Loading...
EAC Minutes 04/04/2001 R April 4, 200t TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL Naples, Florida, April 4, 2001 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Environmental Advisory Council, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:05 a.m. In REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Thomas Sansbury Ed Carlson Michael G. Coe William Hill Erica Lynne Alexandra 'Allie' Santoro ALSO PRESENT: Patrick White, Assistant County Atty Stan Chrzanowski, Senior Engineer Barbara Burgeson, Senior Environmental Specialist Bill Lorenz, Natural Resources Director Page1 ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL AGENDA,~n~a~d.~ April 4, 2001 9:00 A.M. Maureen Kenyon Minutes & Records Commission Boardroom W. Harmon Turner Building (Building "F") - Third Floor Ve Roll Call Approval of Agenda Approval of March 7, 2001 Meeting Minutes Land Use Petitions There are no petitions County wastewater treatment systems and aquifer storage and recovery (ASR) Presentation by Jim Mudd, Utility Director VL Old Business A. Annual Report B. Continued discussion on Wetlands, Native Vegetation and Wildlife Policies VII. New Business X® LDC Amendments Growth Management Update Subcommittee Report A. Growth Management Subcommittee Council Member Comments Public Comments ~ XIL Adjournment Council Members: Please notify no later than 5:00 p.m. on March 30, 2001 if you cannot attend this meeting or if you have a conflict and will abstain from voting on a particular petition (659-5741). General Public: Any person who decides to appeal a decision of this Board 'will need a record of the proceedings pertaining thereto; and therefore may need to ensure that a verbatim record of proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based. April 4, 2001 CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: All right. I'd like to call the meeting, April 4 meeting, of the Environmental Advisory Council to order. To show that we have a quorum with all members present -- we do have two new members. I'd like to welcome our new members. And why don't we just take a second for you two gentlemen to introduce yourself. MR. SOLING: I'm Chester Soling. I'm a resident of the Naples area since '97, and I've been involved in a lot of different things. But for your information, I was former selectman in the town I lived in, and I'm very active in the civic and charitable affairs, and I should have added to -- I spoke to some of the members. I'm an author of a book on government, and I have published a book on what I consider good government and good environmental policies. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Thank you, Mr. Sullivan. Yes, sir. MR. STONE: I'm Larry Stone from Everglades City. I've been a resident of the county since '96; about 20 years over in Palm Beach County; and I operate the water and sewage treatment plants for the city. And I have thirty -- 30 years as an operator. And that's all I have, Mr. Sansbury. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Well, Larry, we're both refugees from Palm Beach County. MR. STONE: Well, I was there back when they could -- you had to vote. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: I -- I was only there for 54 years, so MR. HILL: You still -- still don't know how to vote, do you, Councilor? CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. Okay. The agenda for today, do we have any -- MS. BURGESON: Let -- let me just -- CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: -- additions, deletions, comments Page 2 April 4, 2001 on the agenda? Mr. Carlson? MS. BURGESON: Let me just officially just call roll. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Oh. -- excuse me. Let me just Call roll. Okay. MS. BURGESON: All right. Obvious we're all here, but-- CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. Why don't you go ahead and-- MS. BURGESON: Sansbury? CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Here. MS. BURGESON: Carlson? MR. CARLSON: Here. MS. BURGESON: Coe? MR. COE: Here. MS. BURGESON: Gal? MR. GAL: Here. MS. BURGESON: Hill? MR. HILL: Here. MS. BURGESON: Lynne? MS. LYNNE: Here. MS. BURGESON: Santoro? MS. SANTORO: Here. MS. BURGESON: Stone? Mr. STONE: Here. MS. BURGESON: And Soling. MR. SOLING: Here. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. Thank you, Barbara. The agenda. Any comments, additions, deletions to the agenda? MR. CARLSON: Yes. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Mr. Carlson. MR. CARLSON: At the bottom of page 89 and the top of page CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Those are the minutes. We're not Page 3 April 4, 2001 to the minutes yet. MR. CARLSON: Oh. We're not to the min -- what are we doing? Oh, the agenda? Oh, I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: You and I are asleep this morning. Okay. MR. HILL: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Yes, sir. MR. HILL: Hill. It's possible I might have to leave by 11:15. I'm not sure how long the meeting will take place, but if there's a item that needs a vote that might be moved up to ensure I'm here, I'd appreciate it. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: All right, sir. We will move as expeditiously as possible. Okay. Any other comments on the agenda? Okay. Do I hear a motion? Oh, we don't approve the agenda. What am I talking about? Minutes? Mr. Carlson. MR. CARLSON: Yes. At the bottom of page 89, top of page 90, the vote on the -- I believe it was Terafina -- Terafino -- MR. HILL: Uh-huh. MR. CARLSON: -- I believe I voted with the majority for denial, and Mr. Gal voted for approval. So I think we got mixed up in that, in the minutes. MR. GAL: Yeah. I'd agree. MS. BURGESON: Okay. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. We stand corrected that on the Parafina (sic) that Mr. Carlson voted in the majority to deny and Mr. Gal voted in the minority to approve, the vote being 5 to 2 to deny. I have a question on the minutes that -- I don't know really how to clarify this, but we did discuss -- and it is reported in the minutes -- appearing before the Planning Commission and the Page 4 April 4, 2001 county commission regarding the actions of the board. Pat, I don't know if there's time to discuss this or not, because I had had a contact with one of the petitioners from last week that asked me the question, what position was going to be taken before the Planning Commission, which I guess is tomorrow? MS. BURGESON: Yes, it is for -- for Mirasol. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: And that Mr. Coe was going to make a presentation to the Planning Commission? MR. COE'. Whoever we want to go. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. Do we need to add that to the agenda just to make sure we clarify what -- the question -- the question was this: that in a case of Mirasol, Mirasol was approved 4 to 3. Okay. But-- MS. BURGESON: No, no. MS. SANTORO: Not always. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: I mean denied. Denied 4 to 3. Denied 4 to 3. Okay. And the question was -- asked to me by the Mirasol petitioners was since the requirement of the legislation that set us up required a 5-vote affirmative -- and correct me if I'm wrong someplace here -- a 5-vote affirmative vote, that position taken by the EAC on that petition was not in -- not a official position as such. There was a 4-to-3 vote but not an official position. MS. BURGESON: Right. It's an -- it's an unofficial position. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Unofficial position. MS. BURGESON: It goes forward with the description of-- CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Correct. MS. BURGESON: -- what the concerns were. Very brief. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: And that the presentation that was going to be made before the Planning Commission, would that presentation be for the council, or would it be for the 4-vote majority because there was no position by the council? I think I Page 5 April 4, 2001 got that right. MS. BURGESON: I think that -- do you want me to go first? MR. WHITE: As you've indicated, Mr. Chairman, it appears there will be a discussion on that matter today, and I think that will be appropriate to discuss as part of it and make clear what this council's wishes are to be presented to the Planning Commission. Assistant County Attorney Patrick White. Thank you. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: What's the pleasure of the commission? Do we want to take that in old business, or where would we like to do that? MR. HILL: Under what I -- line item did you say is on here, Pat? Did you indicate it's on the agenda ? MR. WHITE: No. But I believe that appropriately the chairman has indicated it would fall under old business, and if you would like to add it as an amendment to the agenda, that's fine. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. MR. HILL: I move we -- we do that, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Move that the item regarding the position that the council is going to take on various projects before the Planning Commission, the county commission be added to the old business portion as Item C. Do I hear a second? MS. LYNNE: Second. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Favor? (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: You need to -- go ahead and state your name. MS. LYNNE: Erica Lynne. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Miss Lynne. And the vote is unanimous in favor. Okay. There are no land use petitions, so we will move right into Page 6 April 4, 2001 old business, Item A, which is the annual report. MR. WHITE: I believe -- Mr. Chairman-- CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Yes. MR. WHITE: -- I hate to interrupt you. Item 5-- CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Yeah. MR. WHITE: -- Director Mudd. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Am I on the wrong agenda? Wait a minute. MR. WHITE: You may not have the amended agenda in front of you. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. I've got the amended agenda. I'm sorry. Got it. Sorry about that. I'll throw this one away. Barbara did get that to me. One's in yellow and one's in blue, and I should know the one in yellow is the correct one. Okay. Presentation by Mr. Mudd regarding the county wastewater treatment system. Welcome, sir. MR. MUDD'. How do you do? Let's see if I can get this computer to do what it's supposed to do. Ladies and gentlemen, I'm Jim Mudd, public utilities administrator for the record. I've been asked to come and brief you on the status of the sewer treatment capacity within the -- within the county, talk to you about recent events, and to also talk to you about aquifer storage and recovery and what the plans are. So there were two things that I was asked to come forward on, and I'll try to do that in -- in a way that I can get Mr. Hill out of here before 11:15. MR. HILL: That's -- that's an unnecessary constrainst. MR. MUDD: Oh, I got it. The north county sewer service, we'll start first. We'll talk about spills and overflows. We'll talk about short-term actions to -- to do corrective action, then the long-term, long-range planning. And then we'll talk a little bit about the Florida Page 7 April 4, 2001 Department of Environmental Protection in the consent order that we're supposed to see in -- in final draft on Friday. We'll see how that all works out because it's going through review in Tallahassee by their legal -- their legal folks. Spills: Leak area or shaft seals spilled about 50 gallons per day for several weeks, was contained on site, basically sucked it up, put lime on it, did all those corrective actions you're supposed to have. One of the ways we corrected the -- the seal problem was to lower the level of water within the tanks, and that's how we got by until high season is over, and then we've got some maintenance issues that we need to take care of on the plant. We had solids washed out of filters, backed up, spilled onto the ground and contained on site on February 14th about 200,000 gallons, on February 15th about 50,000 gallons, and on March 3rd about 5,000 gallons. We had overflows from our -- from our reject ponds. We were unable to -- to produce effluent. In other words, we were able to -- we were unable to meet the standards provided by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection to send that water out to the irrigation system because our -- our solids were too high, and so we had to put the water out into -- into the ponds. During this period of time in the middle of February to the first part of March, we got -- we got permission from the Florida Department of Environmental Protection to use four of our ponds. We normally only have two reject ponds, and we have four -- four lime ponds that we use for effluent water and hold it until the customers need it, and then we put it out there to the sprinkler systems. Because we had so much water going out to reject, we asked to use some of those effluent ponds for reject water. And the way it works, it -- it went into the effluent ponds first, and then it went over the weir and then went into the reject ponds. Page 8 April 4, 2001 We were unable to hold on February 18th about 1.6 million gallons. We did sampling prior to the water going out into the ponds. And after the water was in the ponds and after the water left the ponds and went out to an irrigation ditch and then went out to Coca -- Coca -- Cocohatchee -- I want to pronounce it right -- out to that main canal that was out there, and we did samples in the canal before it, and we did samples after the water went out into the canal to make sure that we didn't have any pollution issues. And we're still sampling. I got a call the other day from -- from one gentleman that basically said that -- and it was after the rain event during Iow tide. And he says, '1 -- I'm getting a smell here that I don't -- didn't normally get before." so I had the pollution folks go back out there and do some more samples to make sure that we didn't have any fecal chloroform or any of those indicators out of that process. And then on February 27th, 28th, we had a hundred thousand gallons that went over the -- the sides of the reject ponds. And then March 1st we had 75,000 gallons go over. All of those instances that went over the weir into the drainage ditch, the water basically made or -- is -- was reject water, percolation pond-type standard, secondary standard. I -- I want to get everybody out of this mindset that raw sewage went over the side. That wasn't the case. We were able to keep the solids on station, so we were basically into high turbidity levels in the water level that was out in the reject ponds. And over time that water would have perked per our permit and then entered our water system. So we did everything we could in order to contain. If we had a sewage spill, it was contained on site. If we had reject water, that's the stuff that went over the side in that process. What short-term improvements do we need to make in our Page 9 April 4, 2001 sewer capacity in Collier County? And we started working on this process in November to talk about how do we interconnect systems. We started the dialogue with the city staff to talk about interconnects. We started talking about our own staff about getting interconnects within our own system because the way they've been set up, it was -- is we -- the way Collier County grew, from what I understand, it was a series of package plants that were -- that were kind of umbrellaed in to the county system, and it -- it wasn't a system per se. They were basically area-type plants. So you have a north plant. You have a south plant. You have a city plant. You have a Bonita Springs plant. None of them are interconnect; they're all on their own. If one of them has a problem, they all have their permit, and they reject their water or they get rid of their waste. If it's the Gordon River or some other bay or a deep injection well, that's all permitted. We probably need to do better in this community to make sure things are interconnected. And if -- if one utility system has a problem, then another one that has extra capacity could take the -- the peak off while that gets back in compliance so that we don't have to do those kinds of things. It would be better to have the water go out as effluent out of sprinkler systems than it would be to go out to the Gordon River or go out to a river system up north or go into a deep injection well. Why don't we use it while it's here, and then it naturally goes back into our water system instead of getting put someplace and never seen again. There's a mutual benefit between the city and the county interconnect. There's an interim north/south interconnect that we're in the process of taking a look at. One is to use the effluent interconnect that's going down Livingston as a dual-use sewer. And then I'm taking a look at about three -- my staff's taking a look at about three different places where we can do interconnects. And -- and so the break between north/south, to Page10 April 4, 2001 give you a mental image of that, is along Golden Gate Parkway, okay. So you've got to bridge that gap. And in most places it's -- there's a canal that needs to be crossed in order to bring those systems on. And then we need to make sure we have a waste -- a wastewater master plan update 2001. And why -- why do I and my staff think that that's a good idea? Because when I looked at the master plan, everything is done on average annual. Okay? Well, average annual is okay if you're in a community that's built out. It's okay if you're in a community that doesn't have lots of tourists. Okay? If you've got a steady community and you're working and you're servicing those people all year-round and -- and you don't have a big influx as far as tourist season is concerned, an average annual is a wonderful way to do things. It's not a good thing to do in this community because you have a seasonal peak of about 70,000 people that come on board and you really need to set your systems up to service the population during the high season, especially in sewer. It's the same thing with electricity. When you turn the lights on, you like the lights to come on, and you like them to -- to go the certain wattage that you put the bulb in. And you don't want to have a brownout like you're having in California right now. So you need the plan for the peak and have that service, and then -- and then you can bring your plants down during the nonpeak hours. So we need to take a look at that. We also need to take a look at our plans as far as the aeration tanks and -- and what the BOD levels are. And that's the dissolved oxygen content that you get. This -- this season not necessarily did we see huge volumes that we didn't see last year, we saw an organic load that was unbelieveable. Okay. We were seeing BODs up in the four fifty range. Well, you build a plant on a two fifty average, you don't have enough things there Page 11 April 4, 2001 in your a -- aeration tanks to get the -- the solids out of your water so it settles out properly. And not only did we have a problem here but Bonita Springs had a problem with their plant in the same way because of high organic loads. Why? Very dry. Okay. So you didn't have a lot of infiltration as far as water was concerned, and -- and you had a high -- basically what you got was what was going down the toilet and the garbage disposal. You were getting it straight on with no infiltration coming from any other water sources. And, plus, our staff did a very good job. They've been fixing all those leaky lines, especially on the north side of the county as far as relining the sewer pipes so that we -- we didn't get any infiltration up by the beach area on the north side -- north side of the county. We put almost $3 million to do that. It would have probably been nice if we would have delayed that particular event. But nobody would have known that we were going to be in the drought we're in right now to know that process. So that -- those two things in combination, and I -- and I would also say there's a lot of restaurants that came on board and a lot of people used them. We had a real high grease content to our waste, and we're going to do some things with -- with restaurant owners here before the next season to make sure that their grease traps are cleaned out and they've done the proper things so that we can avoid that grease-trap overflow into our sewer system. Short-term operations, we need to adjust the plans. We need to equalize the flows using new aeration basins, improve the clarifier performance using more alum chemical. We had alu -- alum that -- it's a chemical that's added that basically makes the sludge settle, the -- your blanket settle out so you get your solids to go to the bottom, okay, and get your water to float to the top. And then that water gets put out, and you -- you super Page12 April 4, 2001 sanitize it and send it back out into the irrigation system. Well, we couldn't get the solids to lay out, so we added alum. We basically added alum four times the amount that we normally do because of the high organic loads this time. We're going to add permanent chemical fixture for alum down in the south plant for next year because the south plant was touch and go this year to try to get it to settle out just in case for next year we have the same problems. We're taking a look at increased oxygen transfers using aeration basin baffles. You've seen all kinds of technology about upside down rotor blades, okay, so that you get the air to stay in. The longer the air's there, the long -- the easier it is for the bugs to -- to process the sludge and -- and to get the solids to settle out. Well, the baffles do the same thing, and you're basically trying to keep as much air in as you can to get the process to work a little bit faster. Telemetry: We don't have this thing automated yet. Everybody is still out there doing -- tweaking valves by the seat of their pants in Collier County. You have no idea what the pump stations are doing until you go out there to see them or the alarm goes off and lots of residents say the alarm's going off, somebody needs to answer it. We need to have a computerized system with the things hooked up so that you can see when you have a problem at any one of the pump stations when you can see if you're -- if you're trying to use your sewer system to supe -- what I call super charge. In order to hold the peaks back, we -- we kept about 3.5 million gallons of sewer in the lines during peak times to hold that back. And then the time we brought it out of the sewer system, did our best to -- to do that process, to hold it. Is that the best way to do sewer system? No, because you don't to want keep that kind of pressure on the lines, okay, especially on Page 13 April 4, 2001 sewer lines. You want to -- you want to get that stuff and treat it the best you can, and that's why equalization tanks are good. We didn't have it, so we used the system the best way we could. We need to do stuff on telemetry and get it computerized. We need to revise our standard operating procedures. I don't need staff to tell me that, oh, man, you know, last March when -- when folks started clearing out their condos going back up north, we had folks throwing stuff down their garbage disposal. You know that stuff in that Tupperware that kind of sits there, you know, leftover beans and the -- and the applesauce and stuff that you never really get but you kind of hold there for a while? At least my wife does that. Okay? Well, when it's time to clean the refrigerator out, you get rid of that stuff. And if it's got a liquid in it, what do they do with it? Put it down the garbage disposal. That's -- that's a big organic load that you got to do, and we had a big peak then. So we got to take a took at past performance and look at those windows and, when people clean out those refrigerators, talk to folks, talk to our customers, talk to the taxpayers and say, "Hey, if you're going to do that, it would be better if you put it in a landfill than it would be to send it down the sewer system or put it down that garbage disposal," because it doesn't necessarily help us during peak season. We need to enforce our oil and grease limits, call it the grease police. They need to get out there, and they need to make sure that those restaurant -- restaurateurs are doing the right thing with their grease traps and they're -- and they're making sure that they're cleaned out when they need to be. And just because they have every table in the restaurant full and people standing in line with a two-hour wait doesn't mean that they're not supposed to be good stewards either in that process and they're not supposed to let those things overflow. So we're Page 14 April 4, 2001 going to take a look at that this summer, work it this fall hard to make sure that we get this taken care of. Now, one of the things that -- that might have hurt us this year, because we were having such problems in the north plant, what we did is we told all the -- the Port-A-Potty vendors, "1 can't take it. I can't take your -- your waste up at the north plant." the only plant in Collier County -- the City of Naples doesn't take it. The only plant in the ci -- in Collier County that takes Port-A-Potty waste is the north plant, and the north plant's where we had the upset. So we told them in February, all the vendors, that they would have to go elsewhere. And -- and there is one vendor in - in Lee County, north -- north Fort Myers that would do that. Now, in order to not go to the north plant and to go up to Fort Myer, it cost more money. So being good folks that like profit, you know, part of that clean out your glass, your -- your grease trap and getting those Port-A-Potty vendors to come out there and clean it out, but we'll wait till this crisis is over, and we'll just hold on to our grease trap waste and not pay the extra dollar or so that it's going to take. And it might be more than a dollar, could be up to a hundred to take it to Fort Myer versus the north plant before they -- they accept it again. So we might have been our ow -- our own worst enemies in that process. We thought we were doing the right thing. But it could have hurt us in the -- in the long run. And then we basically got to modify our north -- north permit to dispose reject water down the north -- north water plant injection well. During the rainy season, we have a permit where we can take -- we can take storm water and -- and effluent water just because we get mass quantities of it. And we can send it through our irrigation system. Whoever takes it off takes the -- the peak off will take it out and sprinkle their lawns. But if it's raining all the time, a lot of times we'll link up the injection well, Page 15 April 4, 2001 and the excess water will go down the injection well at the north water plant, which is about 3/4 of a mile to the east of 951 on Vanderbilt Beach Road, okay, so give you an idea of where the water plant is. The sewer plant is on Goodlette-Frank just south of Immokalee, okay, so that's quite a distance that it has to go, but that's what the permit says. What we'd like to do is modify that permit so that it will take reject water too so that we don't have the pond situation that we had this year. We've done some preliminary tests, and it can take up to 4.6 million gallons a day down that pipeline. Now, what we have to do is neck off all the irrigation customers when we get into that situation, and then it takes about nine hours to -- to -- by the time we put the shock of chlorine in there to clear out that force main before I can turn the effluent irrigation customers back on again, takes about 9 hours, and we're going to work that into the permit side of the house. So we want to make sure it's clean, and then we've got the testing done and it's -- and it's okay. Long-term planning: We've got to talk about biosolids. We've got to talk about what we do with all that sludge that we get, and we get a lot of sludge. Seven percent of the -- of the -- of the weight of that five -- or 450,000 tons of trash that I get in the landfill -- and I'm also the landfill guy -- is -- comes from sludge, okay, from the sewer plant, 7 percent. That's a large quantity, and we got to do better with that to see if we can't land apply it, if we can't superclean it a little bit better. We're going to take a look at that master plan because we're going to definitely need to do so. We need to acquire a new site for the new regional wastewater plant. If you look at master plan from '94, it basically said that there's three sewer plants in Collier County. I just described to you a north and a south one. Where's the third Page 16 April 4, 2001 one going to be at? If you take a look at -- at what's going on and where the growth is at and where they're going to need treatment, I -- I'd say it's probably out there in Orange Tree someplace. You have a school board that's putting in new high schools and things like that. And you have a package plant out there that's privately owned that has been, for the last 4 months, taking 4,000 gallons of raw sewage and taking it to my north plant so we could treat it for them because they can't stay in compliance. So you've got a package plant that has all kinds of promises out there that can't handle the load that they have. There's an agreement with the county that no -- no earlier than 2011 the county would take over that package plant. So that's one of the things that we need to take a look at. And then we need to do a legislative change if we're definitely going to go out there and acquire that site because the water-sewer boundary says that it -- it ends one mile to the east of 951, and it doesn't go out that far on Immokalee Road. So if we're going to get there, then there needs to be a legislative change that needs to be passed by the Board of County Commissioners and it has to go to Tallahassee and whatever. Let's talk about more treatment capacity. What we basically got in the plans is to expand the north water plant, get the liquid stream on early. We need to have it on-line on 1 December, 2001, or the county starts paying a ten thou -- 10,000- a-day penalty according to consent order. And I'll go over the consent order list so you don't have to take any notes on the next -- on about two or three slides from now. We need to expand the south-county water regional facility to 16-million gallon. Let me talk about those two things a little bit. When I got here in October, I -- I started to take a look at the process. I call it the checkbook process. How do you -- how do you determine when you can permit or when I sign off on a -- a Page 17 April 4, 2001 wet permit or an application for a PUD to come on-line with a promise of a lot of sewage capacity or water capacity? I took a look at the process, and the process was, well, this is what it was last year, this is how many people hooked up last year, and we've got room. And I said, "No, no. What about the ones that you've already signed off on? How do you keep track of when they're going to come on-line to make sure that you're bringing on enough capability to treat the water, to supply the water, to treat the sewage, and to collect?". So we started taking a look at what quantities have already been put on-line and what quantities or promises are still due out. When I got there, I took a look. It was about 8.4 million gallons of promises up north with about 1.1 of that coming on board. So we're basically at around 7.2 as far as promises that haven't been connected. And then you look down south, and you look at how many promises versus how much had been connected, and I still have IOUs out there for about 2.3 million gallons. Well, if I'm bringing on 5 million gallons up north and I've got 7.2 worth of promises still out and I'm already at peak and I'm having problems trying to treat it all during season, that tells me that I need to be building an expansion up north quickly on top of the one that's just coming on-line because I'm still 2.2 short. If you take a look down south, the plan was to put a 3-million gallon plant on-line down south with 2.3 worth of promises with about.3 to.4 that comes on every year. No sooner than I get that 3-million gallon expansion at the Lely resort put on-line than I'm going to have to go out there and start the next expansion. Well, if you look at Lely, St. Andrews is the only -- St. Andrews Avenue is the only way -- or Street is the only way that you can get into that plant. And -- and I looked at it and said this doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me, and the staff Page 18 April 4, 2001 agreed. So we -- we basically said we really need to go at the Lely community one time and one time only so that we don't have that community, that very nice community, in a construction zone for up to ten years. Nobody needs that. Nobody needs trucks running down your highways and things like that, so -- your street, your neighborhood street. So we talked about a 16- million-gallon-a-day, take it on for 8 more on top of the 8 that's already there for a total of 16. So that kind of gets you through the staff process of what we needed to do in that process. Then you take a look at the interconnects. And by the time that I'm able to get the next expansion on-line, the north/south interconnect takes some peaks off of each one and we can bring the next 10 million gallons up north on by the end of 2004. If you look at the consent order, it says we have to have that next 10 million gallons on-line by I December, 2005. The next expansion in the north 20 to 28, 2009, I got a question mark there. We've got to do some more -- we got to do some more analysis, and that's part of that master plan that we're going to do this summer with appropriate planning figures to make sure that that's appropriate. And then the third regional facility, if we're going to take on the Golden Gate facility in 2011, then we need to do something about having a plant there and on station. Something that we need to do up in the north: We need to do flow equalization. I mentioned to you that the aeration tanks were undersized. If they're undersized and they can't take the loads that you have, then you have to have some kind of equalization tank there to take the peak. It basically stores the peak stuff, and then in the nonpeak hours it draws from that tank and then it basically lays so that you don't have this high-low as the day progresses. You just have a steady -- steady issue of -- of sewage into the plant to be treated. And that's part of the issue, and that's what the Page 19 April 4, 2001 equalization tank is for. We need to talk about injection wells by 2004. If you're going to bring those kind of expansions on to the north side and it's going to treat that kind of waste, you have to do something with the effluent water that's a result. And you -- you either have to -- we're going to get more customers, because we have 72 customers on the wait on our list for irrigation water. We're going to start knocking people off of that list, okay, and getting them set up so that they can take it. But the other issue is if you can't keep your turbidity down, you also have to have a dual capability to get rid of your water. And that's what those injection wells are -- are for. The north-south interconnect permanent: Yeah, we're doing a lot of Band-aids here this year. We really need to put in a big pipe between the north and the south with a plant, with a pump plant, that can push it either north or south. And we have plans for that for 2004. That would probably go along the Santa Barbara Road expansion that's supposed to transpire during that same time. The easements are there; just the smart thing to do while that construction is going on. And then new sludge stabilization facility around 2004. We need to add telemetry and have it at all pump stations. Right now we'll do it at the -- at the major ones, the big ones that we have this year and next, but the whole system needs to be on- line so that you got everything interconnected by 2005. And then we need to do -- keep reducing the infiltration on storm water that in -- that comes into our pipes by basically lining them. Let's take a look at capabilities real quick. What I -- what I just described to you was a long-range plan to put on additional capability. What I want to show you on this chart -- and I've shown this to the Board of County Commissioners at the last Page 20 April 4, 200t meeting -- was here's the north -- here's the capacities, as you look through the years. And here's when those additional capacities come on. What I'd like you to focus in on is the legend, basically the top line, the steepest one that has the plus signs. That -- that is permits that we have that's outstand -- that are outstanding that's the potential, okay, and we basically said that potential would come on in five years. The darker blue diamond line that's underneath of that is -- we could -- we would take those -- that potential and have it come on-line in a ten-year period of time. If you take a look at when small PUDs come on, they normally are in a -- in anywhere from a four- to a five-year cycle. They basically come in with their -- with their application. It takes them a year to build their first -- their first unit and to sell it and then they basically build out by the fifth year. If you look at a large PUD, they're on a eight- or nine-year cycle, first-year hiatus before they get their first unit on after they do all of their applications, and then you basically build out in an eight-year period of time. And that's why we played with the five-year buildout and the ten-year buildout lines in order to get that -- give you worst case and -- and maybe something that's a little bit in between. What you also take a look at is you -- you look at the starred -- call it purple for lack of a better color, and that's the average annual daily flow, okay. And that's what the plant's built on right now and the planning factors that have been -- being used. And then you look at the -- the line above it with the circles, and that's -- and that's peak of 1.5 against the average annual. If you take a look at both the average annual and the peak, we're good to go. Plants are fine. I shouldn't be having spills. That's what concurrency says right now. But we know that's not the case. Take a look at the long range for the south; same Page 21 April 4, 200t legend. I won't -- I won't have to go through that process, but you see the 1.5 with the circles and the dotted line. And that tells me before I can get the next extension on or expansion on the south plant, we need to talk about a rerate to -- to handle the peak loads during season until we can get that expansion on, and that's what we're going through right now. Originally that plant that exists right now was designed for t 0 million gallons a day. They went to 8 because there was a commitment by the county commissioners that they wouldn't expand the plant over the one that was preexisting until they made sure that all the odor and other issues were handled. And so we've basically handled the odors, the scrubbers, and done all of those things, and we're going into the rerate. And from what I understand from the -- from the -- from the Naples News, they're going to come back to us with a rerate of about 9.25. Now, when you take the two of them, north and south, and call them a system, this is what it looks like. And those expansions that I just talked about kind of get you in a -- in a -- in a feeling where we bring the expansions on, we have it under control, worst case or best case. And we've -- we've solved the problem at least into the future. And I will also tell you that those steep lines, the ones where PUD buildouts for potential for five years and ten years, I would tell you that -- that the plan for buildout for Collier County says that when we get to 56 million gallons a day, which is that top line, the tie -- top plateau line, that shouldn't happen until 2030, and that -- and that's all we should be building as far as sewer system is in Collier County. So we need to take a look at that with some of the census news that came back out here just recently and some other breaking news that says that the Naples metropolitan area is the second- fastest growing metropolitan area in the United States so... Let's take a look at the FDEP consent order. The -- the north Page 22 April 4, 2001 regional water facility expansion needs to be on-line by 1 December. The north/south interconnect needs to be on-line by 1 December. We have to execute the city-county interconnect. And if you looked at the paper today, we're doing that right now. We've done all the legal paperwork. We should have that on-line by Friday. We need to rerate the south plant. I talked about that just moments ago. We need to have a north regional -- north sewer plant flow equalization. That 5 million gallons, I was successful in our last negotiations to get them to understand that 5 is -- is probably overkill, and we need to give them a -- a proper design for flow equalization, and they've given us an extra 30 days to provide that proper design and -- with the permit in order to get it built, so that was some good news. The wastewater master plan, we discussed have it to them by I October. We plan to have it finished sometime around 1 September. Expand the south plant to 16 million gallons and have that on-line by November 2003, that was in the works for design/build. Montgomery Watson is a national acclaimed construction outfit, and they're basically going to do design/build for us in the south plant. And so we took it and changed it from 3 to 8. That's a pretty minor modification for them as they bring it on, and it shouldn't change the construction schedule. So that's pretty good -- pretty good news. Expand the north water regional plant to 23, add another 10 on it, to be ready on I January, 2005. We think that's doable. Fines not to exceed 200 and 200 K: If we do in-kind services, the figure is 232,000. So we're going to have to go back to the board on Tuesday, once we get the final draft to talk to them about the -- the definite specifics to -- to that draft. Penalties, 10 K a day. If we miss December 1, they've added Page 23 April 4, 2001 some additional -- some additional constraints, requirements, to that 10,000 fine. And it's not and/or; it's all and. One was the equalization -- excuse me. The aeration tank at the north plant had to be on-line on I October. I get them to change it to 1 December to have the expansion on by I December, and then there's a requirement in there that anything from the north plant going to the south plant, if it upsets the south plant, then we fall under that same fine. And then we need to get an approval from the -- the chair of the Board of County Commissioners. So before I go to ASR, let's make -- make sure I got the sewer issue down for you, and I can handle any questions that you have, and I have Joe Cheatham with me who is my wasterwater director. MR. COE: I've got a question. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Mr. Coe. MR. COE: The south sewage treatment plant, I know that there's a big battle there with the community, been going on for years. And I know they're lining up their guns to battle again on the expansion. I'm wondering if the expansion down there is -- is going to take into consideration those projects that have not yet been permitted but are probably going to be permitted at some time in the future. For example, Hamilton Harbor; Lely community can expand, of course, across 41. Some of the PODs -- PUDs that are along 951 there between -- between Highway 41 and 75, that whole area is exploding. And sometimes we forget that that area of expansion hasn't even started yet. We -- we've concentrated an awful lot on the north. MR. MUDD'. That -- sir, that's one of the reasons when I say what -- what already the potential and PUDs are out-- MR. COE: Uh-huh. MR. MUDD: -- and what we're -- we're going to see in the future, that 10 years worth of -- if we take it on, do a 3-million- Page 24 April 4, 2001 gallon expansion and have to do another 3 and then have to do another 2 to get it at -- at buildout, they'll -- they'll be doing this for 10 years. Why not just do it one time, make sure it's got the proper odor-control issues, to make sure that we got the proper noise things in, and -- and get that community back to a -- a normal state and -- and not upset it for-- MR. COE: So you're saying you have taken into consideration even those projects that have not yet been permitted? MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. That's what that plan, that buildout plan, takes into account. MR. COE: Okay. MR. MUDD: And that's why the south plant is -- got a buildout of 16 million gallons a day. MR. COE: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Any other questions for Mr. Mudd? Yes, sir. MR. SOLING: Chester Soling. I'm hearing you talk about increasing the capacity of all -- the two plants. I have an elementary question. Is there land enough to do all this work? MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. For the -- for the north and the south, their plan, when they were built for buildout, the south plant has got buildout at 16 million gallons, and the north plant has buildout for 28 million gallons. MR. SOLING: So you have the area and --. MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. MR. SOLING: Now, the other -- I have two more questions. While you-- MR. MUDD: Well, let -- let me fully answer your question. The only -- the only issue still remaining is injection wells. Okay? When you get reject water that you can't put out to the irrigation system, you have to put it someplace. Okay? So we have the Page 25 April 4, 2001 area. There still needs to be some deep injection wells that need to be permitted and built in order to handle all of that. MR. SOLING: Thank you. Now, the second question, you're talking about tying into different sewer systems -- systems. When you tie in, don't you have to build pump plants? MR. MUDD: Okay. For instance, the tie-in -- I'll give you an example. For most -- for most cases, you're absolutely correct. You need to build the pump plant. That's when we put the permanent one at 2004. We've got so much pressure on the north line, because we've only got -- everything is manifolded in. Remember, I talked about taking over those little package plants, and they just mandifolded (sic) it all in. It's under -- the north plant lines are under more pressure than the south plant lines. The north plant lines are under more pressure than the City of Naples' lines are under. And so when we're making this interconnect right now, the pressure on our north line is higher than on the city line. So if you have more -- it will go -- it's like anything else. It will -- it will seek the -- the path of least resistance, so it will move to the lesser -- lesser pressurized line. So if I want to go from north anywhere, we don't need a pump plant. But if I want to go from a less-pressurized system to a more-pressurized system, then I need the pump plant in order to get that -- to get that sewage and so it will go in the other direction. MR. SOLING: And my last question: There's a current hold on new applications for tying in buildings. When will that be lifted or particularly in the north area? MR. MUDD: Sir, that will be lifted when the consent orders are signed and agreed upon. MR. SOLING: So that's imminent? MR. MUDD: It depends if the Board of County Commissioners want to agree to the -- the terms that -- that got Page 26 April 4, 2001 added since the last time we met. And so if they agree to that, then, yes, it could be imminent. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Further questions for Mr. Mudd? Mr. Carlson. MR. CARLSON: I have a question. You mentioned that the potential location of the third plant would be the Orange Tree area? MR. MUDD: It's an area that we're taking a look at right now, MR. CARLSON: Do you ever -- do you think that the estate- zoned residential areas will ever be sewered that surround Orange Tree? MR. MUDD: Oh, you're asking me to look in the future. MR. CARLSON: Okay. Well, the -- the reason I'm asking-- MR. MUDD: I've looked at -- I've looked at what the PA -- PUD layout is in the Orange Tree area. Okay. That package plant won't handle it. MR. CARLSON: All right. Right. MR. MUDD: And so -- and they're having problems with what they have. We have a commitment to take over that package plant in 2011. The master buildout plan in Collier County says we go to 56 million gallons a day, and there's a third plant. Sir, if I was to be a -- a -- you know, if I rub my crystal ball, I would say that that would probably be a pretty good location for that third plant. MR. CARLSON: Yeah. I -- I realize there's a problem there, but we're reviewing comments all up and down 951, Immokalee Road in the urban area. And even with a high school, the buildout of Orange Tree's kind of small compared to what we're looking coming -- coming at the area that's already in the urban area. So I'm -- I'm kind of surprised. If you look at the -- the future of the Florida Rock area and the Mirasol and the Terafina Page 27 April 4, 2001 and all of the things that are coming up here, I'm just kind of amazed that that plant would be located way out there, and then there's some -- got to be some huge pipeline to take -- take all that waste down. MR. MUDD: Well, if you -- if you take a look at what's there and -- and the golf courses that are being developed along Immokalee Road from 951 all the way on Immokalee Road, you take a look at the plan to take Immokalee Road out to four -- four lanes, you take a look at that process, there's a high potential. Take a look at where the plants, the sewer plants, are built. I've got them in -- I've got them in Goodlette-Frank Road up by Immokalee. Okay. I've got them in the Lely area. Okay? I've got nothing to the northeast in order to handle the issue. And -- and if you're taking a look from an economic standpoint from -- from just pumping it all over the county to having something that's regionally there that's interconnected-- MR. CARLSON: Uh-huh. MR. MUDD: -- that would be a good place -- that would be a good place to put it. We're talking in the neighborhood of a hundred acres that you need for that third plant site. If we don't start looking at a site soon, there will be no land to get. MR. CARLSON: Well, that's my point. I mean, a lot of these projects are still in the permitting stage and -- · MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. So-- MR. CARLSON: That's a really important issue. MR. MUDD: So it's a really important issue, and it's one that we need to get after before it gets to be too late, and then we -- then we lose the -- the -- we lose -- we lose timing on the process. And timing, you know, I'm talking from a monetary standpoint. Do you want to buy it at -- at -- at -- at an affordable rate? I'm talking land. Or do you want to buy it when it's gold plated? I Page 28 April 4, 2001 would probably like to buy it when it's -- when it's affordable and it's -- and it's a reasonable process. The other issue I'd say to you is, take a look at the south plant. It's at 8 now. We're going to take it to 16. That doubles what you have. So take a look at what it services right now on the south send -- south end. You look at Golden Gate down, and then you say, okay, we're going to double that capacity. If you take -- if you think about what we're doing on the north side, we're putting on 5 right now, and that will take us to -- that will take to 13 1/2 at the north plant plus another one million at Pelican Bay, so it's around t4 t/2 million. When I bring the next 10 on board in -- by 2005, from -- from today till 2005, you've more than doubled the capacity of that north plant to handle what's going on out there. And then there's still another 5-million-gallon add-on that you could put at the north before buildout. So if you take a look at what's incorporated right now within the water-sewer district, I think it - - it -- it -- it serves you well that there's some folks that thought about the plant sizes and where they needed to be located to handle that. The real key is, if the water-sewer district expands further to the east, that puts the locations of the plants we have right now in -- in a bad strait, and then it causes a lot of extra dollars in order to pump it to get to either one of those treatment facilities. And there needs to be another 12-million-gallon capacity put someplace based on that -- on that buildout plan for -- for 2030. So those are the things that -- that lead us to go to that process. And it just -- you know, we inherit -- I inherited the 2011 take of the Orange Tree package plant, so I'm saying, well, if it's already overwhelmed, then that place is already growing, and it's a place to get some -- to get some land and to go ahead and do it. MR. CARLSON: Are you looking at all at the possibility of Page 29 April 4, 2001 using some of this reject water, rather than injecting it, putting it into former wetlands, maybe creating some green space, fire breaks, rehydrating old drains, strands, or sloughs or-- MR. MUDD: Well, we -- we've got-- MR. CARLSON: -- do something like that with it? MR. MUDD: What do you call those? The twin lakes, Joe, Eagle Lakes? MR. CHEATHAM: I just want to comment on that. The wetlands -- Joe Cheatham for the record. To put water into wetlands requires a higher level of treatment than what -- what we have in those reject ponds, re -- requires nutrient -- nutrient levels much lower than they have. So that will be prohibitive of put -- putting that kind of water into the wetlands. MR. CARLSON: But if we had a wetland which was basically drained or the hydrology had been worse than severely altered, eliminated, would you still need that? If -- if it was -- built as a treatment area otherwise wouldn't have any hydrology, would -- would that be a different situation? MR. CHEATHAM:: It would be. If the state would -- would permit that, it's something we could definitely look at, but as it stands today, the reject water we have to go to our natural wetlands would -- would not meet the nitrogen limitations that would be put on it. There must be -- the wetlands does remove nitrogen as well, but the state permitting for wetlands requires it to be lower than what we have in those reject ponds. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Thank you. Any further questions for Mr. Mudd? · BURGESON: I have one quick question. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Barbara. Barbara -- Barbara Burgess (sic). MS. BURGESON: On the estates areas -- estates areas that are -- sorry, Burgeson. The estates areas that are near in, for Page 30 April 4, 2001 instance, in the -- off Oakes and off -- north of Pine Ridge and off Golden Gate south of Wyndemere, will those areas ever go on county? No. MR. MUDD: You're asking me a question that -- that -- that takes a -- that takes a law change. That takes an ordinance change in order to do that. And if -- if the Collier County Board of County Commissioners see fit in the future to say they have to come off the septic-- MS. BURGESON: Uh-huh. MR. MUDD: -- in order to come onto the sewer system, that's a prog -- that's a process that I can't foresee. Right now there's no requirement for that. MS. BURGESON: Is there any concern for those isolated areas near in being on septic? MR. MUDD: Well, that's up to the Florida Department of Environmental Protection. If your septic system doesn't work anymore and it's getting old and it starts seeping into the groundwater and other things like that, they're not properly maintained, then they'll step in, and they'll force some issues to happen, but I don't foresee that. So far what I've seen on the private landowners, they're trying to take care of the wells and they're trying to take care of their septic systems. There's a big - - there's a big monetary cost when you talk about hooking into a main, okay, when you got land that's 5 acres and you're in the back of it, okay, and it could cost you millions. I don't want to touch that. You're -- you're putting me in a politically sensitive area that I don't want to go in. Okay? CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. · HILL: Yeah. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Mr. Hill. MR. HILL: A couple of questions. Bill Hill. One, I want to second Mr. Carlson's comments because I believe there are Page 31 April 4, 2001 methods of constructing wetlands to handle effluent, which is probably close to your reject water level. I think that's been a concern and has been developed over the last 15 or 20 years. It might be something to -- to look at. MR. MUDD: It might just-- MR. HILL: Yeah. It-- MR. MUDD: It would be a perfect place if -- to talk about effluent water and talk about the south Golden Gate estate area that the South Florida Water Management District is basically acquiring to rehydrate, okay. And that area, to get the water instead of trying to move it off on the storm water side, you know, and instead of sending it out to the -- out to the gulf, keep it in and have it go in the other direction. It would be an area where we could probably take effluent water and -- and -- and do some rehydration in that same process so -- and it's pretty close to that Lely plant. Okay. MR. HILL: Yeah. MR. MUDD: It's a couple miles so-- MR. HILL: The other -- you -- you seemed to say that planned infiltration was a positive thing and then turned around and said you're relining the pipes. I always thought infiltration was something you did not want in your -- in your sewer system-- MR. MUDD: Well-- MR. HILL: -- which leads to the question, what is the condition of our line system? MR. MUDD'- There are some -- there are some systems that are newer that are in good shape, and there's some older sewer systems that we've taken on that are in pathetic shape. An infiltration on a general rule, sir, is a bad thing, okay. But in this drought situation that we're in, it would have been a good thing. Okay? And I can't read droughts, and they're on ten-year cycles, from what I understand, when you talk to the meterologist. But -- Page 32 April 4, 2001 you know, maybe in one instance it's a -- it's a good thing, but in nine instances over that nine-year period of time, it's a bad thing. And we're going to still consider infiltration as a bad thing. MR. HILL: Okay. The other -- the other question I have, in a presentation like this, I think it would help the council, in particular me, if data like this would be presented to us in hard copy, your -- your viewers, your slide show. MR. MUDD: I just -- I can get that to you. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Mr. Simonik, were you going to ask a question? Okay. MR. SIMONIK: If I could, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. My name is Michael Simonik from the Conservancy. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: I was very intrigued by Mr. Carlston's questioned (sic) and also happy to hear that Mr. Hill's interested in created wetlands from our effluent water discharge. Now, I just wanted to bring up the point -- I'm working on getting the materials, but two weeks ago I was visiting a friend in Palm Beach County. And for the sun -- for Sunday afternoon we went and visited the wastewater treatment plant and was probably one of the better environmental outings I've had in the -- in the last few years. It's a great re -- created wetland system using effluent water coming from the wastewater treatment plant from one of their big plants in Palm Beach County. It's called Walkadehatchee. I think I have it right. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Locksahatchee. MR. SIMONIK: No. Walkade -- It's called Walkadehatchee. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Walkadehatchee. MR. SIMONIK: It's owned by the county. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Is this from the cen -- is from central -- the central plant? MR. SIMONIK: I don't know which plant it is; it's just called Walkadehatchee. Page 33 April 4, 2001 CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Walkadehatchee. Okay. MR. SIMONIK: But that's the name of it. It's one of their water treatment plants. I don't know if it's their central one or what. But I think it was towards the southern end of the county. But it must have been over a hundred acres of created wetlands that were unbelieveably productive. Ed Carlson, you'd be salivating over this place. I -- I saw dozens and dozens of species of wetland birds and alligators and -- and everything in there. There was a boardwalk that the county had created over the top and through these created wetlands coming from the wastewater treatment plant. They did it because they have problems of dumping into a nearby river, estuary, something. But I'm sure it cost a lot of money, but there were literally probably over a thousand people on that boardwalk at the wastewater treatment plant, families, retired people, young people. Everyone had binoculars. It probably beat Corkscrew's daily folks down there, visitation. But I tell you, it was the most amazing place I've ever been. It was a total benefit to the community, and it also helped on their wastewater treatment. So when you're thinking of doing something out near Orange Tree -- and I'm a northern Golden Gate Estates resident on septic -- think about doing something like that and getting the land now because it was an unbelieveable resource to the wildlife, to the people, to the whole process of wastewater treatment. And I'm getting a videotape of it from them -- it just hasn't come yet -- and I'll distribute it to county commission and to EAC and, of course, you, Mr. Mudd. But I think -- I would urge you, of course, Mr. Mudd, to go to Palm Beach County and see this Walkadehatchee plant. It's totally amazing, and the community -- that -- it's free to the public, lots of par -- it was just jammed packed with people, and it was amazing. Thanks. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Thank you, Mr.-- Page 34 April 4, 2001 MS. BURGESON: I'd just like to add something to that. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: If I could for a second. Further, in Palm Beach County-- and I -- I believe that's the south county plant -- Palm Beach County has a -- another program going on, and I know a little bit about it. And they have about twenty -- thirty-five hundred acres in what they call West Palm Beach Ketchman area. West Palm is -- is probably one of the few areas that still uses surface water source. And they're working on a situation where right now they put about 40 million gallons a day in deep well injection. And they're working on a program to try to take that 40 billion out to the western edge of this area through spray irrigation and essentially do what would be a massive reuse program. It's pretty -- I don't know how far they've gotten with it, but they do have the area to do just what Mr. Carlson is talking about. Yes, ma'am, Miss Lynne. MS. LYNNE: I just wanted to say that I agree with Mr. Carlson and Mr. Hill that looking for alternative ways to use the reject water in created wetlands would be something that this county could really benefit from. MR. MUDD: Okay. MS. BURGESON: I'd also like to add something to what Michael had said. Collier County parks and rec department took a field trip about a year and a half ago, and I had been to that park before that, so I had asked Maria to make a special stop there to take a look at that. So she has seen it, and you might to want talk to her about it, remind her. She was hoping to use some of what they were using there in the east Collier perc ponds county park and then hopefully expand that or maybe create a new one similar to that so that she is -- she's -- was very impressed with that, and -- and maybe some kind of a combination between parks and -- and utilities could be done. Page 35 April 4, 2001 CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Mr. Carlson. MR. CARLSON: Did I hear Mr. Si -- Simonik volunteer to give us a presentation on this, or could -- could -- could our county staff have someone come over and give us a presentation on this, please? MS. BURGESON: If-- if you'd like, I can ask Maria if she'd like to come over and-- MR. CARLSON: Yes. I would like that very much. I don't want to speak for the entire board, but I'd -- I'd like to hear about it. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. Okay. Hearing no other questions, Mr. Mudd. MR. MUDD: ASR, aquifer storage and recovery: Proven technology, we've got one working right now in Collier County. It -- it is for potable water. It is on Manatee Road. It's at the Manatee plant. We put -- we've got about 450 million gallons of potable water underground. We pump about a million gallons down during off peak, and during peak we bring up about a million and a half gallons a day. So it's been working. It's been -- been out there in use, and in Collier County or at least in -- in this county since '98. This particular aquifer storage and recovery that we're talking about was for reclaim water, was that effluent that we were talking about. Now, I want to make -- I want to make some things clear, because I've -- I've heard reject; I've heard effluent; and I've heard reclaimed. Okay. And I want to get it straight in everybody's mind, okay, because we're all kind of thinking they're all the same, and they're not. Okay. Effluent and reclaimed water are the same. Reject water is not the same. Reject water is a -- is a byproduct of the plant that doesn't meet the specifications by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection to put out into a lake for mitigation or Page 36 April 4, 2001 to send out to an irrigation system. Okay? It's -- I got a plant that's upset, okay. Turbidities, some other -- a fecal chloroform level might be wrong. I might have a spike. And guess what? You can't send that out to the irrigation system, and you can't send it out to a wetland, or the nitrates might be too high. So you have to send it to another source. Okay? The city will send it to the Gordon River. Okay. The county will send it to a deep injection well or to a perc pond right now. So those are the -- those are the issues. Effluent, if I've got extra effluent, it's a great place to put it out there, to have it permitted to put it out on the wetlands. And there's lots of times that I have extra effluent, especially during the rainy season, lots of it. Okay? Lots of it. And so we would like to do things with it besides just let it run off and -- and -- and send it to a deep injection well never to be seen again. And so one of the ways that we want to get at that is with aquifer storage and recovery, to -- to use the -- the layers of the earth's crust to store water, in this particular case, reclaim water. And it was in the paper with the City of Naples and the City of Naples and the -- and the Board of County Commissioners had a -- had a joint meeting. The plan was to put an ASR site at the north wastewater plant to take reclaim water during the wet season and put about 140 million gallons underground and then to take that water back out during the dry season and use it to -- to -- to sprinkle the grass because - - and why do you want to do that? It's because 60 percent of the potable water use in this county goes out on the lawn, 60 percent. We have the highage -- highest usage rate per capita in the State of Florida. And I would tell you not only are you the fastest-growing community -- one of the fastest-growing communities in America, but you're also one of the ones that used the most potable water per capita in the country. And that's not a statistic we want to be proud of. Page 37 April 4, 2001 And so one of the ways to get -- you know, I -- the other day I was -- we had a problem at the north plant. It got hit by lightning. It had to come off-line, so we were using all the storage tanks in order to distribute to make sure that you or everybody was getting the potable water that you were getting. And we were off-line for 18 hours. You didn't know that because the water came, and everything was fine. But one of the things that my -- that my distribution chief told me, he says, "Man, at two o'clock, though, our water use starts going out of sight." I said, "Wait a minute. Two o'clock?" he says, "Yeah. That's when all the sprinkler systems come on." And I said, "You're kidding me. There's more water going out at nighttime than there is during the day for human -- human consumption?" she said, "Absolutely." so that kind of gives you the -- in the sewer business, that's when my sewer peaks come off-line where I'm not getting anything that's coming. But in my water distribution, that's when my peak is. It's the nighttime because people are watering their lawns. So ASR in that capacity, what will we do? We basically store it anywhere six to seven hundred, could be a little bit deeper, depending on the layers that are found. You go down there; you test it to make sure that you've got impermbeable (sic) layers, good layers of clay above and below it. What are we talking above and below? We're taking about layers of clay anywhere from fifty to a hundred feet deep so that it's basically holding it. And it holds it in that one position. It does a little bit of mixing out on -- out on the perimeter with the briny water because it's a briny water aquifer that you're going into. It has nothing to do with the -- the north Tamiami aquifer; that's too shallow, and that's up there anywhere above 200 feet. So you're down in a salty-water aquifer, get a little saltwater mix on the perimeter, but the water in the middle is -- is very good. You can Page 38 April 4, 2001 get about 80 percent, okay, when you put it down there, retrieval. I've heard 90 percent. I like to stay in the 80-percent range. We've got a -- a ujex (phonetic) -- then talk about the Everglades, and you've heard a lot about that. Their -- their -- their whole process to restore the Everglades is built on ASR technology. They're looking at over 300 ASR wells to store 1.6 billion gallons a day. Okay. We're talking about big wells and then in the same time during the dry season to rebring that water back up again and put them into those channels and those streams so that they go out and they stop the saltwater intrusion into the Everglades or the intrusion of the Everglades, the killing of the Everglades during the dry season. There's state, federal regulations. They regulate ASRs. You've got to do preconstruction geologic testing. Before you can do that, you have got well specialists that do it, tough construction standards to make sure that you don't have any leakage between layers. You've got to make sure that after you've done those testing that you also have to go in and test the well to make sure that you put water down. It's kind -- I call it the sponge test. Okay? Everybody's had a soapy sponge in a -- in a bucket. Okay. And when you wring out that soapy sponge, you normally have to do it a couple of times before it starts running clear water. Well, it's the same thing: You pump it down; you bring it back up and test it and figure out what kind of dilution you're getting. You pump it back down again, because, remember I said that mixing on the peripheral, that's what you're trying to do in that well. So you do it -- it's the sponge test as you bring it up. You're trying to get that sponge so it wrings the same kind of well water that you're putting down there. Okay. And you've got to do that up to -- from anywhere from six months to a year. And then you go into the final permit process whereby you can start using it as an operational well to -- to put water Page 39 April 4, 2001 down in volumes and bring water back up in volumes from wet to dry season. We wanted to put it, again, at -- mitigate droughts. We wanted to use the reclaim water instead of losing it. It's a valuable resource. We have to have some way to -- we get about 55 inches of rainfall in -- in this county a year. Fifty-five inches of rainfall stretched out over here -- a whole year is probably plenty, probably double the amount that you really need. But we only get it one time of the year, and then the other time, right now, we don't get it. And how do you -- how do you hold it? How do you store it so that you can use it in the dryer times? And -- and that's what -- these are one of the tools in the -- in the tool bag that you can use in order to do it. Let's talk about well field protection issues. You got to worry about storm water runoff, lawn pesticides, herbicides, fertilizers, septic tank, drainfields, underground storage tanks, release of hazardous chemicals from traffic. We're talking about well field protection, because that was a big issue with the city. If you're going to put it some 2, 2 mi -- 1.5, 1.7 miles away from the city well field, what happens if water mitigates and gets into the drinking water source? Well, right now we spray it on the top, and it filters its way down. If it was going to mitigate up, it would go through some kind of filtration system in the same process. What we are trying to relay in this message, that there's a whole lot of things happening up on the -- up on the -- at the earth's crust, at the surface level that we should be worrying about at the same time that we're worrying about the stuff that we're putting down underneath the earth's surface in order to -- for ASR types. Monitoring wells, you've got to make sure that you've got them installed so that there is no migration so that you see it before -- before it becomes a problem; then you take appropriate Page 40 April 4, 2001 actions, like you pull all the water out that you put down there and get it out if you have a problem. You also have monitoring wells to take a look at horizontal flow and how fast it goes. I've heard people say that water moves about 5 feet a year at max in the -- in the lower Tamiami aquifer, some even slower than that. You know, you take that 5 or 7 feet to go 1.5 miles, could be -- could be up over a hundred years before it ever reaches where it needs to be. And then I've heard some estimates that say it moves faster than that. I don't want to get into the -- how fast the water moves. The real issue is, if we put down in the earth's crust and we want the earth's crust to hold it, we've got to make sure that we got the proper confining layers, okay, to make sure that we don't have to worry about how fast water moves. And we got to make sure that those monitoring wells are out there and they're actively doing those processes and we're sampling water as it goes down and what we take back out again. What the monitoring wells look like, you got your ASR, in this schematic down around six, seven hundred, and then you've got monitoring wells that are -- that are taking a look at the water qualities above it in -- in off -- off horizontally from the well in -- in the way the water is supposed to move to make sure that it's not migrating someplace and that you don't have a leak. Okay. Important issues: Hey, Naples and Collier County, something to be proud of. Okay? Collier County has been not cited; been awarded the -- the top county in the -- in the area, and Naples is included as far as reclaimed water use. We're putting more of it out there and having a good use product out of it than any other county in the State of Florida. So that's something to be proud of. We'd like to do it a little bit better, and we'd like to be able to store a little more water. Page 41 April 4, 2001 So what happened during the city and the county? The north -- the north plant is -- is in that hexagon-type shape in -- in red off of -- off of Livingston. It's at the northern part before Immokalee. The city and the county has agreed that we would move that ASR well and we would move it to the Pelican Bay well field, which is that green line that's north of Immokalee along -- along the Livingston extension right there. We owned some lands in that process. We've talked to -- we've talked to the communities there about what we're going to do. We've talked to the Strand, and we've talked to Carlton Lakes and -- and allayed their fears in the process. We have -- we have pulled our permit for the -- the north sewer plant per -- per the agreement, and we are now in the process of putting in a permit for the ASR, the test well to -- to do our testing up at the Pelican Bay well field. And that pretty much concludes where we are as far as ASR and reclaimed water is concerned. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Questions. Anybody have any questions for Mr. Mudd? MR. CARLSON: I do. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Mr. Hill. MR. HILL: Would you back up one view slide and identify the acquifers -- Bill Hill -- and approximate depth? MR. MUDD: Sir, I'd have to -- I -- I -- I'm not prepared to do that. MR. CARLSON: Okay. MR. MUDD: I'd have to bring in some -- some of my technical folks in order to get that. They've got that whole slide. But I gave you a schematic of what's there. The -- I can give you the in-depth aquifer look on a -- on another slide and get you that information if you'd like. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. Mr. Carlson. Page 42 April 4, 2001 MR. CARLSON: Yes. Did you say reject water does get injected or not, does not get injected? MR. MUDD: Reject water goes into deep injection wells. And deep injection wells off of that schematic -- we're talking ASR, around six hundred, seven hundred. Deep injection wells are greater than thirteen hundred-- MR. CARLSON: So you're saying there's no recovery there. MR. MUDD: There's no recovery. MR. CARLSON: Okay. MR. MUDD: You just send it there, never to be seen again. And you put it in a brackish aquifer that's nasty. MR. CARLSON: Okay. Let me see. And how long has the aquifer storage and recovery well been on-line here? MR. MUDD: The potable water one? MR. CARLSON: Yes. MR. MUDD: Two years, going on three. MR. CARLSON: And you're not finding any leakage up into the upper -- are you aware of the disaster they have on the east coast in Dade County with the injection wells they put in that are leaking? MR. MUDD: In the -- in the latter -- in the latter part of the '80s? Yes, sir, I am. MR. CARLSON: Yeah. Okay. MR. MUDD: Okay. Technology has changed a little bit. They didn't pay a lot of time -- they didn't -- at that time when they were building the construction, they weren't spending a lot of time making sure that the well was sealed properly so that you didn't have the infusion between the layers. MR. CARLSON: Uh-huh. MR. MUDD: And that's what I was basically alluding to when I talked-- MR. CARLSON: I just have one more comment, and don't fall Page 43 April 4, 2001 into the trap of thinking that we get 55 inches of rain here every year, because we never get 55 inches of rain here. We get 60 or 70 inches of rain, and we get 30 or 40 inches of rain. MR. MUDD: Okay. MR. CARLSON: There's really never a year when we've had 55. And -- and playing with -- depending on that average will get you in trouble. MR. MUDD: Well, I'm -- I'm just -- I'm just telling you what the South Florida Water Management District says-- MR. CARLSON: Yeah. MR. MUDD: -- on the average that we get. And you're right. If you get 70 and then you get 30-- MR. CARLSON: Exactly. MR. MUDD: -- that -- that leads a little bit better to the case that I'm basically telling you; even in the wet season you could have a dry one where you need to -- you need to leverage the resources that you were able to save from previous years. MR. COE: I have one question. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. Mr. Coe. MR. COE: I noticed something at my house when I get my water, my potable water from the city. During the peak season the pounds per square inch go down considerably at my house. How much pressure should we have at our home in order to run the dishwasher in the normal course of events ? MR. MUDD: Boy, I wish Paul Mattausch was here. Okay? I will tell you that on average in the county system, I've got the water at -- at 80 PSI, pounds per square inch, okay, so that you have plenty of fresh -- when I was having problems with the north plant, one of the things we did is we reduced pressure. If I could get the folks so that when they took a shower that there was a little less going down the drain or, you know, if you only turned it on that half notch on the faucet, you only got a little less when Page 44 April 4, 2001 you were washing your teeth before you had to shut it off, we reduced it down to 70 PSI for the peak hours of six to noon. Okay? And then I -- then I brought it down on the whole system to 75 until the season gets over. I didn't have a complaint one about the pressure being too Iow, and we'll bring her back up to 80 here real soon. MR. COE: What would you say if you were getting, like, 45 to 50? MR. MUDD: Then you're going to have a problem with your shower. MR. COE: Okay. MR. MUDD: And our problem is, we have a lot of fire- suppression systems that are on our potable. That's the county standard. And if you don't have the right kind of pressure in those high-rises, the alarms start going off so that you got to keep them. It's a fail-safe. So that's where -- that's -- that's why we keep her at 80. One of the -- one of the good new stories by -- by having the pressure down, we were having problems meeting the 15 percent reduction on water in Collier County that we had because of the drought. We were only getting about 7 percent. And when I reduced the pressure, we started to get that 50 percent level reduction, and -- and we're thinking very hard about not bringing the pressure back up again until the dry season's over, because if the pressure's not up, that doesn't mean your sprinkler coverage doesn't go as far, okay, and you don't use as much water in that process. Any way to shave a little bit off, we're trying. MR. COE: Thank you. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Yes, sir. MR. GAL: How much water is stored in the ASR in, like, real terms? CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Mr. Gal. Page 45 April 4, 2001 MR. GAL: When you bring it back up, is it -- like a -- for the uses intended, is it a -- a month's worth of water or three months? MR. MUDD: Well, it's about three months. You're talking about the reclaimed water one-- MR. GAL: Yeah. MR. MUDD: -- where -- that 140 million? That's three months. We're to gain -- gain three months on the wet season so we can use it on the dry season. Okay. And what's that -- what -- what that's going to try to do for us is that hundred and -- that 140 million gallons will try to give us 3 million gallons a day, 3 to 3.5 million gallons over that 3-month period of time to get it back out the reuse system. MR. GAl.: And do you use that exclusively, or is it mixed with fresh water, potable water? MR. MUDD: No. That -- we use that exclusively on irrigation on reclaim. Now, when you get it into some systems, some communities -- let's take the Vineyards, for instance -- they'll -- they'll use -- they'll mix their -- their effluent water, their reclaim water, the irrigation water that we supply. And they'll mix it with their well water in order to get it because we can't supply enough for them, but they do that at -- in their own communities. I don't do it ahead of time. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Anything further? Yes, sir, Start. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Start Chrzanowski with staff. Simple observation-' In -- in the mid '80s when the city went to do their effluent reuse system, they went and talked to the golf courses. One of the selling points was that we're going to give you an effluent with some nitrates in it so you won't have to fertilize as much. And the golf courses said to them, "Well, that's great in the wintertime when we're actually hoping the grass will grow, but it's not good in the summertime." and the point back to the Page 46 April 4, 2001 golf courses was, '~/ell, you're -- you're not going to take that much water in the summertime anyway." and the golf courses there all had the system called fertigation where they'd take the effluent reuse and they would insert fertilizer right into the -- liquid fertilizer right into the effluent. So they were jacking up the nitrates anyway. I -- I heard Mr. Cheatham say something about you can't put excess nitrogen into a wetland. And -- and yet Mr. Simonik was praising how prolific this test wetland was. And I would suspect that that's because maybe you're getting a lot of nitrogen, which is not necessarily a bad thing unless you're running Corkscrew Swamp Sanctuary. Is it a bad thing then ? MR. CARLSON: Yes. I mean, the -- the -- natural-- CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Ed Carlson. MR. CARLSON: Ed Carlson. The natural systems here developed with very Iow nutrient water. And you're -- if you're trying to maintain a healthy natural area, you don't want to put water with nutrients in it. Now, Michael Simonik was talking about created wetlands, start from scratch, build something. And whatever communities develop in there will develop to assimilate that nitrogen. They'll probably have a lot more cattail and duck weed and -- well, whatever. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: So we're talking about a wetland that's maybe mitigated by creation -- but you create the wetland-- MR. CARLSON: Yes. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: -- and you dump this effluent into it-- MR. CARLSON: Yes. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: -- and somebody could probably do this as a mitigation project for a-- MR. CARLSON: Or -- or what I was hinting at was take a wetland that's shot. It's dead; it's drained. It's been cut off from the natural flow of water, and then ree -- try to reestablish it with Page 47 April 4, 2001 this kind of effluent. MR. MUDD: Now, we've done that in -- in Eagle Lakes right now. Okay. And that's -- that's an area that's just off of 41 as you go from the county to Marco Island. It's over to the -- to the left-hand side, and you have to reduce the nitrogen contents in order to put that water out there, but we've done that already. Okay? So we have one of them that exists, and it -- and we use it off the south plant so-- CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Mr. Mudd, we really appreciate your coming by. It's been very, very informative to us. We really thank you, and we look forward to working with you in the future. MR. MUDD: My apologies for not having the slides. I just built the slide show last night around 6:15. I've been a little busy. And what I'll do is I'll get a hard copy for each one of you after this is over-- CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Thank you. MR. MUDD: -- and have it to you. MS. BURGESON: If-- MR. MUDD: I'll do through-- MS. BURGESON: If -- yeah. If you want to get it to staff, we can mail it out with the next-- MR. MUDD: Sure. MS. BURGESON: -- package. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Thank you very much, sir. MR. MUDD: Thank you. MS. BURGESON: One brief-- CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Barbara. MS. BURGESON: Some business that we need to take care of.' The two new members, Larry Stone and Chester Stoling, were appointed to fill two positions that were vacated. And we need to make a determination. One of those positions runs until April of 2002, and the second runs until April of 2003. We need to Page 48 April 4, 2001 determine which of those-- CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. So one of the positions is a one-year position. One is a position -- is a two-year position. MS. BURGESON: Right. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Gentlemen, do you have any feelings one way or the other who would like to be a one-year person -- who would like to be two years? Why don't the person likes -- you know, I think Mr. Soling would probably like to be a two-year position. How's that? MR. SOLING: All right. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. Mr. Stone will be one year. MS. BURGESON: Okay. MR. SOLING: Volunteer. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Volunteer. MR. SOLING: Close to my heart. MS. BURGESON: And do we need to take a brief break for the court reporter? CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Break for a couple minutes? Okay. (A break was held.) CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Why don't we call the meeting back to order. Miss Burgeson has requested that we jump to 4, Item 4 on new business regarding LDC amendment. We have no objections. MS. BURGESON: I'd like to give you a little bit of history on this amendment before we get into the language that was presented or handed out to the board this morning. The Board of County Commissioners and actually the entire cycle last LDC amendment cycle, heard a -- an amendment proposed to add additional vehicles on the beach for commercial activities outside of sea turtle nesting season. That -- that round of amendments did not include any participation of the environmental community, and staff proposed that there not be Page 49 April 4, 200t any consideration of additional use during sea turtle nesting season until we had that participation. So when that presentation was made to the board, and the public asked the board to consider sea turtle nesting season, the board, understanding board's position, asked us to put together a committee as we had done the first time but this time including the environmental community and consider whether it was appropriate to allow additional vehicles on the beach during nesting season. During the meetings that we had with the hotels and the concessions, staff and the environmental community, we -- we were directed by the current planning manager, Ron Nino, to consider some language that would be as tight as staff could create that to protect the sea turtles during nesting season should the Board of County Commissioners decide to take that position and support additional use. More recently, discussions with the county, the community development environmental services administrator, and the planning services director and the new current planning manager supported the majority of staff's position, and the environmental community in not supporting any additional vehicles on the beach. So the language that you've got in front of you today, we were directed by development services director and administrator to remove any language that propose any additional vehicular use. However, we do have another draft. I didn't hand that out because that's not what we're supporting. We do have another draft, which is tighter language, should the board consider that they wanted to add that use into -- into nesting season. So what you've got in front of you today has the changes and underlined and strike-through to what the board had reviewed last LDC amendment cycle, and what you've got in red are the changes, Page 50 April 4, 2001 since this was mailed out to you last week. So those are even newer -- that's even newer language than what you had in your package that was mailed out to you. And staff is proposing to make some amendments to this section of the Land Development Code to allow for a clearer definition of the PSI, which is the pounds per square inch, requirement through the state for all vehicles throughout the year to be used on the beach. Staff is also asking that we create a section defining or identifying tire tread so that -- this became an issue through the code enforcement staff, because if they see tire treads on the beach, even if they see them clearly going in one direction towards a particular property, if they don't actually see it or if somebody doesn't actually see it, they're having a hard time using that property owner or -- or fining that property or citing that property owner. So the tire tread identification would allow us to identify what markings might have been created prior to, for instance, natural resources department doing that monitoring in the morning. And then the last section that staff is supporting adding to this section of the code is a penalty section which has not been in this section previously, and that identifies the violations occurring during sea turtle nesting season and separately identifies those occurring outside of nesting season. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. For the record, my employer does have an interest in a facility that's directly affected by this ordinance, so I am going to recuse myself from this discussion and turn the chair over to Mr. Coe. VICE CHAIRMAN COE: Does anyone else have to recuse themself at all? Okay. Any discussion? MR. HILL: Mr. chairman, it would seem to me it would be good to have the definition of turtle nesting season up front Page 51 April 4, 2001 rather than just in the penalty phase. Maybe I've missed it. MS. BURGESON: That is actually -- what you've got in front of you is just a portion of the vehicle-on-the-beach section of the code. That's actually identified a little bit more previously, but not being changed, so it's not shown in here. MR. HILL: Okay. And is there provision for vehicles involved with beach renourishment? Is there somewhere in here-- MS. BURGESON: Again, earlier in this section in the code, it does provide limited vehicles to be used on the beach during sea turtle nesting season. And that is for emergency uses, for environmental uses, and there's another one for -- I think it's maintenance for law enforcement during nesting season. So that's currently all that the code provides vehicles during nesting season. VICE CHAIRMAN COE: Why do we allow vehicles for recreational uses or for parties for these hotels at all during the nesting season? MS. BURGESON: We are -- we do not up to this point. There -- they are not allowed at this point in time to have vehicles during nesting season for any commercial use or for any use outside of those three that I mentioned. So this -- not having that language in here is not removing anything from what they've been permitted to have. It's just not adding that use for the hotels or the concessions. VICE CHAIRMAN COE: Anybody else have any comments? MS. SANTORO: Am I misreading this? Doesn't it allow vehicles from hotels to use it? Isn't that stated in a couple of instances during the sea turtle nesting areas? MS. BURGESON: They should not be. I think that we removed that-- CHAIRMAN COE: -- during sea turtle season. This one right here. Page 52 April 4, 2001 MS. SANTORO: No. I -- I have it where it says it's not allowed. And then below that it goes on and defines them, which I find confusing because it says that they can be used with such exceptions. So you're saying that currently no hotel can put any- MS. BURGESON: Right. Which -- where are you looking at that's-- MS. SANTORO: Well, I was looking at 3.14.3.5.7, and that says-- VICE CHAIRMAN COE: Dot com. MS. SANTORO: -- which you prohibit the use of vehicles. Then below that it goes on and describes the vehicles with permits, beach permits. So I find it confusing. MS. BURGESON: What you've got there is you've got-- MS. SANTORO: You're the exception. MS. BURGESON: You have three sections in front of you here -- · MS. SANTORO: Uh-huh. MS. BURGESON: -- 3.14.3.5 is one section. And at the end of that section it says that vehicles -- that discusses the uses of those vehicles throughout the year. And at the end of that section it says, "however, prohibited during sea turtle nesting season." again, you go into the next section which talks about a different vehicular use throughout the year, and that would be for hotel properties. And at the end of that section prohibits during sea turtle nesting season, and the same with the third. VICE CHAIRMAN COE.' Barbara, farther on, the next page there, 3.14.3.8 at the bottom, who established those fines? Was that you-all that did that? MS. BURGESON: Staff did that -- in con]unction with the code enforcement staff and current planning staff. VICE CHAIRMAN COE: And is there anything else that says Page 53 April 4, 2001 this is what the fine should be, or this -- this is what you-all came up with? MS. BURGESON: Michelle, I'm not sure if you wanted to address that. MS. ARNOLD: For the record, Michelle Arnold, code enforcement director. These fines -- there's no ordinance or anything that makes specific reference to fines for this type of violation. VICE CHAIRMAN COE: So you just kind of took this off the wall? MS. ARNOLD: These -- these -- the -- the five hundred dollar, the thousand and fifteen were fines that we came up with in our discussions and thought would be reasonable for the type of offense. With our code enforcement process, we have the ability to fine up to $500 based on particular violation, and then the state statute allows, with repeat offenses, to fine up to a thousand dollars. So those were just kind of use-- VICE CHAIRMAN COE: How did you come up with the $1500 for the third violation? MS. ARNOLD: It's just something that we came up with that that would be-- VICE CHAIRMAN COE: And do you have the authority to do that? MS. ARNOLD: If -- if this gets adopted by the board, we would have the authority to do that. VICE CHAIRMAN COE.' What if we changed that $1500 to $5,000? MS. ARNOLD: The board would have the authority to do that. VICE CHAIRMAN COE: I mean, where I'm going from here is that the first violation is a hand slap. The second violation we Page 54 April 4, 2001 kind of ratchet up a little bit, but the third time, three strikes you're out. MS. ARNOLD: Uh-huh. VICE CHAIRMAN COE: Wouldn't you agree with that? MS. ARNOLD: I would agree with that. VICE CHAIRMAN GOE: Any comments from any other member of the board ? MS. SANTORO: I was -- I was looking at the same thing. I'm wondering if the first time they're suspended for 70 days. The second time I wonder why you wouldn't suspend them for the whole duration for the sea turtle time. And the third one would suspend them forever. I don't understand -- I'm not particularly -- I'm not happy with the fact that the second time they can destroy a nest. The third time they destroy a nest, it would seem to me we would stop them on the second violation from using that vehicle during the sea turtle-- MS. BURGESON: Right. Well, what we can do, in the paragraph that refers to the violation of beach raking, that is -- actually, that is-- MS. ARNOLD: Yeah, there's two sections. There's a section that refers to penalties during outside of sea turtle nesting season, and then there's a penalty during the sea turtle nesting season. And I believe that one of the penalties does relate to no use through the remainder of the season. Look on that last page. MS. SANTORO: It just says suspend for 70 days, and then the second violation you fine them a thousand, third violation 1500 during sea turtle nesting time. Doesn't seem stiff enough to me, VICE CHAIRMAN COE: Well, any other comments? MR. GAL: Alfred Gal. I think it would be easier and more straightforward if there was just one set of penalties for the entire year. And, you know, it's up to the board. If the first Page 55 April 4, 2001 violation can be a fine and the second violation, if we can increase the money and, like it says, revoke the permit that allows the use of the vehicle-- MS. ARNOLD: Yeah. The penalty section needs some work, and we're trying to work with the county attorney's office on that. That was something that was suggested, rather than having two separate sets of penalties, whether it's occurring during the season or outside of the season. VICE CHAIRMAN COE: Well, the thing is during -- during the season is much more -- I mean -- I mean, that's bad news doing it during the season. MS. ARNOLD: Right. VICE CHAIRMAN COE: So we really -- in my view it should be separate. Everybody knows when the turtle season is. They go around, say turn off all the lights, all that business. MS. BURGESON: Actually, in -- if you look under the first violation during sea turtle nesting season, the first comment there is that if there's a violation of the vehicle-on-the-beach permit, the vehicle-on-the-beach permit will be suspended through the remainder of sea turtle nesting season. VICE CHAIRMAN COE: My inclination is to take-- MS. BURGESON: Take that beach raking violation out, that paragraph out completely, would say that if your violation of beach raking is during sea turtle nesting season, then it's revoked for the remainder of sea turtle nesting season. The reason that we put that last paragraph in there, to just revoke it for 70 days, is because -- well, it's really more political than anything else. Beach raking is something that the hotels and, actually, anyone along the county has been permitted to do in Collier County probably at least since 1989 when the Land Development Code of '91 was created. It really is in conflict with that first statement that says that a violation of the vehicle-on- Page 56 April 4, 2001 the-beach permit revokes it through sea turtle nesting season. So if the board would prefer, we can just scratch that paragraph on beach raking. And then if there's a violation of beach raking, then that vehicle and beach permit is revoked through the remainder of sea turtle nesting season. VICE CHAIRMAN COE: Yeah. But that's not my inclination. I don't know about the rest of the board. If I was to start -- and I don't want to do this disorganized, just start on 3.14.3.8 down there where it says "third violation," my recommendation is $5,000 fine. MS. LYNNE: That's for-- VICE CHAIRMAN COE: That's for -- annual beach-events permit would be revoked for a period of three years. MS. BURGESON: Can you review that number again, please? VICE CHAIRMAN COE: page. MS. LYNNE: Got that. VICE CHAIRMAN COE: down to the third violation. Okay. Three -- it's the second-to-last It's 3.14.3.8. It goes all the way The first violation, five hundred; the second one, a thousand. By the time we get to the third one, if they haven't understood by then, I say hit them in the wallet, $5,000 fine. MS. LYNNE: And are you -- are you -- I just want to make sure we're clear on this. This is for the out-of-season violations? VICE CHAIRMAN COE: That's correct. Out -- out-of-season violation. MS. LYNNE: Okay. VICE CHAIRMAN COE: So I'd like to propose a $5,000 fine there. Now, when we say revocation of permit, that means they just can't get a permit anymore; is that correct ? MS. BURGESON: That revokes these permits. And most of these permits are annual, so they could apply the following year Page 57 April 4, 2001 for that permit again. VICE CHAIRMAN COE: Well, I would like to add, and I'm going to make a motion to this, that the fine for the third violation for nonturtle season be changed from 1500 to 5,000 and that we add right after beach-events permit for a period of three years, so that means that revocation would not be until the next permit gets applied for but for a period of three years. The reason I say that is this is a privilege, not a right. Anybody want to second that motion? MR. SOLING: Point of order: Is that four years, f-o-u-r? Revocation for a period of three VICE CHAIRMAN COE: years. MR. SOLING: Three. VICE CHAIRMAN COE: MR. SOLING: All right. Yes. I"11 second that. MR. HILL: Do you want to carry that over into violations during the season-- ViCE CHAIRMAN COE: Let"s take it one at a time so we don"t have it separate. I have a second; is that correct, sir? MR. SOLING: Chester Soling. VICE CHAIRMAN COE: Okay. MR. GAL: Can there be any more discussion ? VICE CHAIRMAN COE: Yeah. Any discussion? MR. GAL: Yes. I still think it would be easier if there was one set of penalties and just the maximum the whole season, whatever you want for sea turtle nesting season, the same penalties-- VICE CHAIRMAN COE: Because it's two different things. If you drive down the beach just without being in season, it's no big deal. I mean, so you're rustling a little bit of sand. But if you drive down during the certain -- the turtle season, you hit one of these nests, that's a ma]or event. These are one of the most Page 58 April 4, 2001 protected things we have in the United States along the beaches. That's why you have two different things. I mean, it's like two violations. If you do -- the speed limit is 45, and you do 60, it's one thing that happens to you. But if it's 45 and you're doing 160, it's a little different violation. That's why. Any other discussion? MR. HILL: Well, I -- I know you're talking about two different things, and I agree with you. What, in your mind, would be the penalty for during the season? VICE CHAIRMAN COE: I'm going to get to that in a minute. MR. HILL: Okay. Well, $5,000 out of season has a very-- MS. LYNNE: Implies a larger-- VICE CHAIRMAN COE: Well, I would recommend -- my recommendation for the third violation, for in season, would be $10,000 plus, and we'd go higher -- I'd go higher. MS. LYNNE: Okay. VICE CHAIRMAN COE: Again, we're giving them the opportunity to use public beaches for private events. That's what we're doing. And we're giving them the ability to haul down their tables and that sort of thing on a public beach for private events. In order to have that privilege and maintain it, then they need to follow the law, regulation, in this case. And we need to make sure that the law or the penalties for breaking that law are sufficient that the Ritz-Carlton or whatever hotel it may be feels that in their wallet so when they have that event for a hundred people, it may cost them a hundred dollars a head if they break the law to set up those tables. $1500 is nothing to a large corporation. So I have a motion to change the $1500 fine off season for the turtles to $5,000, and right after annual beach-events permit, we would add for a period of three years on the revocation. I have a second. All for raise your hand or give me an aye. Page 59 April 4, 2001 MR. GAL: Mr. Chairman-- VICE CHAIRMAN COE: Uh-huh. MR. GAL: -- do we have public comments on this? VICE CHAIRMAN COE: Excuse me. Public comment. MR. GRABINSKI: Thank you. Matt Grabinski here on behalf of the Ritz-Carlton. I would like to take an opportunity to discuss several different aspects of this proposed amendment, but since we're on the penalties and you're about ready to vote on a motion, I'd like to clarify a few of the facts because I think -- I don't think that you're understanding the facts completely with respect to what's going on at the hotels and also with respect to what these penalties are doing. MS. BURGESON: Excuse me. I think that maybe we should try to find Patrick and have him here if we're going to be discussing legal-- MR. GRABINSKI: And -- excuse me. In an effort to save time, I'd be happy to allow -- and, Patrick, if you want to verify any of the issues and any of the points that I'm going to address right now with Patrick, that's fine. The points I want to make right now were discussed in the last LDC cycle and recognized by the Collier County -- Collier County Planning Commission and Collier County and the BCC, and the facts are undisputed with respect to where exactly these beach events are taking place. Sir, you indicated that this was a privilege, not a right, and that's why you wanted these penalties to be so strict. It is a fact that the Ritz-Carlton is conducting its beach activities on its property that it owns. VICE CHAIRMAN COE: Well, then you don't need to have access down the beach then. MR. GRABINSKI: What we're asking for and what we were not given -- when the Board of County Commissioners heard Page 60 April 4, 2001 amendments to the LDC code last December, both for the annual beach-events permit, which was passed, and which acknowledged the private upland property owner's right to use its properly -- property but merely wanted to give the county notice and an opportunity to be aware of what was taking place and win so that they could perform on-site inspections, we asked that the limited use of vehicles that we were proposing at that time be extended to year-round to coincide -- year-round inside sea turtle season because the hotels operate year-round. They don't go out of business for six months out of the year, and with -- with additional restrictions and provisions with daily sea turtle monitoring, we feel -- and we have done research and gathered facts -- we know that we can continue to operate and to use ATVs on the beach in a very limited manner without in any way increasing the risk to sea turtle nests. It's been four months since the BCC held off on approving that -- those regulations inside sea turtle nesting season. The issue first arose at a meeting that we actually held at the Ritz- Carlton a year ago. I checked my notes in my file. April 2nd or 3rd we held a meeting at the Ritz-Carlton last spring to discuss various issues with respect to the beach operations, and county staff was at it and representatives from the FDEP were at that meeting. County staff has had over a year to come forward and explain to us how the uses that we are proposing would in any way increase the risk to a sea turtle nest that it isn't otherwise exposed to through human activity, through pedestrian activity on the beaches. As Eileen Barnett will explain to you in a few minutes, there are some concrete facts that support our position and to support our request to have a limited use of ATVs extended into sea turtle nesting season. Remember, what we're asking for here is Page 61 April 4, 2001 not the right for everyone in Collier County to drive ATVs all over the beach. In the case of the Ritz-Carlton, they have a separate service boardwalk that they just built at the north end of their beach. This would then basically enable them, when they have a beach party that they're setting up for on their property and they want to get chairs and picnic tables down to the beach, that they can use an ATV, drive it down the boardwalk, and get out on the sand far enough to drop off the equipment, turn around and go back up to the main hotel building. Now, it is a fact that Collier County already allows vehicles on the beach during sea turtle nesting season so that everyone can rake their beaches. It is a fact that this contemplated use that we are proposing of ATVs will not contribute to nor cause beach erosion. It is a fact that the -- the contemplated use that we are proposing will cause no more compaction to the beach soil than normal human pedestrian activity. And to date we are still waiting for a reasonable, sound, rational explanation as to how this use would in any -- would in any way increase the risks to nesting sea turtles. It's been a year. We're not here arguing for or against sea turtles. We're arguing for common sense. The language that was kicked -- that was kicked out of the most recent amendment that you have before you was drafted by Collier County staff. It was very restrictive, but it allowed the hotels to do what they want to do, operate, to operate their business. This county welcomes the lobs that these hotels create. This county welcomes the significant economic impact it has. It welcomes the tax dollars that these hotels generate every year. What they're asking for is some reasonableness and to stay focused on the issues. Like I said, when the county commission held off, they wanted to hear about one issue. They wanted to know, are the sea turtles going to be endangered in any way. Is there increased risk? We've been waiting for a year, Page 62 April 4, 2001 and we still haven't had a sound explanation. And after Eileen talks to you, I think you will agree that what we're proposing does not in any way increase the risk. And with respect to the penalties, while I'm up here, it -- since the -- since the section is still being revised and tweaked -- and I am communicating with Patrick White. I don't want to spend too much time on it, but I want to make it clear why we're so strongly in opposition to the penalties provision is that the third violation doesn't re -- the language provides that it does not revoke the use of the vehicle. It's revoking the use of the beach by the hotels or the upland property owner. The beach event -- the annual beach-events permit is a completely unrelated permit. It's a separate permitted activity. The harm that they are concerned about with the use of these vehicles is not related to beach events. And it has been acknowledged and recognized by county -- by Collier County staff and the Board of County Commission, and we have always asserted and will always continue to assert that the upland property owners, as commercial property owners, have a right to use the portion of the beach that they own in a reasonable commercial manner, which is what they are doing. And what you, sir, were proposing was that if they violated an unrelated vehicle-on-the-beach permit, that you would take away that right, not the privilege. You would be taking away a right for three years, and we do think that that is unreasonable. Thank you. MS. BARNETT: Good morning, Council. My name's Eileen Barnett. I'm an environmental scientist. I'm representing the Registry Resort. Matt and I have been working together on behalf of these hotels, as well as some other representatives from the hotels to work through this LDC amendment. I would like to say I do applaud very much your concern to protect the endangered sea turtles. It's a tremendous natural Page 63 April 4, 2001 resource for our beaches. But as Matt had summed up -- and I'll get into a little bit of detail to hopefully demonstrate to you where the impact is and is not in this language, the -- the county to our north, Lee County, and several other counties in the area do allow limited ATV use for this type of activity during sea turtle season. I sit on a board similar to this one for the town of Fort Myers Beach. It's called the Marine Resources Task Force. It's an ad hoc committee. We report to the town and advise them on environmental and marine issues. Sitting on that board with me is Eve Haverfield from Turtle Time who is the sea turtle monitoring person or coordinator for Lee County, along with several other representatives from beach businesses. And if you want a hard copy, I do have extra copies, but I just wanted to bring to your attention the actual language for vehicles on the beach during sea turtle season in the Fort Myers Beach ordinance which was passed last year, and it's very similar to the Lee County ordinance that it came from. It states that all engine-powered vehicles, except law enforcement, code enforcement, EMS, fire department and scientific monitoring shall obtain a DEP permit prior to driving a vehicle on the beach. In other words, if it's approved by DEP, then the town agrees with that. Further, it says the DEP permit must specify that the tires create a maximum pressure of 10 PSI where the tire makes contact with the sand. And that is really the caveat that is the assurance that protects the sea turtle -- sea turtle nests. If -- if an ATV runs over an unmarked nest, we don't know exactly what the damage is, but we're saying there would be damage. The 10 PSI basically comes from a pressure that's similar to human ground pressure in PSI, and that's calculated by a person's body weight divided by the square inch of the area that impacts the Page 64 April 4, 2001 ground. In other words, when your foot touches the ground, your footprint, that the square inches of that divided into your weight would be the PSI. And normal human ground pressure is about 12 PSI. And I did an experiment on myself and -- and measured my footprint and compared it to my weight, and I'm at about 11 PSI. If I'm running it would be about double that because as you're running, your heel or the ball of your foot strikes the ground all at once instead of having it divided over the entire footprint. So running actually is about 22 or more PSI if you're including force. The reason this 10 PSI was an important figure is that, if you can imagine an ATV, it's got very, very wide tires and the carriage or the body of the ATVs is getting to be more lighter material so that driving on the beach is having less impact, basically no more compaction than human activity on the beach. And that is why during non-nesting season the ATV use would not have any environmental impact to wildlife. The -- the ordinance -- the I. DC amendment that was passed last cycle was for non-nesting season for very limited use to allow the hotels to bring equipment down in the morning and bring it back in the evening or the afternoon. What the hotels are asking for now is to be able to do that during sea turtle season, and for the past four months we have been in workshops with various entities: the county -- several arms of the county; the DEP, who didn't voice any objections to EP beaches and coastal systems; the Conservancy of Southwest Florida, who at this point appears to support the language and intent of the previous language that you don't have before you that would allow for the use; and several other groups. We haven't gotten any written comments between the time in the middle of March from then till when it changed early this week from these other agencies or Page 65 April 4, 2001 organizations that they have this objection and wanted the language reversed. So -- basically, this ordinance that we were working on had allowed for the ATVs during sea turtle nesting season with requirements, including the county natural resources staff going out, marking a corridor, an ingress and egress corridor during nesting season that the hotel or concessionaire could not vary from to access the places that they would be delivering the equipment to, that they would not start doing any of this until the turtle monitor had marked the nest and several other very strong protection measures, which we were all in agreement with. And that is not what is before you this -- this morning, but we would like to support that previous language and would appreciate it if you would look into that. Thank you. VICE CHAIRMAN COE: I've got a question for you. You mentioned PSI versus the weight of the vehicle in this case. MS. BARNETT: Right. VICE CHAIRMAN COE: Now, if it's 10 PSI versus the weight of the vehicle, what if you add a 250-pound man to that? MS. BARNETT: I believe that's -- the calculation is all included in the manufacturer's specs that the rider-- VICE CHAIRMAN COE: So the -- what -- what are those specs? I mean, some men are 150; some are 250; some are 350. MS. BARNETT: Well, if the rider was added onto it, I guess it would be the weight of the rider, plus -- plus the weight of the vehicle divided by the area that touched the ground. VICE CHAIRMAN COE: Whatever the vehicle is hauling, say tables or chairs, whatever it may be. MS. BARNETT: So that could all be added into it. VICE CHAIRMAN COE: That's all taken into consideration when we talk about 10 PSI? MS. BARNETT: It should be. And possibly we could further Page 66 April 4, 2001 clarify the language in the ordinance to specify that-- VICE CHAIRMAN COE: This is clear it's 10 PSI. MS. BARNETT: Right. VICE CHAIRMAN COE: I mean-- MS. BARNETT: Clarify that it would include all of that because that is the intent. VICE CHAIRMAN COE: That includes the weight of -- of the -- whatever you're-- MS. BARNETT: Right. VICE CHAIRMAN COE: If you have a trailer full of tables that maybe weigh 50 pounds apiece, and you've got 10 tables there, that's all taken into consideration. MS. BARNETT: Actually, the trailer would be separate. The trailer would be the trailer bed, all the equipment on it divided by the square inch of the tires of that trailer, and that is also in -- incorporated into this ordinance as a vehicle because it -- it mentions trailers and other -- dollies, things like that, that nothing could have greater than 10 PSI ground pressure. VICE CHAIRMAN COE: So the only way you have access to this property that you have a right to do whatever you want on, the only way you have access is down a public beach; is that correct? MS. BARNETT: I-- MS. BURGESON: The proposed -- the previously proposed language that staff was asked to consider creating allowed or -- or required that the access be from the private property owner's property down the beach to a public beach which is below mean high water, and then the traversing up and down the beach would be on the public portion of the beach which is below mean high water which is actually currently required by code even for the beach raking, which is supposed to be entirely below mean high water which is not, but we have not enforced that differently. Page 67 April 4, 2001 VICE CHAIRMAN COE: Why don't we enforce that? MS. BURGESON: I -- I -- I can't answer that. VICE CHAIRMAN COE: Can either one of you answer why we don't enforce the raking of the beach above the high water mark there, the mean high water mark? MS. BARNETT: I can't answer that. MR. GRABINSKI: It's my understanding that -- it's my understanding that the county has been allowing it to occur. MS. BURGESON: The county does not allow it. It's actually prohibited by the vehicle-on-the-beach permit, but it's not enforced and -- and cited as violations. MR. GRABINSKI: Right. Why, I do not know. VICE CHAIRMAN COE: I've got another question: You -- you mentioned earlier that you have a right to use your property the way you want. Okay. But why do you need a permit then from the county to use your property the way you want to? MR. GRABINSKI: That's what we've always maintained. That's what we maintained when -- when the issue came up with the beach events. We recognize, however, that the county does have a right to regulate property reasonably as long as it doesn't go far. All that we're asking for with the beach-events permit is that we pay an annual fee, and basically we don't run over the sea oats, we get the equipment off of the beach at the end of every day, and that we notify county once a month when we're having these events so the county is aware of what's occurring on its beaches. That's basically what that permit was created to do. It was very simple. It -- it went from -- previously the county had been requesting the hotels to get temporary-use permits on a per- event basis, which they weren't even doing half the time because they didn't know that they needed to get one, and we didn't feel that they were required to get one on the county code, and that Page 68 April 4, 2001 position was recognized and acknowledged by Bob Mulhere at the time. That's why we drafted this new language. And the new language provided basically that the owner of the upland property could have beach events, but they had to notify county once a month of when their events were planned. And county staff actually wanted to pin a number on it. And when it finally got in front of the BCC, the BCC threw the number out and said, "We don't care how many events you're having. You're on your property. Do what you want. Just don't break the law. Don't harm the environment, and let us know." and so that's why we didn't object at that time to the beach-events permit. But now with this penalty provision, if Collier County is going to try to come back now against the private property owner and, say, hey, there was an unrelated violation of an unrelated permit and now we want to stop you from using your property for three years. I mean, to be frank, you're buying a lawsuit. You really are. MS. LYNNE: Can I ask a question, please? Did I hear you correctly say that it is illegal to -- Barbara Burgeson, it was illegal to do the beach raking above the high tide line? MS. BURGESON: Above mean high water. MS. LYNNE: Above mean high water. MS. BURGESON: Right. MS. LYNNE: And that it's not enforced. MS. BURGESON: Right. MR. LYNNE: And you, sir, and possibly the other woman representing The Registry admit that you guys are doing this, are raking above high tide? You just said it's not enforced. How do you know that? What I'm hearing is that already there are laws on the books that your organization -- that your business is not complying with. MS. BARNETT: I need to clarify on behalf of The Registry. I - Page 69 April 4, 2001 - I'm representing The Registry on this issue. I don't know of any raking. I don't -- I'm not an employee of The Registry. I'm an employee of an environmental and engineering consulting firm. I don't know of any violations that The Registry is doing with their beach-raking permit, if they're doing any. I just don't know why, if what Miss Burgeson said was true that, the county is not enforcing it. That was the question that I answered. I don't know why the county is not enforcing a particular law; otherwise I'm not involved with that law at all. MS. LYNNE: Uh-huh. MR. GRABINSKI: And I do not know exactly where the Ritz is and isn't raking its beach each morning. I'm usually in my office. But I do know that I was told by Collier County staff at a meeting, or perhaps it was just in a conversation. I asked them about the beach raking. And it was commented on that they don't enforce that provision. Perhaps they don't enforce it because there isn't a reason to and that part of the law needs to be cleaned up and clarified. MS. LYNNE: Okay. MR. GRABINSKI: Because what -- I think that, perhaps -- perhaps it was in there due to what the people that drafted the language at the time viewed as raking. I mean, some people rake the beach to actually rake up seaweed and remove objects and driftwood that are naturally occurring there and they want to remove that and they rake the beach for that purpose, to -- as a gathering function, a gathering of debris. What I know -- what the Ritz-Carlton does is it drags a screen across the beach to basically smooth out the sand, make it look nice. It remove -- they remove trash, paper -- if paper or plastic is kicked up by -- they remove that, but no natural material is removed from the beach. And so, you know, perhaps the reason why Collier County hasn't been strict on that, on that beach-raking point, is simply Page 70 April 4, 2001 because they realize that perhaps that language, you know, really serves no purpose or the purpose that it originally intended to serve isn't there anymore. I do not know, but I can only speculate. MS. LYNNE: Michelle? Is that why you don't enforce that, because it just isn't really a problem? MS. ARNOLD: Well, I can't answer it the way Mr. Grabinski's done. Our office, because of the -- this -- the amount of staff that I have, is unable to be at the beach as often as we -- we would be required to if -- if we were to enforce this particular provision. I'm not aware of existing violations that we have been told about and we've ignored. It's possible that people are -- are raking above the mean high waterline and -- and we're just not being notified of it. I'm not aware that my staff has been told and then ignored it. MS. LYNNE: And your -- your staff and your department don't have a policy that we're going to ignore this particular part of the code because it's not important? MS. ARNOLD: No. MS. LYNNE: Okay. Thank you. I just have one more comment that I want to make, and that is that I've heard repeated references to -- that this has been approved by previous planning staff and previous board of -- Board of Collier County Commissioners. And from my experience in working in Collier County government, there has been a lot of question as to how much influence, perhaps improper influence, by developers and so forth have had on both the Planning Commission and the board. So just telling me that, "Oh, man, we've already brought this all the way through the Planning Commission and the planning staff and the BCC' doesn't impress me because lots went through that had no business going through. Page 71 April 4, 2001 MR. GRABINSKI: Ma'am, if you'll -- I'm sorry if we meant to imply -- if we meant to create an impression that we were trying to unduly influence you or anyone. The point that I was trying to make is that, you know, all these issues -- all these other issues regarding penalties and enforcement and compliance -- and now we're talking about beach raking. We're here to talk about vehicles on the beach during sea turtle nesting season in a limited use and whether or not it's going to endanger sea turtles. I -- I'm just trying to keep us focused and to save us all a little time. All these other issues were addressed in the past cycle, okay. And when the Board of County Commissioners voted to allow the limited use outside of sea turtle season, but to wait. They wanted to hear about one thing. They wanted us to go out and research and gather facts and come back to them and talk about the risks, if any, to sea turtles. And that's what I'm asking you to stay focused on. Barbara Burgeson came to you and said we went to the administrator of development services, and we went to staff, and now we don't support it, but has she given you a specific reason why other than '~Ne think that it's going to harm sea turtles"? She hasn't explained how. She's had a year to explain it to me. I've asked her repeatedly. How? When a 110-pound woman walking down the beach or running down the beach is compacting the sand more than an ATV would, how is the risk any greater? MS. LYNNE: Well, I would think right offhand most runners run on the hard-packed sand. Very few run through the soft sand where the nests are. And, secondly, an ATV can cover lots more ground faster and a larger surface area than somebody running. MR. GRABINSKI: Actually, you're incorrect there because the amendment that we proposed it would greatly restrict where the ATVs would actually be. And if you're concerned about Page 72 April 4, 2001 speed-- MS. LYNNE: That's assuming you're going to follow the regulations which you've already pretty much admitted to aren't followed. You already don't follow to the letter of the law regulations that are already on the books. MR. GRABINSKI: What regular-- excuse me. MS. LYNNE: About the beach raking above the high water mark. MR. GRABINSKI: I have -- I have not stated that the Ritz- Carlton is not following that. I have stated that Collier County staff has told me that they don't enforce that provision. MS. LYNNE: I'm through. MR. GAL: I'd like to go back to the penalties, and sorry if we're not staying too focused here, but I think revoking the annual beach-events permit if there is a penalty, if there is a violation of this amendment is reasonably related since the reason that the ATVs are allowed on the beach is to set up for these permit activities. And if a judge needs to decide whether that's reasonably related or whether you should even have to get a permit, then maybe that's what's required. But I do see a rational relation between the two. MR. SOLING: Chet Soling. I'd like to offer some comments and questions. Personally, I don't see any reason -- I hate the mechanization of the world, and I don't see any reason why any vehicle, even police vehicles or county vehicles -- maybe emergency for somebody has an ambulance on the beach. But I don't see any reason why any mechanized vehicle should be on a beach. It's a place where people relax, lie on a -- a chair or on a - - a towel and relax and enjoy the -- the pleasures of -- of living near an ocean. But all that be it may, The Registry doesn't even have beachfront. They're using public property, as I understand it. Page 73 April 4, 2001 And I go to the Ritz quite often to enjoy your -- your restaurants or your stands on the beach that are not actually on the beach. And I've never seen any use of the beach. But I'd like to point out that we're talking about May to October when -- when it's the hottest season, and I dare say nobody is going to be using -- having beach parties. I could see it in the winter as an appropriate time, but in the summer and I -- I hate the comment that the Ritz is going to go out of business because they can't have beach parties. MR. GRABINSKI: Sir, if I could respond to that. You're right, most of the beach parties do take place in the late fall and in the spring, but they do have events during the summer. Even though it is considered the off season and a lot of the hotels in this community are not operating nearly at full capacity, the Ritz- Carlton operates at 80 percent off season, 80 percent capacity. And if -- if they have a -- if they have guests in town who don't think it's too hot to go out and have a dinner party on the beach, the Ritz is in the business to accommodate those guests. MR. SOLING: So you have extra staff that is not being used. Let them carry the stuff out. You take it to the end of your boardwalk, and they can walk it 15 feet on the beach. MS. BARNETT: Thank you. The -- The Re g -- the Ritz- Carlton has a little bit of a different venue than The Registry. And you're correct, The Registry does use the county beach and works pretty closely with Collier County parks and rec. The main reason that they need the vehicle-on-the-beach permit during sea turtle season is to carry the kayaks and canoes down to the pass. It's one of the most popular things, concessions that they do during the summer. And a lot of the clients are local people. When we went through this, the last LDC amendment, I believe not everybody was on the EAC then that sits on it now, but it had been approved without these specific violations in Page 74 April 4, 2001 place, the EAC, the Planning Commission, and so forth. But the -- the permit language also specifies that if the equipment is heavy enough and -- and awkward enough, that it's very difficult for people to handle it, then that would be an opportunity to use the ATV, and county staff would be checking on that. So it's not like the ATV would be running back and forth just to carry one or two beach chairs. The language for that provision is in here. Thank you, MR. SOLING: But the point I'm making is, if we write special rules for the Ritz or The Registry, what about all the little small operators? Can we count on them being as responsible as your two organizations? MR. GRABINSKI: I can't speak for the other operators, but these rules would apply to all commercial beachfront property owners, as well as commercial beachfront vendors, and so these rules aren't being written specifically for the Ritz-Carlton and The Registry. MS. LYNNE: I'd like to make a suggestion regarding canoes, and that is that there is an easy way for a single person to carry a canoe. And if me as an out-of-shape, middle-aged woman can throw a canoe on her shoulders than haul it down, then so can your staff. It's a technique. It's not because I'm strong. And I suggest you learn it and do that instead of hauling the ATVs over the beach. MR. HILL: Mr. Chairman, I -- I sense there's a lot of controversy here and in wording of the proposed LDC amendment. I think there's some controversy as to what we mean by beach permit and vendor permit. I would ask that the motion and the seconder withdraw that from the table. I think there needs to be a little more understanding between what we're talking about here. I'd like to see it taken off the table at this time. Page 75 April 4, 2001 VICE CHAIRMAN COE: I'll take it off the table. Let me ask you one question: Why do you need to get down on the beach with an ATV? And what's the total weight of that load that you're going to put on the beach? MR. GRABINSKI: The total weight, I can't honestly stand here and even give you a reasonable estimate or guess. Why do they need to get down to the beach, the Ritz-Carlton hotel, I'm sure you're familiar with the site. It sits off the beach a ways. And when they have their beach events and beach parties, the -- they have, you know, aluminum picnic tables and chairs and things that they need to get out on the beach. Yeah, could they be carried? Could a table be carried by two people one at a time from the hotel out to the beach? Yeah, I guess it's possible. Is it reasonable to ask the hotel to do that when there's a much more efficient way to do so without harming the environment? Yeah, I think it's unreasonable. They have -- they -- they built a separate service boardwalk that's several hundred feet long. And the majority of the trip that this equipment is taking from the hotel down to the beach is on a boardwalk, but they still need to get -- they couldn't make -- they couldn't build the turnaround on the boardwalk over the sea oats. They need to at least be able to get off the boardwalk and turn around and drop off the equipment and get back up. VICE CHAIRMAN COE: Okay. So my understanding is you're not -- you're not objecting to -- I mean, if we gave you the permit, you know, the authorization through this to go ahead and dump your stuff off and come back, and assuming you could maintain that 10 pounds PSI, regardless of the amount of weight that you had on these trailers, assuming that would be correct, then you're not griping about the penalties that may be imposed should you not meet our regulation? MR. GRABINSKI: No. We still have a problem with the Page 76 April 4, 2001 penalties. VICE CHAIRMAN COE: Why would you have a problem with that? It -- you know, it's like buying a car, but you're objecting -- you're -- you're saying, "Yeah, I'm going to go ahead. I'm doing to drive my car. And if I speed in it, okay. I'll take the fine the first time. The second time I'll take the fine. But the third time if you're going to charge me $10,000 for that fine. I don't like that." does that sound funny to you? Now I'm not an attorney, but I think I'm kind of logical. Why would you gripe about the penalty if you don't want to fight the law? MR. GRABINSKI: Simply because we think that it goes too far. When you go and you take away an annual beach-events permit for three years, these hotels have events that -- these hotels have events next fall that they contracted for last fall. VICE CHAIRMAN COE: But if they're so important, then you're going to follow the law; correct? MR. GRABINSKI: Yes, of course. VICE CHAIRMAN COE: I rest my case. MR. GRABINSKI: Okay. But if you want to leave -- if you want to vote to leave those penalties in the way they are, fine. But what I'm asking you for is to make a motion -- I'm asking for someone on this committee to look at the facts that we've brought you and to look at the absence of facts and reasons that county staff or those who would oppose this have failed to bring you and to use some common sense and to allow us this limited use during sea turtle nesting season. We've talked about a lot of other issues at this meeting, and it's been constructive, but I still have not heard one member of this committee look at me and say, with the facts you've given us and what we've heard, I'm not going to vote -- I'm not going to support your position because I think you're going to endanger sea turtles, and that's the mean -- that's the main reason why we're here. Page 77 April 4, 200t MS. BURGESON: I'd like to just respond to both Matt and Eileen, a couple of comments: One, when -- when they make a statement that the environmental community supported the language to add additional vehicles on the beach, that was only after -- and I've had discussions with nearly everyone from that committee regarding this -- that is only after staff was -- was put in a position and forced to come up with language in case we were to use it. However, each of those persons has told me individually, with the exception of maybe one that I haven't been able to get ahold of, that they would prefer and would -- would support staff's position that it is not appropriate and that it is -- there is an un -- unnecessary risk to sea turtles, that they would prefer not to have any additional vehicles on the beach during nesting season. The only reason they supported, in these meetings, that language, was the fear that we would have to put in language to allow it. So they were saying that this language, being the absolute minimum, would be something that I'm not sure they were very happy about, but they were obviously going to have to work with because at that time staff did not have the support to take the position that the majority of staff wanted. And that was to not have additional vehicles on the beach. I just want to make sure that that went on the record. And we do have a number of issues that were discussed that give us great concern about the safety of sea turtles during nesting season, including a number of violations, even last year, by the Ritz, violations that we -- we can provide you with information regarding that happening during sea turtle nesting season prior to the natural resources department staff being out there to monitor. So just on a compliance issue and a historic basis of what we have seen in the past as reasons this past year, staff does have a number of concerns about the additional use. VICE CHAIRMAN COE: Thank you, Barbara. Mr. Carlson. Page 78 April 4, 2001 MR. CARLSON: Ed Carlson. And we're in a situation here that this is on our agenda, and we're asked to vote on this, and we haven't received any of that information. Unless I see Michael Simonik out there in the wings, if -- if he's going to be the one to come up here and give us the other side of the argument, I'm feeling uninformed about this. MR. GRABINSKI: So do we. And we've been waiting a year. You say you have a number of issues and concerns. What are they? Specifically what are they? Because I was at all of those meetings, Barbara -- at least I was at the meetings that I was made aware of. I wasn't at the meetings between you and staff and -- and your new administrator when you suddenly decided two weeks ago to no longer support this. And I don't know if you've learned of any new information or facts in that short time frame that suddenly swayed you. MS. BURGESON: The majority of staff never supported the additional vehicular use during sea turtle nesting season. MR. GRABINSKI: So we've just been misled for the past few months. MS. BURGESON: Yes. MR. GRABINSKI: Thank you. Just wanted that for the record. MR. GAL: I think we're going to have to take -- is there -- is there any reason that we have to take action on this now at this point? MS. BURGESON: This -- this could be -- this goes forward for instance this afternoon at 3:30. This will be presented to the Development Services Advisory Committee. This will be brought before the Planning Commission. I don't -- I'm not sure exactly the schedule. I think the Planning Commission hears the LDC amendments next month. This does not go in front of the Board of County Commissioners until June, so we could table this and Page 79 April 4, 2001 bring this back to this board for a full presentation or to answer more questions, if you wish, at the May EAC meeting. MR. GAL: I think just --just speaking as an attorney, we're going to have to table it and build a record. And then -- and you can put on your facts, issues, side of the story. They can come back again if they need to, and then we'll have a record. And if it needs to go in front of a judge, that's -- that's what will happen. MS. BURGESON.' Uh-huh. MR. HILL: That was my purpose in requesting that this be tabled. VICE CHAIRMAN COE: Yeah, that's why I tabled it. MR. HILL: And I'd like, in addition to having staff's information on violations, I'd like to have DEP -- Eileen, you mentioned that the Lee County or the Fort Myers Beach specifically mentions a DEP permit. What, in fact, is included in that permitting process? In addition, I'd like to know more on how effectively we mark sea turtle nesting areas on the beach and other information, I think, needs to come before this board before I'm prepared to make any -- any vote on either the language or the penalty. Now, I -- I did understand that the seconder withdrew-- MR. SOLING: Yes, that's correct. MR. HILL: And the movant-- MR. SOLING: I have withdrawn it. MR. HILL: Thank you. MS. BURGESON: I think we need to let Michael Simonik --. MR. CARLSON: Well, can I ask --just a couple. I have a lot of confusion right now. I'm confused about the beach permit, and I'll do some research on this if I hope we're going to table it so I can catch up on this because I really don't understand a lot of this. You need a beach permit to have the functions on the -- Page 80 April 4, 2001 on the beach land that you own, that the Ritz-Carlton owns. MR. GRABINSKI: Now we do, yes. MR. CARLSON: Okay. MR. GRABINSKI: Collier County is asking to get one. MR. CARLSON: But because of these -- these beach activities spill out off your property onto the public beach, is that what's happening? MR. GRABINSKI: Occasionally some of the larger ones may, and that was county's justification, I guess, for wanting to get this permit. But if you look at -- if you would look at -- and I can bring one the next time we meet. I didn't think the issue of private property and who owned what was going to come up here. I just thought we were going to be talking about the harm to sea turtles or the lack of harm. But the Ritz-Carlton has about 65, 75 feet of beach space measuring from the edge of the vegetation line down to the coastal -- to the erosion control line which is where their property line is now fixed, 75 feet of width, and it extends north from their north boardwalk several hundred feet. It's more than enough space for them to hold probably 99.9 percent of their receptions, dinner parties, picnics, birthday parties, weddings on their property. MR. CARLSON: Okay. And this is the same property that's monitored for sea turtle nesting every year, and the nests are marked and-- MR. GRABINSKI: Yes. MR. CARLSON: -- these events are happening around these marked nests or-- MR. GRABINSKI: Yes. MR. CARLSON: Okay. MR. GRABINSKI: There are laws in place regarding distances and staying away from unmarked nests or -- excuse me -- marked nests. Page 81 April 4, 200t MR. CARLSON: Uh-huh. Okay. Thank you. VICE CHAIRMAN COE: Any further questions? MR. SOLING: I would just like to -- Chester Soling. I would just like the Ritz to offer us how many of these affairs on the beach they run a year and what periods, because I can't believe with the beautiful swimming pool that they have and all of the facilities around that, the new swimming pool and the swimming pools that they're going down on the beach. It blows my -- my mind. MR. GRABINSKI: Last -- last year the Ritz-Carlton had -- were -- in terms of what Collier County would define as a beach event, 161, most of them being -- about a hundred to a hundred and fifty of them being receptions and dinner -- dinner parties for people, you know, groups of a hundred or less. MS. BARNETT: I -- I'd like to comment briefly. The Registry doesn't have that many beach events. But -- but the ordinance, the amendment that is before us, is a separate part of the code as the beach-events permit which went through the process last cycle. But the request for additional ATV use during sea turtle season is not just for that. It's also for carrying the canoes and kayaks down for The Registry. It's over half a mile, and for the beach chairs for the other concessionaires along the beach as well. So it's not just for beach-events permit -- permitting, and that's outlined in the language here. It's like three different sections for the three different types of activities. MR. CARLSON: One more question. MR. GRABINSKI: Okay. MR. CARLSON: The beach events are happening during sea turtle nesting season now on the beach; correct? MR. GRABINSKI: Yes, they are. MR. CARLSON: Without off road -- without ATVs. MR. GRABINSKI: Yes, they are. And members -- the Page 82 April 4, 2001 residents of Collier County are using Collier County's beaches during sea turtle nesting season as well. I mean, I want to sort of address the point that you brought up. I wasn't quite sure where you were going with it, but the fact that, yes, the Ritz- Carlton is using its beach during sea turtle nesting season, and there may be nests out there and they still have parties, and they work around them. There are nests up and down our county's beaches, in the parks, outside of the parks and on private property, and Collier County does not shut down its beaches to the public. Collier County doesn't go to Vanderbilt Beach access and say to the public, "We're sorry. You can't use your beach here because there are a few nests laying around that we've marked." there's no reason why they should be able to -- why I would -- think anyone would even suggest going to a hotel and saying, "We're sorry. The public can use its beach, but you can't use your beach for your guests." I mean, I think that that is an unreasonable issue to even try to-- MR. CARLSON: Well, it seems the key question is, does the beach event endanger the sea turtles in some -- you know, in some way and the use of ATC add to that potential danger in some fundamental way that I'm not understanding. MR. GRABINSKI: Like I said, we've probably been talking about this for a half hour, 45 minutes, and I don't think anyone's come forward and explained to you how it would, specifically how it would endanger them or impact them. We've tried to come here, explain to you why it wouldn't, and we hope that you'll take that into consideration. All other issues with regard to penalties and code -- code compliance and personal opinions as to whether or not there should be vehicles on the beach aside, let's, please, try to stay focused and ask ourselves what is the evidence regarding risks, if any, to nesting sea turtles. VICE CHAIRMAN COE: Mike? Page 83 April 4, 200t MR. SIMONIK: Thank you, Mr. chairman. Mike Simonik with The Conservancy. I wasn't going to speak today, but since people have been characterizing or mischaracterizing what the environmental community thinks, I thought I should come forward, but I come forward, not with a position statement ratified by my board of directors, I come forward with some thoughts to maybe help the conversation and the discussion. We're talking about the harm, and we've been asked several times what is the harm to the sea turtles of allowing this proposed language to go through. I've sat in some of those meetings that we've had with the hoteliers and environmental community and county staff over the past couple months. I remember when the hoteliers came forward with wanting to have the ATV use on our beaches off season, and I think that came through in December. We looked at it and thought to ourselves "What's the harm to sea turtles for ATVs on the beach off season?" we couldn't think of any. So it didn't matter to us that they were going to use ATVs off season. When in January we were told they wanted to come back because I guess there was discussion at the BCC during the approval of that amendment that they should talk to the environmental community about the use of ATVs during season, now we're at the table. Right off the bat it doesn't sound very good to have AT -- ATVs going up and down the beach while sea turtles are nesting, nests are there, sea turtles are hatching. So we came to the table and heard the facts. Back to the point of -- of what's the harm. The harm comes when the proposed language is not followed to the T. When a violation occurs, you have the possible significant harm of a sea turtle nest. And that harm, I don't think, has been brought up yet today. It's not the -- I'm not so concerned about how many PSI an ATV tire has if it rolls over a nest. I'm not concerned at all Page 84 April 4, 2001 that an ATV is going to run over one of our marked nest, to be a complete idiot to run down those poles and signs and everything else. Even if it did, it sounds like it's not going to hurt as much if someone walked over it. So right now we're looking at it as not so concerned about what runs over a nest. We're concerned about not knowing where a nest is because someone who's operating with a vehicle-on-the-beach permit operated that vehicle prior to county staff -- and I must say Conservancy staff who over the past 20 years has spent probably over $2 million of our own money protecting the sea turtle and doing similar work to what the county does. And if anyone has a concern, we have just as much concern as anyone else. The concern is when that staff, whether it be county or Conservancy, comes by in their ATV in the morning and is looking for new sea turtle crawls from the night before that they would have laid a nest. So if an ATV drives up and down the beach prior to county staff seeing the track, they may not be able to find the nest or even know that a nest is there. So I'm not concerned that ATV ran over a nest, because as was pointed out to us in these discussions, the way they're going to run their ATVs, they're going to have that corridor, that access -- there's nowhere to draw it, but they come over the dunes and over their boardwalk and go down to below mean high water. And then they run across down at the edge of the water, that ATV. So they're not running up and down -- if I'm speaking right. I think I've learned this right. They're not running up and down the dune area where a nest may be. They only have to cross that once. And if there's a marked nest, they have to stay so many feet away from that marked nest or change their access point. So they're going to go down, they're going to run down to the Page 85 April 4, 200t edge of the water and then traverse across the beach but below mean high water in the public area, and the public -- the public owns that area, so we do have a concern publicly. It's a privilege to take your ATV down there, and then come back up where they want to unload and then go back that way, come back up again, so they're only traversing the sensitive area of concern twice, three times coming back. So the concern for -- I'm not going to mischaracterize my colleagues in the environmental community, but I know there is a major concern out there and we have the concern as well. It's -- it's an issue of trust. If they follow the rules and the regulations exactly and never make a mistake -- who never makes a mistake? -- and never make a mistake, we do not have a grave concern about a significant harm to a sea turtle nest. The harm of not finding the nest is that somebody can come along later that day, someone like me from northern Golden Gate Estates who brings my umbrella to the beach and shoves it down into the sand where I want to lay my towel, and I just shoved it through a hundred turtle eggs because I didn't know that nest was there because an ATV ran over the sea turtle crawl early in the morning because county staff didn't get there before they ran the ATV because there was a violation. That's the harm. Matt is right. Is there a harm? I -- we can -- we may contend when I ratify it through the board that there is not much harm once county staff sees where the -- a possible nest was, a sea turtle crawl up to the dune and that nest is marked. It's hard -- it's hard -- we're hard pressed -- I'm hard pressed as a wildlife biologist to come up with an argument to say that that ATV going down the beach in the middle of the day in sea turtle nesting season causes harm to the sea turtle if the regulations are followed to the T. But, like I say, the big concern out there -- and we've -- and we've heard it. There's history behind this, that it's Page 86 April 4, 2001 hard to follow the rules. You have lots of folks, employees at the Ritz, at The Registry, and we haven't heard today from some of the very small operators that are out there, concession stands, there are the owner and maybe two staff, but folks make mistakes. So we -- when we looked at this, we said that's the harm. They have to do it right. The penalties have to be significant if they do it wrong because we could lose an entire nest of sea turtle when I walked out there and shoved my umbrella down or do whatever I do, jump up and down on the beach because I'm a little kid and whatever. Lots of things could go wrong if you don't know there's a nest there. I mean, that's the major point, find the nest. And raking should definitely have some severe penalties to it because you really wipe out the sand with raking. There's no way you're going to see the sea turtle crawl then. I mean, the ATV -- maybe two trucks, and you could possibly still see a crawl on either side. I'll give them that. You can -- maybe with the ATV. But raking is -- is a significant harm to me if you violate the rule or the regul -- the regulations. I'm not -- I don't -- I want to speak to what I think the penalties are. They've been changed on me just this morning again. I don't want to speak to the fines. We have not -- I have not taken our position through our -- our board of directors to ratify that, but I just wanted to -- I'm glad you're going to -- you're talking about tabling this and getting more facts and talking more about it because there's a lot more to talk about. And there's still other legal issues out there also from the State of Florida. Some of the environmental groups were concerned that state legislature, and I think Matt refutes this, but state legislature states that vehicle -- there's no vehicles allowed on the beaches, and Fort Myers Beach is violating that state law. So that's a legal issue. I'm not going to deal with that. But that's Page 87 April 4, 2001 hanging out there as well. I don't think it's been resolved in a court of law so -- okay. But -- let me see if I -- I'm just writing a few things down. So off season -- I think that the issue of penalties in off season from an environmental perspective is minimal. I think it's that aesthetic annoyance noise. ATVs run up and down the beach all day long. That's what -- people will be upset about that. It's not an environmental issue to me. But off season -- and I really don't care how much the fine is and all of that. Just remember that there are a couple small operators, vendors out there. I mean, 10,000 is probably, you know, half-- a third of their income a year so -- but they should be doing it right. I guess -- that's what I want to point out is -- is the harm and that -- the issue of trust. Can -- can this work? Can they follow it? I think the reason we're hearing so many objections is because they kind of think we can't. But if we could, the harm's not there. So the penalties have to be stiff. We talked about three strikes you're out. I'm not going to comment on whether or not the -- because I don't have authority to, whether or not I believe that the annual event permit or -- or vendor permit should be taken away versus just the ATV permit. I'd like to get authority from my board to say what we think on that, but that's certainly a discussion that's been going on today. But that's the harm. The harm is, do we trust folks who seem to have problems in the past following the rules with following these rules. Some of us think we should start now, trust them, hammer down on this. If it's violated, throw it out next year if there's any violations at all. But, you know, I'll have to come back when you guys bring it back and find out exactly where we stand on penalties, whether or not it's a beach-events permit loss, revocation, a 60-day suspension, a 70 day, a 10-day suspension. I do think on the raking suspension it ought to be 70 Page 88 April 4, 2001 days suspension on the raking. That's how long it takes the sea turtle eggs to hatch, so if we don't know where those turtles are because it was raked, there's a possibility that there are some there, let's wait 70 days until we find out if they hatch. So I guess that's it. I've babbled on. Thank you. VICE CHAIRMAN COE: Mike, you mentioned a 70-day wait. We're talking about a penalty for raking the beach during the turtle nesting season. We're talking about a penalty. MR. SIMONIK: Right. VICE CHAIRMAN COE: We're not talking about environmental needs 70 days to see whether there is a turtle nest there. MR. SIMONIK.' Right. That's the penalty, though. You suspend that right, privilege, whatever you want for 70 days and wait for the nest to hatch. That's -- that's the penalty, as I understand it, for -- for raking prior to a county staff person coming out there to check if there is a nest. If they haven't been there to see if a turtle has crawled the night before and you raked it over, who knows if there's a nest there or not, then they're suspended for 70 days. So we need to wait and see if that -- something hatches up. We don't know. I mean, we don't have a little geiger counter or something that goes and tests to see if there's eggs under the sand. It would be easy if we did. VICE CHAIRMAN COE: Thank you. Any other comments? Any motion to table this? Should we give the staff time to work this through again? MR. SOLING: Chet Soling. I'll move to table. VICE CHAIRMAN COE: Do I have a second? MR. CARLSON: I'll second, Ed Carlson. VICE CHAIRMAN COE: Thank you very much. Ed Carlson's the second. Thank you very much. You're the chairman again. MR. SANSBURY: Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Coe. Page 89 April 4, 2001 MR. WHITE: Although you have a motion and a second, I believe you need-- MR. SANSBURY: Oh, you have to vote on it. MR. WHITE: Yeah. Vote on it. VICE CHAIRMAN COE: All for, say aye. (Unanimous response.) VICE CHAIRMAN COE: I'm only the second man in charge. All opposed? CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Hearing none, passes unanimously with Mr. Sansbury abstaining. I did recuse myself because my employer has an interest in it, so that it will be effective by this ordinance. Okay. Okay. Where do we go, Barbara? MS. BURGESON: At this point we have the annual report, a continued discussion on the wetlands, and actually the last item was something that Bill had added under cs and I'm not sure. I guess it still is something that you need to address. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Uh-huh. MS. BURGESON: I don't know-- CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: I don't think we can get the annual report out of the way in the next 15, 20 minutes. I know we can't get the wetlands out of the way. Do you want to try to -- the -- the presentation for the Planning Commission and the county commission, try to get that out of the way before lunchtime? MR. WHITE: Fine. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Is that all right? Can we do that or what -- what's -- whatever you plan. I don't know what-- MR. LORENZ: Well, just in terms -- in terms of schedule, I -- we've hunted the -- the wetlands policies and all the other policies for several meetings, and I'm running up into a -- my back is get -- getting up against the wall with regard to scheduling. I'd like to respectfully ask the council to set up a Page 90 April 4, 2001 special meeting sometime before -- or sometimes, let's say, before mid May possibly to -- to go through those -- those policies so I can get your input, at least once through, all the way through, because I'm going to be coming up with a second draft. My timetable is mid-June -- for us to stay on schedule for -- quite frankly, for us to have amendments effective in June of 2002 because it's -- that's how long it's going to take us to get through this whole process with the growth management plan. So I -- I would request that -- that you hold a special meeting to -- to cover those topics. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: What's your pleasure? I think, you know, we -- we had thought that on this meeting to hang in the rest of the day on this one. But it seems like every time we schedule it, we get -- if we have a meeting where nothing else is on the agenda but the wetlands issue, I think we can pound it out. What's -- what's the pleasure? MS. LYNNE: I'm willing to come in for a special session. MR. COE: Yeah, I agree. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Everyone's in agreement? Do we have a day, Barb, that you might project for us? MS. BURGESON: Well, that's going to be a little bit more difficult. I need to check with the Board of County Commissioners just because it's -- we need to have it in this room. It needs to be recorded. We'll probably need to get a court reporter in. So I would have to check with the -- probably with the Board of County Commissioners' office to find out availability. If -- if you want to have a brief discussion right now, at least, the issue that Councilman Hill had brought up, I'll check with the offices and see if we can come up with a date or two. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. Basically it's, again, to bring it up, and I think I brought it up originally. And that is the question that was raised to me, the disclosure being that I was Page 91 April 4, 2001 contacted by representatives of the Mirasol development. And the question that was asked to me is what position representatives of the EAC was going to be taken before the Planning Commission meeting regarding the Mirasol development, and a point that the petitioner made to me was by the 4-to-3 vote that the EAC essentially took a nonposition and that when that presentation is made before the Planning Commission, they wanted to insure that the presentation was made either as an individual member of the EAC or speaking for the four people -- four individuals that voted for that, and it made it clear that that was not the official position of the EAC, and that's the question that came up regarding this discussion I had with the Mirasol people. And I truthfully didn't have an answer and looked to Mr. White's guidance about what -- what this presentation could be. MR. WHITE: Patrick White, assistant county attorney. Much as we discussed at last month's meeting, you've correctly stated that it's not an official action. However, to the extent that you may have four or more votes for any position you choose to take today, so long as you couch your comments tomorrow in terms of the fact that the vote itself was not official action, I think that whatever you'd like to share with the Planning Commission, whatever vehicle you want to use, whether it's one or more member and whether it's an individual member or member acting as a representative of the council, either of those would be appropriate. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: What's the pleasure of the council? VICE CHAIRMAN COE: That's a tough -- if we present to the Planning Commission, you know, obviously the person that's doing the presenting is going to present -- obviously should present for the majority whoever it is that does it. However, on the other side, you know, you -- you have a minority presentation Page 92 April 4, 2001 that needs to be made, too, if we're going to do this. We talked about doing it. But, you know, now that we all have reached a road, we need to make that decision. My feeling was, in the first place is, you know, we need to at least let the Planning Commission know the importance of these two projects on the ecology. I mean, we're talking about giving up a significant amount of wetlands, and I mean a significant amount. I want to underline that. Now, unlike most meetings, the planning board does not usually get a transcript of our minutes. In this case they will get a transcript of our minutes. Now, whether they're going to read them or not is another story. If they were to read them, then the case is presented quite vividly, and there's no necessity, in my eyes, of even making a presentation to them. But will they read them, and will they get them in time prior to the meeting? That I can't answer. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: I think that you know the question is that there are two item -- two projects involved. There's one project, which is no question. It went by a 5-to-2 vote, rejection. And there's no question that I believe a member of this -- of this council can go to the Planning Commission and say that the EAC recommended denial of this official action. That was the second project. I don't even remember the name of it. MS. LYNNE: Terafina. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Terafina. And -- I don't know. I -- my suggestion would be unless there is an action by the council that we do this, that we don't go -- because it's just going have to be -- the only way to do it would have -- both of us would have to go up there. Both sides would have to go, in this case you and I, just-- MR. COE: Right. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: And I don't know if we want to do Page 93 April 4, 2001 that. I think if we take a position and it's an official action, I don't have a problem doing it. If we take a position, it's not an official action. If any of us wanted to go as an individual, that's fine. VICE CHAIRMAN COE: Was Tara -- was Terafina the one that was like the fulcrum for the whole deal? Was that the one that if Terafina doesn't happen, then the -- the Mirasol can't happen? MR. CARLSON: Well, it -- Ed Carlson. It was midways in this proposed flow-way. Olde Cypress was the end of the flow-way. Terafina was next, and then Mirasol was the front -- top of the flow-way. VICE CHAIRMAN COE: Well, see, that's the thing. If Terafina is shut down, all the rest of projects fall like a house of cards. I thought I remembered. Am I correct on that, Barb? MS. BURGESON: There -- there is a connection and a requirement for them to function together. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Yeah. I think the point was made by South Florida that they would doubt that Mirasol would be permitable without both Olde Cypress and Terafina being part of it. So I don't -- I don't think that this project can be permitted on - - I think the point is being is that as a council what we -- when we relay to the commission and the Planning Commission, I think we've got to make sure that we're -- relay what legislation said is a position. If we have individual positions, that's fine. But if we - - council, as it did in that, we need to determine if we have a split like that and there is no action, do we want to go to the Planning Commission and the county commission and have the affirmative side and the -- and the negative side -- a majority and a minority make presentations just what does this council want to do in situations such as this one? Because I think there is a question, again, the rules say it's a no position. MR. COE: Well, I have a tendency to agree with you in Page 94 April 4, 2001 retrospect. The only thing I would say is, Barb, when you-all make your presentation to the planning board, I'm -- am I correct to assume that you-all will make a presentation such that we have these three projects? This was the vote by the EAC on each one. In any event, this particular one that Terafina was turned down for the following reasons, and by turning that down, in effect the other two aren't going to work. MS. BURGESON: That's not likely going to be any part of the presentation of the Planning Commission tomorrow. The Planning Commission tomorrow will be the -- I believe that Ron will be presenting the petition to the Planning Commission strictly as Mirasol PUD. There should be a portion in that staff report discussing the EAC's concerns. And staff was directed to provide the EAC's minutes to the Planning Commission so they could review that if they had the time or the desire to do that. South Florida, I just contacted them yesterday to make sure that they were aware of the Planning Commission is tomorrow. They're going to try to be there. But if they cannot I don't believe that we'll be making that full presentation on the water management issues. MR. COE: So what the developers are going to try to do is put these projects through separately so that they'll go through separately. MS. BURGESON: Well, I do know that Mirasol is being presented tomorrow on its own. MS. LYNNE: Excuse me. Is the staff recommendation for approval to the Planning Commission? MS. BURGESON: Staff -- the staff recommendation would be with the stipulations that the board had looked at at the last meeting, increasing the cypress wetland by nine acres. I'm not sure whether there were any other significant changes, but one Page 95 April 4, 2001 of the other concerns is that they would have to address the net loss and come into compliance with our growth management issues prior to permitting. However, I'm -- it hasn't been addressed at this point, and so then it would become just a staff issue at that -- at that level. MS. LYNNE: Does the Planning Commission get an executive summary like the commissioners do? MS. BURGESON: The Planning Commission gets a staff report, a backup, EAC staff report. On this particular item, they will be getting the minutes from last month's meeting, and they will get a presentation. I have not been asked to attend, although I will. There will be a planner. I imagine that Stan will also attend, and we'll make those presentations to the CCPC, although they're usually very limited on the environmental presentations because that's not their direction to make environmental determinations on the project. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. What's -- what's the pleasure here? What -- do we need to set a policy for ourselves on how we're going to do this, how we're going to -- the whole discussion was how we communicate our decisions to both the PC and the Board of County Commissioners. MR. CARLSON: Well, I think in -- in this situation of the Mirasol, I think anyone who -- who can go and has the interest, they should do that as an individual. And if they want to share their logic with that board as an individual and why they voted the way they did, that's all -- basically all that can happen. MR. COE: Yeah. But not to represent the board. I concur with that. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. All right. And if -- if we want to send a representative on the other project -- the other project is not on the PC tomorrow, is it, Barbara? MS. BURGESON: Tomorrow is the -- tomorrow is the Page 96 April 4, 2001 Planning Commission? CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Yeah. On the PC, it's not the Tara -- Tara, what is it? MS. BURGESON-' Mirasol is the only one that's scheduled tomorrow. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. MS. BURGESON: Terafina had some other issues that haven't been addressed yet. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: And if-- and if you could keep us posted as to what's coming up on those planning commissions because we may want to make a decision amongst ourselves if we did take a position on something to have a representative there is what I'm hearing. Okay. MS. BURGESON: We can get a calendar out to you each month. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. MS. BURGESON: All right. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Very good. I have received from Miss Santoro and Mr. Coe recommendations on our annual report. Both of them set it up with four items. What I would like to do is if I could get everybody else to see if they can -- believe it or not, there are three of the four are the same items, so maybe we're all in agreement on something. MR. COE: That's amazing. Amazing. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: The -- I would like, if I could, get everyone's input to me on, you know, where we feel -- and if we just narrow it down to four items and say that, you know, on our annual report what we believe are the four items that are of importance to us in our deliberations over the next year, if anybody can either e-mail to me or get them to Barbara so she can e-mail to me, I will try do a draft and then just get it back to everybody, and we can comment on it and -- is there no date Page 97 April 4, 2001 when we have to present it, is there Barbara? MR. LORENZ: Yes, there is. The -- you're supposed to be presenting the report to the board in May. So if you're able -- if you're able to get your -- your report done at your first meeting in May, we should be able to get that on the agenda for the board's fourth Tuesday meeting. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Let's plan to do that. I'll have a draft at the main meeting. We'll review it. We'll finalize it, and we'll agenda it for the May BOCC. MS. BURGESON: I just have a quick legal question. I'm not sure if it's appropriate for the individual members to send their concerns directly to Mr. Sansbury outside of a meeting or if it's just to be added to-- CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: I guess throw me in jail if that's the case. MR. COE: That's it. MS. BURGESON: Sorry, Patrick. MR. CARLSON: It's not -- it's not a very long walk. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Don't say what you're getting ready to say. MR. CARLSON: Okay. MR. WHITE: I think the prohibition is -- is against a communication, if you will, outside the scope of the meeting on a matter that's likely to come before the council as a whole. And even if there is no, quote, answer to the message sent, perhaps it's not a legal issue whether you have a quote, unquote, communication where it's only one way, but I think the more conservative and preferred manner would be to send those through staff. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Very good. MS. BURGESON: Can we have them sent -- any -- any concerns can be e-mailed or -- or faxed or mailed to Bill Lorenz Page 98 April 4, 2001 and then compiled-- MR. WHITE: I think that's a far safer way -- route to go. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Fine. All right. We will give our comments to Barbara -- Barbara's just -- to Bill. MR. LORENZ: To me, yeah. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: And then you guys will get them back to me. MR. LORENZ: Okay. MS. BURGESON: Also I spoke downstairs regarding the scheduling of a second meeting. The days that this room is available would be Wednesday the 25th. You can have the room at 8:30. The only other day that would be available that -- that works for staff would be next Wednesday the 11th, but it wouldn't be available until twelve o'clock, and Bill has something scheduled at four, so that might be a little bit of time crunch so-- CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Wednesday, 25th, is all right with me. MR. COE: Do we want to do that early? CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: What time do you want to start? MS. BURGESON: 8:30 is the earliest that we can because of the scheduling. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: 8:30? Okay. MR. CARLSON: Excuse me. What are we planning? CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: We're planning to have a meeting with nothing on the agenda but the wetlands ordinance. MR. CARLSON: Okay. The 25th is impossible for me, so I'll just have to get you my information before that. Actually, I have some more copies. MR. LORENZ: Mr. chairman, we've been -- we've been kind of shorthandly calling it the wetlands or -- policy, but it's the -- it's that whole document-- CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: The whole document, right. Page 99 April 4, 2001 MR. LORENZ: -- wetlands, native habitat policies. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. Everyone check your schedules and get back to Barb very quickly. MR. SOLING: Wednesday at 8:30 in the morning? CHAIRMAN SANSBURY'. 8:30 in the morning on Wednesday, the 25th of April. Okay. Growth management update. MR. LORENZ: Yes. For the record, Bill Lorenz, natural resources director. The -- let me throw out two dates for you. We just talked about 4/25. But on April -- April 17th staff will be presenting to the county commission a workshop on natural resources. I will be sending out a notice to a lot of the different organizations and all the advisory committees, so you'll get a written notice. But that may be something important that you either would like to attend or you would like to monitor on Channel 54. Staff at the meeting will be presenting the board with basically an overview of all the natural resources of the county, their significance, their importance. We'll touch base a little bit with regard to some of the issues that will be coming up with regard to land-use protection strategies that will address the resources and some of the issues that will -- will unfold as we bring to the board the -- the required growth management plan amendments. Now, the other date is June 13th. We've scheduled a special board meeting for the board to hear staff's and the advisory committee's initial conceptual plan for the rural fringe area. Staff has been working with the one advisory committee, the rural fringe advisory committee, working through the plan. They just about finished walk -- working themselves through the first draft. I'll be submitting -- I'll be sending them a second draft for their review and their action to be taken in anticipation of the Page 100 April 4, 2001 June 13th board meeting. With the second draft, I will also give the Environmental Advisory Committee a second draft as well because eventually you're going to be coming into the -- into the process throughout the summer when we start addressing or start drafting the growth management plan amendments, and I want to have -- at least you have to be up to speed at that particular point with the second draft of the conceptual plan. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. MR. COE: Yup. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Do we have anything from the growth management subcommittee? MR. COE: Nope. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: In a conversation I had with Mr. Soling prior to the time that he was seated on this board, he expressed to me that he had interest in serving on a subcommittee. And I'm just wondering if Mr. Soling would like to serve on the growth management subcommittee. MR. SOLING: Any one you appoint me to. MR. COE: Another volunteer? CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Another volunteer. Okay. MR. COE: Signing you up for another 20 years. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Who chairs that, Bill? MR. LORENZ: Allie Santoro. I think Allie does. MR. COE: Allie does. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. I'll make -- I'll make a note to notify her. MR. LORENZ: There's -- there's -- along the growth -- along that, the subcommittee wanted to have a meeting at the time or - - or right after the rural fringe advisory committee has its meeting. That would be on the -- the April 11th. And I guess Ed sits on the committee and-- Page 10t April 4, 2001 MR. COE: And Allie. MR. LORENZ: -- and Allie, Bill Hill, and now Chester -- Chet. If -- if -- if -- since you have two members here, if you want to -- if you want me to schedule that time and notice the meeting for Wednesday the 11th at six o'clock, then I'll -- I'll schedule that subcommittee meeting as well, and I'll contact Allie and Bill. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Thank you. I appreciate it. MR. LORENZ: Okay? CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: Okay. Any comments from council members? MR. COE: None. MR. GAL: Sir, just -- what's going on with this letter to Bob Mulhere? Is this -- CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: I think we -- we just drafted that. I think we're just going to table it at the present time. Public comments? MR. COE: No public here. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: You know, I give Mike a chance, and he doesn't even want to say anything. That's unusual. Okay. Okay. Hearing nothing, we stand adjourned, and we will reconvene on April -- MR. SOLING: 25th. CHAIRMAN SANSBURY: -- 25th at 8:30 a.m., same time, same station. There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 12:15 p.m. Page 102 April 4, 2001 ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL THOMAS SANSBURY, CHAIRMAN TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF DONOVAN COURT REPORTING, INC., BY BARBARA A. DONOVAN, RPR, CMR Page 103