BCC Minutes 02/01/2001 J (w/Naples City Council)February t, 2001
TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE
JOINT WORKSHOP WITH THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS,
COLLIER COUNTY, AND NAPLES CITY COUNCIL, NAPLES
REVEREND MARTIN LUTHER KING BUILDING
SUPERVISOR OF ELECTIONS CONFERENCE ROOM
3301 EAST TAMIAMI TRAIL
NAPLES, FL 34112
Thursday, February 1, 2001
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 WORKSHOP SESSION in The Supervisor of Elections
Conference Room of the Government Complex, East Naples,
Florida, with the following members present:
Commissioners:
County Staff:
City Council:
City Staff:
James D. Carter, Ph.D., Chairman
Pamela S. Mac'KieDonna Fiala
Tom Henning Jim Coletta
Thomas W. Olliff, County Manager
David Weigel, Esquire
Mayor Bonnie R. MacKenzie
Vice Mayor Joseph Herms
Gary Gallegerg
Fred Tarrant
Tamela Wiseman
Michael Moore
William Macllvaine
Penny Taylor
Kevin J. Rambosk
Page I
JOINT WORKSHOP WITH THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, COLUER
COUNTY AND NAPLES CITY COUNCIL, NAPLES
REVEREND MARTIN LUTHER KING BUILDING, SUPERVISOR OF ELECTIONS
CONFERENCE ROOM, 3301 EAST TAMIAMI TRAIL, NAPLES FL 34112
AGENDA
Thursday, February 1, 2001
9:00 a.m.
Members Present:
Chairman James D. Carter, Ph.D., Vice-Chairwoman Pamela S. Mac'Kie,
Commissioner Donna Fiala, Commissioner Tom Henning, Commissioner Jim
Coletta, County Manager Thomas W. Olliff, County Attorney David Weigei, Mayor
Bonnie R. MacKenzie, Vice Mayor Joseph Herms,. City Council Member Gary
Gailegerg, City Council Member William Macllvaine, City Council Member Fred
Tarrant, City Council Member Penny Taylor, City Council Member Tamela
Wiseman, City Attorney Beverly Grady, City Clerk Tara A. Norman, City Manager
Kevin J. Rambosk
1. Invocation and Pledge of Allegiance
2. Beach Projects
3. ASR
4. FY02 Budget Requests
5. Transit System
6. Adjourn
February 1, 2001
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Good morning. Welcome to this joint
meeting between the Board of County Commissioners and the
City Council of Naples.
Madam Mayor, it's a pleasure, Councilpersons, to have you
here. Fellow Commissioners, we look forward to this meeting.
And as always with our meetings and your meetings, we start
with an invocation, which will be by Mr. Tom Olliff, followed by
the Pledge of Allegiance.
MR. OLLIFF: Please stand.
Heavenly Father, we thank you so much this morning for
your grace and for your love and for your blessings on this
community. Father, we thank you this morning on this first day
of the month that we recognize as Black History Month, that
you've given us the good fortune to be able to meet in the Martin
Luther King Building. Father, we would like to take the
opportunity to recognize his efforts on behalf of Blacks and what
they have done for this great country of ours.
Father, we pray that you have your hand on this meeting this
morning. We pray that the decision makers will continue to look
to you for guidance and direction and that we would make
decisions that will be in your best will and in the best interests of
this community.
Father, we pray these things in your Son's name.
(The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.)
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Give everybody an understanding, an
opportunity for anybody who comes in late, we do have sign-up
slips that I understand have been passed out, if you wish to
speak on a topic.
We will take public input after we have had a discussion of
that topic, to be put into the public record for both governing
bodies to take into consideration when any decisions are made
respectively by those bodies.
The purpose of a workshop is to exchange information, to
exchange ideas, to share common ground, to find out where
uncommon ground is and try to get some resolution.
We do not vote in these workshops. It is truly -- as it is
indicated, it is a workshop for information and discussion
purposes.
Mr. Olliff.
Page 2
February 1, 2001
MR. OLLIFF: Mr. Chairman, we have your agenda that's been
provided to you. I think copies will be prepared in the room and
made available to the public in advance.
Perhaps this morning we can go through that agenda. And if
there are any other changes or additions to the agenda, we can
go ahead and -- while it's still a workshop, and informal -- maybe
set the agenda first.
We, from a staff perspective -- at least from the county staff
perspective, want to extend a thanks to Kevin Rambosk and his
staff for helping us put together the agenda. I think the
presentations were jointly formatted.
From our staff's perspective, we have no changes to the
agenda that has been presented to you.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Mr. Rambosk.
MR. RAMBOSK: We also have no changes to the agenda at
this time.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Then I'll move for approval of the
agenda.
MAYOR MacKENZIE: Second.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: All in favor, signify by saying aye.
All right. That's the easiest thing we have to do in a
meeting.
MAYOR MacKENZIE: Mr. Chairman, may I take a moment to
thank you and the members of the Board of Collier County
Commissioners for inviting us here this morning?
I have believed for a long time that we need to talk to each
other directly, instead of through various either print or
broadcast media. And it seems to me as though when we talk
directly about issues of common interest, that we make better
decisions.
And so I'm looking forward to beginning this series of
meetings, however frequently we decide to have them. Whether
it's once a year, twice a year or fifty times a year, this will
inaugurate a new spirit of openness and cooperation and a good
working relationship.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you, Mayor MacKenzie. It's
certainly the same feelings I could express from the Board of
County Commissioners, that we do want to meet with the City
Councils. We have yours. We have the City of Marco.
We also -- as you know, we are going to be having joint
Page 3
February 1, 2001
meetings with Lee County. Because we all live in a region,
nothing stops at city lines or county lines or roads.
Whether it's water usage, whatever it is, we're all in this
together. So we appreciate you being here and look forward to a
very productive meeting.
Item #2
DISCUSSION OF BEACH PROJECTS
MR. OLLIFF: With that, Mr. Chairman, the first item on your
agenda is beach projects. And we've asked John Staiger to
make a very brief presentation.
And just format-wise, for the public's sake, I'm holding onto
speaker slips. So if anybody in the public would like to speak, if
you would give me one of these slips, I believe the Chair has
asked that we allow speakers after each of these items is
presented on the agenda.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Right. And our normal procedure with
that is, we give you five minutes to say what you need to say.
We've found that you can be very articulate and get your points
across in that period of time. If for some reason you've got
another thirty seconds that you need, we will always give you
that opportunity.
Mr. Staiger. Dr. Staiger.
DR. STAIGER: For the record, Jori Staiger, natural resources
manager for the City of Naples.
You have in your packet a list of current City of Naples
projects that were approved or at least have funding approved by
the Board of County Commissioners in the last couple of years. I
will run down that list rapidly and give you an update on it.
First one is Doctor's Pass monitoring. That's an ongoing
project that basically acquires survey data every year that
satisfies our need to be sure that we are bypassing what boils
down to an average annual volume of 10,000 cubic yards of sand
around Doctor's Pass.
The current program, which has been in place since 1986, is
to dredge about 40,000 yards out of that pass every four years.
And we are in the middle of that project right now.
Next project is Doctor's Pass maintenance dredging that's
Page 4
February 1, 2001
been underway since October. The dredger swamped in
December, it is in Fort Myers being repaired. We have been
promised that it would be back dredging on the 15th of February.
The contractor is progressing with his repairs, so I am
optimistic.
The project was supposed to have been done December 8th
and it swamped on the 17th. The project is obviously way behind
schedule.
We had to hire a local contractor to take care of a
troublesome shoal in Moorings Bay and the cost of that will come
out of the liquidated damages for the project.
The next project is Gordon Pass emergency dredging and
that is essentially a reserve fund in case we have a problem
there. Thus far we haven't had a problem and hopefully we'll
never have to spend that money.
The Parker Sand Web System is a significant -- over a million
dollars. We have been sort of struggling with the permitting
agencies to get this experiment permitted.
The latest word is, it probably will be permitted by the
Department of Environmental Protection if not yesterday, then
today. We still have to go through the Corps of Engineers'
permitting process.
But they have indicated that if the Department of
Environmental Protection approves it, that the Corps will not
stand in the way.
So if we go through those hurdles or get over those hurdles
with the permits by the end of this month, we will probably have
the nets up for the months of March and April, and at least get a
two-month trial of this experiment.
The permit -- if the permits come through, we'll get that
experimental period in. And then we would reinstall the thing in
November at the end of turtle nesting season and try to keep it
operational for the next winter period, four to six months, if we
can.
Gordon Pass T-Groin project was completed last summer.
The structures are in place. They are functioning properly. We
now have a reasonable amount of dry sand beach down there
and public access across an area that over the last ten years or
so has been frequently inaccessible because of the lack of sand.
The next project is the monitoring for that T Groin effort.
Page 5
February 1, 2001
We have to monitor it at six months and at twelve months, and
then I believe annually for several years.
We have a grant from the tourism -- tourist tax for that
monitoring. We have not put together a tourism agreement yet
for it. That will probably be done in the next couple of weeks,
and you will see it at one of your board meetings in the near
future.
Implementation of the Gordon Pass Inlet Management Plan,
that project has been -- was placed on hold basically because the
Corps of Engineers was on again, off again about whether or
whether or not they were going to dredge Doctors -- or Gordon
Pass. They said they would and then they said they wouldn't,
and then they said they would again.
And rather than spend a bunch of money on engineering that
the Corps of Engineers is going to do anyway, I held off doing
anything with that. It looks like we're going to have to get into
at least some work there to make sure that whatever the Corps
does, it complies with our inlet management plan.
But I did not want to start an engineering project there that
the Corps of Engineers was going to duplicate. And they
basically will do it themselves regardless of whether we do it
ahead of time, so that would just be a waste of money.
Naples Pier restoration. The pier was restored. It's ahead
of schedule and on budget. It opened to the public on November
15th and we haven't had any complaints. And we appreciate
your contribution to the cost of doing that.
Sand Tighten Gordon Pass Jetty, that is part of the
implementation of the Gordon Pass Inlet Management Plan. The
jetty on the north end of Key Island has sand leaking through it
from the south. It leaks into the inlet, contributes to the shoaling
problems.
The owner of that jetty is Key Island, Incorporated. The
owners and the Corps of Engineering are now -- excuse me. The
owners and the Department of Environmental Protection are now
trying to resolve where the ownership ends.
Because according to Harry Huber, the DEP is willing to give
the county some money to help pay for that project, but they
cannot fund something that goes on private property. So we're
trying to get an idea of exactly where the demarcation between
that public property and private ends.
Page 6
February 1, 2001
If in fact the entire jetty is private, I think what we're going
to do is ask them to deed it over to the city so that it becomes
public and then we can go ahead and take over the maintenance
of it.
At any rate, the process is underway. And the owners of the
jetty have started the engineering on there at their expense,
which is a nice private/public partnership because we don't have
to pay for it.
Lowdermilk Park concession stand renovation. The building
official is in the process of designing that. When he gets plans
far enough along, I'll be able to start the permit application
process.
And that -- I think we're planning on getting that under
construction this summer, we're hoping. And that will be a
one-shot reconstruction of the concession stand area, the
renovation of it.
And the last item on here is beach access improvements
and they are in the planning and implementing stage right now by
our community services department. So that's the update on all
of our -- a lot of projects.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Any questions from councilpeople or
from commissioners? (No response.)
MR. OLLIFF: Mr. Chairman, if there are none, we do have
one registered speaker, Mr. Bill Boggess.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We couldn't talk about beaches
without Bill coming in and talking to us.
MR. OLLIFF: Probably not. While he's coming, I wanted to
just mention to the city how much we appreciate Dr. Staiger.
From our perspective, he is a jewel for us to work with. And
you're very fortunate.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Indeed we are. And from the TDC,
which I chair, he is always a gentleman. He always brings forth
very good data for us to take under consideration prior to us
passing it forward to the Board of County Commissioners. Mr. Boggess.
MR. BOGGESS: Good morning. For the record, my name is
Bill Boggess from the City of Naples. Please bear with me as I
read my prepared text, copies of which you all have.
Collier County's daily impact upon we, the residents, who try
Page 7
February 1, 2001
to be good Samaritans by sharing our facilities, such as beach
parking, boat ramps, city dock, city pier and city parks to
accommodate our county resident neighbors, has simply strained
our existence of peaceful settings and has nearly eliminated our
ready access to most of the aforementioned city facilities; while
the county does little or nothing to provide for its citizens.
Collier County's poor planning, uncontrolled, under-regulated
growth is adversely affecting our everyday life in the once quaint
City of Naples and is being done with little, if any, regard to
impacting our peace, tranquility, water, traffic, crime, pollution,
beach parking.
But it is also allowed to aggressively encroach upon the
ecosystem of Mother Nature, as noted by Governor Bush's edict
for a growth management plan by July 2002.
The facts are, we pay county taxes. My county tax is three
times the city tax. Naples City assessed value represents nearly
one-fourth of Collier County, and from within the City of Naples
comes nearly one-third of all tourist tax collected.
Past city planners provided citizens with ample residential
beachfront parking, while Collier County has consistently
allowed the virtual privatization of all beaches, enhancing only
the developer's bank accounts; failing to provide for its own
inland citizens.
Collier County could condemn beach access and parking,
which was so gallantly given away, but they won't. So if they
won't help their citizens, why should the City of Naples be
strangled by the lack of the county's accountability to its
citizens, which include us? Collier County's solution is to spend
half, $15 million of tourist fax for expenditures not expressly
authorized from our beach category A funds.
Expending these funds in direct violation of the enabling
statute and theirs and the Tourist Development Committee's
adopted guidelines, which Miss Heidi Ashton told you you didn't
have to follow, even though you did have them.
On items, to name but two, being one, the nonbeachfront
park, Connor's Park, providing remote parking for eighty vehicles;
and number two, the multistory parking garage, three of them I
understand are planned at the few existing county public access
beaches.
Vanderbilt, for instance, is being done at the displeasure of
Page 8
February t, 2001
the neighborhood residents, overcrowding of traffic on the
inadequate roadways, additional high-rise structures and
overcrowding limited amount of beach; all while not disturbing
the affluent developments or commercial properties which were
given untethered private beach access.
The existing interlocal beach parking agreement signed
November 5th, 1997 should be canceled, and can be so done by
written notice prior to April Fools Day; thus, returning our public
beach access parking to the city residents, whose taxes built,
maintained and paid for our well-planned, organized, improved
facilities. Whatever happened to political accountability?
you.
CHAIRMAN GARTER: Any other speakers, Mr. Olliff?
MR. OLLIFF: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN GARTER: Okay. Let's move to the next agenda
item.
COMMISSIONER MAG'KIE: I can't resist just one comment,
that Mr. Boggess points out to us, that we don't do enough to
provide beach access and accessibility and parking for county
residents and that we're bad for that.
And then he points out to us that we are also bad for
providing beach parking and beach access for county residents.
So it's a catch-22 you've got us in there, Mr. Boggess.
MR. BOGGESS: I have no objections to your parking
garages. It's the funding. Because you have shorted Naples
beach 275,000 cubic yards of materials that would cost $5
million today.
CHAIRMAN GARTER: Excuse me, Mr. Boggess. We're not
going to get in a debate with you this morning from either side. I
am restraining myself.
Based on what you said this morning, I'm not interested in
listening to propaganda. I'm more interested in listening to
facts.
And I could debate you all day long on that, but I'm not going to
do it this morning. So let's move to the next agenda item.
COUNCILMAN TARRANT: Mr. Chairman, could I say a word,
please?
CHAIRMAN GARTER: Yes. Councilman Tarrant.
COUNCILMAN TARRANT: Thank you. Fred Tarrant for the
City of Naples. I just want to express my own thanks as one
Thank
Page 9
February 1, 2001
member of the City Council for Citizen Bill Boggess and the
outstanding efforts that he has made over the years to bring
matters to the attention of the City Council and the County
Commission that in many, many cases were proven to need
attention.
So I think his track record is very, very good. And I think his
efforts as an unpaid, independent citizen of the city and county is
to be highly commended. Thank you, Mr. Boggess.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I just want to echo that. I agree,
Mr. Tarrant. We disagree on a lot of things, but on that we can
agree, that Mr. Boggess has done a great service to this
community on a lot of important beach-related issues.
On this particular case about the funding for the parking, I
disagree with his interpretation and rely on that of our lawyers
instead.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I would concur with Commissioner
Mac'Kie. And again, I don't want to debate the man this morning.
I'm not disregarding what he does or his points of view.
He has passion for them. He has a perfect right to present
them. This is not the forum, I believe, to have some of this
discussion about his value in the community. Councilman Herms.
COUNCILMAN HERMS: There was one additional issue on
the beaches that I'm not sure the commissioners are fully aware
of, and it's a very positive cooperative effort that is going on
right now between our city staff and the county staff.
We have identified that in the area, that we've spent over a
million dollars along our beaches to remove the rocks over the
last five years. That we still have rocks during certain periods of
time that will wash up close to the beach.
What happens, though, is that those quickly will get covered
up when the winds or the weather changes. And so it was
brought to our staff's attention that we needed to be able to
quickly identify that problem, for which we have our beach
patrols on the beach every day.
So we are now in the situation of where our beach patrols
can notify our staff, which then can notify the county staff, and
they can immediately bring in the equipment to remove that rock
that is in basically the waterline; and it's very close to the
waterline.
Page 10
February 1, 2001
And I think -- and I want to commend the county staff for
working with the city on that issue. Because I think over a
period of a few years we'll really get the last of the remaining
rock removed from the beach.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you, Councilman.
Item #3
DISCUSSION REGARDING ASR
MR. OLLIFF: Mr. Chairman, the next item is ASR, and for
that item I've asked Mr. Jim Mudd if he would kick off the
discussion.
MR. MUDD: For the record, I'm Jim Mudd, public utilities
administrator for Collier County.
What we plan to do today is not to go over everything we
went through on the 19th. We spent a good six hours during that
time and we're going to talk a little bit about those things that
we've got additional information for that you've asked us to look
at from that meeting. And we had four of the commissioners at
that meeting in attendance as they listened to the exchange.
And then I asked Mike Pettit, county attorney, to come up
and talk a little bit about the permit process and then talk a little
bit about where we are with the administrative hearing.
Carl -- the first thing on the agenda that we would like to
talk about is, we didn't have a good -- we didn't have a good
sketch when we talked about alternative locations for the ASR.
And the one that we had quoted on the 19th had a cost of
3.5 million versus the 2.3 at the north sewer plant would be out
in the Pelican Bay well field, which is on Livingston Road, north
of Immokalee. And that distance from the Naples well field is
approximately 3.5 miles.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE.' Jim, is that the green strip there
on the top right-hand corner?
MR. MUDD: That's right.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thank you.
MR. MUDD: That well field right now is used solely for
irrigation water, supplemental irrigation water for the Pelican
Bay facility.
That's that gray shaded area over to the west. Carl, if you
Page 11
February 1, 2001
could point to it, it's directly opposite or directly across from the
Naples well field.
Pelican Bay irrigation area is that brownish area right in
there. So that's what -- the water is piped down there for their
supplemental irrigation water.
And they use reclaimed water to the best that they can.
And when they need the supplemental water, they take it out of
the Pelican Bay well field. That's that green strip.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Jim, one last interruption. Does
anybody's potable water come from that green area, the
secondary source you just identified? MR. MUDD: No, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE.' Nobody's drinking water?.
MR. MUDD: No, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thank you.
MR. MUDD: Carl, can you put up the next slide?
The other thing that Councilman Herms asked us for was an
economic breakdown of the different processes, in a sense per
thousand if you did ASR and if you moved to an alternate location
and what the exact costs were.
So I got my folks together and we beat that around quite
extensively. But on this slide, the current rate that we charge
our effluent customers, no matter how it's delivered, how it's
stored, if it's pressurized or if it's just bulk or retail, is 13 cents
on the thousand.
1997 we had a rate study that was done for us by Kamp,
Dresser, Mickey, and they basically said bulk users -- that's
where we would just take the water, take it to their holding pond
and then they would pump it from their holding pond to the
sprinkler heads of their customers; that that should be 20 cents
on the thousand.
And for those folks that are retail, the ones where we
deliver, we store, we pressurize and we take it to their sprinkler
heads, may it be a home or a golf course, that should be 52 cents
on the thousand.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And, I'm sorry, but that would be
a break-even price? You wouldn't make any money on that?
MR. MUDD: That's a break-even price, ma'am.
And then we went into the reclaimed water ASR at the north
wastewater plant. And that's -- the capital cost was $2.3 million.
Page 12
February 1, 2001
The operating costs were included. And the increase that it
would be in order to put that ASR in would be 6 cents on the
thousand.
If we moved it to the Pelican Bay well field, the capital cost
increase from 2.3 to $3.5 million with the operating costs, we
would have to add some extra booster pumps because that stuff
is all at the north plant and I don't have that in the well field.
When you did that, it would be an increase of 9 cents on the
thousand.
So the difference between the ASR locations is 3 cents.
COUNCILMAN GALLEGERG: Mr. Mudd.
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
COUNCILMAN GALLEGERG.' Gary Gallegerg from the Naples
City Council.
When we had our meeting previously in our chambers for
information, I had asked you some questions about the supply
contracts.
And the pricing under the supply contracts that the county
has, is it fixed pricing or is it based on the cost of delivering the
water, or what is the basic pricing mechanism?
MR. MUDD: Sir, right now it's 13 cents on the thousand and
it doesn't make a difference how it's delivered.
COUNCILMAN GALLEGERG: So it's a fixed price.
MR. MUDD: It's a fixed price.
COUNCILMAN GALLEGERG: There is a margin. So even
though the Pelican Bay well field is more expensive, it still would
appear to me, at least, to be cost effective.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Mr. Gallegerg, I would just add to
that, that you know, when those rates -- this 13 cent rate was
set, it was primarily because we had this source. We needed to
get rid of this asset, so we would charge very little for it.
As it becomes a more marketable asset, I think you'll see
that the rates will became closer to -- at least closer to the
actual cost and hopefully, eventually can be high enough to
produce some level of profit for future investment toward water
resource management.
COUNCILMAN GALLEGERG: And also, if ASRs should be a
fact of life in the future, ultimately the parties using that water
fund the wells --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's right.
Page 13
February 1, 2001
COUNCILMAN GALLEGERG: -- it seems to me. There may be
a timing or financing issue there, but the ultimate funding would
come from the uses and not the taxpayers; is that correct?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's right.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: That's right. I think that's very key.
What you are saying, Councilman, is that long term the process
worked very well. Short term there will be some expense
incurred that will be borne -- they would have to pay more than
what they have been used to paying.
I think we can get there and it looks to me like that might be
a viable direction to go with if we use that location.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Because it's still not only
cheaper than -- it's not only cheaper environmentally because it's
the right thing to do to use the reused water, it's better for the
environment.
But it's still, even with the increase going to the Pelican Bay
well field, significantly cheaper than using potable water.
MAYOR MacKENZIE: Colonel Mudd -- I'm sorry. This is
Bonnie MacKenzie from the City of Naples. Do you have any
preliminary topography studies that would use -- that would be
able to substantiate using this site as a possible location for the
-- are you planning to put in three ASRs in your initial --
MR. MUDD: Yes, ma'am. We've got that -- that was done as
part of the study as an alternate site. We have that information
on the original form.
MAYOR MacKENZIE: And it is suitable?
MR. MUDD: Yes, it is suitable, ma'am. But we still have to
go out there and look. I mean, we've got a general idea, but we
still need to look, pinpoint to make sure that the hydrogeology is
correct in the subsurface.
MAYOR MacKENZIE: Which is the purpose of the test well?
MR. MUDD: Yes. Or the test drill, yes, ma'am.
COUNCILWOMAN TAYLOR: I have a question, Mr. Mudd.
Penny Taylor, Naples City Council. The closest drinking well
field, drinking water well field such as ours, is what to the
Pelican Bay well field? Is it our well field or is there another
one?
MR. MUDD: It's your well field 3.5 miles away.
COUNCILWOMAN TAYLOR: 3.5 miles. Thank you.
MR. MUDD: The last item that was on that chart list is a
Page 14
February 1, 2001
supplemental water project that we have on the books. It's
called two different names. It's called the Immokalee Road
Supplemental Water Project and it's also, for those folks that like
it a little bit shorter, it's called the Mule Pen Quarry well field.
And that's a project that we have on the books, to draw 3.5
million gallons a day as supplemental irrigation water in order to
talk about -- to fulfill those contracts that we had.
It's a $1.4 million capital program, a little less on pumps and
things like that that we need in that process. But the cost -- the
increased cost to our customers would be 3 cents on the
thousand. And that's that last line. And this is also in your
packet on page 6 of my slides where it says rates.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Of course the bad news about
that water source is that it is water that could be treated for
drinking water. It diminishes the water that's available for
drinking water.
We have to do that to meet the contracts that we have and
so we will, but it's a shame to be using potable water for
irrigation.
MR. MUDD: I am going to turn the pulpit over to Mike Pettit,
our county attorney, to talk about the permit process and the
administrative hearing issues, where we stand.
If you have questions, I have Lou Horvath, our contractor,
here. My staff is here and we can answer whatever questions you
have.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Councilman Herms has a question. I
don't know if it's for you, Colonel Mudd, or whether it's for Mike
Pettit --
COUNCILMAN HERMS: It's actually for Colonel Mudd. If
they could put the slide back up there, the 6 cents. MR. MUDD.' The rate slide, Carl.
COUNCILMAN HERMS: The 6 cent cost for the well is based
upon, I'm guessing, 3 or $4 million of actual cost of the
construction.
MR. MUDD: The 6 cents to the north?
COUNCILMAN HERMS: Right.
MR. MUDD: It is a breakdown on the operations and
maintenance cost, additional pumps that we need, whatever we
need on distribution systems that need to go in there, whatever
it takes.
Page15
February 1, 2001
In this particular case it's the lack of telemetry that I need
because I've got people on site watching that facility. When you
move it to the Pelican Bay well field, then I've got to put the
telemetry in and hook it up to the computer to make sure all of
that is there and do that process.
So we try to make it a full life cycle cost from the time that
you build it to the time that you watch it because it's a
continuing rate.
COUNCILMAN HERMS.' My actual question is, that 6 cents is
what type of dollar cost?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: What's your gross number?.
MR. MUDD: Carl, you have the spreadsheet with you real
fast?
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: The cost of the ASR IS 2.2 million.
MR. MUDD: It's 2.3 million. And I'm trying to get the annual
O and M cost, you know, the --
COUNCILMAN HERMS: So that $2.3 million is going to cost
the ratepayers an additional 6 cents?
MR. MUDD: A thousand, plus the O and M cost to go along
with that.
COUNCILMAN HERMS: And that's it?
MR. MUDD: That's it, sir.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: The ratepayers for the effluent,
not the general?
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Not potable water, but for effluent
water.
COUNCILMAN HERMS: So if you were to do the other option
that you had talked to us about at the last meeting, which was
some type of above ground reservoir that was in the 20 to $25
million range, if you were to calculate that out, you're talking
about a ten-time increase above that number?
MR. MUDD: Sir, that was for the lagoon option. And then --
COUNCILMAN HERMS: So we're at probably 50 or 60 cents
per thousand gallons?
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. And the cost for supplemental water,
just to give you some range of comparison, the cost for an
organization, for yourself or anybody else to drill the well and
pump well water out of the Tamiami aquifer runs anywhere
between 50 and 60 cents on the thousand, so --
COUNCILMAN HERMS: Right. You had quoted 55 cents at
Page 16
February 1,200t
our last meeting.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Doesn't that in effect mean that
the lagoon option or the above ground storage option would
cause that water, the effluent water, to cost more than potable
water; is that what I just heard you say? COUNCILMAN HERMS: No.
MR. MUDD: What we just basically said is, it would take you
above drilling your own well option for supplemental irrigation
water.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm sorry. That's what I meant.
It would make it more expensive than the alternative that would
otherwise be available to a golf course, which is to drill their own
well and to suck water out of the Tamiami?
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Or anyone that's on a flow water
system, such as Pelican Bay, for lawns, which is a big factor,
which we would get that everywhere in the county, is where you
never have to touch bottled water to put into the landscaping.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And the reason I make that point,
Joe, is that if we went with one of those two options, then our
market dries up -- excuse the pun -- because nobody will pay
more just because it's the environmentally correct thing to do to
use the effluent water.
They are more likely to go with the cheaper option in a
business and draw out the aquifer.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Isn't there restriction on the use
of water as far as potable water goes for watering golf courses
and yards where there isn't effluent water?
CHAIRMAN CARTER: You're right on that, according to the
South Florida Water Management District. I'll let Colonel Mudd
verify this.
We all heard on the radio this morning that that is true. If
you have effluent water resources, there's no restrictions on how
you can use that.
They encourage you not to overuse it. Because when you
do, then you're going to go to potable water. And then you're
into restrictions now, but the fines -- the maximum fine is $500
for umpteen violations.
If you're running a big operation, $500, or if you're very
wealthy, $500 doesn't mean anything. So the fines are probably
not that major for people to violate the rules.
Page 17
February 1, 2001
COUNCILMAN TARRANT: If I could, Colonel Mudd and
Chairman Carter, for just one second, Fred Tarrant for the record.
The discussion of the economics involved in the storing and
processing and delivery of treated sewer water is very
interesting.
But I think really, in my mind at least, it pales into
insignificance in the face of potential health risk to the public
from pumping treated sewer water into lower aquifers. Where,
over a period of time, who knows how long, perhaps not in our
political lifetime, but at some point, may migrate.
And Clarence Tears from the Big Cypress Basin Board stated
some time back that my fears -- it was quoted in the paper that
Tarrant's fears may be exaggerated, but that there are many
what ifs.
And Mr. Gallegerg and other council members addressed the
what ifs and the concerns about the what ifs at great length last
Friday at our joint meeting.
And I think also a point was raised that Collier County is not
the first county in Florida to inject treated sewer water into the
lower aquifer; that that is being done and has been done for
many years in Gainesville.
Did I hear that correctly? And with no adverse
consequences. Was that -- did I hear that last Friday?
MR. OLLIFF: I'll let Mr. Joe Cheatham, our current
wastewater director, answer that question for you.
MR. CHEATHAM: For the record, Joe Cheatham, wastewater
director. Since 1977 Gainesville has been injecting treated --
advanced waste treatment reclaimed water into the Floridian
aquifer at a depth of around 800 to 1,000 feet as a drinking water
source from Gainesville with no health effects whatsoever.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Cheatham, Commissioner
Tom Henning, for the record. You are saying that they inject
treated water, wastewater into that aquifer and that source is a
drinking water source?
MR. CHEATHAM: Yes, sir. The drinking water wells in
Gainesville are drilled approximately 100 feet in the ground.
They are approximately seven to eleven miles away from the
injection point of the wastewater treatment plant. The
movement of the water or the plumb of the water has moved a
half a mile in twenty-three years.
Page18
February 1, 2001
There's an amount of wells located five miles around the
injection point that's monitored monthly, quarterly and annually
on drinking water parameters with no violations of drinking
water quality standards.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And I just had to comment, Mr.
Tarrant. I respect your opinions. I respect your motives here. I
know that you're only doing what we're all trying to do, and that
is to look out for the best interest of the future generations of the
community and I appreciate that.
I wish I could come up with a good analogy, though, a
perfect one that in this case, however, the -- and in every case,
frankly, the cost of an item when you're spending somebody
else's money is a factor.
And I know based on your involvement with the Taxpayers'
Action Group and others, that you are not a tax and spend kind of
guy. And so it is surprising to me to hear you say that, you know,
it's not relevant, the cost issues are not relevant.
In my mind, we are very carefully balancing the cost, which
is a big number and a tiny, a minuscule risk as evidenced by all
the science.
And I will tell you, I will just go ahead and put it out on the
table, that I'm going to be trying to convince the County
Commission today to move this well field, this ASR test, away
from the city's well field and to go into this Pelican Bay site.
Just because it is the first time we've done it and because it
is new for us, it is something that we need to be more than
careful about. And for the very first one, despite the fact that it
does add to the cost for the end user, I'm hopeful that a majority
of the Board will agree to move it to the Pelican Bay well field.
COUNCILMAN TARRANT: And Commissioner Mac'Kie, I
appreciate that and I appreciate you and the work that you do
and the thought that you give to all the issues that come to the
County Commission. And I mean that sincerely.
But I have had some information from Gainesville. We have
to base everything on what we hear, you know, what we know,
what we hear. And I have had some information from
Gainesville.
I'm going to research it further because I wasn't able to get
through to the right party. But I have some information that
Page 19
February 1, 2001
would lead me to believe that they have had a problem of leaking
sewer water, effluent up into the upper aquifer in Gainesville.
And I'll have to verify that, but I believe that that did occur.
So the statement that was just made is not an accurate
statement.
And I would also refer you to a March issue of the National
Geographic that pointed out the colored dyes that were on a test
basis introduced into the aquifer areas showed up at a distance
a short time later twenty miles away.
And Clarence Tears and others have said that the South
Florida aquifer is like a sponge. Whatever you put into it is going
to end up in the water.
And I would just suggest that -- respectfully suggest,
Commissioner Mac'Kie, that if the County Commission indeed in
the end does go forward at this site with this ASR project
without -- without placing this on a referendum to give the public
a chance to thoroughly debate and understand this issue and
vote on this issue of whether they want to take the risk for this
type of operation, then I think that would be a very, very grave
mistake.
COUNCILMAN GALLEGERG: Commissioner Mac'Kie, I was
pleased a few minutes ago for you to say that you would urge the
Commission to establish the first test well. And if that works all
through the first ASR at the location further out, the Pelican Bay
location, I think that's a wise course for the first.
When you're talking about economics, I agree with Mr.
Tarrant that the primary concern of everyone is the health and
safety of the people in our region and the quality of the drinking
water and so forth. So in a narrow context, it's not economics.
It's health and safety.
I would like to volunteer, though, that apples -- if you're
talking 6 cents per thousand versus 9, I don't think economics
are the primary concern. That's why I think moving the well pool
farther away is better.
Economics, even under a health and safety point of view,
which is my primary point of view, does come into play if it gets
expensive enough that the water won't be used.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Exactly.
COUNCILMAN GALLEGERG: And maybe someone here can
point out again, this water is not being created, if I understand
Page 20
February 1, 2001
things correctly. This water is here.
And if it's not -- if it's not used and stored in this way, maybe
we can all be refreshed on what happens. Because this is not
invented water. Something has to be done with this water.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: You're absolutely right, Councilman.
And I would refer back to Joe Cheatham or Colonel Mudd to
direct the answer to that question. But you're right. If you don't
store it, where does it go?
MR. MUDD: The reason I had Joe up here is, Joe was going
to clarify Councilman Tarrant's process on Gainesville. Joe
worked in Gainesville for thirty years on their wastewater
facility.
First of all, that injection seven miles away from their
intakes for the well field goes straight into the aquifer. There's
no ASR at all. It's just a place where it exits seven miles up from
that well field.
In order to go through that issue -- and the place that you're
talking about with a leakage up in Gainesville has to do with a
holding pond. And the problem that they had -- and Joe can get
into that and give Mr. Tarrant all the facts he would like to have
in that process.
But we brought Joe Cheatham down here to our county staff
from Gainesville, after he retired after thirty years of service up
in that process in the wastewater area.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So the leakage -- if whatever is
being referred to here had to do with a holding pond and not with
any kind of injection well?
MR. MUDD: That's right.
COUNCILWOMAN TAYLOR: And the holding pond is above
the ground?
MR. MUDD: Yes, ma'am.
COUNCILWOMAN TAYLOR: Is it a lined holding pond?
MR. CHEATHAM: What happened in Gainesville is, they have
holding ponds used for what they call reject water. We have the
same situation here in Collier County, though our ponds are lined
with a plastic liner.
Back in the early seventies it was decided in Gainesville to
do -- to line those ponds with clay. And in Gainesville they have
a lot of problems with sinkholes. And we had a holding pond
there that had some sinkholes form in it and this water went
Page 21
February 1, 2001
down into the aquifer.
And this is back in about 1979 this happened. It caused a
little bit of a stir, but it was not the effluent that caused the stir.
It was the holding pond.
They had one issue in Gainesville back in the early eighties
where they had a well -- this was a well construction problem
that was resolved. It was just some faulty construction. The
techniques we've used for wells since then have been
dramatically changed and that's been corrected.
But the City of Gainesville spends approximately $350,000 a
year in laboratory costs to monitor the system. So it has been
proven with tons and tons and tons of data that this is a good
practice.
Now, Gainesville is not -- again, it's not an ASR well. It
supplements the Floridian aquifer with reclaimed water, high
quality product. That's the remains of effluent disposal for
Gainesville.
And it's been doing this since 1977, so it's been proven not
to have any health effects to the drinking water in the City of
Gainesville.
COUNCILMAN HERMS: But I think the important point you
just made was that they did have a failure.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Not in the well, sir.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: In a pond.
COUNCILMAN HERMS: No. He just explained that there was
a casing on the well that failed. They were pumping into about 3
or 400' feet of the aquifer. The casing failed.
They found out about it through the monitoring wells. And
now they are pumping it about 900 feet.
MR. CHEATHAM: No, sir. The wells are cased at 350, but
they are drilled to a thousand. That's the way the wells are in
Gainesville, the way they are designed.
They never changed the way -- they were just effluent
disposal. It is still going down to a thousand feet. But the casing
we had a problem with and it was repaired. And again, the
technology in the seventies and eighties was a lot different than
it is today.
COUNCILMAN TARRANT: Did you just say that the well
casing failed?
MR. CHEATHAM: Yes, sir.
Page 22
February 1, 2001
COUNCILMAN TARRANT: Okay. That's entirely different
than what you were telling us a little while ago when you said
there was no problem in Gainesville.
MR. CHEATHAM: There was no problem.
COUNCILMAN TARRANT: Then you said it was the
percolation pond in the sinkhole. Now we're finding out that it
was the well casing. That's different.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No, sir. He told us that. He told
us this in City Hall, that there was a problem with the casing.
The important point, among many, but an important point here is
that this is a well with casing designed in the seventies. That
has nothing -- no similarity to what we would be doing with this
ASR well.
But he, in his desire to be so forthcoming and to tell you
every negative thing that's ever happened in Gainesville so that
you can be sure that he's being absolutely honest with you, he's
telling you details about items that really bear little to no relation
to this.
COUNCILMAN TARRANT: And Commissioner Mac'Kie, as far
as him explaining about the failure of the well casing last Friday,
I defy you to go through the transcripts, the audiotapes of last
Friday and find that. Because I've gone through them twice with
a fine-tooth comb.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Perhaps he told it to me.
COUNCILMAN TARRANT: Please find that for me.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Perhaps he told it to me in a
conversation. It's not news.
COUNCILWOMAN TAYLOR: Except I think the bottom line is
that failing or problems or leakage, there has been no impact to
the drinking water and the health, safety and welfare of
Gainesville citizens since it started almost thirty years ago.
MR. CHEATHAM: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: You're absolutely correct, Councilman
COUNCILWOMAN TAYLOR: Taylor.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: -- Betty Taylor.
Here's the issue to me. You have monitoring, so that if there
is any indication there is a problem, you correct it. You're right
with the bottom line. It is safer-- it's as safe a process as
humanly possible.
Page 23
February 1, 2001
I would be the last one that would approve anything that
would affect the health, safety and welfare of my family, who live
here, my grandchildren live here. I'm not looking to do anything
negative to the environment.
But I'm highly concerned if we lose millions of gallons of
water a day that we could recover and restore and reuse, and if
we don't do something, we could sit here for fifty years and
debate little itty-bitty points in here and say, '~qell, I heard this or
I heard that."
I want to get on and look at the big picture and find out, how
do we save water and how do we use it? That, to me, is the
issue.
COUNCILMAN TARRANT: And the big picture, Chairman
Carter, occurred in Milwaukee where a hundred people died and
400,000 people were seriously ill.
COUNCILMAN MaclLVAINE: Being an ex-Milwaukee
resident, I think we're looking at a very, very different situation
up there where we were in Milwaukee drawing water out of Lake
Michigan.
We were also expelling treated water into Lake Michigan.
The intake and the outgo were too close together. And there
was a problem in the water purification plant and that's what
caused a difficulty up there. It had nothing to do with
groundwater or aquifers.
I think on the health and safety part, that it's the -- that the
idea of moving the well from 1.3 of the aquifer -- test well 1.3
miles to 2 1/2 miles away is a good idea. I think it might add a
little bit of potential safety.
I don't know that we can guarantee safety. I think -- I was
asking one of the experts a few days ago, "Can you guarantee
it?" And they said, really, they couldn't guarantee it.
We can't guarantee anything. We can't guarantee flying on
an airplane that it's going to stay in the air, but we're going to
take our chances because the results of not flying mean you are
going to be out of business. And that's what we are worried
about, being out of business.
COUNCILMAN TARRANT: And Mr. Macllvaine --
COUNCILMAN MaclLVAINE: Let me finish, Mr. Tarrant,
because I've got one more important thing to say. And that is,
we are putting this effluent on golf courses right now.
Page 24
February 1, 2001
It's seeping down through the layers into our aquifer; the
aquifer that our pumps are, say, roughly eighty feet down. Now,
the water somehow is becoming purified during this seepage or
during this percolation.
So if we put water down 800, 900 feet and it seeps upward,
it seems to me that the trickle-up effect would be no more lower
deleterious than the trickle-down effect.
And I can't see that we have this very serious and difficult
question that you're bringing up because I think that we're living
with this all the time. And I think that so far we've found that the
results of nature have done a good job in keeping our water pure.
COUNCILMAN TARRANT: All I wanted to say, Bill, is that
your analogy of people getting on airplanes and the risk of flying
and all that is interesting because we don't force people to get
on airplanes. They do that voluntarily.
If you go forward with ASR and pumping treated sewer
water into a lower aquifer, you're exposing hundreds upon
hundreds of private well holders in Collier County and 16,000 city
water customers to an unwarranted risk and they will have little
or no alternative to say anything about it if it is not placed on a
referendum so that they can at least have the chance to vote on
whether they want to run that kind of a high risk.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Mr. Tarrant, despite all the
science to the contrary, you are going to continue to repeat that,
even though every bit of that has been refuted?
COUNCILMAN TARRANT: I'm not only going to continue to
repeat it, Commissioner Mac'Kie, I'm going to go out and raise
private funds and fight this to the last inch.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Commissioner Carter.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Commissioner Fiala, then
Commissioner Henning. And I think the rest of your debate,
Councilman Tarrant, you can have with your City Council about
this.
I'm reading what's going on in this room. And I think that
you may be in a minority opinion here, which you have a right to
have, but the rest of us I think are going to move forward.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Just for clarification, I wanted to
know, is there any risk to drill a test drill? Because Councilman
Tarrant keeps mentioning the risk.
I was wondering, is there any risk to the test drill? And
Page 25
February 1, 2001
then, is there any risk involved gathering data from a test well?
To me I feel that that's where we're going to eliminate the
concerns of the risk.
MAYOR MacKENZIE: No. But I think the concern that we
have is where you put the test well is where you're going to put
the real well. And I am very encouraged with --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I think that's a great suggestion. It
sounds like something we can all wrap our arms around.
MAYOR MacKENZIE: To move it a little bit further north.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Right.
MAYOR MacKENZIE: Especially because there aren't any
treated wastewater ASR wells in the state of Florida that are
under construction right now, we don't have a track record.
I know that everyone in Collier County, elected officials or
professional staff, are just as dedicated to the health, safety and
welfare as the people from the City of Naples are. So I know
you're going to build a good ASR well. That's not a question.
The question is, as we do it for the first time, shouldn't we
do it a little bit further away and increase that margin of safety?.
Because it will be monitored. I'm not exactly sure what the
remedies are if we do discover a problem, but we'll -- as we
continue to negotiate this, I am sure we'll figure out what those
remedies are going to be. But the first step has to be to increase
the margin of safety and go on.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I think you'll probably find
concurrence in this room, Mayor MacKenzie, with that. Because
once we do the test, if it's done in a location we can agree to
collectively, then as you monitor that and find out and get the
data, that answers the first question. If there's no problems, of
course we want to go ahead with the well.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Commissioner Carter, if I may.
Early on, in the past week or so, I have taken the concerns of
Naples residents to heart.
And they are voters and they are people that are taxpayers
in Collier County and part of Collier County, in addition to being
part of the City of Naples.
And if their concerns are so great that they wouldn't like to
have the test well in their immediate well field, I can respect
that.
And even though I see and I really believe that staff has got
Page 26
February 1, 2001
this right as far as dangers being nonexistent, for the most part,
or to the point of being in the millions as far as a chance of an
occurrence happening, I do endorse moving the well field out to
the Pelican well field area.
And this is something I have been passing on to staff and
told them that was the direction I was going to go in this
meeting.
We're going to have to realize that this test well is going to
be leading to a whole new avenue. Not just effluent storage, but
also of the excess runoff that we have during the rainy season.
We're in a desperate situation. There is two issues that we
keep hearing from our constituents out there; and that's roads
and water. And I'll tell you something, we can't continue the way
we are.
We're not going to be able to get water from any sources.
Either we go to the Gulf of Mexico and spend millions of dollars
of taxpayers' money, that they're not going to appreciate, or we
start to develop this technology to store our excess runoff from
the summer months so that we can draw from it in the winter
months when we need it.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Mr. Olliff, do we have public speakers?
COUNCILMAN TARRANT: Could I ask one further follow-up,
Chairman Carter, with your patience -- CHAIRMAN CARTER: Yes, sir.
COUNCILMAN TARRANT: -- and indulgence, please, sir?.
How far -- is the -- is there a Tamiami aquifer in the Pelican Bay
area or not?
MR. CHEATHAM: Yes, sir.
COUNCILMAN TARRANT: Then if there is, then how far
would it be from the proposed ASR in Pelican Bay to the Tamiami
aquifer that lies above it? My guesstimate would be perhaps no
more than 5 or 600 feet.
So while you're talking about a distance of 3.5 miles from
the city well as being a substantial improvement, I think what we
need to focus on is the distance from the proposed point where
the effluent or the sewer water is pumped in the ground to the
Tamiami aquifer, which is probably no more than 5 or 600 feet.
And in our interesting joint meeting last Friday -- and it was
very productive -- it was pointed out that the Tamiami aquifer
moves southwest at a rapid speed, at a much, much higher rate
Page 27
February 1, 2001
of speed than, let's say, perhaps the Hawthorne aquifer or other
aquifers.
So my point is that all that material in the ASR well at
Pelican Bay has to do is to migrate or leak upward 5 or 600 feet
into the Tamiami aquifer and it's on an express train heading for
City of Naples water fields. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Mr. Chairman, at some point in
these proceedings, do you think we might be able to take a straw
poll to try to find out what the council members and the
commissioners, how they feel about this issue? CHAIRMAN CARTER: Probably. Tamela.
COUNCILWOMAN WISEMAN: Tamela Wiseman, from Naples
City Council. That was basically what I was going to say. If we
could maybe see if we had a consensus either before or after the
public comment. And also, we were going to get an update on
the status of the administrative hearing? MR. OLLIFF: Yes.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Let Mike Pettit, counselor for the -- for
Collier County.
MR. PETTIT: Good morning, Mayor MacKenzie, Chairman
Carter, commissioners, council. My name is Mike Pettit. I'm an
assistant county attorney.
And I have had some involvement in the administrative
petition that the City of Naples has filed and have also attended
a meeting in October 2000, which Councilman Tarrant was at as
well as Commissioner Mac'Kie and county and city staff and
Department of Environmental Protection staff which was, I
thought, informative on the permit process.
I want to talk about two things very quickly, the permit
process, and I am going to move through that a little more
quickly than I planned.
Because I think -- my impression is, particularly having been
in that October meeting and then again at the City Council
workshop, you are all pretty well educated on it.
Let me explain, the exploratory well or exploratory drilling
permit that's now at issue that the city has challenged, a couple
things. It took seven months to get to the point where the
Department of Environmental Protection agreed to issue a notice
to allow that permit to proceed.
The city then challenged. And the city was able to do that
Page 28
February 1, 2001
because that's always made a matter of public notice. And there
is an opportunity for public comment, and persons with standing
can challenge the DEP's decision.
If that permit is issued, regardless of the location of the
exploratory drilling, there will be no effluent injected into the
ground as a result of that permit being issued.
The purpose of that exploratory drilling is very simply to find
out more about the geology and hydrogeology of whatever site is
chosen for the exploratory well.
There are two other permits that the county would have to
obtain in order to have a fully functional, operating ASR well or
wells.
The first would be an ASR test well construction permit and
that's truly the test well. That's essentially a temporary
operating permit. The permit would allow us to build an ASR
well. We would run tests for nine to twelve months.
That data would be analyzed by the Department of
Environmental Protection and the county. It certainly would be
open to the public.
And at that point a decision can be made as to whether that
site was appropriate again to proceed forward with an operating
permit to allow additional -- that well and additional wells to
continue in a regular operating fashion.
That also is subject to a permit process. Each time that
there is a permit to be issued, affected members of the public
can challenge that permit.
Moving to the administrative hearing process, we're now in
what's called an informal hearing stage. That means,
theoretically, that there are no disputed issues of material fact.
And I'll come back to that in a moment.
The city recently requested that that process be given a
sixty-day abatement in order to have a meeting such as this and
also the meeting that occurred a couple weeks ago at the
Council, where there was a workshop on ASR issues. The county
responded and agreed to a thirty-day abatement, which would
run out on February 12th, this month.
You should all be aware -- and you may not -- that the DEP
objected to both the city's request and the county's request. And
their point of view was that the abatement should end today.
Now, I will tell you, when they entered that objection -- and I
Page 29
February 1, 2001
think their concerns are administrative because this permit has
been in limbo for so long.
When they made that objection, they were unaware that this
meeting was scheduled and they were unaware that the Council
workshop was going to go forward. And I'm sure you can get
information from the City Council people, who can get
information from their own attorneys.
I have had one telephone conversation with the attorney
from the DEP. Her position is now -- we have really three time
periods before the hearing officer.
And the hearing officer has been silent. She has not made
any ruling on the city's request for a sixty-day abatement. She
has not made any ruling on the county's agreement to thirty days
of that sixty days. And she's made no ruling on the DEP's
objection. I think it's important and --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm sorry. The DEP objects to the
delay?
MR. PETTIT: Yes.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I didn't know that, okay.
MR. PETTIT: I think they were under the impression that
this meeting might have occurred sooner. And I think at the time
that the attorney entered the objection, she was unaware that
this meeting was in the offing.
And now that it's been scheduled, I think -- and I can't speak
for the DEP or her, but I believe that they would be willing to step
back from the objection because obviously the two bodies are
speaking.
I think it's important -- I want to end on this note. With
respect to the exploratory drilling permit, it's at least the county
attorney's office's position and the staff's position that the
challenge that's been made by the city is premature. And here's
why I say that.
I've read the city's petition and I have been in the meetings,
and I can tell that the concern is ASR technology. The
exploratory drilling really has nothing to do with ASR technology
per se. It's to find out what the hydrogeology and the geology is
at whatever site that exploratory drilling takes place at.
That information would then be available to both the city
and the county and the general public to assess whether
proceeding at that site with an ASR test well is a feasible or a
Page 30
February 1, 2001
good idea.
The county may conclude it isn't. The city may say, "Now
we have reason to really challenge what the county wants to
do." And there could be a lot of outcomes from that result.
And so I think that's one of the things I wanted to get out
today, is that the exploratory drilling permit is not the place to
debate ASR issues. That probably would occur at the ASR test
well construction permit phase.
And I want to emphasize that the city or other people with
standing would have an opportunity to make a challenge there if
they were concerned about the ASR technology.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But hopefully, Mike, we've done
so much of that challenging and discussing already that we
won't have to do it again or a majority of us will agree not to
continue to do it.
Because your point is right. Technically this is a dry hole
that we seek a permit for. But we have all learned more than we
ever thought we would probably learn about injecting water into
our aquifers and what the layers are between. And hopefully we
won't have to continue to have that discussion.
MR. PETTIT: One other quick point on the status. If the
administrative proceeding goes forward and if the county and the
city cannot stipulate to a joint set of facts for the hearing officer
to look at, the proceeding will go down a different route.
And that route is before the Division of Administrative
Hearings. And it will become a true trial-like process. And then
we're going to enter the world of depositions of experts,
depositions of city and county staff and it will extend out over
time.
COUNCILMAN GALLEGERG: Mr. Pettit, when Commissioner
Mac'Kie earlier brought up the possibility that the Commission
would move the site of the well to the site we've heard today, 3
1/2 miles away, I assume that includes, as it must, where the
test well would be drilled.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It does.
COUNCILMAN GALLEGERG: How would that affect the
permitting process, if at all?
MR. PETTIT: Without researching -- and I'll give you my
unresearched opinion. No lawyer likes to give an opinion without
doing research. I think it would moot the permit that we have
Page 31
February 1, 2001
out there pending.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We would have to start over?.
MR. OLLIFF: Yes, ma'am.
MR. PETTIT'. That would be my opinion. We have our
consultant here and Jim Mudd. I see Jim shaking his head. I
think we would have to start the permit process over.
COUNCILWOMAN TAYLOR: And what does this do to your
time lime to get the money, which is the reason we have pushed
this forward, right?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Grant.
COUNCILWOMAN TAYLOR: What does this do to your grant
possibilities?
MR. MUDD: We've asked the South Florida Water
Management District to extend that $200,000 grant that they had
given us that -- that sunsets here the 1st of July for a two-year
period of time for us. We're waiting for their answer.
And Commissioner Carter has graciously said that he would
also write a letter to the South Florida Water Management
District and their board to -- their governing board to recommend
that we get that extension. We don't have an answer back on
that.
If we move it to the site that's the Pelican Bay well site, it's
going to add six months to the process because we're going to
have to go out there and ask for another permit.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Mr. Mudd, might it be helpful if--
just an idea -- if the City Council were to write a letter in support
of the continuation of the grant? It might help us.
Because this is basically a political process, right? These
are gubernatorial appointees on the board that will decide
whether or not to give us the extension on the grant. I would
just make that comment, if City Council would consider
supporting our request to extend the grant.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I think that's all reasonable. I would
like to go to public input. I need to do that. And then we can
take the straw vote.
MR. OLLIFF: Mr. Chairman, we're going to get a public
speaker. There's about six of them. But I want to be real clear
on the record that the staff recommendation to you hasn't
changed.
We still firmly believe -- and we were asked to provide some
Page 32
February 1, 2001
additional supplemental information about alternative sites to be
done.
Your staff's recommendation isn't moving, though. Our
recommendation is that we believe there's enough good science,
good protection in terms of the relocation that we recommended
to you.
If both of these boards collectively want to make a decision
that is for public perception reasons, or for other protection
reasons, that is certainly your purview. But our recommendation
-- I just wanted you to know -- is staying where it's at.
You have six registered speakers and I'll call the first one. I
think it's Thomas and I believe it's Macchia, followed by Gil
Erlichman.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: As they are coming up, Tom, I
appreciate that it's your job to give us your best professional
recommendation, and that's what you're doing.
I also know that you understand that the policy makers have
to make those decisions based on that information and on other
factors.
And in this case my hope is that a majority of the board is
going to agree is that an extra million, million two, an extra six
months is worth it for the comfort level of the community.
COUNCILMAN GALLEGERG: And which money comes back
eventually.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's right.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: And everyone, again, five minutes,
please. Appreciate it.
MR. MACCHIA: My name is Tom Macchia. I'm from the
county. My father always told me, "Follow the money." And I
just heard about the $200,000.
I'm afraid of this thing because it seems to me, as compared
to percolator ponds, which cost more money, they can be
monitored.
You know, out of mind, out of sight (sic). You pump down
500 feet, 600 feet, it's going to be more difficult to monitor, I'm
sure of that, without being an expert.
If something goes wrong, which does happen in your plants,
when you're cleaning up this poop, urine and chemical waste,
you could find it out much simpler if it's in a percolator pond
rather than if it's 5, 600 feet under the ground.
Page 33
February 1, 2001
The experts have been wrong so many times before that I
just don't have the trust in it that the people who are looking for
the $200,000 grant are.
A lot of people are blaming Fred Tarrant for slowing up this
process. And yes, he is to blame. But what we get out of it is a
couple of things.
It gets a chance for the people and the public and the
drinking public to at least have an opinion about it. Otherwise,
this thing would never be discussed. There would never be
articles in the paper. There would never be experts talking
about it.
There would never have been the joint meeting before.
There never would be this joint meeting. And at the very least it
spreads it out so people in the public, in the drinking public can
take a look at it.
In the brochure that me and Erlichman put out, we
suggested that where this is really going is that they are going to
eventually have us drinking this poop, urine and chemical waste.
And that's exactly what's been going on -- they are claiming is
going on in Gainesville. And this is where it's going.
And the reason they want to stop you from doing the test
well is because the test well -- the purpose of the test well is to
treat this effluent and pump it under the ground. So you try to
stop it at the first -- when you first start off.
And I'm curious about something. You put a test well down
at point A and then that's not where you are going to put the
well. You make some decisions about the geology in that one
particular point and then you go someplace else and you drill a
well someplace else. I don't understand that at all. Anyway,
that's all I have to say.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you very much. Next speaker,
please.
MR. OLLIFF: The next speaker is Gil Erlichman, followed by
Virginia Cochran.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: And if the person that is going to
speak after Gil could be in what I call the on-deck circle, if you
could come up, we would appreciate it.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Stand in line.
MR. ERLICHMAN: My name is Gil Erlichman. I live in East
Naples. I retired from the Gordon Company back in 1976, after
Page 34
February 1, 2001
serving as technical director in the foods division of Real Lemon
Foods, where my duties were quality assurance, quality control
and water treatment.
It has taken us about 200 years to arrive at a point in time
that we have relatively safe drinking water and modern sewage
treatment techniques. We don't worry about our tap water
bringing us water-borne diseases, i.e., typhoid, cholera, et
cetera, that plagued cities until the end of the 19th century.
Contamination of a water supply is very hard to reverse.
Once it happens, the disaster clock runs with little to stop it
other than -- other than Draconian measures of disinfection and
stopping the source of the pollution or the pollutant.
Drilling holes into the earth answers only one question.
Examining the core of what is removed from the bore, we get a
vertical profile of the underground strata that exists in that one
small area, specific only for that one hole. Only by drilling and
examining other cores can we map a certain geographic area
and surmise the underground structure.
The permeability of the various layers must also be tested.
Even then we do not have exact answers. Me must monitor the
travel of the introduced liquid under pressure; that is, treated
sewer water.
You are going to pump under pressure treated sewer water
underground so that it will be stored between the Hawthorne
aquifer, that's brackish water, and the Tamiami aquifer, that's
fresh water.
The Hawthorne aquifer is used by Collier County to provide
drinking water by using reverse osmosis to remove its saline
content. By placing treated sewer water between the two
aforementioned aquifers, we are placing the aquifers at extreme
risk. How are we going to be sure that there is no leakage or
permeation into either of the two aquifers or both?
I hold all you county elected officials responsible for any
future contamination of our water supply resulting from this
proposed project. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you. Next speaker, please.
MR. OLLIFF-' Next speaker is Virginia Cochran, followed by
Kathleen Slebodnik.
MS. COCHRAN: I'm Virginia B. Cochran from Olde Naples.
And I want to speak to the cost factors that seem to be the basis
Page 35
February 1, 2001
of the discussion here.
Relating to these costs, I want to direct your attention to
the fact that when the county presented options at the last
meeting, and there were three of them, an option was left out, in
my opinion, for water storage, for preserving natural areas, for
water recharge.
This would be consistent with your comprehensive plan that
goes for both city and county. And I would point out that as far
as the cost factor is concerned, nature's treatment is free.
Nature does it.
And to dispel Mr. Macllvaine's concern about the irrigation
on -- reused irrigation on the golf courses, that can be explained,
I think, to your satisfaction and to alleviate your concern by
geologists or natural resource representatives on your staff or
from water management. They can assist in an educational
explanation of how the natural processes work.
That's one of the reasons we talk about a land preservation
program. It's something that we have in the city, at least in a
very small way through our city land trust, and hopefully in a
large way in the future as well as in the county.
It's a lovely amenity to add green space to the community,
as well as providing aquifer recharge. I highly recommend that a
further study and cost evaluation be done on this process as a
fourth system, as a fourth option.
This whole discussion stems from the advice of water
management that the area is approaching the end of its water
supply. Clarence Tears, executive director of the Big Cypress
Basin Board, put it this way at a recent Big Cypress Basin Board
meeting.
'~/e are all tapped out." That's just as clear as can be. And
unfortunately no reporter was there to report it at the time. That
was October the 20th.
City and county need, therefore, to consider what I call a
water budget. How much water is there and how many people
are we committed to serve, to build on? That's linking water use
planning and land use planning.
The city already has Policy 2-21 directing this approach.
And on a cost basis figuring out how much water is needed in the
near and long term is the sensible, businesslike approach.
What you're talking about now is a number that you have no
Page 36
February 1, 2001
idea, doesn't relate to anything or any program or any old
program for the future.
On a cost basis, figuring out how much water is needed in
the near or long term is the sensible, businesslike approach. And
every citizen, all of us who live here need to understand and
appreciate the city and the council are proceeding on a solid,
businesslike basis to meet this significant challenge which is
going to cost a lot of money. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you. Next speaker, please.
MR. OI. LIFF: Next speaker is Kathleen Slebodnik, followed
by Clarence Tears.
MS. SLEBODNIK: Good morning. My name is Kathleen
Slebodnik and I recently attended the Everglades Coalition
meeting on Hutchinson Island, which is off the coast of Stuart, as
a representative of the Florida League of Women Voters.
The league doesn't have many positions on environment. It
has none on the ASR. But I would like to, if I could, just briefly
give you a summation of a meeting that I attended at the EVCO
conference.
It was on underground injection control. It was done by a
group of geologists and it had no advocacy. It was simply a
scientific representation of what they had studied. And they had
studied the well system in the Miami-Dade area.
The issue of confining units is central to the underground
injection control and to ASR. And we are talking, their report
dealt with 3,000 feet. Miami-Dade has seventeen wells that are
now in operation. They are the largest participator in the
underground injection control system.
Wells one through seven were pumped below the confining
layer, which is a heavy dolomite layer, and a core sample was
brought to this meeting. Wells, however, eight through
seventeen were injected above this confining dolomite layer.
And the geologists' report find now that the sewage is now
rising upward through the drinking water supply. We are still
talking about very deep injection. But it was thought that 350
years it would take for this water to rise.
They are now finding that it is between seventeen and
three-and-a-half years that this water is now rising into the
aquifer and it's being found up through Florida Bay, Biscayne Bay
and the Everglades.
Page 37
February 1, 2001
I think we have to expect the unexpected. And all I have --
when I left this meeting, I think -- and you have mentioned this
before, we need to very carefully balance the benefits received
with the risks involved.
And I think probably the wisest thing that I heard when I left
this meeting was the engineer who stood up and said, "Please
remember, in time all things leak." Thank you. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Next speaker.
MR. OLLIFF: Clarence Tears is your last registered speaker.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you.
MR. TEARS: For the record, Clarence Tears, director of the
Big Cypress Basin. We all had a large meeting recently, so I
won't go into a lot of details. There is a couple issues.
Lower West Coast Water Supply Plan was developed. There
was people from the city representing the city, from the county,
from -- I think five counties were at this meeting. And this plan
looks at 2020 projections and says, "How can we meet our water
supply demand?"
And as part of that plan there was a list of alternatives,
reverse osmosis, ASR. And at that time everybody agreed on
that plan and supported it.
And ASR is a proven technology. Everybody's concerns
here, it is proven. It is being utilized in Collier County and it is
working.
You're talking about putting a highly-treated effluent, which
meets drinking water standards. You're not injecting it one way,
keeping it there. You're pulling it back out to utilize it. So we're
reducing the impacts on our surficial aquifer.
Our surficial aquifer is almost used up. We can use it -- we
can actually take more water out of the surficial aquifer, but we
have impacts to the environment. We have draw downs, which
you'll see major consequences.
We have a lot of flows going over into Golden Gate main
where you lose almost 180,000 million gallons a day. Our current
potable demand is 40 to 50 million gallons a day. That's a utility
demand. I'm not considering our demands on the private wells.
But ASR is proven technology. We need to move forward
with it. Because what it does, it protects our resource and it
allows us to utilize this water supply as best possible.
There's been a lot of articles in the paper and a lot of
Page 38
February 1, 2001
commentaries, and some of them are very good, that people
realize that we need to protect our water supply. When I stated
we were tapped out, yeah, we are tapped out of our cheap water
resource. We need to go to alternatives.
In the Lower West Coast Water Supply Plan we talked about
desalinization of the gulf. None of the utilities wanted to hear
that because of the cost.
So if you move forward and talk to the taxpayers, talk about
cost too and reasonable risk. Because our cheap water supply is
extremely vulnerable because every year when the water --
ground water levels draw down, after we have heavy rains, it
rebounds extremely fast. So what does that tell you? It tells you
the rainwater is getting back into the ground.
With that, I just really -- I do support this and I think the risk
is reasonable. It's a reasonable risk. I mean, we're meeting
drinking water standards. We're testing water before it goes into
the ground.
There's other ASR projects in Collier County that are
working. So it's -- the technology is proven in Collier County. And
all this is moving forward with an exploratory well to just look at
the characteristics. We don't even know yet if it will work. But
you have got to do an exploratory well to look at the process.
Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Commissioner Carter, we have
some concerns from some of the speakers and also some of their
comments, and I would like for somebody to address them.
One by Mr. Erlichman about the assurity (sic) factor is, how
this is -- how are we going to assure that this is not going to
affect our drinking water.
And Ms. Cochran addressed a water budget. I think that
was a very good comment. And I would like to ask if the county
is going to be doing anything in the future about that and address
those.
MR. OLLIFF.' I'll answer the second part of your question or
probably Ms. Slebodnik's question first -- well, Ms. Cochran's
question in terms of long-range master planning.
The County Commission does have in its possession and
approved by the previous board twenty-year master plans for
both water and wastewater, to try and project what we know in
terms of growth patterns, where that growth pattern is going to
Page 39
February 1, 2001
be, what the water projection capabilities are we have in terms
of drawing raw water, treating that water and getting it out to
the customers.
So you do have a fairly significant and fairly detailed master
plan for how to provide that water resource. It does recognize, I
think as Clarence Tears indicated, that you are and have run out
of what we consider to be the cheapest water source.
And Collier County was fairly advanced probably seven
years ago. And I remember reading a letter to the editor saying
the county needs to consider reverse osmosis as future
technology.
And just so that everyone knows, Collier County seven years
ago invested in and has developed a reverse osmosis plant. That
is the technology that is used at your north water treatment
plant.
In fact it's been in existence so long, we're actually already
in the process of changing out the first set of filters that we put
in that plant.
And Collier County, trying to understand that that initial low,
easy-to-access cheap water source was beginning to become
limited, we were drawing down from much lower aquifers almost
a decade ago and will continue to look at those aquifers as the
resource for our future development and growth in this area.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: This water master plan, is that
part of our growth management plan also? MR. OLLIFF: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Basically what we do for roads,
we do for water.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Good. Thank you.
COUNCILMAN HERMS.' I have one.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I think we have another part of a
question being answered, Councilman, and then we'll take your
question.
MR. HORVATH: For the record, my name is Lloyd Horvath,
with Water Resource Solutions. We are consultants to Collier
County in this.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: You're an engineer, a geologist?
MR. HORVATH: I'm an engineer and hydrogeologist. I have
been working in Southwest Florida for more than twenty-five
years and in Collier County for almost that entire time; president
Page 40
February 1, 2001
of the company.
The issue of protection is probably the biggest issue here to
concern ourselves with. Obviously that's where everybody is
most uncomfortable. And I'm a scientist and so I'm going to have
to deal with it in that manner.
The fresh water aquifer system that we're dealing with here
extends down to a hundred and -- a hundred plus feet, maybe a
little more than that.
After you get through what's the marginally productive
zones at the bottom of that system, you'll go into a clay that is
very regionally consistent.
There is -- we talked about confining layers. There was
some comments about confining layers. These confining layers
that are below the fresh water aquifer system are virtually
absolute.
This is clay confinement. This isn't dolomite. This isn't the
kind of thing that cracks. And these soft, malleable clays are the
basis for our confidence that this water is not going to be moving
up,
We want to show you how pronounced that clay is. There's
a couple hundred feet of clay, a hundred to 200 feet of clay that
separates the fresh water system from the highly-pressurized
brackish water system.
We will have -- we will obviously demonstrate to you how
consistent that confinement is. We're going to introduce monitor
wells, which will also be able to track it.
This is how we are going to essentially guarantee or provide
the assurance that, you know, will ultimately make you
comfortable with the system.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That wasn't the question of Mr.
Erlichman. He stated that we're pulling out of the Hawthorne for
our drinking water through reverse osmosis, that is where we're
going to be storing our treated water. So I think his question
was, what kind of assurity (sic) that that's not going to migrate
to where we're pulling out of the Hawthorne.
MR. HORVATH: Well, that is the kind of questions that we
have to answer as part of the permitting process, to be honest
with you. I mean, those questions have to be addressed very
specifically with the DEP.
There are regulations about how close -- how close the wells
Page 41
February 1, 2001
can be to drinking water wells. How far your fluid is allowed to
migrate. You'll have to have monitor wells in between the
system to demonstrate that it's not moving there. So we have to
define that by means of the testing and the, you know, computer
modeling that we do.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Can I ask you to make that
available to the public and encourage it by making sure that it's
available to the City Council members, County Commissioners
and general public?
MR. HORVATH: It will be public information and it will be
presented in duplicate copies.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you.
COUNCILMAN TARRANT: Could I ask a question, please? Is
it Mr. Horvath; is that right?
MR. HORVATH: Yes, sir.
COUNCILMAN TARRANT: Thank you, sir. What is the
confining layer between the proposed ASR well at Pelican Bay
and the Hawthorne?
MR. HORVATH: What is the confining -- the confining -- it
consists of a clay unit that is approximately anywhere from
between I and 200 feet thick. That is the primary confining unit.
There are numerous other confining units farther down in
the system, but the one that we rely on most, that separates the
fresh water system from the brackish water system, is this clay
confining unit.
That has been identified in every hole that has penetrated
those depths anywhere within this region. So that confining unit
has been measured offshore via sonic profiling, five miles
offshore or from Marco Island north to distances north of Naples
and found to be very consistent.
And the beauty of that unit is that it's made of clay. It
doesn't break. That's a self-healing unit.
COUNCILMAN TARRANT: Are there natural springs, major
natural springs in this area or in the gulf?
MR. HORVATH: I have seen natural springs in the area
around -- for example, around Rookery Bay. You can see boils of
water coming up.
We've had to research these, actually, in -- related to
another aquifer storage and recovery project that was going on
down around the area of 951 and U.S. 41 for Marco Island's utility
Page 42
February 1, 2001
system.
COUNCILMAN TARRANT: And from what --
MR. HORVATH: Those -- that water is coming out of the
Tamiami aquifer system. It's the fresh water that -- coming from
the fresh water system that the City of Naples is pumping.
And that is water that's leaking up through the marginal
semi-confining unit that overlies the shallow aquifer that is being
produced by the City of Naples.
That's the source of the water in the springs, at least that I
know of, and the way it's been pointed out and identified in the
immediate coastal area.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I would like to ask an ever-so-basic
question from one who is just learning about water and storage
and everything. So for the record, my name is Donna Fiala.
The drinking water that we pull out of our fresh water
aquifers, does it then go into the plant and get treated before it
comes out of our faucet?
MR. HORVATH: Certainly, yes.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I also understand that the quality of
the water that we use in a deep-water injection is a better
quality going into the aquifer, Hawthorne aquifer, than the water
that's already in there.
MR. HORVATH: Well, certainly from the standpoint of
salinity it is. It would be a lot easier to treat than the water that
is already in there. There's potential benefits from this.
For example, speaking of leaking injection wells, that's
known to occur up in the area around St. Petersburg, for
example. And there's a history of a problem up there.
But people are looking at that water that has now emerged
up from the zones that they -- they inject into a rather shallow
zone of 800 feet there. It has now moved up into the shallow
system where it can now be tapped for people who want
irrigation water. And they love it.
And it's sort of a -- and they are almost calling it an ASR
system now indirectly. That's not what they wanted to have.
But they are delighted to have it. There's nothing -- they haven't
found any problems with the water except for a little bit of an
elevated level of nitrogen.
COUNCILMAN TARRANT: If I may just address
Commissioner Fiala's comment about the water plant treating
Page 43
February 1, 2001
the material. And I'm beginning to feel a little like Don Quixote,
jousting with windmills here.
But it's interesting that Dr. Woodruff, who was our city
manager for many years, and he made a comment at a water
seminar that we had at City Hall shortly before he left as our city
manager.
And we were discussing this issue and he pointed out, he
said that, "When you bypass Mother Nature, when you bypass
that natural process of water landing on top of the ground and
working its way down through the various layers, toward the
aquifer, when you bypass Mother Nature," he said, "we can draw
substances into our city well points, our city wells, that our city
water plant is incapable of processing."
And Colonel Mudd also addressed that issue last Friday
when he pointed out that one contaminant, sporidiosis, cannot
be monitored and cannot be screened. And is -- hides out -- as he
expressed it correctly, it hides out in suspended solids and there
are no guarantees.
So to assume that, hey, it doesn't matter what you put in the
ground because our water plant is going to purify it and nothing
is going to get sick or die or feel the effects of it, even people
with severe immune systems that are damaged immune systems,
that is untrue. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I just have to say, I have found in
a position of leadership that you can't always be only opposed.
You have to also propose solutions.
And Mr. Tarrant, with all due respect, I envy that you're in a
position of merely pointing out inadequacies. That's an easy job.
But leaders are required to propose solutions and not merely to
poke holes in every idea that comes forward.
COUNCILMAN TARRANT: And I appreciate that,
Commissioner Mac'Kie, and that's a fair statement. But I have to
tell you that when I was a youngster up in Saratoga Springs, we
had a swimming pool at the YMCA that all the officials said was
perfectly safe and a great place for the children to swim.
There were a dozen of the youngsters that contracted
infantile paralysis from swimming in that contaminated water in
that pool. My brother was in a wheelchair throughout his life
from polio. I feel deeply about water contamination.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yes, sir. And if we used that
Page 44
February 1, 2001
example, we would prohibit swimming pools.
COUNCILMAN TARRANT: No. We have a cure for polio,
thank God. We don't for cryptosporidiosis.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I understand everybody's point. And I
think I could take ten scientists from each side of the argument,
put them in a room and they all could debate the issue until the
end of the day.
It is the people who have to make the decisions based on all
that data and information that are the ones that have to exercise
the leadership, to make the tough decisions called political will.
We were put here to make those decisions. We do them to
the best of our abilities. And that's where I find myself, after
reviewing all of this and hearing all the arguments.
So I would like to call for a straw vote on the Board of
County Commissioners, as I'm sure Mayor MacKenzie would like
to do to the City Council, to go ahead with a test well at the
Pelican Bay well field area, a test well.
And assuming that everything is okay out of that test, we
would have an expectation that that's where the ASR well would
be.
COUNCILMAN HERMS: Could I just -- before you go to that
vote, can I -- I have been waiting patiently to say a couple things.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Yes.
COUNCILMAN HERMS: I have been trying to get a much
clearer understanding of this issue. I know three of the
commissioners here -- this is a very new issue and you kind of
have been thrown into this thing. In the past they have kind of
set you on a direction that this was where the county was going
to be going.
From the city's standpoint, we've got a situation, as you
know, of a well very close to it. But we also have a whole other
set of wells out in the Golden Gate area that is for the county
and is for the city. And we haven't had any kind of presentation
as to how far this proposed Pelican Bay field is from our other
wells.
But beyond that, I got on the telephone and I called all
across this country. I went first to state officials up in
Tallahassee and I went to experts in Gainesville and I went to
experts in Tampa. And then I went to experts in Arizona and
Atlanta, okay. And there was one common thread that I received
Page 45
February 1, 2001
from everyone; and that is, Collier County is on the forefront of
this issue.
And the encouragement that I got back from the various
people that I talked to was to bring in to our community some of
the absolute best people you can find throughout the nation and
have them talk to you about the scientific aspects of this ASR
technology.
Now, today the Commission and the Council may make the
decision to move forward at a different location. But even that
other location has the potential same problems as this location.
And I think it's going to be very, very valuable for us all to
get a much more complex understanding of the benefits and the
possible negatives of this technology.
And I'm going to encourage our Council and members of the
public to try to put together some kind of a seminar where we
can bring in some of the best people in this field.
There's a Dr. Rose that I spoke to who is involved right now
with CH2M Hill in a research project for the Everglades ASR
wells for an analysis of the contamination of basically the
pathogens that may be injected underground.
That's the kind of people we need to hear from to get a
better understanding of whether this is the best decision.
Because the alternative decision has a price tag attached to it.
It's 20 or $25 million, according to your staff. It's an above
ground storage facility.
But we need to have some better information. And certainly
maybe that process is a possibility if you are going to amortize
the bonds on a longer period of time, so that you don't have to
charge more than what the market will bear. I think the market
will bear 45 cents per thousand gallons.
But I think there are some alternatives here that we need to
take a look at. And I do think we need to get a more complete
education of it.
Because not only is this issue going to affect our
community, but their proposal in the Everglades is going to have
an immense effect on the complete southern portion of our state.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: And I think it will be a process,
Councilman Herms, where that will take place. And the people,
whether it's Dr. Rose, or whoever it is, whoever debates these
issues, will be just as much the same as Dr. Foretone (phonetic}
Page 46
February 1, 2001
told me at the Conservancy, he could bring world experts here on
mangroves. He says, "If I put seven world experts in the room,
you'll get seven different opinions out of it, and the care, the
treatment, et cetera, et cetera." At the end of the day you take
all that information and you try to figure out what's the best
course of action.
I don't disagree with you. That may be something the
Conservancy will want to embrace and be the facilitator of that
kind of thing as we evolve through the process.
In the interim, we can find out what we need to do and not
delay this process because, again, it is a test. If something is
discovered in the test and it doesn't work, I'm with you. I don't
want to go there.
If through that process we find out that there are other
things we need to consider, we can do it. However, at this point
it seems to me to be a logical, scientifically-based approach that
we should not ignore, so it's --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask
you to poll the board on the question of acknowledging the
additional cost and the six months' delay in the best interest of
the comfort of our community, to give them the confidence that
we are going, someone said the extra mile, but it would be about
the extra three-and-a-half miles to ensure their safety, that the
board endorse the changing of the location of this test drill and
the eventual ASR wells to what we are calling the Pelican Bay
well fields, as identified on the map that was shown earlier.
COUNCILMAN TARRANT: Commissioner Mac'Kie and
Chairman Carter, could I courteously and politely urge not to
have a straw vote? When we came in here this morning, it was
pointed out that we were not here for the purpose of voting. We
were here for general discussion.
And what I see happening with this straw vote idea is
basically what -- I think it was Rudyard Kipling said about little
fishes and walking into crocodiles' laws, welcoming the little
fishes in.
So I think it would be much better, much more prudent for
the City Council to have time to go back and reflect on what was
brought forward today, think about it, analyze it, have our own
meeting at City Hall and discuss this matter.
Because if the Council takes a position today in favor of
Page 47
February 1, 2001
what is being proposed, which is that, A, one mile is no good, but
three miles and a half is okay, I think it's premature.
And I think it puts the Council on record as going in a
direction without sufficient thought, but that's just my feeling.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Councilman, if I may, I
understand what you are saying, but we have the Sunshine Laws
to comply with. This is the only chance we're going to have for
open discussion for one heck of a long time.
I want to know how the Council feels in the City of Naples
because I want to know how my fellow commissioners feel. This
is the one chance I have for that opportunity. I don't want to
delay any longer. I need direction.
And while we're at it, Councilman Herms, you brought up a
very good point about the well fields out in Golden Gate Estates.
Those well fields have impacted Golden Gate Estates in a
tremendous way. Our canals have been dried up, people out
there's wells have been impacted.
And we have not made a tremendous issue because we
know of the need for water for the City of Naples. We've stood
by and watched this happen time after time after time again.
Now we have the water transmission line being put in on
Golden Gate Boulevard and we have been denied access to it for
fire protection. And we're at a point in our existence out there
where the situation is dangerous.
I ask you to work with us as we're working with you on this
particular situation. Thank you very much for bringing up that
item.
COUNCILWOMAN WISEMAN: To follow up on that, I think
there's some issues that we share there. Because the City of
Naples, if we're drawing down that much water, we're getting
into septic systems.
And that is a big issue, as well as the issue of pumping all of
the millions of gallons of effluent into the Gordon River. We
sometimes concentrate so hard on one aspect of the issue that
we lose sight of the big picture.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I agree with you and you
couldn't be closer to the truth. And we have proof of it. We have
pictures of canals that have been drawing down when your wells
are going.
And I'll tell you, that has one detrimental effect on the
Page 48
February 1, 2001
wildlife out there that is insurmountable. Especially now in an
especially dry season, there is no place for them to go.
COUNCILWOMAN TAYLOR: I would like to just say one
thing. That we, as a city, look at the county and say, "You've got
the problem." But that's not true. Sixty percent or more of our
water users use potable water to spray on their lawns, to put on
their vegetables, to wash their cars.
And if we have this kind of -- we have nonpotable water right
now, that number would be reduced by twenty-five to thirty
percent. And that's without the infrastructure we need.
I know that Dan Mercer has talked to me, that we are going
to be putting -- there's a plant, a water plan very much like your
water budget that is coming before us.
But we are not without problems here. It is not the county's
problem. It is our problem.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I appreciate it. This might be
the start of a solution to be able to restore the ecology of Golden
Gate Estates back to where it was.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I appreciate all the comments. But in
the interest of where we need to go in our agenda, I would really
like to get this polling taken. It is not binding. You can still
change your minds, but at least we have some sense of
direction. So I will poll our board.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Could I make one comment, Mr.
Carter?. I'm sorry. I'm just worried -- I need to know if the City
Council is going to likewise take a poll because --
CHAIRMAN CARTER: You want them to poll first?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I've already heard from Mr. Olliff
that he doesn't like the idea of spending this additional money.
My proposal to move -- to add the time and the expense is based
on a hope that we will not have a continuing administrative
hearing process.
Because if we add six months to the process by moving it to
the Pelican Bay well field, if the City Council should determine
that it has to continue to object and file administrative appeals,
then, you know, that adds an unmeasurable -- immeasurable
amount of time to the process. And I'm hopeful that we have
come together on this point, but I think it's only fair that we
know that first.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Well, I concur. I am making my straw
Page 49
February 1, 2001
vote decision based on the fact that we are not going to go
through these other processes if we're going to move forward
and we do not delay what needs to be done. And if it's going to
go the other way, then I will concur upon our CEO.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: May I suggest you make that a
suggestion rather than a condition?
MAYOR MacKENZIE: Why don't I ask Mr. Moore, who is
representing Beverly Grady from Roetzel & Andress today.
MR. MOORE: Good morning. The only -- the concern that we
have is obviously that we are in the middle of a litigation
proceeding. The City Council has called a special closed
executive session to discuss strategy related to litigation
expenditures.
I don't think that the city -- my advice to the city is, I don't
think we can really commit today one way or the other until we
have that closed session meeting and make some
determinations as to the strategy.
And I think a poll on -- the city is free to do what it wishes.
But my advice to the city, my opinion is that until we have that
meeting to discuss how -- what the strategy is in relation to the
administrative proceeding in private, I don't think we should take
MAYOR MacKENZIE: What about if we just did an opinion
from the Council about relocating the well?
COUNCILMAN TARRANT: Mayor MacKenzie.
MAYOR MacKENZIE: Well, I would like to hear from Mr.
Moore, please.
MR. MOORE: Well, as long as the opinion is related to just
the issue of whether or not the city might be willing to agree to a
new permit relating to moving the well without any comment on
what the city is going to do with its existing litigation and
challenge to the permit that's now on the table, and as long as
everybody understands that it's an opinion only and not binding,
then I think we can go forward and do that.
MAYOR MacKENZIE:
CHAIRMAN CARTER:
MAYOR MacKENZIE:
Taylor's opinion.
COUNCILWOMAN TAYLOR:
how to answer it.
Okay. That sounds good.
Would you like to poll your group now?
Oh, okay. Sure. Let's start with Ms.
Give me the question so I know
Page 50
February 1, 2001
MAYOR MacKENZIE: Mr. Moore.
MR. MOORE: I guess the question would be, whether-- if the
county had changed its proposal and had proposed the test ASR
well at the new site for the Pelican Bay well field, which
everybody understands would be a different permit process,
whether or not the city would be willing to entertain that without
opposition, recognizing that this is a nonbinding opinion at this
point?
COUNCILWOMAN TAYLOR: Yes, I would.
MAYOR MacKENZIE: Did you have any other comments that
you wanted to make?
COUNCILWOMAN TAYLOR: I think this is a very important
compromise. And I have fought the county for this. And yes, I
would.
MAYOR MacKENZIE: Ms. Wiseman, your opinion?
COUNCILWOMAN WISEMAN: I want to be careful about
what I say because I think the issue is so complicated. And I
guess personally I wasn't ready to completely throw out the first
location, although I do appreciate the fact that the county is
offering an important compromise position.
And I do think it's an important step in a cooperative effort
between the city and the county. I'm hopeful that after we have
our executive session, that we will have less rather than more
litigation on the part of the City of Naples. Thank you.
MAYOR MacKENZIE: I would like to put on the record that I
think my version of the city's concerns and objections may not
entirely agree with Mr. Pettit's and I won't go there any further.
But he had outlined some things. And since we had not rebutted
them in any way, I did at least want to say that.
The other thing I wanted to say is that I'm very encouraged
by the concept of moving this test well and if approved eventual
storage well further away from the city's well fields.
My concerns are still there. My reservations are still there.
But they are reduced as this is moved away from being on top of
the city's well fields.
They could be reduced even more if instead of putting
wastewater in the ASR you put stormwater in the ASR. But that
doesn't seem to be under discussion today.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But hopefully it will be in the
future.
Page 51
February 1, 2001
MAYOR MacKENZIE: I would like that.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I think that permit is much more
difficult to get from the state, actually.
MAYOR MacKENZIE: Then I think that as we go forward, the
city intends to remain vigilant, but I think this is an important
step. Mr. Herms.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: What was the answer to that
question that your attorney asked you?
Do you see if we were to go forward with the Pelican Bay
well field, do you expect to support an administrative appeal for
that new permit application?
MAYOR MacKENZIE: I think that's a decision the City
Council will make in an executive session. I don't think we can
answer that today.
I think that's what our attorney was telling us, was that we
can express an opinion on whether or not we are favorable or
receptive to the concept of a different location, but that's about
as far as he wants us to go. And that's what you said you were
looking for, so don't push too hard.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. I'll stop. Okay.
MAYOR MacKENZIE: Mr. Herms.
COUNCILMAN HERMS: I think -- number one, I think that the
cooperative spirit of having all of us together here and
discussing this very, very important issue is a very, very strong
positive.
As I mentioned earlier, I think we each have a long way to
go to become educated to the negatives and the positives of this
particular issue.
The cone of influence that this new proposed location has
may be very extensive. We listened to your experts a little over
a week ago speak about the movement of this aquifer in a north
direction because of the amount of water that's being pulled out
up in the Bonita and Fort Myers area. So the cone of influence of
those wells must be really phenomenal.
Now, you've also heard today that you, the county, are
pulling out of this same aquifer your drinking water. Is the cone
of influence of what you're pulling out today and/or what you may
be pulling out twenty-five years from today or fifty years from
today going to be drawing from the exact same place that you're
injecting this water into?
Page 52
February 1, 2001
I think there's a lot of questions. And I go back to the same
point I made with the Golden Gate area. Will we be pulling that
water so far that we actually draw it into the Golden Gate area?
And you have the best examples that I've heard of the impacts of
this.
So I think it's premature for any of us to completely commit
to this. I think it's an interesting issue to take a look at. I am
not -- I am not comfortable with the potential impacts of the
pathogens and the chemicals that are in this water and the
possible effects of that at this point.
That's why I want to research the issue more and I hope
we'll all get educated to that issue. So my feeling at this point is
that I could not support it only because I don't have the facts on
what the impact is. And I think you-all are in exactly the same
situation.
MAYOR MacKENZIE: Thank you, Mr. Herms.
Mr. Macllvaine.
COUNCILMAN MaclLVAINE'. My answer is yes. And I think
that the preponderance of the expert testimony provides feasible
assurance of safety. I think safety is the primary issue here.
And I feel, really, too, I haven't heard anybody really give me
an answer as to why it's acceptable for your aquifer to allow
surface water to penetrate eighty feet, that's okay, but why -- in
one direction, but why in the other direction even 800 feet
difference in the two levels is unsatisfactory.
In other words, the trickle-down effect is okay for eighty
feet, but the trickle-up effect for 800 feet is not okay. So my
answer is yes.
MAYOR MacKENZIE: Thank you, Mr. Macllvaine.
Mr. Tarrant.
COUNCILMAN TARRANT: The county's offer to move the
facility a little further away is what is described in the brokerage
industry as a teaser. And they're really trying to buy us off on the
cheap for 10,000 or so feet of distance when it is known that the
upper Tamiami aquifer that moves toward our well field moves at
a much higher rate of speed.
I think what decision tonight -- I can count noses. I know
what's going down here today. But the officials at the
Department of Environmental Protection, Water Management
District and Dr. Staiger, our own Dr. Staiger have described ASR
Page 53
February 1, 2001
technology as experimental and highly controversial.
And what's happening is, the public are being included as
guinea pigs in this controversial experiment without full
knowledge and without an opportunity to even vote on what is
happening.
I think this decision today that I hear will qualify on the long
list of items that the great Russian writer/philosopher Leo
Tolstoy described as the fortuitous outcome of innumerable
human errors. Or what Roosevelt described as a day that will
live in infamy. Thank you. Infamy.
MAYOR MacKENZIE: Thank you, Mr. Tarrant. I have
problems saying words too on occasion. But your point is well
taken.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It's a presidential trait, actually.
COUNCILMAN GALLEGERG: You don't need my opinion, I
guess.
But my opinion is, nonetheless, in hearing everything today
and in our previous meetings and studying the issue, it's
complex. There's a lot of jargon that's necessary.
But for me boiling down the jargon, number one, we're
talking about a test well, which is part of the research and
education that everyone in a position of leadership and everyone
in the community needs.
So I agree with Mr. Herms on that point. We do need
research and education. I would put drilling a test well into
research and education.
As we go further down the road, if we go further down the
road, I think it needs to be pointed out again that this water
exists.
As we pointed out today, sometimes you have to make a
decision, even when perfection is not on the menu. And you
make the best decision available. And I think this falls into that
category.
I understand that the County Commissioners obviously have
the final say on this subject to permitting and our role is
advisory.
And I understand, too, that the county staff is prepared to
recommend against moving the test well, as I understand it,
primarily on the basis that there's good science for the present
location and the cost difference.
Page 54
February 1, 2001
And I would just like to say again, I do not see a cost
difference. I see a timing difference. I do not see a cost
difference.
And under that scenario especially, I think it's a very wise --
very wise result for the Commission to support moving the test
well.
After we have the test and we have all the data, and I know
it will be shared freely and openly with the city and its staff and
its scientists and so forth, we'll see where we are and we will go
from there.
MAYOR MacKENZIE: Thank you very much.
Mr. Carter.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you. Mayor MacKenzie, let me
poll the Board of County Commissioners. Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I support moving the test well.
And I would hope that the City Council would offer up what
Commissioner Coletta has stated, is that we have a situation in
Golden Gate Estates of protection of the people out there.
And I believe it's a simple fix. And I think the City of Naples
could help us out in that direction with their transmission lines.
That is the only thing I have to say.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you.
Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. In the spirit of cooperation,
working with the city, I'm so glad that we are creating a good
cooperative attitude between one another because we're going
to have many years to come.
I would like to -- I would like to drill in the Pelican Bay area
as well. And I hope that we continue to deliberate this issue as
we're drilling this test well or test drill.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Commissioner Mac'Kie.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Obviously I support it. I have to
hope that Councilman Tarrant is alone in his thoughts that this is
some kind of a bait and switch or some kind of -- somehow
impugns the motives of the County Commission.
Because in fact I appreciate greatly that the County
Commission appears to be going along with this compromise
because it is a compromise that is done not for any kind of
negative motive, but for the good of the cooperation. Because
we all represent the same people. We are one community. We
Page 55
February 1, 2001
are all on the same side, I guess.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you.
Commissioner Coletta.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I really appreciate this little
exercise today. And thank you very much, Commissioner
Henning, for bringing up our needs in Golden Gate and Golden
Gate Boulevard. And I know that the City of Naples will be
contacting us and talking to us about it in the future, I'm sure.
I want to come to the -- I agree about moving the well, but I
would like to make a little note. I would like to come to the
defense for Councilman Tarrant here.
I believe that it was his interjection from the beginning, as
strong as they may be to one side, that probably got us off dead
center and got us to think about this. So I appreciate very much
the fact that he brought this issue forward. And I hope he
continues to do so in the future.
COUNCILMAN TARRANT: If you feed me properly.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Well, speaking to that issue. There is
no more water on planet earth. We're not going to get an
injection from anywhere. It's all reused water.
And I don't know how many dinosaurs it went through or
how many people or how many water treatment plants, but what
you have right here is not original.
I support the compromise. I want to clarify to the residents
of Pelican Bay, we're not putting it into Pelican Bay. These are
called Pelican Bay well fields, which are further to the east and
does not affect your community directly. So I already know the
number of calls that will be on my desk about this issue.
But I am always willing to support compromise. I always
believe that the scientific data will be brought forward. I always
appreciate anyone's opinion on any subject, as long as we refer
to the subject matter and not the presenters. Let's not shoot the
messengers in any of this.
So I can support going in that direction if that's where it
ultimately takes us with a test well and we can then use it -- as
you have referred to, several council people, this is an education
effort.
And when we can get through with that at the end of the day
and everybody is reasonably comfortable that we're using the
best technology that we know, I will support that.
Page 56
February 1, 2001
I could support it at either location. I've never had any
problem with the location because I believe that the technology,
in my judgment, supports that it is a very low risk.
And as Councilman Macllvaine said, "I've always been
interested in the percolation down versus the percolation up
concept." Be that as it may, if it goes to the Pelican Bay well
fields area, is successful there and we get an important part of
our water management plan in place, I will support any efforts in
those areas to make that happen.
COUNCILMAN HERMS: There's an important point the
Chairman just brought up. Could we, for the public's information,
explain exactly where this well field is?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Put the map back up. It's not in
Pelican Bay.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: No.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: You said Livingston Road?
COUNCILMAN HERMS: What developments are surrounding
it or what's nearby, to help the public --
MR. OLLIFF: Mr. Chairman, while they're getting re-set up, I
would just -- we've only got two items left on your agenda and we
promise to keep our presentations on that very, very short. We
have no registered speakers.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you, Mr. Olliff. As you know,
about fifteen minutes from now I have to excuse myself from this
meeting. I have got a hundred people sitting in a room up in north
Naples waiting for me to be brief, brilliant and be gone.
COUNCILWOMAN TAYLOR: And waiting to talk about this
ASR.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I'm sure. I'm sure it will come up,
along with about thirty-five other issues.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So could you give him some
landmarks up there? What are the roadways?
MR. MUDD: Yeah. It's on Livingston Road. That's that
north/south green line. And it's above Immokalee Road. It's just
to the west of 75.
We have a long strip -- we have -- we took them over from
Pelican Bay when they were incorporated. We have a long strip
of wells that are there.
Plus we have a sixty acre piece of land that adjoins it on the
upper two-thirds. How much? I'm sorry, six acres. Excuse me.
Page 57
February 1, 2001
Six acre piece of land. And that's where we do the test well and
the ultimate well, in that particular ]unction.
COUNCILMAN HERMS: What developments are on either
side of that?
MR. MUDD: You're going to have to help me on this one. I'm
too new to the county to know.
MR. OLLIFF: Pelican Strand is in that neighborhood. Carlton
Lakes is in that neighborhood. Willoughby Acres, probably much
further to the west.
COUNCILWOMAN TAYLOR: Three Oaks is up there.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Basically you would get out on
Immokalee Road and drive far east and you'll see there are
several new communities out there. There's nothing yet on the
Livingston extension because it's not there.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: And we're not affecting the potable
water, number one. And it's Commissioner Coletta's district, so
you'll get the phone calls.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you very much,
Commissioner Carter.
MR. OLLIFF: Mr. Chairman, if you're ready to move on to the
next --
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Yes, sir, I am ready to move.
MR. RAMBOSK: Mr. Chairman, before we leave the water,
just one point. From our meeting on the 19th when we were
made aware of the conditions in Golden Gate, I had assigned our
public works director and his staff to pursue with the state
looking into that situation. And we are preparing a report right
now for our council. We would be happy to provide that to you
and notify your staff.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you.
Item #4
DISCUSSION REGARDING FY02 BUDGET REQUESTS
MR. OLLIFF: Mr. Chairman, with that, I've asked Mike
Smykowski to just make a very brief presentation about the FY02
budget issues.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: Good morning. For the record, Michael
Page 58
February 1, 2001
Smykowski, Collier County Budget Director.
This executive summary was prepared as a courtesy item in
terms of budget planning for fiscal year '02. On an annual basis
Collier County has considered funding capital projects in the City
of Naples based on projects that provide benefits to both city
and county residents.
Over the past three years, just to give you an example, the
types of projects have been beach ends and the various phases
of the Naples Landing projects.
In fiscal year '01 there were no projects submitted and that
was the result of an interlocal agreement with the city, where
the city agreed not to request funding for the -- either the
Fleischmann property, Cambier Park Band Shell are there, pulling
probably canoe launch until after fiscal year 2002.
And that was the result of our joint grant application for up
to $4 million toward the purchase of the Fleischmann property.
In terms of budgetary planning, what we're looking for,
PRAB, the Parks and Rec. Advisory Board meets on March 21st.
And in speaking with our parks and recreation director, we were
hopeful that we could get an itemized list of the city's capital
budget requests by Wednesday, March 14th, a week prior to the
PRAB meeting, to allow us to review those and then disseminate
that information prior to the March 21st PRAB meeting.
COUNCILMAN GALLEGERG: One question on -- you
mentioned the agreement between the city and the county
concerning trying to obtain the grant for the Fleischmann
property?
MR. SMYKOWSKI: Yes, sir.
COUNCILMAN GALLEGERG: And from the city's point of
view, foregoing funding requests on other projects? As you
know, not only did the area not get that grant. We were not even
within shouting distance of getting that grant.
How does that impact our agreement on the other
properties? Because it doesn't appear that any funds are going to
be committed to that from that program.
MR. OLLIFF: I don't know that it would. I would assume
that we are going to probably try and reapply. We haven't talked
to the city staff as yet.
COUNCILMAN GALLEGERG: There may not be a policy on
reapplying, but we're not close enough to have any realistic shot
Page 59
February 1, 2001
of getting anything, as I understand it.
COUNCILWOMAN TAYLOR: I think they're in the preliminary
stages of seeing where we're going to be in the pecking order of
all the counties or all the projects that want these grants.
And there is a problem in terms of whether an applying
project has applied before. We may be disqualified because of
that. And we're going to know the answer very soon.
COUNCILMAN GALLEGERG: I know we're trying to be brief.
I would just like to put on the table that, as I understand it, we're
not close to getting anything on that. I would hope -- whether it's
written this way or not, I would hope that would result in an
amendment or, you know, abandonment of that interlocal
agreement.
MR. OLLIFF: I will tell you, the purpose of that agreement
was simply to recognize that the county was foregoing its
opportunity to apply for those monies.
And if that opportunity is made available to us simply
because you are not going to reapply or that reapplication is not
going to be submitted, then certainly I would make them
establish that they would be willing to sit down and change
those terms.
COUNCILMAN GALLEGERG: Thank you.
MR. RAMBOSK: And our staffs have been working together
to determine whether reapplication is appropriate, particularly
depending on the changes in criteria for submission of the grants
that are coming forth within a few months.
The other is that for the year that we've not expended or
gotten the grant, we will be making requests for the county to
consider.
MAYOR MacKENZIE: I think there are a lot of opportunities
where the city and the county can work together. Last year
alone we contributed over $23 million to the county coffers and
didn't make any requests that were granted, so.
But we do have a lot of traffic problems, road problems,
water problems, stormwater problems, FEMA problems, natural
disaster preparedness where we can cooperate and work
together as effectively as we have in the areas where we already
cooperate and work together.
We have a great relationship and partnership through
Affordable Housing, through the Beach Renourishment
Page 60
February 1, 2001
Committee and the use of the TDC funds.
So I can see a lot of opportunity for the two staffs and the
two government entities to partner together. We share one heck
of a big long borderline between the edge of the city and the
county. There's a good place for us to start there.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Just as information for our board,
the Mayor has graciously agreed to add me to their workshop
schedule on a monthly basis so that I can go in and just try to
communicate those items back and forth now that we have a
board that's receptive to those ideas.
I appreciate that and I will be providing that liaison
opportunity.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA.' I suggest we name you the
official ambassador.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'll second that motion.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You're on your way, Pam.
MR. RAMBOSK: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Does that mean I have immunity?
I think I get immunity.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I don't know.
MR. OLLIFF: This was an informational item only and we'll
be presenting and working with Kevin's staff in terms of the
dates and other details as that follows.
Item #5
DISCUSSION REGARDING TRANSIT SYSTEM
The next item we have for you is the transit systems. It was
a follow-up, I believe, to this last Friday's MPO meeting where
some general information about the final bus system and Collier
area transit system was presented. And with that I'll let Norman
walk you through your backup materials.
MR. PETER: Mr. Chairman, Mayor, council members and
commissioners, for the record, Norman Peter, Collier
Transportation Administrator.
I am going to be extremely brief, but I did want to, first of
all, note that the transit services, the trolleys will be up and
operating in two weeks, midmonth, the 15th.
I wanted to particularly acknowledge the fine cooperation
Page 61
February 1, 2001
and assistance we got from Mayor MacKenzie, who even came
out and rode the routes with us. And I think the end product has
benefitted greatly, not just in the city, but for all of county
services.
MAYOR MacKENZIE: You're not saying that you-all took me
for a ride, are you?
MR. PETER: Yes. I would never do that, ma'am. What I do
want to tell you is that we are getting ready to present at a
council
With that in mind, we're going to be extremely brief. I'll ask
David Hope, our public transportation manager, just to give you a
very quick promo to next Monday's meeting.
MAYOR MacKENZIE: While they are changing speakers,
may I also congratulate Mr. Olliff on his staff and, in the absence
the chairman and the vice chairman, on the open and helpful and
cooperative attitude of the county.
They are trying to achieve just a mammoth task on a
shoestring budget. And I have been struck by the way that they
have been able to accomplish their task.
And instead of looking at the concerns that I had as
interference, they took them in a very constructive way. We did
work together. They did most of the work. I just volunteered my
opinion.
But I think that as a result we have found a way to serve all
of Collier County more efficiently, more effectively and to a far
greater degree. And I have nothing but the highest of praise for
the staff members who were involved in that. They are
outstanding.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thank you so much.
MR. HOPE: Thank you very much, Mayor MacKenzie. For the
record, David Hope, Collier County public transportation. I will
be very brief this morning -- this afternoon.
What you saw this morning outside was the before picture of
our bus. On the overhead there is the after picture, after the
vehicle is wrapped to appear as a trolley.
So the before was this morning. That will be the after
sometime in March. They should all be looking that way. When
we start there should be two of them looking that way. So in
March they should all be designed as trolleys.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: The ones that are going to be in
Page 62
February 1, 2001
the city are going to look that way?
MR. HOPE: Yes, ma'am. We should have two. And if there
are two, they will certainly be in the city.
Real quickly, on the routes, on the next overhead, I'll just go
over that very quickly. What you're seeing up there is, on the top
part, the Route lB, serving Immokalee Road.
Down below that, the Route 2A, which serves the hospital.
The 2B on the bottom in the blue serves the college. And in the
green, the Golden Gate route.
What you don't see is the route 1A, that goes up to Bonita
Beach, or the Immokalee route, because of the size of the actual
picture. And we will go into this in much more detail on Monday
at the meeting.
MAYOR MacKENZIE: And I am really looking forward to it.
And I've already alerted several homeowner associations that we
will be on the air at 8:30 Monday morning, and they're planning to
tune in. It should be a good presentation. MR. HOPE: Thank you.
COUNCILMAN GALLEGERG: One question. The City of
Naples community as this process has evolved has been very
concerned, as I am, about route deviations and the specter of
these buses clamoring down very quiet residential streets. Can
you spend a moment on that and tell us if that's evolved and
where we are right now with that?
MR. HOPE: It's still evolving. The buses will deviate for
those who are disabled only and can't make it to a bus stop. And
we'll work with the city if there are certain streets you don't
want the bus on, to send a smaller bus instead.
COUNCILMAN GALLEGERG.' So you can't pick up the phone
and say, "Send the bus to --"
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That is such an important point,
Mr. Gallegerg. Thank you. We need to take every opportunity to
dispel that confusion about -- you can only seek a deviation from
the fixed bus route if you are physically incapable of making it to
the standard bus stop, so it's not a taxi service. MR. HOPE: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you. Because of my schedule,
I'm going to have to depart. But I want to, again, thank all the
members of the Council, Mayor MacKenzie, for being here this
morning, our commissioners, our respective staffs.
Page 63
February 1, 2001
I think this was a very productive meeting. I hope we will
continue to have these in the future, where we can share and
exchange ideas and make Collier County a better community. So
thank you very much for being here and it's been my pleasure to
be a part of this session.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And unless there are closing
comments, it may just be appropriate to adjourn.
COUNCILMAN TARRANT: I want to thank Chairman Carter
for running a very nice meeting. Thank you, sir. And I want to
ask Mayor MacKenzie if she would please ask our city manager
to see me before he leaves the building.
MAYOR MacKENZIE: I would be happy to.
COUNCILMAN TARRANT: You probably have him within your
eyeball.
MAYOR MacKENZIE: In fact, so do you.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I appreciate that, Councilman Tarrant.
You and I have had differences of opinions on subjects, but I
value your input into all sessions, and I'm sure you share
likewise from mine. We have healthy, competitive debates on
issues.
COUNCILMAN TARRANT: Thank you, sir.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Shall we stand adjourned?
CHAIRMAN CARTER: We stand adjourned.
There being no further business for the good of the County, the
meeting was adjourned at 11:30 a.m.
.... COLLIER COUNTY BO~ONERS
· !,~.~..~ · .~. ~
: ~-~·~-~ '~--::" ~ ~ES D. . , CHAIRMAN
O~j~TE.' BROCK, CLERK
Attest as to (~ha;r~.s
Page 64
February t, 2001
These minutes approved by the Board on ~ as
presented /or as corrected .
TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT
REPORTING SERVICE BY: ELIZABETH M. BROOKS, RPR
Page 65