Island, I understand your intent, but the million dollars that is supposed to be withdrawn from Marco Island cannot be legally withdrawn from Marco Island in terms of services by the Sheriff's Office, by the constitution and by statute. I can't withdraw those services, so I'm caught in a dilemma. I know your intent is to fund the 17 positions, but we do not have the funding to fund those positions, knowing that we must provide service to Marco. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Sheriff, is there some percentage, though? Is there some portion of that million dollars that -- on the niceties question? SHERIFF HUNTER: Now, having addressed that issue -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And that's where I guess both of us are kind of asking the same thing. Is there a level -- surely there is a level you're required. I don't think anybody is disputing that, you're required by state statute and the constitution to do that. But is there a lower level at which you can do that and still meet your legal obligations? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Because it's now -- well, just because the next step and what I hope to ask this board -- I'm just going to go ahead and say at the beginning -- is that we propose something to the legislative delegation to require an incorporated city to provide some level of law enforcement or contract. You know, as we looked at the statute and thought we could sue them to force them to, and apparently it's vague, that that may be something that -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Well, I think it speaks to in the statute, but their charter doesn't speak to it. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, but -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Which is a problem. As I recall when we had this discussion earlier, their disc -- their charter is silent and the statute assumes that when you have a municipality, you're going to have a law enforcement service. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And so my hope is that the county attorney can give us some recommendation of a request to make of our legislative delegation to fill that loophole. But that's -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Doesn't do us any good for this budget. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But as we're here today -- SHERIFF HUNTER: A point -- pointed issue. Let me clear up one thing. As far as my interpretation of the law pertaining to the municipality of Marco, they are authorized but not required -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Right. SHERIFF HUNTER: -- to have a law enforcement force within their city. And, of course, as you say, the ordinance tracks that. They do know that the sheriff is required to be there, regardless. And that is a part of this dilemma. Do we have to provide the same level of service to Marco next year as we provided last year? This year as we provided last year? Is that level of service subject to adjustment and different deployment strategies? The answer, of course, is yes. Deployment strategies depend on where you find the crime. What I've tried to convey to Chairman Berry and to Mr. Fernandez in separate meetings, as well as from time to time individually with you as well, is that I have one successful area, one successful substation that we service in Collier County at this moment for a number of different reasons. It has a lot to do with the nuances of the area. Marco Island is an upscale area, it is a tourist destination, gets a lot of visitor traffic, but it is a relatively safe area when compared with other areas of the nation, the state and even within this county. It is the successful area. As a law enforcement professional, I believe that I am charged to keep this place safe. If I'm going to be a responsible law enforcement professional, I try to move all substations up to the level that I see at Marco, which is a successful area in terms of crime rate. I don't withdraw services from Marco and cause the crime rate to creep up or to dramatically increase if I'm doing my duties. So it's not an issue of whether I am permitted by law to redeploy assets. It is a matter of in good conscience and as a professional, do I remove services and cause that to happen as it's happening elsewhere in the county. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And I guess that -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Can I interrupt just for a second? There's an unattended big case sitting out there in the aisle. I'd like to see if we can get that removed. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Mr. Bailiff? And I guess the crime prevention issues are what I'm calling the niceties. I mean, is that why you're -- are there community policing functions that you could quantify -- I'm looking for a dollar amount. I'm looking for a way to say okay, Marco, I would -- I'll blink, you know, because I'm not into that, but I will certainly blink if that's what it takes to provide a level of service that you are constitutionally entitled to, even though I think you're unfair and wrong to do it the way you're doing it. But not that they get everything they've always gotten. I don't see why they should get everything they've always gotten. There's got to be some minimal level of service. There's got to be something. If it's cops on bicycles riding around the neighborhood or whatever it is, there's got to be something that can come out of that. SHERIFF HUNTER: May I remind the board to address this point, withdraw some of the services, perhaps, or make adjustments to the community oriented policing concept, remove crime prevention officers or techniques from a particular area, again, I'm going to be falling back on this point that Marco represents the substation of significance mn terms of success for law enforcement, for crime prevention, for public safety, and I'd like to move all substations up to that same mark, that same -- it's not a standard, but I'd like to get to that point. The -- you'll recall that the $1,053,100 was derived by determining how many calls for service Marco Island represents. Each call for service -- and we've refined this over a number of years. Each call for service requires a deputy sheriff to respond to. Sometimes we do that over the telephone, sometimes we ask a person -- the complainant to come in and report it so that we don't have to send a marked unit to that location. But the calls for service that we counted, and what that $1,053,100 represents, is those types of calls that actually requires a deputy sheriff to respond to in a marked patrol unit. So when you asked me to consider reducing some service, I can consider reducing services, but in this particular matter, in this particular issue that we're discussing, you can't withdraw it because it actually represents the actual services required for response. This isn't the proactive side of the agency. We're not talking about crime prevention techniques or crime prevention services that are issued out of the headquarters. We're talking about actual marked units responding to calls for Marco as counted in that calendar year, which would have been last calendar year. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So we were just way too fair to Marco from the beginning. The lesson I've learned here is we shouldn't have put the revenues in the budget in the first place, and we were as generous as we could possibly be in this transition year. The real number for cost of Marco law enforcement is much more than a $1,053,000 is what you're telling me. SHERIFF HUNTER: Right. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And so we already have -- the million dollar cut is already close to the bone, is what you're saying. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: See, I'm making the mistake of trying to do this logically, and -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No, that is a mistake. This is government. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- and I think of those communities who choose to pay extra, like Pelican Bay COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Right. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- they expect to receive an elevated level of service, and they do. Those communities who chose to pay nothing at all might expect to receive less in service. And I realize you are walking that fine line of trying to balance that budget and provide the service that you're required to provide. But again, are there any community -- I don't know if we heard specific. Are there community policing deputies located on Marco Island? SHERIFF HUNTER: Yes, there would be. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Because it seems like those are the things that if Marco chose to fund, then we could go back and do again. But perhaps for the time being we could have some of those services that -- I understand in what you're trying to put together, you're putting together the whole puzzle, and they are part of that puzzle. But I think perhaps there are certain pieces of that, if they're choosing not to pay -- SHERIFF HUNTER: May I -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- that maybe are better assigned. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What you have -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Hold on just a minute. Let him finish. Mr. Fernandez is next. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- told us in the past and what we have agreed as a minimum requirement elsewhere in the county, is the 17 new deputies, and so I think those areas that are paying their fair share need to get that minimal service. And what appears to be higher than minimal service needs to be withdrawn for the time being. Frankly, I think if that is done, that will assist Marco Island in making their decision that yeah, we need to contribute something. But right now there is no incentive for them to do that. As long as they're going to get the same level of service, even if the rest of the county suffers, who cares? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Mr. Fernandez, you've been wanting to say -- MR. FERNANDEZ: Madam Chairman, I think it's appropriate to repeat the position that we've had on this at this juncture of the conversation, because it's really relevant here, and that is the service level that the Sheriff has described, that he has been able to build on Marco Island, has been built by the contributions made by the residents of Marco Island through the participation in the MSTU. That's the funding mechanism that was allowed to -- that generated the funding to provide that service level that he's described. As we've said before, that mechanism went away when the Island incorporated and became a city. They no longer have that mechanism to supply that payment to the county in addition to their general fund millage. And that's essentially what we've asked for. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, and the thing is, you mentioned Pelican Bay, who pays not only to the general fund, the MSTU, but in addition, an additional amount for their enhanced law enforcement. And you compare that to someone -- to some hypothetical community who doesn't pay anything and should not expect services. But all we're saying here is that Marco Island should step forward and pay what they've always paid. Not more, not less, the same. That's all we're saying. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: If they fail to do that, there should probably be a consequence. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Right. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And even if constitutionally and because of what I would call a glitch in the statute that, you know, we can't force them to do the right thing this year, there's still -- and I feel -- and you talk about logically, I feel like, you know, the mother of a 14-year-old, there do have to be consequences of your decisions in order to effect your decisions in the future. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Very good quote. COMMISSIONER CARTER: As the newest commissioner to this discussion, this is my problem with the whole issue is what is Marco City doing. I mean, I live in a community where we accept a quality of level of service from the Sheriff's Department, which we like. And as you pointed out, Commissioner Norris, that community decided they wanted additional and they paid for it. We also sit on the edge of a mangrove forest in which we don't own, but we paid for it. Now, I'm having a lot of trouble with Marco City not stepping up to the plate and saying -- what are they going to do? I have not heard what they're willing to do in this process. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It's a big goose egg, that's why. Nothing. COMMISSIONER CARTER: And where are they? I mean, you've had discussions, Chairman Berry, you've had discussions with them. What is their logic that they don't have to pay and still asking this sheriff for a level of service that they've always enjoyed? I don't understand that. SHERIFF HUNTER: Madam Chairman, may I clarify four points that have been made by Commissioner Constantine? And I don't believe -- clearly, I hope, that logic does in fact prevail, that we can come to a meeting of the minds. Once more, let me say that Marco is not enjoying a level of service with this $1,053,100 that is some extraordinary service in the sense that the $1,053,100 is the amount of money necessary to respond to the calls for service that are coming off of Marco in the city proper. So if you're going to have an ability to send a marked patrol unit to those calls for service, you must fund that patrol unit and the people who sit in that patrol unit and take the reports and deal with the criminal element when they respond to the call for service. The million dollars represents that capability of being able to send a marked patrol unit. Just as it does in Golden Gate, just as it would in North Naples, just as it would in Immokalee and Everglades City. Ail of them require a certain amount of money just to respond to the calls for service. That's not the extraordinary part. Pelican Bay is paying an extraordinary amount to get patrols, actual patrols for crime prevention, just to prevent things from happening. They already received the base level that is what we're talking about now, enough capability to respond to the calls for service on Marco. Pelican Bay also enjoys that. They have a base service to respond to calls for service. They have paid for an additional five patrol deputies to have crime prevention patrols. Marco Island -- and I'm not going to speak for Marco Island, per se, but I remind the board that Marco Island does pay taxes, they are paying a share of the taxes, and they are supporting the Sheriff's Office in every other regard: Corrections, bailiff services, warrant services -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Just like the City of Naples. SHERIFF HUNTER: -- investigative services -- COMMISSIONER CARTER: And like Pelican Bay. SHERIFF HUNTER: -- everything -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So give them what the City of Naples does. SHERIFF HIYNTER: They are paying -- everything they've been charged for today that also goes to help pay for the Sheriff's Office. What they have not been charged for, what they have not been billed for this year, was the $1,053,100 for patrol services by policy of the board. The community oriented policing deputies who service Marco Island are paid for by grant, not by general operating accounts; therefore, they are not really an issue in my mind at the mom -- if I withdraw them, it has no impact on -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: On your budget. SHERIFF HUNTER: -- patrol services on Marco, except that I now have another couple of patrol officers who are no longer assigned to Marco Island. I'm also going backwards and I'm bucking the whole system of law enforcement if I remove crime prevention activities from an area. And that's what community oriented policing deputies do, they're crime prevention officers. I really don't want to move in that direction. I'd like to see this county continue to move in a responsible position towards crime prevention, not merely responding to calls when they come in. Not trying to chase the criminal around, rather, I'd like to be out in front of them. And I will again say for the record that I'd like to see the board move in the direction of funding other areas of the county, other substations of the county, in the same way they funded over the many years to get us where we are today with Marco. You funded Marco in a certain way, I'd like to see us fund the whole county that way and get us to that point. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Sheriff, I guess my point is just that what you consider to be a base level of service I think is far superior to most communities in the State of Florida, maybe all communities in the State of Florida. I think the service you provide is excellent and far exceeds what is probably required and quite possibly expected in the constitution or via state statute. And I think you can still meet those legal obligations, even if you were to provide a lower level of service. I know that isn't your goal. You want to provide the best level of service you possibly can. We're facing what is the best level of service you possibly can do in an area that appears to have a fiscal conflict. If they can't afford that level of service, then there's a real problem. SHERIFF HUNTER: May I respond to that -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Please. SHERIFF HUNTER: -- Commissioner? Commissioner, Chairman Berry, I know, because I've sat in the meeting with her, and she, as well as Mr. Fernandez, have both heard that the Sheriff's Office levels of service in this county do not compare favorably to other comparative areas selected by the board. Twenty other agencies were looked at by your impact fee consultant of law enforcement, and what that study demonstrates is that the Sheriff's Office in Collier County will be, by next year, 124 Sheriff's Office certified sworn members short of having an average level of service compared to these 20 comparative agencies. Chairman Berry heard that, I know for a fact, because I sat in the meeting with her. Your consultant paid by you says that the Sheriff's Office in Collier County is not comparing favorably with other areas of the country when your consultants studied it. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What is the comparison statistic there? Is it road miles, is it response time -- SHERIFF HUNTER: It's all different. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- per capita? SHERIFF HUNTER: For patrol offices -- I'm sorry, I didn't mean to cut you off. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No, I was just rambling on. Go ahead. SHERIFF HUNTER: For patrol officers, it would be calls for service, typically. The number of calls for service handled by a patrol officer. For investigators, it would be the number of cases that they are currently working, compared to the number of investigators available. So it's ratios, basically. And there are -- I should add that there are no standards. All that was looked at is that the Sheriff's Office in Collier is far below -- in some regards, far below other comparative agencies. In all regards, we're below the comparative agencies. Sometimes dramatically, sometimes less dramatically. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: It's got a tremendous fiscal impact. Because even though you get the impact fees down the road, you can't use it for catchup. In other words, you have to -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Right. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- start at the -- if they say they're 120 short, you start at that point and you have -- the impact fees go from -- after you get up to the 120, then the impact fees kick in. So if you want to start talking about some dollars and serious money, that's what you've got to think about. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And just in response to your response, I guess what I base that on is your response times are excellent. And I can't compare them to all 67 counties, but from those I have looked at, they are equivalent or better than many. And I think the perception of your department is excellent. And I also think -- we've gotten some reports from you just on crime, statistics over the last two or three years have been dropping in some of the -- not in car theft, but in some of the other areas have been dropping significantly, and even though we've had some high profile crimes, statistically you've shown, or your department has shown me where overall the numbers are improving year by year. So while we do have those deficiencies, statistically it appears we're doing better, anyway, than we have been over the past five years. SHERIFF HUNTER: I appreciate those observations. I'll remind you in two years when I'm running for office that you said that. I'll also be looking for an endorsement. The real issue, when we're talking about the number of people available, is not the response times. I do agree and concur that we have excellent response times, that we try very hard to keep a crime rate stable or diminish it, if possible. And we have had good success in the last two years in terms of decreasing crime rates. What the 124 would represent is the ability to do more than just respond to the calls for service. It would represent the ability to literally track the criminal, follow criminals, stay in front of criminals, remain proactive, be in the right place at the right time in the industrial parks and around residences that are targets for burglary. That's the capability we're trying to get to. We can't now do that uniformly, because we don't have -- we don't have that kind of staffing. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: By the way, does the 124 include the 17 that Marco is prohibiting the rest of the county from enjoying? Or is that exclusive of that 177 SHERIFF HUNTER: Sounds like a trap question to me. That's a compound question. The 17 is included -- would be included in the 124. And I can't address the issue that that's precluding what. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, you know, the other part of this discussion is that the City of Marco has appropriated the money for public safety. Why they choose not to fund the Sheriff's Office with it is what we're dealing with here. A few weeks ago -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: No, that's fine. MR. FERNANDEZ: Madam Chair, that was discussed last time we met with the chairman of the City Council, and also our chairman. And the representatives from Marco Island left the room with the hope that they would be able to discuss the possibility of utilizing that money that's budgeted to make the transition to an in-house service to potentially fund a portion of a year or some kind of transitional funding. I just whispered to Mr. Moss a question of whether there has been any progress in that area at all. And it might be appropriate at this time to give Mr. Moss an opportunity to speak to that question. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay, Mr. Moss? Either one. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: We have two cameras, so we can get you on either one. MR. MOSS: Chairman Berry, commissioners, Mr. Fernandez. I'm sorry, I did not hear about this meeting until Thursday and made -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Your name, please. MR. MOSS: I'm sorry, my name is Bill Moss, I'm the city manager of Marco Island. As I say, I was not able to discuss this issue with City Council, because I was not aware that this was coming before you until Thursday and made the decision yesterday to attend this meeting with the hopes that there may be an opportunity to try to at least resolve or partially resolve some of the outstanding issues. Let me first say that in all honesty, I think some of the characterizations I've heard toward Marco Island this morning is maybe unfair. But I accept that, and I accept, you know, your position and your attitude regarding this issue. I would like to remind the commission that the City of Marco Island does intend to move into its own law enforcement program. The difficulty for us is to fund both the Sheriff's Office and fund our own department. We have hired a director of public safety. We have been charged with the responsibility of preparing an implementation plan for our own public safety concept whereby we'll be cross-training police officers and firefighters. We fully intend to get into the uniform patrol business. So the issues about annual funding of the Sheriff's Office may be a point of discussion that really has no long-term implications. Perhaps what we are discussing then is how do we work through this transitional year. The last time that we approached the board to try to resolve some of the many transitional issues, I thought that we were at last making progress toward forging a partnership that will build a good foundation for the future and build a good working relationship between the county and the city. And I very, very much would like to be a part of that, and I am certain that our City Council would also like to be a part of that. You conveyed to me that your approval of -- and agreement to several of those outstanding transitional issues, you would hope that Marco Island City Council would then address the issue of the sheriff's funding. I conveyed that to our City Council, and I feel that they are more than willing to continue to discuss those issues, providing that we are able to tie the knots off some -- several of these outstanding issues that we talked about, but at least to this date we haven't quite resolved, okay, so that is the sole reason that we have not met to discuss some of these issues. Now, recognizing that the Sheriff is attempting to get funding for the officers, that the Board of County Commissioners wants the officers funded, Marco Island is moving into its own law enforcement program. It has budgeted funds for law enforcement, but it hasn't budgeted enough to pay both the sheriff and the city's own department. How do we move into that? If there's ways that I can ask our council to make at least some partial commitment, I would like to try to do that. One of the issues, of course, that we've not been able to resolve is as to what is a fair and reasonable funding issue. Is it the 1,053,100, or is it some other number that more reflects the added services we get, rather than basic services? And there may be a big range in those numbers. If we can agree that Marco Island should pay for those additional services beyond what a sheriff would generally provide, and if this meeting we can attach a number to that, I'll be more than happy to get back and ask our council to consider that funding. From the Sheriff's point of view, I think he'd like to leave the meeting knowing he's going to have a budget for this year and he's going to be able to hire the officers. You know, frankly, I don't think we're in a position where we can commit to you that we're going to pay a million and 53, because I just don't know how we can do both; that is, pay that and fund our own department. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: You know, one of the things I think that concerns me is this isn't a new item. You know? I mean, a year ago we started talking, and I got hammered pretty good because I made a statement, my famous cut the umbilical cord statement, and I've heard about it ever since. And these are the kinds of things we're talking about, that you have to get ready to do that. Now, this didn't happen in June, this didn't happen in April, this was a budget philosophy that started back I believe -- when, Mr. Fernandez, last February when the board -- MR. FERNANDEZ: When we first discussed it and we adopted the policy in March that formalized -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I mean, I just -- and I understand, Mr. Moss, you weren't here, you weren't in Marco. When did you come -- MR. MOSS: March. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- finally? In March. And I don't understand why all of a sudden everybody is in a dither here. And you made the statement, you know, how can we fund both? My point is, your predecessor knew that there was going to have to be some kind of funding done. And that word certainly should have been conveyed to you. And, you know, sitting around -- it's -- we're dancing around this issue. You know, it's how much are we going to pay, are we going to pay a part of it, are we going to pay all of it. It's coming to the end of the song, and we're going to need to make a decision here one way or the other on what's going to happen. I understand the Sheriff's position, and at the same time, you know, constitutionally -- and I understand what his situation is, and nobody's denying that. The 1,053,000, was arrived at actual calls. I don't think apparently that that's an unfair number. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It's a low number. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay? From what we're hearing this morning, it is a low number. That's a -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: If it's unfair to anyone, it's unfair COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It's unfair. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- to the county. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: That's right. And so it's not a frill -- it's not a frill number here. This does not -- this 1,053,000 does not include the frills. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But now they're at the point where they've adopted their millage, they've got a limited pot of money from which to draw for this year. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: But they did budget this. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm sorry? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: But they did budget this. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But they budgeted a million dollars, of which you're spending I don't know how much on this individual who's going to begin to develop your program. But certainly -- I mean, if it's a million dollars, I'd like to apply for the job. But certainly you're not going to spend a million dollars with that employee or on the development of that program. Maybe you could tell us what money is available in Marco's budget, in the public safety budget. MR. MOSS: Sure. We set in reserve 1.2 million dollars for our public safety program. Okay, that number was derived by my calculations as to what it would cost to hire and equip sufficient patrol on Marco Island to provide to us what we would typically expect to find in a municipality. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But you don't expect to have all of those officers hired and equipped in the next fiscal year. You expect to be planning for them in the next fiscal year. MR. MOSS: No, ma'am, I expect that those officers will be on patrol before this fiscal year is up. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So do you expect -- do you have an ETA? I mean, do you have a time when you expect to have your own police force? Because maybe then we could be funding some portion of -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Right, but what's the timetable? MR. MOSS: To be perfectly honest, I don't have that today. One of the charges that's been given to me, as well as our new director, is to develop that implementation plan and the time table, so -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But in order to get to a budget of a million, two, you had to have some sort of phasing in. You had -- give us whatever infor -- I mean, you didn't pull the number out of the air, respectfully. MR. MOSS: No, ma'am, I calculated that we would hire the officers beginning in January of this year. That's how -- COMMISSIONER CARTER: It would seem to me, as you hire officers you need less services from the Sheriff's Department. And if we're working a transitional line, I think what we're looking for is up front, if we're covering all of this, and we got -- and the Sheriff's providing that service, then you pay us. And as your officers come on board and his time is -- decreases his time, maybe then there's a line to decrease the dollars that are being sent back to Collier County. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: If I could just -- COMMISSIONER CARTER: I'm not hearing a time table. I'm not hearing a line of monies and when -- the flow of dollars here. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, and the piece of the puzzle here that I'm getting that I haven't gotten before, Sheriff, maybe that it comes back to you, Crystal and Don, because if what he's telling you is that he's going to have his own police department by March, then I wish he -- I mean, and he's saying he expects to have some cops on the ground in January. If he's telling you that, then surely you do expect to be able to scale back the -- your constitutional duty then will be satisfied by them just as it is in the City of Naples Police Department. SHERIFF HUNTER: Well constitutional duties may not be satisfied by a non-constitutional, but -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But look -- SHERIFF HUNTER: -- I understand what you're saying. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- you're doing it in the City of Naples. I mean, the way this has gone all along has been I have to give them more because they don't have their own police department. Mr. Moss has just said that he expects to have cops in cars in January. MR. MOSS: Not quite, ma'am. You asked me how I derived at numbers, and so that's what I explained. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But see, he has a budget. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: May I make a suggestion? MR. MOSS: But that time frame has been extended. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Constantine? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The very encouraging thing I heard was Mr. Moss say we'd like to explore some partial payment. We intend to ~hase in something this year, we'd like to -- what I took that to mean ms your fair share. You can't do both, and at some point as you do your own, you can't be paying for the Sheriff, too. What would probably be helpful is -- you don't have that information now, but if you could address that with your council in the coming weeks, and if we set a date of -- December 15th's our final meeting. Maybe December 15th we could have some sort of report here, okay, you expect to phase in your officers by March 15th, or whatever that date is. And over the holiday vacation, our respective staffs can do the math on that and figure out okay, to provide the service in whole from October 1 through March 15th equates to whatever it equates to, and then we phase that out. And perhaps in early January we have a short workshop between the two and we make sure we agree on those numbers and we finalize it. But I think if you have a specific plan in mind that we're not aware of or your council is honing that plan, that gives adequate time to put that in place and put some real live numbers to that and then have the two bodies sit down. Commissioner Berry had an agreement tentatively at one point that then went away again at a council meeting. And so maybe it's time. I know Mr. Fernandez has worked on it a long time with you. Maybe it's time that we have the staffs come up with that specific information, then all of us sit down at the same time with that information in front of us and come to some sort of agreement in January. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: There's progress. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Is there -- I saw you shake your head at one point. Is there a reason why any of that wouldn't work? MR. MOSS: Well, realistically I don't think I could give you a good time frame and good numbers by December. I think it's going to take us a little bit longer than that to develop -- COMMISSIONER CARTER: When? MR. MOSS: -- what I believe is a realistic time frame. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: When? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: When? COMMISSIONER CARTER: When, sir, could you give us a number? MR. MOSS: Well, let me ask you this: Is that really relevant at this point? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Absolutely. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Yes, it is. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It's the only hope I've seen. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And let me tell you why it's relevant, is because what you just told us is Marco has a plan to phase in its force. If you came up with 1.2 million dollars, that had to be based on something. And if that something was January, and you're not even going to have the information in December, clearly you're not going to meet the January deadline. MR. MOSS: Well, we agree with that -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I would question if you're going to meet a March deadline if you don't even have the information -- MR. MOSS: Yes. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- in December. So we need to know when is it that you're going to phase in. And obviously it be later in the year. Then the more that -- more -- the higher percentage of that million dollars -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: That needs to -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- that Marco really should share. We will continue to provide that service, as long as we know when that transition is and know that Marco is willing to pay its fair share. If you determine June -- whatever the date happens to be -- June we're gomng to phase it in, and so we think it should only be 750,000 instead of a million, I don't think the county would balk at that if there was some logic and the numbers worked there. But we have to have something. And I think it would give us a great deal of comfort if Marco formally recognized there is some responsibility in the meantime, until that's up and running, and that they were willing to pay their fair share. I think we recognize, and I think all five commissioners have nodded, that we recognize you can't do both. But right now you're not doing both. And until we have a plan for when that both is, we need to have some assistance paying for your sheriff's service. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Norris? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: And let me make one other point that might require some action on our part. If I understood Mr. Moss correctly, if you'll recall, board members, a couple of weeks back we authorized a list of the final outstanding issues with Marco Island; the county impact fees and the road right-of-way discussion and all those little discussions. If I understood Mr. Moss correctly -- and please let me know if I did -- if we had all of those finalized, that the City Council would be prepared to re-discuss the Sheriff's Department funding issues; is that correct, Mr. Moss? MR. MOSS: Yes. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, we -- the board has authorized those to go forward. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We're ready. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I'd like to see if we can maybe let staff know that we would like for those to go forward -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Absolutely. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Well, I thought we did, and I thought that was taken care of. But Mr. Moss indicated this morning that there were still some outstanding items. Now, Mr. Fernandez, have you received any correspondence from Marco that there were outstanding items? MR. FERNANDEZ: Madam Chairman, I am aware that the contract for Goodland Fire was revised after the board took action to put in appropriate legal terminology and so forth. I wasn't aware at the time that it was done that a change was made. And evidently some of those changes were not acceptable to Marco Island. So we're in the process of trying to clear that up. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Is there -- are there any other items? MR. FERNANDEZ: I'm not aware that there's another issue out. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Are there any other items? MR. MOSS: We raised the -- again, the issue on the cable television, the contractor licensing, the transition of roads from the county to the city. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We did those. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We did that, Mr. Moss. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We took care of those items, Mr. Moss. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: But Mr. Moss is saying it's not done yet. MR. MOSS: And that's the last we~ve heard of it is when I left that meeting. And I'm sure they're being done, but to this point I've taken nothing back to our City Council, because I have nothing to take to them other than the actions that you took at your meeting, and a copy of your minutes. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So what's necessary to get that in front of them, Mr. Fernandez? MR. FERNANDEZ: So Mr. Moss, are you saying the actual execution of documents hasn't taken place? MR. MOSS: Execution of documents -- execution of the agreement on the road transfer contractor licensing I think was one, how to effect the entire television issue, those things haven't been -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: The cable TV is outstanding. MR. MOSS: And the road impact fees. So those things -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Those were taken care of. MR. MOSS: I think there's general agreement that we've agreed, but I'm not aware of anything that's occurred since that meeting. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thank you -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, let me just -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- for bringing that up. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- ask, and this may be not what you intended. I just want to be clear. Is the Sheriff's item being held hostage to those? MR. MOSS: Our City Council doesn't intend to discuss funding the Sheriff's Office until they feel satisfied that we've resolved these other outstanding issues. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So the answer is yes. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Yes. MR. MOSS: Yes, that's where there's -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: That's right. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Oh. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let me ask -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- this question. You've said you can't have the information by December. You never did say when you could have the information for when you'd be phasing in your police department. I hope you can answer that before you go. But you also acknowledged you will not -- you will definitely not have your police force in place by March, which is the end of the first quarter -- or I'm sorry, the end of the second quarter of the fiscal year. So what seems like if -- if Marco is genuine about willing to try to do both and pay their fair share, recognizing if they phase it in, their fair share may be less than a million, perhaps we could ask you to take back to your council that they recognize and fund the first six months, as you've told us for sure that you will not have a police force in place for the first six months. So that go ahead and pay the half million, 525, or whatever it is, and that gives us until March to try to settle the issue of okay, when will you be phasing yours in. And if then there's a difference of 200,000, or whatever the difference ends up being, we can deal with that in the summer months. But that also lets the Sheriff go ahead and at least get a start on phasing his other people in, and the whole county isn't suffering as a result of some fiscal disagreement. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Well, I look at this -- when you're talking about the dollar amount, you're looking at every quarter. If you take the million 53, you're looking at every quarter at roughly $263,000 with change. But that's what you're looking at. So every quarter -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That they don't have their -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- that they don't have it is around 263,000, SO MR. FERNANDEZ: About 88,000 a month. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: How much? MR. FERNANDEZ: About 88,000 a month. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Is the board in agreement to ask Mr. Moss to go to his council COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yes. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- and ask for them to fund -- because he has acknowledged that they will not have any police force in place before the end of March -- that they at least at this point fund the 526,0007 I don't know the math, but the half of one year -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Half of one year. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- and that will at least give us the time to then deal with it. Lets the public get their protection on Marco without worry, lets the remainder of the public at least start to get their funding for the additional positions, and gives us some time to continue to work with you so you can phase it in in whatever time frame works for you. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And at the same time that we would -- if they would agree to that, since we're clear now on what the parameters are, if they can agree to that half year funding, I can support closing the door on the balance of the issues. And I imagmne that you'll get that consensus from the rest of the board, too. If they could agree to funding half the year, then we can resolve COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And to continuing the discussion on the remainder of the year to fit whatever is fair when you phase yours in. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Yeah, to close the other issues, it seems like they've been agreed to. It's a matter of executing the documents; is that what I -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, I think the cable fees are still -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: That's still -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- out there. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- hanging out there, I think. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Okay. Well, but that -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: But that's the only big item. COMMISSIONER CARTER: -- would give us enough time to work through that. So that that removes those barriers in your process, Mr. Moss? MR. MOSS: Perhaps maybe you would consider a modification, because I anticipate we will be having expenditures during the upcoming quarter, not only for the director but also if we hire additional -- start hiring and training the police officers, we could very well have expenditures, although we may not have patrol. So would you consider somewhat of a modification from your proposal to allow that sixth month be reduced by any expenditures that the city does engage in providing the public safety -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Uh-uh. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That just -- I see where you're going, and I acknowledge that you do have this limited pot of money now with the set millage. But -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: This money is set aside specifically for patrol. And as soon as you start the patrol, I don't have any problem with that. But if you're paying a guy to sit at a desk and plan what might be patrolled next July, I'm not comfortable saying okay, we're going to offset that. But if it comes down to a difference of -- I mean, go have your discussion with the city -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Please. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- and if we're saying 526 and they say -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: 500. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- 501, then -- COMMISSIONER CARTER: I don't have a problem with that. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- we'll certainly discuss that. COMMISSIONER CARTER: You've budgeted a million, two and we only wanted 1,053,000. You've got $147,000 there to play with. I think that would probably cover your administrator and start-up. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Agreed. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: And we're only asking at this point for 500 and something of it. We're actually saying for the two quarters, give us 500 and some, $506,000. I think that's a great compromise. I really do, you know, over -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We're just asking you to pay for the road patrol that's being provided -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: That's right. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- to your area. MR. MOSS: And if you understand that if we in February hire 15 police officers, to send them to the training academy, we may not have patrol, and here's -- we're back to the dilemma, we have the expenditure, but we don't have the patrol. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And acknowledged. But if you have -- I'm betting that your million, two budget that was developed in anticipation of having this force in place next year, acknowledging now that you've got at least a half a year, I mean, there's room in that budget for both of these two things. There just has to be. And if you could give us the numbers -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, and the other key component is you pay for the half, it allows us to negotiate for the second half. Because you don't know that you will or won't hire anyone to go training in February, you can't tell us that now. And so that's why I've left the second half open, is if you have a fair concern for how to fund that second half and what you're doing on your own, then that gives us the opportunity through the end of March to go ahead and have those discussions, because hopefully by the turn of the year, you know that yourself. But I don't think you can ask us to change that number because of what hypothetically might happen. I don't think we can fairly ask you to do something for all 12 months when we don't know what will happen. I think the six months we know you won't have anyone on the road, we know the sheriff needs to provide that service, go ahead and pay that and let's negotiate out. Let's agree to negotiate out that second half of the year. MR. MOSS: It's going to be somewhat uphill for me to ask council to agree to all those terms in a sense that there's not agreement that the million and 53 is the correct number. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: It is the correct number. They've agreed on that number. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We certainly thought that they had agreed. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We thought they had agreed on that number. MR. MOSS: No, ma'am. This -- as I understand, this number came at the request of one of our advisory committees who was assigned responsibility of seeking information from the Sheriff as to what the costs were. So that cost then came from I think the Sheriff to the county, although I'm not sure. But the Marco Island City Council has never bought into that number. To this day they don't accept that as being a logical way to determine appropriate levels of service on Marco Island. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Are you willing to go back to your council and ask them to identify a number that they think is the cost of service for a half a year? MR. MOSS: Yes, ma'am. And I'm willing to do anything to help bring -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I believe that. MR. MOSS: -- this to a resolution. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yes, sir. MR. MOSS: If the Sheriff can walk away today feeling like he's comfortable in his funding, I'll continue discussing this with you for the rest of the day 'til we reach what I think is a tentative agreement. I'd be glad to do that. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: If you're comfortable -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But I think the number is a million, 53 for a year. And I think that was a generous number. But if there is a case to be made for another number, in the interest of discussion, I'm willing to listen to it. MR. MOSS: But what happens is, is we're going on month by month by month, and I think the Sheriff is now to the point -- I'm assuming that's why he's here today, he's now to the point saying, you know, we either have to decide or agree we're not going to decide. So whether or not we can successfully reach an agreement on that number -- you know, I hope we can. How do we leave today knowing that the Sheriff has his assurances of funding, you have our assurances of our willingness to participate in the funding? If we can reach some understanding on how to do that, I'll be more than happy to commit a backseat to the rest of -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I really think the ball is in your court, Mr. Moss. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah, our question is that you take to your council -- I mean, I think that our request is that you take to your council that we're asking that they fund on a quarterly basis, based on the $1,053,000, the Sheriff's road patrol, acknowledging that you aren't going to have patrol on the ground for six months, and that we evaluate that on a monthly or quarterly basis. You know, that's our request. And then if they think the million, 53 number is wrong, maybe they can come back from there. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And that as your plan comes into focus sometime in the third or fourth quarter -- if your plan comes into focus now, for what will happen in the third and/or fourth quarter, we'll be willing to talk about what is a fair way to deal with that. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Because I'm thrilled to hear that you do plan to have a police force next year, this fiscal year. I hadn't heard that before, and I really appreciate your being here to tell us that, because I haven't understood what you were going to spend that million dollars on. But if it is your intention to have your own police on the ground, certainly you can't do both. But help us in the transition. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I think we know where we're going. Why don't we just -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Go there? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: -- wrap it up. Yeah. MR. FERNANDEZ: Madam Chair -- MR. MOSS: Let me -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Mr. Fernandez? MR. FERNANDEZ: Before you wrap it up, if I could correct the comment that I made earlier? I've been advised by my staff that I received early Friday morning -- or Friday morning a fax from the City of Marco -- I was out of town and I wasn't aware of that -- that identifies some issues that they still have. And I wanted to report that more accurately to the board. So I'd like to ask Mike McNees to say a few words about it, please. MR. McNEES: If I could clarify, thank you. Mike McNees, the assistant county administrator. And actually, what I would most like to clarify is that we've characterized again that there are unresolved issues. And that's why I ran up here, because we were -- we did receive a fax on -- I guess it came late Thursday -- identifying the items that you have already approved. And there are two items for which interlocal agreements must still be adopted by the City of Marco. Mr. Moss has informed us if we can have the final documents to him by December 1st, they can adopt those on December 7th. We are certainly working to do that and have every intention of doing that. I don't consider that an unresolved item. In regard to the cable TV franchises, as you understood on the day that you adopted what you did, those agreements have to be renegotiated with the companies, and we have to take that action. And we told you there would be a 30 to 60, perhaps even a 90-day lag before that can happen. On the last item, the negotiation of an appropriate road impact fee distribution, as Mr. Moss is aware, and as he states in his letter to us, his staff and our transportation department are meeting, they are coming to terms and they may have by today. I don't know that. I know they met a couple days ago. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Ed Ilschner's nodding his head, so I assume that there's been an agreement. MR. McNEES: So I would like to clarify, there are not unresolved items, there are the pieces of the puzzle falling together, as we told you they would on the day that you adopted the last agreements that you did. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You know what's very frustrating is to hear Mr. Moss say, particularly now when you've said all those things are in progress, exactly is you've been told, but to hear you say well, council doesn't want to even discuss this until all these things happen. I don't mean this literally, I don't really want to do this, but what we ought to do is take the $400,000 revenue from cable and give it to the Sheriff and wash out at least five of the months. And that's not a good way to do business. But to be told we're not even going to talk to you until -- the county has, in my opinion, and I'm sure you guys view it differently, apparently -- but has been cooperative every step of the way with the parks, with turning over the roads, with doing everything you have asked. And we haven't even been able to get an offer, a suggestion on this issue. And it's been mum. It's been totally quiet from the city. And that's very frustrating from our standpoint. If you disagree on the million, 53, I haven't heard what the number that the council thinks is appropriate. You know, if you are going to have, as Commissioner Mac'Kie said, going to have a police force, this is the first time we've heard that. There has been no communication with this board on what the council does want to do. And -- MR. MOSS: Perhaps -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- that's just irresponsible. MR. MOSS: Perhaps that's why there's some of these misunderstandings. And I'm certainly glad that I appeared before you today -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So am I. MR. MOSS: -- to help clarify what we intend to do. Unfortunately, when we leave the room today I'm going to end up going back to say that really, the positions haven't changed. Your -- you are requesting or requiring the City of Marco Island to pay the million and 53. I'm going to go back to City Council -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No, no, no. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: That's not what we said -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- that's not what we said, sir. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- Mr. Moss. We did not say that. We said we'll pay the first two quarters. And then because you said you were going to be hiring people and trying to get them in line. So don't go back and tell them -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Please. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- that we said a million, 53. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We said half that. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: That's unfair. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We said half that. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let me be very, very clear. I think I've said it three times already, but apparently you didn't understand it. We have recognized as the Sheriff's -- we're using the Sheriff's statistics -- that your city requested $1,053,000 as the amount. You have stated at that podium this morning that under no circumstance will you have a police force patrolling by the end of March of this coming year. At this point you have no idea apparently when that will be at all. You can't give me any date. And so recognizing that that is the first six months or the first half of the fiscal year, we are asking that Marco pay their fair share, pay that half of the number that came directly from the sheriff. And recognizing that there may be -- we don't know and neither do you, apparently -- there may be a phase-in of some city patrol later in the year. And we are saying we will work with you on that. If a million, 53 isn't the number because the last quarter of the year you're going to have your own patrol, that's fine, we don't have any problem with that, and we're willing to work with the council. My first suggestion had been for you to come back with some specific numbers and a specific plan, and our staff to have the numbers, and to have a joint workshop between the two governing bodies. You've told me you don't know when that information will come back. So we have altered what we're asking for, and we have been very clear in what we're asking for, and we've been very clear that we are willing to work with you. And if you can't do both and you need to phase it in, be very clear, we're willing to work with you on that. But you have offered no information of what, when, who, how much, anything of what your police force is going to be. You have offered -- the one single piece of information you've offered is that under no circumstance will you have patrol officers by the end of the second quarter. And so I don't understand how the city can possibly suggest that they don't want to pay for that service for the first two quarters. I completely understand if you're going to have patrol service in place later in the year that you don't want to nor can you pay for both. I don't think anybody here is asking you to pay for both. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Nobody is disagreeing with that. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We're saying in that time frame which you're already said you will not have both, great, pay your fair share. And we're willing to talk to you and work with you on any time frame that you will have your own service. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And I'd like to ask -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: One other option -- one other option which I don't have any objection to, if Mr. Moss wants to go back to his council and say $88,000 a month, which I think was the figure, that's fine. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Absolutely. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: And if they phase it in in January, fine, February, fine, March, April, I don't care. You know, but 88,000 a month is a figure -- that's another option you could present. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The message you need to take back is when you -- whenever you are phasing your folks in, we are more than willing to work with you. MR. MOSS: And what should I say is the exchange for them agreeing to do that? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Exchange? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Exchange? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: They're getting -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: What do you mean exchange? They're getting patrol services. COMMISSIONER CARTER: They're getting what the Sheriff has been speaking to us for months about, to continue a level of service to Marco Island that none of us want to see go away. MR. FERNANDEZ: Quid pro quo. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And in addition to that, to the extent there are -- there's the perception of unresolved issues and interlocal agreements and final documentation of issues that we've discussed, we will certainly move as fast as possible to resolve -- document our position in those regards. I mean, if they consider those to be open issues, whether we do or not, if they feel like they're open, then let's get them on paper and document it so they can have that confidence that you're gozng to get your cable franchise money, for example. You're going to feel better when you have that in a piece of paper. I'm anxious to give a piece of paper that says that, if we're resolving the Sheriff's budget. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Mr. Fernandez? MR. FERNANDEZ: Madam Chairman, I hate to add another factor to this discussion -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No, go ahead. MR. FERNANDEZ: -- but I think I must. We have a timing issue. The date of our letter to the Sheriff, responding to his request for the details of his budget and how we amended his request, was November the 10th. Thirty days from November the 10th is of course December the 10th, and that means that the December 15th meeting would be beyond that 30-day time frame. That's the time frame in the statutes that's -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Time frame that allows us to do what? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: For him to appeal to the Governor. MR. FERNANDEZ: The appeal process. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The -- and, I mean, I'd do it today, if we could. But Mr. Moss is telling us he can't even have that information by December 15th, so -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, can we write a new letter to start another 30 days? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Can we just keep doing that all year? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: No, I don't think the Sheriff wants to do that. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Mr. Moss seems to have a point on the dates. MR. MOSS: Well, I'm trying to find -- I'm just trying to find out how to make this work. Would a commitment from the City of Marco Island for at least the first quarter provide to you sufficient satisfaction to be able to tell the sheriff that he'll receive his funding for the year? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Can I ask why you would say the first quarter instead of the first two quarters, when you've already acknowledged you won't have any patrol deputies available in the first two quarters? MR. MOSS: Well, I'm comfortable that I can go back to City Council and ask them to fund the past quarter. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Would they -- would you -- MR. MOSS: I will convey your question, but I again am trying to help -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I understand. MR. MOSS: -- pull it together to get it around the December date. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Could you ask them to incorporate into that just acknowledgement of the theory under which we're working here? The theory being that there should be some level of funding from Marco out of your -- the million, two. MR. MOSS: Yes. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And that the theory is that as long as you don't have patrol service, we're working to pay the sheriff for patrol service -- MR. MOSS: Yes. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- if they could incorporate that in. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Can I suggest that -- I mean, any one of us could go down, either the Chair, or we could write a letter very COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I think we should. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- specific to what we've done today and have that distributed at the meeting, or have the commissioner from -- I don't care who goes or what format we go, if we write it out what we've said today. But we ought to be able to provide that information to you in writing so that you can provide it to them and at your next meeting review that. I don't -- I think it's fairly clear, but just so that we're not leaving anything up to chance. We can make our request for the six months, explain the rationale and -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Have Mr. Fernandez's office draft that up for the Chairman's signature. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I think it's pretty clear. And I don't think it needs to be lengthy. Keep it very simple. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: And, frankly, board members, I don't think we're getting anywhere anymore. I think Mr. Moss obviously can't make any commitments. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Right. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: He can't do that. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Moss, when do you -- when does the council -- how often does your council meet and for -- MR. MOSS: We're meeting on December 7th. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: December 7th could be a magic day to keep us from appealing on December 10th. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Pearl Harbor Day. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Pearl Harbor Day. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Yeah, could be a real bomb. COMMISSIONER CARTER: May have some significance here. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: December 7th. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We could send a package down to the island on Pearl Harbor Day. SHERIFF HUNTER: Yeah, that's great. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Are you flying the wing position? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Is that -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I would hope -- Sheriff, did you want to say something? SHERIFF HUNTER: I would. May I? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Go ahead. SHERIFF HUNTER: What I would like to say -- first I'd like to think Mr. Fernandez for reminding us all of the appeal, because it is an important issue. That's why we've asked for this opportunity today. The reason for the appeal is couched again in state statute. Unfortunately, I feel compelled to move forward with this, only because the statutes hold me personal accountable for any deficit spending in my budget. And I can't possibly cover a million dollars this year. I'm contributing to a number of charities, and I won't be able to handle a million. So I have to be very aware of this window, and I could certainly file the appeal and withdraw the appeal later, if you could work it out, but -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We have to do that. SHERIFF HUNTER: -- what I was hoping to get today was some level of commitment to know that I'm not going to be on the hook for the first quarter of patrol services that have already been provided in large part. We only have one more month in this quarter remaining. We've already -- you have already funded patrol services to Marco for most of this quarter, and I think we shouldn't lose track of that fact. I'm hoping to get to a point today in this meeting of comfort that I'm not going to be on the hook for $200,000 either, personally. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Moss has committed that we'll have that answer on December the 7th. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: If they meet the 7th, we meet the 8th, that's still before the 10th. So by some stroke of luck, if we actually can achieve that by the 8th, that keeps you in your time window. If we don't achieve it by the 8th and you felt you had to file an appeal, you could do that the 9th or 10th; is that correct? SHERIFF HUNTER: Correct. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So maybe that's the time frame we need to be aiming for here. If the city can deal with the issue and we had the manager, the administrator, put together a concise package of what we're suggesting, provide that to you and to the council, and you all meet on the 7th, and then we put it on our agenda for the 8th to deal with, maybe we'll get lucky and have that approved the 8th and save the Sheriff from having to go through that process. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I think that's where we are. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Is it satisfactory? Do you understand what we're doing? MR. FERNANDEZ: Yes. I'd like to add another suggestion. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. MR. FERNANDEZ: Since Mr. Moss has conceptually agreed that the first quarter is in fact due to the county, can we get a more firm commitment on that first quarter and only the second quarter being the one under contention? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, we hope that he is able to do that. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's fine, but I feel like we're asking -- then we're just saying okay, give us a quarter. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No. MR. FERNANDEZ: With what -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What I'd like to do is ask for the six months, because he's already said on the record that they're not going to have patrols then. If they have some other suggestion they want to come back with the 7th, that's fine, but they should figure out what those options are instead of us. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I agree with that. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Because I hear we ask for six, we've got six months -- we've got three months and we're working towards smx months. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Right. We've spent three months, for heaven's sake. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. Well, I'll make a motion that we direct our staff to do that then. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Second. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay, we have a motion and a second. Ail in favor? Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries five-zero. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thank you, Mr. Moss, for being here. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: At this time, we've got to take a break for our court reporter. SHERIFF HUNTER: Thank you very much. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you. (Recess.) Item #llA2 DISCUSSION WITH BCC AND CLERK OF COURTS RE BOND REFINANCING - RESOLUTION OF SUPPORT TO DEFEND INTEREST OF COLLIER COUNTY IN A CLASS ACTION SUIT AND COME BACK IN TWO WEEKS REGARDING TECHNICAL ISSUES CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We are now at item ii(B) -- I'm sorry, ll(A), the second part, the bond reni -- I can't even speak -- the bond refinancing. Commissioner Mac'Kie, you put this on the agenda. I think I'm aware of it, but -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah, I appreciate that. I just -- in meeting with the Clerk, he had some information that sounded like it needed to be shared with the entire board to get some direction, and it just needed to be added on in order to facilitate that. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Is this the same refinancing that we heard earlier, or -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: No, no. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: -- it's a different one? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: No, this is a different situation. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No, this is a conceptual issue, but he'll explain. MR. BROCK: Thank you, Madam Chairman, members of the board. My name is Dwight Brock, I'm the clerk of the circuit court here in Collier County. Ladies and gentlemen, for about six months or so the clerk's office has been involved in reviewing bond refinancing issues with bond issues pertaining to Collier County. During the course of that investigation, we have uncovered facts that we are going to relate to you here today and relate to you the action that in my fiduciary capacity to citizens of Collier County we are going to undertake. And in addition to that, we are going to be requesting the board to consider and join in with us in those actions. And in giving you the summary of what we have done, what we have found and where we're going, Mr. Thomas Grady, who is my securities counsel -- or securities counsel for the clerk of the circuit court -- is a nationally recognized premier securities litigator, will go through what we have done, what we have discovered and where we are going. Thank you. MR. GRADY: Good morning, Madam Chairman, members of the board. My time name is Tom Grady, I'm an attorney here in Naples with Grady and Associates. And if the board will recall, it's been about a year since I've been before you. It was at that time that the Clerk and I presented the settlement that we had obtained in connection with the prior action filed against several broker dealers and an accounting firm regarding derivative securities that the county had purchased some years ago that the Clerk felt were unauthorized purchases or otherwise unsuitable purchases for the county. Several months after that settlement was consummated, earlier this year, earlier in 1998, an issue started to come to the attention of the Clerk and persons in similar positions across the state and indeed across the country, and the topic was called yield burning. It hasn't quite made it into the jargon of laypersons or into the Naples Daily News, but it's now something that's discussed quite regularly in the financial periodicals and even the Wall Street Journal, which is not an academic type publication, but is certainly very interested in financial related issues. Yield burning is fairly simple but has a lot of complex wrinkles. And, in essence, what it involves is a situation involving a tax exempt issuer, such as Collier County, issuing securities, selling bonds, if you will, in order to refund a prior bond issue that has a higher interest rate. Interest rates decline, the county naturally wants to take advantage of that decline in interest rates, but can't always call previously issued bonds. And the county's participated in a number of refundings in the 1990's, because interest rates have, with a couple of significant hiccups, generally trended downwards. What happens in yield burning is basically twofold, if you keep a bogey in mind. Yield burning occurs if someone -- and we'll just say Collier County, for purposes of discussion for the moment. If Collier County pays more for a bond which it might be purchasing in order to place into escrow, in order to defease (sic) or retire the bond that is being refunded, if Collier County pays too much for that bond, the yield is burned down. If you pay less, you'll earn more. It makes sense because of the inverse relationship between interest and principal. In a yield-burning setting, there are a couple of interested parties; one of the most important ones being the IRS and, therefore, the Treasury and, therefore, the Justice Department. The Securities and Exchange Commission has also weighed in, as I'll mention in a moment. But if the yield is burned down in a situation where you have a tax exempt offering of securities, such as a county issuing shares -- I'm sorry, issuing bonds that are tax free at the federal level, the IRS regulations, as you know from issues that have come before you by your accountants in connection with arbitrage issues, can't earn an amount which is greater than an amount established by the Treasury, or it goes to the IRS anyway. So it's pretty rare that it happens. In the yield-burning issue $1obally, the big picture issue, what the Treasury is looking for are instances where firms who are involved in underwriting these bonds and these refinancing transactions, or selling the bonds that go into the escrow account as a result of the refinancings, charged an amount to a county or to some other tax exempt issuer which resulted in a lower yield, but the yield was still within what the IRS considers an acceptable yield to avoid this arbitrage taxable issue. In other words, the issuer didn't really benefit or suffer by paying too much for the bonds, because the IRS is the one who would have been the recipient because of the greater yield associated with the bond that was purchased at a better ~rice. So the IRS has an interest in pursuing this issue on a very large scale, and has been doing so. There's a lot of publicity about a number of Florida counties and Florida municipalities that have received letters from the IRS, and there are several very important implications from the letters. One is, of course, there's an issue of a tax payable in connection with interest earned on an arbitrage that's inappropriate. Another is that if that occurs, the entire bond issue can be declared taxable, which would have a devastating effect on the issuing municipality or the issuing county or other issuing entity in terms of its ability to go out and replace that financing in the future, in terms of its likely bond rating by the authorities that rate these different entities, that issue these bonds, and so forth. So the IRS has a significant issue -- or interest in this issue, the issuing entities have a significant interest in this issue, and the Securities and Exchange Commission has a significant interest in this issue, because the SEC and various state regulators established what is considered a reasonable price, a fair price, that securities, broker dealers, underwriters and advisors can charge to any client, including a municipal client or a county, for effecting a transaction involving bonds. In this case, we're talking about securities commissions payable in connection with Treasury bonds, which of course are the most liquid security in the world and are traded by the billions and trillions every hour and typically result in very, very low commissions or other fees paid in connection with those transactions. The SEC has come forward and said publicly that in a negotiated transaction -- and I'll explain what I mean by that in a moment -- in a negotiated transaction, a reasonable markup or fee or commission that might be charged by a broker dealer in selling these securities is 2/32's of one percent. It's a pretty small number. And the reason it's a small number is because of the extraordinary liquidity of these securities. This is a service, this is a commodity type service that's readily available in the marketplace, and it's a very competitive marketplace. 2/32's sounds like a pretty small markup or a pretty small fee, but if you compare the fee that's generally charged in a competitively bid transaction as opposed to a negotiated transaction, you will find that the 2/32's is very, very high, even in that context. In the competitive bid the commission, the markup, is generally far less, sometimes as much as 1/20th of 2/32's. So you can see even within the 2/32nd ceiling that the SEC has suggested is appropriate in a negotiated transaction, there's still an awful lot of room for further reducing the cost to an entity such as Collier in purchasing these securities. You actually have evidence of this yourself, because in the last several years the Clerk and his staff have been purchasing these treasuries on the open market on their own and can document that the markups that are paid are far less than 2/32's always. And the Clerk has actually been involved in a couple of recent refundings, where the escrow treasury securities were purchased in the open market on a competitive basis and once again, the commissions or markups charged, the expense to the county is far less than 2/32's. Well, earlier this year, as this issue became floated in these journals and periodicals, Mr. Brock contacted me and asked me whether I was familiar with this concept of yield burning, and asked whether I would be willing to review a few of the bond refundings that occurred in Collier County to determine whether there were any problems. I think one of the most serious concerns at that point was will Collier County face this non-taxable issue. Is there an exposure to the IRS for possible arbitrage that might result in these bonds being declared taxable, which would have a very dramatic impact on the county's ability to finance its operations. That was a key concern. And we reviewed four transactions that were identified as possibly causing some concern along these lines, and we found that in three of the four transactions -- well, first I'll say that in none of the transactions did we find evidence that there was this positive arbitrage such that the IRS would be likely to come to Collier County and send you a letter and say that we are questioning the tax exempt status of your bond offerings. We don't have evidence of that. We're not certain, but that seems unlikely. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's the good news. MR. GP~ADY: That's the good news. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Please focus on that, that is wonderful news. MR. GRADY: That certainly is very good news. And that gets us to that bogey that I was mentioning. You can mark the price of the bond up, which takes the yield down to this point where it's okay, you've got a permissible level, you're safe as far as the arbitrage issue, it appears, based on the four bonds that we reviewed. If the price of a bond is marked up further and that yield is reduced even further, then you're actually digging into the pocket of the issuer; in this case, digging into the pocket of Collier County, if they mark up this charge, which is in excess of what the SEC has said is a permissible markup in these kinds of transactions. In three of the four issues, we did find that there were excessive markups. There was yield burning, but not the kind of yield burning that's making the front page of the Journal from time to time, in terms of IRS, but the very same yield burning that's making the front pages in terms of the SEC's investigation, because the SEC is charged with administering the regulations which dictated what is considered a fair price to pay for the securities. So it's still within the same realm of this investigation, which actually includes four governmental entities: It's the IRS, Treasury Department, Justice Department, and the Securities and Exchange Commission. They're all interested in this, and there is apparently some kind of global task force that has been established from a regulatory standpoint to try to bring an end to -- and to resolve these outstanding issues, because in part of the dramatic concern by issuers, and whether this thing might actually come to bite them and to haunt them is a very troubling thing. Equally concerned are the securities industry members who participated in these refinancings and refundings during the Nineties, because it's a multi billion dollar problem that's out there potentially, and they are eager to bring it to an end, too, for related but different reasons. And the industry has participated in conversations -- formal, from what I can gather -- with the four government agencies that I mentioned, which are reviewing the transactions on this global big picture basis. We looked at these four particular issues, and we discovered that in three of the four, there were markups considerably in excess of the 2/32's which the government has said is the high side that's permissible. In one instance it was over one full point. It was about 40/32's as opposed to 2/32's. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Can I ask a quick question, Tom? MR. GRADY: Certainly. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Earlier you indicated -- the phrase you used was the SEC has suggested that 2/32's is the appropriate level. Right there you said the level that's permissible. And I'm wondering, which is it? Is it one that's kind of a guideline or is it one there is actually a steadfast law? MR. GRADY: That's a good question, and you'll find different people on different sides of that fence. The Commission, in its release, said that 2/32's is what it views as the maximum reasonable markup that can be charged in this kind of circumstance. That's not the same as a law, that's not the same as a regulation, that's not a constitutional provision, but it's pretty convincing anecdotal evidence that that's what is reasonable under these types of circumstances. But we go beyond that. As part of the investigation that we've been involved in for the last eight or nine or 10 months, we wanted to find out what is industry custom, what is the practice, what is reasonable. Is 2/32's a reasonable bogey? There are federal courts that have addressed this issue that have agreed thus far in the litigation that -- and these cases have not gone to conclusion, but courts that have agreed that yes, that's a reasonable bogey and a reasonable benchmark and claims have not been dismissed, even though the industry has asked that the claims be dismissed in court based upon the fact we didn't know that was the right amount. We didn't know previously that that was the limit, what we charged we thought was reasonable. Those claims have not been dismissed and they are proceeding towards trial. They've been filed in a number of different jurisdictions. One of them zs Los Angeles, where there was actually a settlement of approximately eight million dollars involving a single issue by the Metropolitan Transit Authority in Los Angeles against a single broker dealer. There are similar claims that are filed in New Orleans and similar claims up in the Northeast that have not gone to trial, but these individual lawsuits are out there. And that's why it's a simmering problem on a nationwide systemic basis. The 2/32's, I would argue, Commissioner, is unreasonably high, because the evidence states -- doesn't suggest, the evidence states -- that as I mentioned, if you were to compare the prices charged every day, not in a negotiated setting but in a competitive transaction, if you were to leave here and instruct your financial officers to purchase for you 100 million dollars in Treasury bonds, you would pay far less than 2/32's in that transaction. And there's no reason to think that because you negotiate a deal with a handshake with one of your underwriters or financial advisors that you would pay more than that. And there are a number of academic, nonpartisan, independent reports that substantiate that and that corroborate that that is in fact the case. That's what happens in the market when these securities are purchased and sold on a competitive basis. So the 2/32's is arguably high, but maybe a sort of safe harbor for firms that were involved in these different types of transactions. In reviewing the three -- the four bond refundings, as I mentioned, there were three that we identified this problem with. The total amount of excessive markup or yield burn that we identified was approximately $250,000 in those issues. Now, that's real money that would fund the Sheriff's services on Marco Island for a quarter, and therefore, something to consider as real, and yet the reality of litigating is that it can be expensive to marshal a team together in order to bring claims against well financed and well operated and well represented securities firms. So the issue, or the dilemma, if you will, that the Clerk faced in looking at that situation, once we had this information available to us was, does it make sense to incur the cost to litigate these claims when the potential benefit is $250,000 that we know of. It could be more, it could be less, but we have identified the $250,000. One of the additional benefits to throw into that calculus is that in filing claims regarding these issues, a declaratory judgment can be sought from the court determining that the bonds that have been refunded thus far are safe. We think they are. We don't have evidence of the positive arbitrage or the IRS interested yield burn, but it would be nice to have a declaration that says it's done, it's over, it's behind us. That's in intangible benefit; does not bring immediate financial benefits to the county, but certainly brings some comfort level regarding the prior refundings. What we then explored -- we meaning my firm and eventually two additional firms, a firm in Miami and a firm in New York -- what we discussed with the Clerk was some method whereby the Clerk would not be responsible for costs that would be incurred in this type of action, because they could be very expensive, and the Clerk was understandably concerned about incurring those expenses, when there is no guarantee ever in any kind of litigation, even though the claims look quite good and very clear-cut, when set against the backdrop of this 2/32's bogey that the commission has published. In considering the alternatives available, we suggested -- my firm and two others suggested -- that the Clerk could bring these actions individually, on behalf of Collier County and on behalf of other similarly situated municipalities and issuers of tax exempt bonds throughout the state and the country, in a class action, which case the attorneys representing the Clerk would be willing to advance all of the costs associated with proceeding with those claims, because there would be extraordinary economies of scale that could be realized by attempting to resolve all of these problems simultaneously. We think the timing is appropriate for such a claim, because the individual cases have progressed reasonably far to the point where quite a number of them have settled. And that does not technically constitute an admission of liability by the settling parties, but it does suggest strongly that they were very concerned about their legal defense. When they're paying millions of dollars to settle these claims, that does tell you they are concerned about potential liability. The fact that the IRS and Treasury and the Justice Department and the Commission are already in talks from a regulatory standpoint to try to resolve this issue on a global basis with the securities industry also suggests that the time is good for filing a civil claim of this type, because it would allow a vehicle to be created to eliminate this problem on a global basis at the county level and at every other level, assuming that the federal court, which is where these claims will be filed, agrees that a class can be certified. If the class is not certified, then the individual claims asserted by the Clerk will still go forward under the same arrangement, and there's no obligation on the part of the Clerk to reimburse any costs incurred as part of proceeding with these claims on a larger basis. We wanted to take the time with the board this morning to share that information with you and to also ask for your participation, if you are so inclined, in this action. When we filed the action a couple of years ago, the board will remember that there were some practical difficulties in handling those claims. The Clerk and the board, and perhaps more accurate to say rather than the board, the Clerk and others within Collier County did not see eye to eye, and that's normal and that's to be expected, and that's part of our democratic way of government. But if we are proceeding with claims against adversaries, it is certainly preferable to proceed in agreement and to proceed on the same team. We do not believe that any additional party is necessary from a legal or standing point of view. That was an issue that was raised in the prior litigation. The circuit court here in Collier County did rule that the Clerk had standing to do what it did. The board will also remember back in 1995 that a resolution was adopted specifically delegating all responsibilities pertaining to arbitrage issues to the clerk. So we believe the clerk is the proper party and has the standing to bring the claims. But it would certainly send a good message and perhaps eliminate some procedural aspects of the litigation if the county was similarly identified as a plaintiff, together with the Clerk. And we think that would be a good thing and we think it's the right thing for the Clerk to do, or for the county to do. So we wanted to make this presentation at this time. We have, as I mentioned, been involved in this for approximately eight or nine months, and we have drafted all of the legal documents, and we are prepared to immediately file these claims. And we did want to bring this before you this morning and answer any questions that you may have, and as noted, determine whether you had an interest in participating in the suit. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Carter, do you have any questions for Mr. Grady? COMMISSIONER CARTER: The only question -- it all sounds very good to me, Mr. Grady. But there must be a downside somewhere at any time you enter into a lawsuit. So is there any downside to the county pursumng this? MR. GHADY: There is always a downside to any decision, and all decisions have consequences. In participating in this lawsuit, the Clerk has no practical downside, and I'll explain that. The downside, in terms of expenses eliminated in connection with retaining a legal team, there would be no liability for costs, there would be no liability for fees at all to the legal team representing the Clerk. Any fee that may ultimately be awarded in this action, if there is a successful recovery, is a fee that is determined by and supervised by the federal court. It's not even a matter of contract. Unlike the prior agreement that was in force regarding the derivative securities where there was a private contract that specified what the attorney's fee would be in the event of a successful recovery, here it is up to the court, and the court determines what that fee is. There is a provision under the Florida Securities and Investor Protection Act that provides for an award of attorney's fees to the prevailing party in an action under that statute, unless such an award would be unjust. What we are doing with Chapter 517, which is what I referred to, the Florida Securities Act, is we are asserting that claim which has that attorney's fee provision for obvious reasons. It is a two-way street. And the statute is drafted such that unless it would be unjust, fees would be awarded to the prevailing party. We certainly think it would be unjust to award fees to someone who demonstrably did not do what the Securities and Exchange Commission said was reasonable, even if perhaps that conduct did not rise to the level of violating that statute, which we believe it does. But what we've done, in order to all but eliminate that exposure, to certainly absolutely minimize that exposure, is that the claims asserted under that statute are only claims asserted against the issuer dealing with Collier County where this bond was marked up to the tune of 40/32's as I described earlier, which is off the board. We think that the 517 count could be applied across the board, but we are limiting it, just to be very conservative. And as things develop, it may be appropriate to change that, it may be appropriate to expand it, it may be appropriate to contract it. But generally speaking, as these cases develop procedurally, it's very important whether or not a class is certified. Historically, if a class is not certified, the defendants in a class action proceeding are certainly willing, and I would say in most cases eager, to simply say good-bye, you didn't get your class certified, each party goes away, each party bears their own costs, attorney's fees and other expenses. That's not a written rule anywhere, but it is the practice. And you might understand why, if a case is dismissed, even on a motion for summary judgment or a motion to dismiss, there's always a lengthy appeal. And on appeal things can always be reversed. Whether it's our victory or our loss in the trial court, there is that appellate issue. So from a practical standpoint we believe we've done everything possible to, not eliminate downside, I don't think that's possible, but to as nearly as possible eliminate that downside by making rational decisions about who is sued under what particular statute and for what claim. And I think that it's appropriate to include that claim, because as I mentioned, it's a two-way street, and it would be advantageous to have the fees awarded. Plus the statute itself is well drafted and is very protective of persons in the situation such as the county under this instance. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Can't -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Constantine? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No, I don't have any questions. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Norris? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: The Clerk, as the chief financial officer, has the responsibility to monitor all of these bond issues; is that correct? MR. GRADY: I believe that would be one of his responsibilities, yes. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I understand that obviously the County Commission authorizes the bond to be issued. But it's the Clerk's staff and the Clerk's financial staff that actually carries that out; is that not correct? MR. GRADY: That actually carries out the process of the refunding? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Uh-huh. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No. MR. GRADY: Perhaps the Clerk would like to respond to that. MR. BROCK: Commissioner Norris, Dwight Brock, the Clerk, again. I think here in Collier County, the way that that is handled is through a finance committee that is comprised of members of your staff, one member of my staff and our financial advisor. And the process that we go through is a weighty process whereby everyone has input into the process, and it is essentially a democratic committee that makes the recommendations that are ultimately brought to the board for their decision-making process. You know, I'd like to expand upon a couple of things that Tom has related to you. During the course of our investigation or inquiry into these bond refundings, one of the things that we did was we went to one of the issuers and because we are dealing with purchasing these Treasury securities on a daily basis, we were able to actually obtain from the security broker the pricings on the days in which we were dealing with, so we have the prices that they have actually provided us, that we are waiting the prices that we paid to determine the markup. In addition to that, Tom -- we did that through our purchasing process is where we obtained that. But in addition, in the process of our inquiry, I authorized Mr. Grady, on behalf of the Clerk of the Circuit Court, to send out letters of inquiry to parties that were involved in these issues. And one of the underwriters that we are dealing with, through legal counsel, essentially told Mr. Grady to go pound sand. In the course of doing that, because we knew this bond issue that came before you today for refunding was in the marketplace and they -- the -- potentially the securities firms that we were dealing with with the old issues would be interested in the new issues, we went to Mr. Fernandez and to Mr. Smykowski, and we discussed with them the problems that we were having in obtaining this information. In addition, we went directly to the security broker who was making the proposal and explained to them the scenario in which we found ourselves having difficulty obtaining this information. And as -- I will say, as a consequence -- I don't know what created the impetus to provide that information, but a short period of time after those events took place, lo and behold, they decided to provide us with the information that we had which enabled us to evaluate the situation in which we now find ourselves. In response to a question -- a very good question that Mr. Constantine asked, you know, what makes that 2/32's an important figure in our determination that the taxpayers of Collier County have suffered a loss? Well, as each of you know, on a daily basis we are purchasing the very same or similar securities in this county's portfolio, through an employee of mine, that were purchased in this particular scenario. And on a daily basis we buy those very same securities at far less of a markup than 2/32's. One of the security brokers that was involved in these particular issues was also our financial advisor at the time that this was taking place. They were our advisor and they were also selling to the county the securities that were going into escrow. And when we made our inquiry of them, we asked them to provide us the authorization from this board that allowed them to participate in the escrow securities, and which they were unable to respond as to what authority they had or what authority any board had ever given them to allow them to do that. They did that in letter form. In addition, in that particular issue, the brokerage firm that was our underwriter and the other brokerage firm that delivered us the escrow treasuries, in fact split the escrow. One of them gave us part of it and the other one gave us the other part -- or sold it. They didn't give us anything, they sold it to us. And then, as is required, what is called a comfort letter in the bond issue is provided by someone saying that we have looked at this and it is all okay. They swapped comfort letters. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, let me ask our staff, both Mr. Fernandez and Mr. Weigel, clearly the Clerk has started out on this path by himself. What is both the desirability and advisability of the County Commission joining formally in the lawsuit, rather than just perhaps as before our resolution of support? MR. FERNANDEZ: Do you want to go ahead? MR. WEIGEL: Go ahead, if you wish. I'm ready, though. MR. FERNANDEZ: Madam Chairman, this is the first time I've heard the details of this matter, and before I can advise the board on what I feel to be the best course of action for us, I would like the opportunity to explore with Mr. Weigel all the legal implications, the downsides that may be there for us to participate, and answer some questions that I may have about this before I give you a recommendation. I don't think that I'm in a position today to recommend a course of action. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Mac'Kie? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: My -- the thing that I want to be careful that we avoid this time, and I don't -- were you here, Mr. Fernandez, for the arbitrage litigation? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: No. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. Get some history on that as you come to the recommendation, please, because when the Clerk, who certainly has the authority to go forward, independent of the Board of County Commissioners, when he did that in that case, it complicated the process not only procedurally in the courts, but just from a fact-finding -- it wasn't clear who was on whose side, to say it plainly. And I think I want to be clear that we are on the side of getting to the bottom of whether or not we have in fact overpaid, and if we have, collecting that money. And if we join in the lawsuit, then we're very clear and your staff is very clear about how to participate and how to cooperate. And it's my observation that we didn't have that level of cooperation in the arbitrage lawsuit, and probably because, again my observation, because we weren't parties. And I don't want -- I personally don't want to see that happen again. I don't want it to make it harder to collect money that's owed to the county. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. I think at this point in time, Mr. Weigel, if you'd like to say something in that regard. MR. WEIGEL: Yes, I -- I echo Mr. Fernandez's comments and look forward to work with him and staff in that regard. Also, I think to assist and counsel the board, not only would I like a little more information myself, but probably would confer with our bond counsel -- we've had bond counsel for several years -- and even our current financial advisor, which is a different financial advisor than we had at the time of these issues which, if I understand, are in the '93, '94 range. I don't know -- perhaps it's inappropriate for Mr. Grady and the Clerk to tell us who they're asking us to endorse to sue, other than I think the issuers, the bonds have been mentioned. But I don't think that this board knows at this time inclusively the party defendants that may be contemplated here. And I would think that that would be important for this board to know before they endorse being a titular party plaintiff in this, notwithstanding that the Clerk has indicated and through prior experience in court has the standing to, with his fiduciary responsibilities, to go forward on behalf of the county and county finances generally. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: David, can I ask you a question about that? MR. WEIGEL: Yes. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Because my perspective on it is I'd almost rather not know who it is we're going to sue. Because I want it to be -- I hope I don't know them, I hope I don't know who it is, I hope it's not any -- you know, but the decision of whether or not we pursue a claim has no bearing, for my dollars, on who defendant is. MR. WEIGEL: Well, the reason that I think it is probably cogent to know who we're going to sue is because I think I can, as your counsel, contract counsel, could advise you if I agree to the downsides or not of entering into such an action. Nothing more than that. And I don't know that this today is the appropriate forum to attempt to draw them out in that regard. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah, I was going to ask you, Mr. Grady, I assume there's probably some advantage to you telling that to Mr. Weigel outside this forum as opposed to announcing it here. Maybe it doesn't make any difference at all. MR. WEIGEL: And lastly, I think -- MR. GRADY: Well, whatever would be the pleasure of the board. MR. WEIGEL: And Mr. Grady and Mr. Brock had indicated I think that they are prepared already to go forward it sounds like in a fairly quick time frame. We do not know -- collectively, I assume, we do not know if there are any reguirements for them to be firing the documents, so to speak, filing zn court in the next few days, or if a couple of weeks are appropriate. Obviously, the issues upon which this case or cases may be brought are static in the sense that they are facts that exist over time. And so if we don't have statute of limitations or other tolling issues, then perhaps the ability for me to review this in a quick but appropriate way, advise the board appropriately, and you then go on the record as you see fit to do, may not play hob with their ability to go forward both on behalf of the county alone and what they have described as a collective endeavor with other -- obviously other parties to become part of a class. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: What is the -- COMMISSIONER CARTER: What is your -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: What's your time frame? MR. GRADY: May I follow up on that? There are issues that counsel has to file very quickly, and I think it would be appropriate for me to discuss that with Mr. Weigel, perhaps later this afternoon or outside of this meeting. I believe these points are well taken. I certainly understand the desire on the county attorney's part to know more, and I think Commissioner Norris's suggestion may be a good one in the sense that we can leave here today perhaps with some showing of support, without necessarily joining as a party in this action, but some clear indication that we are at -- we are not at odds, we are seeking the same objectives. We are not on opposite sides of this issue. I think that would be very helpful. And then perhaps we can meet with the county attorney and anyone else who's appropriate to then determine whether the second step ms ~ppropriate, which is where the board or the county would actually join as a named plaintiff in the litigation. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay, Commissioner Constantine? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I don't have any objection to our administrator and legal staff looking at this. I think that's a good idea. But after sitting down with these gentlemen this week and hearing their presentation today, I certainly support their effort and where they're headed with this. So if we're looking to see if we have three who support that, you can count one. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And you can count two. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Yeah, I would support that. I have listened to the presentation and I -- you know, unless there's something in here I don't know, I think we ought to support the Clerk of Courts in this effort. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Well, I -- MR. BROCK: We are open to any questions you may have. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Dwight, this is your recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners? MR. BROCK: I'm sorry? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: This is your recommendation to the Board of MR. BROCK: That's correct. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- County -- okay. MR. BROCK: I mean, what we would ask for at this point in time and give us an opportunity to then discuss it with your legal counsel is a resolution of support in our actions to defend the interests of Collier County in this issue. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. Now, that is as distinct from the County Commission actually being a party. MR. BROCK: That is correct. Your name will not appear on the pleadings. That issue will be addressed at a later time, and we may amend the complaint to comport with your desires at that time. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What kind of a time frame does Mr. Weigel and Mr. Fernandez need to feel comfortable they've got appropriate information to come back to us with? Two hours? Five minutes? MR. GHADY: A break or lunch, perhaps? MR. BROCK: We've already spent eight months. David ought to be able to handle it in a couple of hours. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Sure. Couple of hours, no problem. MR. WEIGEL: About these Marco contracts. It may be very quickly, but if you're looking -- are you actually considering to take an action later on today? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No, I was joking. I'm sorry. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: No, no, no, no, no. No, not at all. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I mean, a week, two weeks. MR. WEIGEL: Oh, I should -- I would hope that a week and maybe two weeks at the outset. And again, I don't know if that plays an absolute -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Is that a problem? MR. WEIGEL: -- problem whatsoever. MR. BROCK: That will not affect us in one way or another. MR. GHADY: If we proceed in this two-step fashion, I think that will be fine. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Two weeks? MR. GRADY: If we had the showing today of support with -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Is that direction? MR. GHADY: -- and after two weeks -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Two weeks. MR. GHADY: -- we come back on the technical issue. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Let's take a look at two weeks. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I've got a busy meeting that day. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: After they take a look at it, then we'll talk again. Is that sufficient? MR. BROCK: That's correct. I would ask for a motion for support. COMMISSIONER CARTER: I make that motion -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. COMMISSIONER CARTER: -- we support. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We have a motion and a second. Ail in favor? Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries five-zero. MR. BROCK: Thank you very much. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you. Item #12B2 ORDINANCE 98-110 RE PETITION PUD-90-19(2) MR KENNETH CUYLER OF ROETZEL & ANDRESS, P.A., REPRESENTING THE CLEVELAND CLINIC OF FLORIDA, INC., REQUESTING TO REZONE THE PROPERTY PREVIOUSLY APPORVED AS A "PUD" NAMELY THE ASTRON PLAZA PUD TO PUD HAVING THE EFFECT OF ADDING TO THE LIST OF PERMITTED USES AND INCREASING THE MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT FOR PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF PINE RIDGE ROAD AND THE NORTH SIDE OF 10TH STREET SW - ADOPTED WITH CHANGES COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Madam Chairman, I know it is lunchtime. We only have two public hearings here that I -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: It's three. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- bet we can blow through -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Drive through. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Three public hearings. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm sorry, three. But I still bet we can blow through those. COMMISSIONER CARTER: What's your votes, commissioners? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Well, let's see, Mr. Hoover, do you get paid by the hour or by the job? If you get paid by the hour, it's going to take awhile. No bad thoughts, Mr. Cuyler, sitting back there. Okay, let's take a look. Mr. Cuyler, I believe you're first up here. We're going to take a look at Cleveland Clinic. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: While he's coming up, I'll explain this. The general concept of what they're trying to do is fine. I had a concern because the height of what would have been allowed would have been in excess of 70 feet. And I just went out there and I looked -- the building they are building right now is a little over 70 feet, and I looked at that and I walked back 125 feet and thought, golly, if I lived across the street from that, that's awfully high. And so I asked him to scale back the height of that some. That's what this is about. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: And we have all received a document in front of us from Mr. Cuyler, stating that the maximum height of the structure would be 60 feet, and also, instead of the regular buffering, which is the minimum buffering, would now be -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: 125. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- 125 feet. So those are the two issues. Thank you for your presentation, Mr. Cuyler. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I have one more. One more point. I just need to be sure that in the record is also the letter from Dr. Moon. Because it was important to me, as this was pitched to us -- and I guess we're going to have to swear and disclose, but as this was pitched, it is in conjunction with Cleveland Clinic, here are these uses that are anticipated across the street. And that's a whole different story for me from a freestanding Best Western again. So we do have this letter that I'd ask be made a part of the record from Dr. Moon saying that it is the intention of Cleveland Clinic to develop this parcel. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: When did you get that letter? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: They handed it out to me this morning. And I hope you have a copy, too. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: No, I don't. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I don't. MR. CUYLER: For the record, Ken Cuyler -- COMMISSIONER CARTER: And for the record, Madam Chairman, I would have preferred they would have stayed at four stories versus going to five. But if it's the will of this commission, then so be it. MR. FERNANDEZ: Madam Chair? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Yes. MR. FERNANDEZ: Why don't we start the hearing first? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I think we ought to do that. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We were trying. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. Any persons wishing to speak to this issue, would you please rise and be sworn in by the clerk -- or by the court reporter? I'm sorry. (Ail speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay, any disclosures from commissioners? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yes. I met with Mr. Cuyler. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I have also. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Likewise. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yes. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Yes. MR. CUYLER: Just real briefly for the record, Ken Cuyler with Roetzel and Andress, representing Cleveland Clinic. I'm not sure you all have seen the letter that Ms. Mac'Kie has. She asked for some assurances that that was in fact the present intention and that was the plan, and that's where the Cleveland Clinic thought it was going right now. And we asked Dr. Moon to provide that letter, and he did so. And I ran to get a copy to Pam so she'd know about it. I think she's passed that down the dais right now. And just in terms of confirmation of what Commissioner Constantine said and what the letter said, for the record, we are agreeing to the 60 foot maximum height for structures and the 125-foot buffer for four or five-story buildings. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay, are there any other questions? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: None whatsoever. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: No questions? Then I'll close -- do we have any speakers? MR. FERNANDEZ: Mr. Cuyler and Mr. Nunner. MR. CUYLER: Mr. Nunner waives his time. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: That's a good move. If there's no further speakers -- MR. FERNANDEZ: No speakers. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- I'll close the public hearing. Do I have a motion? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Motion to approve with those two amendments. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Second. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We have a motion and a second. All in favor? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Aye. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Aye. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Aye. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Aye. Opposed? COMMISSIONER CARTER: Aye. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries four-one. MR. CUYLER: Thank you, commissioners. Item #13A2 RESOLUTION 98-476 RE PETITION V-98-8, WILLIAM HOOVER OF HOOVER PLANNING, REPRESENTING ROGER D. WITHERS AND OPM USA, INC., REQUESTING A VARIANCE OF 65 FEET FROM THE REQUIRED HEIGHTS OF 185 FEET TO 250 FEET FOR AN EXISTING COMMUNICATIONS TOWER FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 5630 TAYLOR ROAD WITHIN THE J & C INDUSTRIAL PARK - ADOPTED CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay, moving on then to the next item, which is item 13(A) (2) . This is requesting a variance of 65 feet from the required height of 185 feet to 250 feet for a communication tower located in an industrial park. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Is this another hotel? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: No, it's a communication tower. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It's an osprey hotel. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: All persons wishing to speak to this item, please rise and be sworn in by our court reporter. (All speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Any disclosure, commissioners? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: None. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: No. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Not to the best of my recollection. COMMISSIONER CARTER: None. MR. REISCHL: Good afternoon, commissioners, Fred Reischl, planning services. This is a request for a height variance for an existing communication tower located on Taylor Road. You can see on the monitor the location of the site, which is well over 1,000 feet from the nearest residential neighborhood, which is Autumn Woods neighborhood, in that vicinity. The existing tower is 180 feet in height. Permitted use for a tower in the industrial district is 185 feet. They're requesting the variance to increase the height to 250 feet. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Why? MR. REISCHL: To the best of my knowledge of tower science, a 250-foot tower for cellular communications is the ideal height. The 180 foot that it's at now will require additional towers in the area to make up for the coverage gap that a 250-foot height location of the COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So theoretically, higher tower means fewer towers? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Fewer towers. MR. REISCHL: Fewer towers, right. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And there's a 285-foot tower in the proximity. MR. REISCHL: Within a few hundred feet, yes. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: There is already -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yes. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- an existing one? MR. REISCHL: Yes. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So it seems to me that this wasn't a tremendous impact to the area, since there is already the 285 feet -- MR. REISCHL: If you stand at Lowe's or one of those locations, and you can see the three towers now, this will be an additional number of feet on the shortest of the three towers in the vicinity. COMMISSIONER CARTER: What will this tower look like? I understand there are some designs now, new designs for some of these towers where you can make them blend in, that we don't -- they don't have to be ugly. You can even make an osprey tower. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah, I've even seen the ones that look like great big palm trees. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Oh, please, no. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Just a joke. Just a joke. Sorry. MR. REISCHL: This tower, as I said, is existing. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: They do, it's true. I've seen them. MR. REISCHL: It basically looks like a self-supporting tower cut off in the middle. It was designed to be built for the additional 70 feet. It's not going to be a monopole, it's not going to be guyed, it's the self-supporting tower. Basically it looks cut off now. It will continue up to an apex. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: A more natural point? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The question -- MR. REISCHL: Natural. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- is probably more appropriate for the petitioner, but -- because if there are existing towers that go to 285, unless -- this is on behalf of whom? MR. REISCHL: OPM USA. MR. FERNANDEZ: Bell South. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Bell South Mobility. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Does the option -- MR. REISCHL: Bell South is a prospective renter. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Does the option not exist to -- this isn't for Bell South, this is just somebody to build and hope to rent space to. MR. REISCHL: To rent to Bell South, correct. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So what I'm wondering is, Bell South could probably rent on a 285-foot tower that already exists. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Is there a need -- is there a market need for this tower? MR. REISCHL: The petitioner sent out the required letters to the surrounding towers, and we received no response from the towers. So in that case, the code says the assumption is made that there is not COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: The assumption -- MR. REISCHL: -- area to provide service on that tower. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay, I need to get that -- COMMISSIONER CARTER: But we don't know that. MR. REISCHL: Correct. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We write letters to the other tower owners and say what? MR. MULHERE: I just want to add, the tower -- Bob Mulhere, for the record, planning director. Our tower ordinance does require that the applicant exhaust or attempt to share space on an existing tower. Now, I think the ordinance does make the presumption that if there is an opportunity for space, then that -- since that's a revenue generation for the owner of that tower, that that will come to fruition if there is an opportunity. In this case, there was apparently no interest in providing -- potentially -- we do not know for sure whether that was due to the fact that there is no opportunity, or that the existing tower owners were not interested in providing an opportunity for -- COMMISSIONER CARTER: So we don't know. There could have been space, they could have sold it, they could have chosen not to do that, so we have to build another tower. MR. MULHERE: That's correct. And it could be a competitor, so CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Which is probably the -- MR. REISCHL: That's true. The other tower is Cellular One. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, of course, the bottom line, though, is that if they request space and are unable to get it, it doesn't matter where, I mean, that's the bottom line. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I guess if we go by what we're supposed to go by on granting these type variances and we look -- will a literal interpretation of the provisions -- I'm short naming it -- cause undo hardship on the applicant? No, other than financial, which isn't a qualifier in this. And we are -- we usually try to be fairly consistent at requiring some sort of hardship. Also, you go a couple below that, will the granting of the variance confirm the petitioner any special privileges, then yeah, it would -- the answer is yes, it would allow them to have a tower higher permitted for a similar lot. So if we actually follow our own process here, I think I need the petitioner to help me get through those. If there's no hardship and if it is granting special privileges, from a legal perspective, a planning perspective, why would we let this go forward? MR. REISCHL: And if I can partially answer that question. Staff and the Planning Commission also looked at the public benefit for a cellular communications in the area, too. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And for competition in the marketplace, I mean, that's what it seems to me may be a real issue here, that if -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: It is. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- Cell One is who has the existing tower and they don't lease any space to their competitors, for obvious reasons, then are we hurting the consumer by not allowing for some competition in the marketplace? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And I don't wildly object to this, but two things: One, I don't know that -- if that qualifies or not in a land planning as a reason. You know, when Circle K's there and somebody else wants to put a convenience store in, we don't automatically say it's competition. But two, I don't know that we know if it's Cellular One owns all the others. We're speculating on that. COMMISSIONER CARTER: And my question always is how many towers? I mean, what do -- what's the need to service a community to make it competitive to provide people access? What you need to have versus what's nice to have. And to me there's a big difference there, and maybe the petitioner can help clarify that for me. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Sounds like we want to hear from you, Mr. Hoover. MR. HOOVER: I'm sorry, I didn't get sworn. (Speaker was duly sworn.) MR. HOOVER: William Hoover, Hoover Planning, representing the petitioner, OPM USA. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Opium? MR. HOOVER: Yeah, OPM USA. OPM is a -- they're an affiliate of American Tower Association. They're the second largest tower space provider in the State of Florida. And there's -- one thing to keep in mind, there's basically two types of companies that own towers. One is like Cell One or GTE that own two towers in this vicinity. So we went through the required certified letters, mailed those, and we -- they did not respond on that. We have an existing 180-foot tower, and the existing tower was allowed by permitted use, and when they -- this tower was put up about a year and a half ago. So the tower was basically constructed without this to~ part on there, with the presumption that in the future one of the paging or cellular companies that OPM deals with would probably want space at a higher height in the future. So that's when we came back in, when Bell South found a need where they could not find a tower to go on in this area. And one thing in towers I think is important is if you can locate these in an industrial area. In OPM, they're working on different sites. I'm helping them in Charlotte, as well as DeSoto and Lee Counties. And they try to work with the community rather than trying to jam things in. If you went down to this area, the land uses neighboring the tower here are probably the most intense I can think of in Lee County. Do you have -- could you put this on the -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: It's on. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It's on. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Yeah, we have it on our screen, thank you. MR. HOOVER: To the west of this is two junkyards. To the north we've got a used car lot that you can go in and buy there and pay there on a weekly basis, and they'll also fix it if it breaks down. To the east we've got another tower in an industrial building. To the south we've got Monty Septic Tank storage lot. If you go down a little bit down the road closer to Pine Ridge, we've got another large junkyard. So it's not really the most aesthetic part of town. But the most important part, and where I'm leading, we've had a -- what kind of engineering would that be -- a radio frequency engineer draft a -- that show where the coverage would be, so -- and I can pass these out, if you want to spend the time. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Give them to Mr. Fernandez and he'll get them to us. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Oh, they're coming up on the screen anyway. Technology. MR. HOOVER: Okay. If you look at plot number four, that shows the existing tower. If we -- if Bell South put went on here at 250 feet, this shows -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Excuse me, which one's number four? Because you can't tell. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Which is number four? It's a little blurry. MR. HOOVER: They're on plot one? Okay, plot one -- can you see where it says 83 up there -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: No. MR. HOOVER: -- in the green? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Why don't you go to that mike and point to it. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Did we opt not to hand those out, apparently? MR. HOOVER: Okay, number 83 on here, that's the tower that we're talking about. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. Now, we can -- if he'll point them out, we can certainly see them up here, but we just can't distinguish the numbers. MR. HOOVER: Okay. And this is 75. This is U.S. 41. And you can see, there's hardly any coverage gap except for this little spot right here. If they go on the tower at the highest place we have right now, which would be 180 feet, you can see there's a coverage gap here on U.S. 41, or you may lose your phone calls, as well as on 75, and to the east, which would be -- I believe that would probably be like off of Logan, in that area, where there's quite a bit of growth right now. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So that's existing right now? If you don't make the change, that's the gap that exists? COMMISSIONER CARTER: That was existing, right. MR. HOOVER: Right, if they went on there 180 feet, there's a gap for Bell South. And here's what we have right today. So you can see there's a huge gap for Bell South. So what Bell South has to do is they have the option of going on here at 180 feet, but then we need to go to the east out off of maybe Vanderbilt Road to try to find another tower site. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: May I ask you a question? MR. HOOVER: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Are cellular phones often used for emergency use? MR. HOOVER: Yes, that's when the -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So if there's a dead zone for a user, in this case, Bell South, this could create some sort of hardship for that user if they had an emergency then, couldn't it? MR. HOOVER: Yes. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Good case you're making there, Commissioner. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: If you want to wrap up, I'll go ahead and make a motion after the chairman closes the hearing. COMMISSIONER CARTER: I'm okay, thank you. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I'll do that. Do we have any other public speakers on this item? MR. FERNANDEZ: No other speakers. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I'll close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Motion to approve. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll second that motion. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We have a motion and a second to approve item petition V-98-8. Ail in favor? Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries five-zero. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Bill, thank you very much. Those maps were very helpful. Item #13A3 RESOLUTION 98-477 RE PETITION CU-98-19 ARNALDO HERNANDEZ OF ARKITEX 2, REPRESENTING THE FLORIDA STATE DEPARTMENT OF JUVENILE JUSTICE, REQUESTING CONDITIONAL USE "3" OF THE PUBLIC USE "P" ZONING DISTRICT FOR A JUVENILE DETENTION CENTER FOR 2.5 ACRES OF PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER AT THE INTERSECTION OF AIRPORT-PULLING ROAD AND U.S. 41 ADOPTED CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you. Moving on then to item number 13(A) (3), petition CU-98-19. This is -- we're being asked for the juvenile justice -- they want to use a conditional use on public property. Ail persons wishing to speak to this item, please rise and be sworn in by our court reporter. (Ail speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Any disclosure, commissioners? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No, ma'am. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: None. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: None. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Motion to approve. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We have to go a little further than that. Ms. Murray. MS. MURRAY: I'll just preface any presentation by just saying this would have been on the summary agenda, had I not received one letter of objection prior to the Planning Commission hearing. Nobody showed up at the Planning Commission and I did not receive any further correspondence either by telephone or by mail. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What was the nature of the objection? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I was going to say, for the record, would you just state the objection? MS. MURRAY: Yes, it's rather lengthy in that -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Summarize it. MS. MURRAY: I would say that this person lives in the Glades condo and is basically upset over the overall development of the entire government center complex, and this addition of the juvenile justice facility basically just compounds the perceived traffic problems and level of activity here at the government center. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Ail right. Having heard that information, do we have any public speakers on this issue? MR. FERNANDEZ: You have three. They may waive, I believe. Kathleen Passidomo is the first. She says only if necessary. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Are you waiving, Ms. Passidomo? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: She's waiving. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Let the record reflect she's waiving. MR. FERNANDEZ: D. Karl Roberts. MR. ROBERTS: I'll waive. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Would you like to waive, Mr. Roberts? Well, now, which one of you is Mr. Roberts? Well, you're both pointing and I'm confused here, guys. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Would the real Mr. Roberts please stand up? MR. ROBERTS: I work for state government so that's why we do that. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Oh, I understand. Okay, that's made perfectly clear. MR. FERNANDEZ: Last one is Joe Helton. MR. HELTON: Yes, ma'am, I'll waive unless there's any questions. Really what we're here to do is provide answers to anyone. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I understand. Does any commissioner have any question for either Mr. Roberts or Mr. Helton? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No ma'am. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: No questions? Okay. Those are the only public speakers? MR. FERNANDEZ: No more speakers. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Ail right, then, I'll close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Motion to approve. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Motion -- Second. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: In unison. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We have a motion and a second to approve CU-98-19, the juvenile justice center conditional use. Ail in favor? Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries five-zero. Thank you for your lengthy presentation. Item #15A BCC WORKSHOP RE PUBLIC INFORMATION TO BE SCHEDULE FOR DECEMBER 18, 1998 Okay, do we have any communications from you, Mr. Weigel? You wanted to speak to us? MR. WEIGEL: No, thank you. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. Mr. Fernandez? MR. FERNANDEZ: Just to inform the board that we have established a date of December the 18th for our workshop to discuss the plan for public information. Item #15B LDC HEARINGS SCHEDULED FOR DECEMBER 2 AND 16, 1998 AT 5:05 P.M. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. One other thing, Ms. Filson, you mentioned something to me yesterday about the Land Development Code hearings? MS. FILSON: Yeah, they are on December 2nd and I believe the 16th. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: December 2nd and the 16th? MS. FILSON: And the 16th. Yes, there will be two at 5:05, and those are Wednesday nights. Did I get the dates right? MR. MULHERE: That's correct. I -- there are no extremely controversial items in this packet, and I would -- it would be a guess on my part, but I don't expect the hearings to last more than about 90 minutes. And of course the first one is -- there's no action required, only at the second hearing. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. Because I know that on the 2nd I do have a conflict, so -- MR. MULHERE: And I apologize. For the record, I'm Bob Mulhere, planning director. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: No problem. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Mulhere mentioned the extremely controversial. I wonder if that covers severely controversial, moderately controversial, somewhat controversial. MR. MULHERE: Our experience is at the Planning Commission that there really were very minor issues. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. Ail right. Item #15C UPDATE ON LETHAL YELLOWING Commissioner Mac'Kie? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I just hope we'll hear something about the lethal yellowing program. You expect we'll hear something in the next week or two about whether or not the county needs to take some action on that? MR. FERNANDEZ: We can give a briefing right now, if you'd like. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: about that, but -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: COMMISSIONER NORRIS: COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I don't know if the whole board cares Yeah, not really -- -- it seems like we should. -- I can take care of my own trees. That's good. MR. OLLIFF: For the record, Tom Olliff, again, public services administrator. Actually, you have an E-mail on your -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Yes, we do. MR. OLLIFF: -- system that gives you an update from yesterday afternoon. It is an unusual ordinance in that it gives to staff administrative abilities to declare certain areas as emergencies, and to go ahead and enact the ordinance, which we are in the process of doing. We're in the process today, actually, of getting property owners permission to have the trees removed that we know are infected. We thought it was better to do it that way, because it's frankly a quicker way to have those trees removed and know that they're disposed of properly, because they have to be buried in a separate section of the landfill. And secondly, then we're going to enact the ordinance where we will be notifying by certified return receipt mail all of the property owners within that triangle, which is bordered by Royal Harbor on the west, Thomasson Drive to the south and the east, and then U.S. 41 to the north, to inoculate their trees. And the process requires them to do that, notify us that it's been done, and if they don't, then we step in and do the inoculation. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So that certified notification's going out that thou shalt inoculate your trees in that area. That's what I want to MR. OLLIFF: Yes, ma'am. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- hear. Thanks. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Nothing -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Nothing? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: -- further. Item #15D SUGGESTION THAT HEIGHT LIMITATIONS BE DISCUSSED DURING LDC HEARINGS CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Constantine? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just a quick item. When we talked about the clinic and its height and stuff, I had asked him to make it smaller. And I know Commissioner Carter had said he wouldn't be offended if it was even smaller. And one of the things we may want to address as we move forward with our different land development issues is looking at the issue of height. Because in the coming years, as land becomes less and less available -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: You're going to have to go up. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- people are going to want to go higher and higher. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Right. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So I think that's a very good idea, and we may want to look at that on an overall scale. And the other thing is I just wanted to thank the guys from Channel 7 for coming. I appreciate it. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Yeah. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Hello? Item #15E DISCUSSION REGARDING REVISION 7 FUNDING CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Carter? COMMISSIONER CARTER: Yes. We had the privilege of attending the Florida Association of Counties' meeting in Tallahassee, and I think it's good for everyone to remember that although Revision Seven was passed, we now have to fund it. And that would be an issue for the state legislators. And that is the number one priority of the Florida Association of Counties, to make sure that they don't come and take something away from us that we already have. So it was an enlightening process for me to see that it wasn't so simple just to say yes to a revision, now the real work begins. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: You know, on that same subject, something that I hope our county attorney's already looking at, but just in case he's not, is just the plethora of potential ordinances that are optional and in some cases mandatory for local government that -- to provide to us a menu so that we can, you know, begin to look at that and not just wait and be responding. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Yes. Absolutely. But everybody, we did celebrate briefly up there the passing of Revision Seven. But the problem is that when the legislators meet with this, it's going to be imperative on all of us when we do meet with our legislators, before they get to Tallahassee, that they're not infected too severely with the Tallahassee syndrome in regard to funding issues and those kind of things. .Right now there's a lot of unhappiness with the boards of county commlssmoners throughout the State of Florida. And so we need to be -- because we did support this, 53 out of 67 counties -- MR. FERNANDEZ: Contributed money. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- contributed money to the support of this particular item. And the legislators, the older legislators -- I'm trying to say this and pick my words -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Be diplomatic. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- very -- be very diplomatic. They're very unhappy that -- well, I might as well say it. You know, what goes around comes around. They basically have done this -- they have done this to us many times, and now it's kind a situation where something has come back to them that they're going to have to come up with some funding. And this puts them in a little bit different situation than what has been normal in the past. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, those 14 counties are sitting pretty. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I think probably they were counties that were probably really struggling anyway. But at any rate, this was -- it was a very good meeting to go to, I thought, as well. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Before we leave, Madam Chair, I want to recognize that our old friend and raconteur professional fur trapper, Earl of the North, is here with us today. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We're glad you're back. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Yes, we are glad he's back. I would hope, as we close this meeting, everybody will have a good Thanksgiving and -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- plenty of eating and what is the phrase, gobble 'til you wobble or something like that? COMMISSIONER CARTER: On that, we will close. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: At any rate, have a wonderful holiday and enjoy families and whatever. Take care. ***** Commissioner Mac'Kie moved, seconded by Commissioner Norris and carried unanimously that the following items under the Consent Agenda be approved and/or adopted : ***** Item #16Al CONVEYANCE OF EASEMENTS FOR THE PLACEMENT OF A LIFT STATION AND INSTALLATION OF SANITARY SEWER LINES TO THE SHELLABARGER PARK IN IMMOKALEE Item #16A2 RESOLUTION 98-466, REGARDING PETITION NO. CU 96-16E, DR. NENO J. SPAGNA REPRESENTING APOSTOLIC ASSEMBLY OF FAITH IN CHRIST JESUS REQUESTING SECOND EXTENSION OF A CONDITIONAL USE FOR A CHURCH IN THE "E" ESTATES ZONING DISTRICT FOR PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF SAN MARCO BOULEVARD APPROXIMATELY ONE MILE NORTH OF RADIO ROAD Item #16A3 RESOLUTION 98-467, EXTENDING THE TERM OF GEORGE H. HERMANSON TO SERVE ON THE ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY BOARD Item #16A4 - DELETED Item #16A5 - DELETED Item #16A6 RESOLUTION 98-468, APPROVING A REAL ESTATE SALES AGREEMENT BETWEEN IMMOKALEE HABITAT FOR HUMANITY, INC., A FLORIDA NON-PROFIT CORPORATION, N/K/A HABITAT FOR HLrMA/~ITY OF COLLIER COUNTY, INC., A_ND COLLIER COUNTY Item #16A7 FINAL PLAT OF GREY OAKS UNIT TWELVE WITH STIPULATIONS, CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT AND PERFORMANCE BOND Item #16B1 BID #98-2886 AWARDED TO KYLE CONSTRUCTION, INC. TO CONSTRUCT THE PROPOSED SPERLING COURT DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS IN THE AMOUNT OF $41,104.50 Item #16B2 BUDGET AMENDMENT FOR THE PURCHASE OF TRAFFIC SIGNAL EQUIPMENT NECESSARY TO MAKE EXISTING TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND FLASHING BEACONS YEAR 2000 Item #16B3 - Continued to December 8, 1998 TRANSPORTATION SERVICES DEPARTMENT TO REMOVE THE NON-WARRANTED TRAFFIC SIGNAL AT THE INTERSECTION OF GOODLETTE-FRANK ROAD AND ROYAL POINCIANA DRIVE Item #16B4 REAPPROPRIATION OF TOURIST DEVELOPMENT TAX FUNDING FOR CATEGORY "A" PROJECTS IN THE AMOUNT OF $283,700.00 FOR FY 98/99 Item #16B5 SOLID WASTE TIRE GRANT TO FUND GULF COAST HIGH SCHOOL BUSINESS PARTNERS FOR A RECYCLED TIRE OVERLAY ON GULF COAST HIGH SCHOOL'S CURRENT EIGHT LANE ASPHALT ATHLETIC TRACK Item #16B6 CHANGE ORDER TEN (10) TO THE CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT WITH MILMIR CONSTRUCTION, INC., FOR THE NORTH COUNTY REGIONAL WATER TREATMENT PLANT 8-MGD EXPANSION PROJECT FOR CONTRACT #97-2690R IN THE AMOUNT OF $103,047.00 Item #16B7 ROAD IMPACT FEE CREDIT TO THE FORMER CHAMBER OF COMMERCE BUILDING ON U.S. 41 IN THE CITY OF NAPLES IN THE AMOUNT OF $2,802 Item #16B8 BID #98-2875 AWARDED FROM MATERIALS SUPPLIER, HYDRANAUTICS FOR THE NORTH COUNTY REGIONAL WATER TREATMENT PLANT 8-MGD FOR REVERSE OSMOSIS MEMBRANE ELEMENTS IN THE AMOUNT OF $677,040.00 Item #16C1 AGREEMENT FOR SCOREKEEPER SERVICES WITH THE NAPLES SCOREKEEPER ASSOCIATION Item #16C2 - Moved to Item #8C2 Item #16C3 CHANGE ORDER TO CONSTRUCT A LAKESIDE GAZEBO WITH PROFESSIONAL BUILDING SYSTEMS IN THE AMOUNT OF $50,654.00 Item #16C4 - DELETED Item #~6C5 AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE COUNTY AND COLLIER COUNTY VETERANS COUNCIL, AND BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY A_ND THE FORD MOTOR COMPANY, INC. FOR CONTINUED USE OF A FORD TEST VAN Item #16D1 AGREEMENT TO EXECUTE SATISFACTIONS OF NOTICE AND PAYMENT OF WATER AND/OR SEWER SYSTEM IMPACT FEES Item #16D2 PROMISE TO EXTEND BUDGET AMENDMENT FOR EXPENDITURES RELATING TO THE SUPERVISOR OF ELECTIONS WAREHOUSE MOVE Item #16El BLrDGET AMENDMENT 99-046 Item #16G1 MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE - FILED AND REFERRED The following miscellaneous correspondence as presented by the Board of County Commissioners has been directed to the various departments as indicated: Item #16H1 AN INCREASE OF NINE SWORN LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS IN THE 1998/1999 SHERIFF'S OFFICE BUDGET FOR THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE THREE YEAR COPS IN SCHOOLS GR3tNT PROGPJtM Item #16H2 BUDGET AMENDMENT FOR OPEN PURCHASE ORDERS AT THE END OF FISCAL YEAR 1997 AND FISCAL YEAR 1998 Item #16H3 AGREEMENT WITH ARTHUR ANDERSEN, LLP FOR ARBITRAGE CALCULATION SERVICES IN THE AMOI/NT OF $55,000 Item #1611 FINAL JUDGEMENT RELATIVE TO THE EASEMENT ACQUISITION ON PARCEL NO. 526 IN THE LAWSUIT ENTITLED COLLIER COUNTY V. DAVID R. CLEMENS AND LUCILLE C. CLEMENS, ET AL., (LIVINGSTON ROAD EXTENSION, GOLDEN GATE PARKWAY TO RADIO ROAD) Item #17A ORDINANCE NO. 98-92 AMENDING ORDINANCE 92-22, THE COLLIER COUNTY ROAD IMPACT FEE ORDINANCE, BY REVISING APPENDIX "B" TO CHANGE THE LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS OF ROAD IMPACT FEE DISTRICTS 2, 4 AND 8 Item #17B RESOLUTION 98-469, REGARDING PETITION SV-98-3, N. PAUL SAN FLIPPO, ESQ OF SEIDENSTICKER AND SAN FLIPPO, P.A. REPRESENTING DOANE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP REQUESTING A 5 FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE REQUIRED SETBACK OF 15 FEET LOCATED ALONG lllTH AVENUE IN NORTH NAPLES Item #17C ORDINANCE 98-93 AMENDING ORDINANCE 98-80 TO CORRECT THE SAME SCIRVENER'S ERROR THAT OCCURS IN FOUR PLACES Item #17D - Moved to Item #12B2 Item #17E RESOLUTION 98-470, REGARDING PETITION V-98-16, WILLIAM L. HOOVER, AICP, OF HOOVER PLANNING, REPRESENTING THEODORE J. NYLESE, JR., REQUESTING A VARIANCE OF 9 FEET FROM THE REQUIRED REAR YARD SETBACK OF 25 FEET TO 16 FEET FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 442 ROSEMEA/DE LANE Item #17F ORDINANCE 98-94 REGARDING PETITION PUD-89-6(3), GEORGE L. VARNADOE OF YOUNG, VAN ASSENDERP & VARNADOE, P.A., REPRESENTING HALSTATT PARTNERSHIP, REQUESTING AN AMENDMENT TO THE GREY OAKES PUD LOCATED AT AIRPORT-PULLING ROAD AND GOLDEN GATE PARKWAY Item #17G RESOLUTION 98-471, REGARDING REVISIONS TO THE GREY OAKES DEVELOPMENT ORDER DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A SUBSTANTIAL DEVIATION REQUIRING FURTHER DEVELOPMENT OF REGIONAL IMPACT REVIEW Item #17H RESOLUTION 98-472/DEVELOPMENT ORDER 98-2 REGARDING PETITION DOA-98-1, GEROGE L. VARNADOE OF YOUNG, VAN ASSENDERP & VARNADOE, P.A., REPRESENTING HALSTATT PARTNERSHIP, REQUESTING AN AMENDMENT TO THE GREY OAKES DRI DEVELOPMENT ORDER NO. 90-3 LOCATED ON THE NORTHWEST A/qD NORTHEAST AND SOUTHEAST QUADRANTS OF AIRPORT-PULLING ROAD AND GOLDEN GATE PARKWAY Item #17I ORDINANCE 98-95 AMENDING 92-60 REGARDING THE LEVY OF A 2% TOURIST DEVELOPMENT TAX AND AN ADDITIONAL 1% TAX THROUGHOUT COLLIER COUNTY PURSUANT TO THE LOCAL OPTION TOURIST DEVELOPMENT ACT FOR AMENDMENT TO SECTION THREE CONCERNING THE USE OF TAX REVENUES TO ALLOW EXPENDITURES FOR MUSEUMS OWNED A_ND OPERATED BY NOT FOR PROFIT ORGANIZATIONS Item #17J ORDINANCE 98-96 AMENDING 92-18 REGARDING THE TOURIST DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL; AMENDING THE SECTION TWO TO PROVIDE FOR ADDITION OF A NON -VOTING MEMBER WITH PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE IN THE PROMOTION A/qD MARKETING OR SPECIAL EVENTS Item #17K ORDINANCE 98-97 REPEALING ORDINANCE 90-109 REGARDING THE VANDERBILT BEACH AREA BEAUTIFICATION MUNICIPAL SERVICE TAXING UNIT Item #17L ORDINANCE 98-98 REPEALING ORDINANCE 80-54 REGARDING THE MARCO ISLAND COMMUNITY CENTER MUNICIPAL SERVICE TAXING AND BENEFIT UNIT Item #17M ORDINANCE 98-99 REPEALING 90-104 REGARDING THE TURNBURY SUBDIVISION STREET LIGHTING MUNICIPAL SERVICE TAXING UNIT Item #17N ORDINANCE 98-100 REPEALING ORDINANCE 80-20 REGARDING THE EAST NAPLES FIRE HYDRANT MUNICIPAL SERVICE TAXING DISTRICT Item #170 ORDINANCE 98-101 REPEALING ORDINANCE 76-58 REGARDING THE WESTLAKE MUNICIPAL SERVICES TAXING UNIT Item #17P ORDINANCE 98-102 REPEALING ORDINANCE 76-64 REGARDING THE PORT-AU -PRINCE MUNICIPAL SERVICES TAXING UNIT Item #17Q ORDINANCE 98-103 REPEALING ORDINANCE 90-110 REGARDING THE VANDERBILT BEACH AREA STREET LIGHTING MUNICIPAL SERVICE TAXING UNIT Item #17R ORDINANCE 98-104 REPEALING ORDINANCE 71-18 REGARDING THE WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT 6 Item #17S ORDINANCE 98-105 REPEALING ORDINANCE 85-12 REGARDING THE MARCO ISLAND COMMUNITY PARK MUNICIPAL SERVICE TAXING I/NIT Item #17T ORDINANCE 98-106 REPEALING ORDINANCE 87-12 REGARDING THE BERKSHIRE VILLAGE (AT BERKSHIRE LAKES, PARCEL B) STREET LIGHTING MUNICIPAL SERVICE TAXING UNIT Item #17U ORDINANCE 98-107 REPEALING ORDINANCE 79-103 REGARDING THE SEWER AREA "B" SOUTH HALF (EAST NAPLES) MUNICIPAL SERVICE TAXING UNIT Item #17V ORDINANCE 98-108 REPEALING ORDINANCE 80-86 REGARDING THE UNINCORPORATED COUNTY AREA MUNICIPAL SERVICE TAXING UNIT-ROAD AND BRIDGE Item #17W ORDINANCE 98-109 REPEALING ORDINANCE 90-64 REGARDING THE CHILDREN'S SUPPORT SERVICES DISTRICT There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 12:35 p.m. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS CONTROL BARBARA B. BERRY, CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK These minutes approved by the Board on as presented or as corrected TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING SERVICE, INC., BY CHERIE' R. LEONE, NOTARY PUBLIC