Loading...
BCC Minutes 08/22/1995 R REGULAR MEETING OF AUGUST 22, 1995, OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COHMISSIONERS LET IT BE REHEHBERED, that the Board of County Commissioners in and for the County of Collier, and also acting as the Board of Zoning Appeals and as the governing board(s) of such special districts as have been created according to law and having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:05 a.m. in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: ALSO PRESENT: CHAIRMAN: Bettye J. Hatthews VICE-CHAIRMAN: John C. Norris Timothy J. Constantine Tim Hancock Pamela Mac'Kie Neil Dotrill, County Hanager Ken Cuyler, County Attorney David Weigel, Assistant County Attorney Item #3 & #3A AGENDA AND CONSENT AGENDA - APPROVED WITH CHANGES CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Call to order the Board of County Commission meeting for August 22, 1995. Mr. Dotrill, would you lead us in an invocation and pledge. MR. DORRILL: Heavenly Father, we give thanks this morning. We give thanks for so many things. We thank you for this wonderful community in which we live and that our residents can enjoy retirement years and people can raise a family or start in a business. We give thanks for the natural beauty of Collier County and, as always, give thanks for the dedication of our elected officials. Father, this morning we lift up to you the family of Dwight Brock, and we mourn in the passing of Dwight's father last evening. We would ask that you bless their family in their time of sorrow and just bless them in the healing process that will ensue. We lift them up before you this morning. Father, we ask that during the workshop portion of our meeting today that you would guide the discussion and deliberations of this commission and that you would bless our time together here this morning. We pray these things in Jesus's name. Amen. (The pledge of allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Dorrill, it looks like we have a short change list. MR. DORRILL: Yes, ma'am, we do. I have one item. You will recall you had given me specific instructions to have only one item on the agenda, but in good conscience I'm going to ask you to at least hear a brief presentation. We have good news on the rebid on deep-well injection projects. Given the size of the award of that bid, I didn't think it appropriate to leave it on the consent agenda. 16-H-4 will become 8-H-1 as part of the regular agenda and as such will be heard first. That's the award of bid 95-24-19, which were a pair of deep-well injections for the utilities division. That was the only change that I have. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: And you had one item under communications? MR. DORRILL: I do. I have two other notes as well that I need to remind you all of. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Commissioner Norris, do you have anything? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: No changes. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hancock? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yes, ma'am. I would like to ask under 8-D-l, a discussion on the Royal Cove situation, and ask Mr. Dotrill and Mr. Cuyler for their comments on that matter, just a brief status report on where we are. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Are you aware we're only a few days away from walk-away date? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Correct. There's some things that need to be done in the next few days, and I want to discuss that and try to keep that as brief as possible. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hac'Kie? COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No, ma'am. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Constantine? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I have two items on the consent agenda I would like to pull off. One I have some questions on, and the other I just need some questions answered, 16-C-2 and 16-F-1. MR. DORRILL: C-2 becomes C-i, and the other you said F, Commissioner Constantine -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: 16-F-1. MR. DORRILL: -- will be 8-F-1. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I don't have any changes to make, but I have one item under communications as well. Could I have a motion for the agenda and consent agenda? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Madam Chairman, motion to approve the agenda and consent agenda as amended. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll second that. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Motion and second to approve the agenda and the consent agenda as amended. All in favor please say aye. Opposed? There being none, motion passes five to zero. Item #4 MINUTES OF SPECIAL MEETING OF JULY 31, 1995; REGULAR MEETING OF AUGUST 1, 1995; SPECIAL MEETING OF AUGUST 2, 1995; AND TRI-COUNTY MEETING OF AUGUST 3, 1995 - APPROVED AS PRESENTED COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Madam Chairman, I have a -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I'll make a motion that we approve the minutes of July 31, 1995, special meeting; August 1, 1995, regular meeting; August 2, 1995, special meeting; and the August 3, 1995, tri-county meeting. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll second the motion. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and second to approve the minutes of board meetings mentioned. Any further discussion? All in favor please say aye. Opposed? There being none, motion passes five to zero. Item #8C1 BID #95-2385 FOR THE PURCHASE OF WEIGHT TRAINING EQUIPMENT FOR THE IHMOKALEE RECREATION/AQUATIC COMPLEX AND THE GOLDEN GATE COHMUNITY PARK FITNESS CENTER - AWARDED TO EXERCISE EXPERIENCE OF NAPLES AND NEW IMAGE FITNESS EQUIPMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF $62,231.48 Today we have no proclamations, service awards, or presentation, no public petitions. We'll move into county manager's report, which is agenda item 8-C-1, formerly 16-C-2. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I know I chose this item. I just wanted this for my own edification. Recommendation Board of County Commissioners request -- award bid purchase of weight-training equipment. We have other locations in the county that have weight-training equipment? MR. OLLIFF: No, we do not. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: This seems like a great idea. MR. OLLIFF: This is the first -- we actually renovated one of the rooms at the Golden Gate Community Park, and the Immokalee gymnasium was designed specifically with a weight area in it as part of the rate schedule of the memberships, and also we have corporate discounts available for the general public. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Will we be looking to do that anywhere else in the county as well? MR. OLLIFF: We wanted to do these first two locations and see how the public response was. If it is like we think it probably will be, yes, sir. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you. I'll move the item. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Second. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second to approve -- or to award bid 95-23-85. Is there further discussion? Being none, all those in favor please say aye. Opposed? There being none, motion passes five to zero. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Olliff. Next item on the agenda. Item #SD1 UPDATE OF ROYAL COVE - COUNTY MANAGER AUTHORIZED TO PROCEED AS NEEDED AND COUNTY ATTORNEY TO PROVIDE FURTHER UPDATES BY THURSDAY MR. DORRILL: This is 8-D-l, a brief add-on. That's why Mr. Cuyler and I have both been on the phones here. I can give you some preliminary information, and then Ken would like to continue it. The current situation is the residents or the homeowners associations in negotiations with the owner of the package treatment plant and a private service provider -- environmental service provider, and negotiations are going to continue today. They bogged down yesterday, apparently, because the owner of the plant and the lot that it sits on wants a release from the Department of Environmental Protection concerning their cause of action against him for inappropriate operations of the plant. But there's a subsequent negotiating meeting today, and the residents appear to be trying to solve this themselves to have a private contract operator come in. We're participating in those discussions in the event we ultimately have to step in and operate the plant. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Constantine -- I'm sorry. Commissioner Hancock? COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: We'll start wearing name tags up here. A couple of problems have been brought to my attention. One is that there's really no legal association in Royal Cove II. MR. DORRILL: That's correct. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Therefore, any contract with a private enterprise to operate it -- there's no one with the authority to sign and proceed with that. There's no mechanism in that neighborhood to unify them behind hiring a private company to do it. The second item that is of concern is that the latest agreement which you more eloquently stated than I will is that the current operator, Mr. Vetter, is, in essence, holding those citizens in hostage to try to get out from under some fines with DEP, which I find reprehensible. And my particular desire would be that our county attorney's office take whatever steps necessary, albeit through some form of injunction or what may be appropriate, to make sure that we have access to that facility to operate even if it is on Mr. Vetter's private property. I don't know what the legal possibilities are there, but for Mr. Vetter to ask Collier County to step in and negotiate with DEP to release him from fines so that our county residents can continue being served with sewer is disgusting. And I would like the county attorney's office to work toward the end on Friday that should that situation still remain, we can take whatever legal steps necessary to try to avoid any interruption of service there. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I had a conversation with a person Friday -- I think he works up at the Lee County utility system that's now with -- is it PSC? No, no, ST Services, and he had indicated that they were talking with the citizens also. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: They are. But what's happened since then is they've been allowed onto the property, and even if ST Services or any other provider decides to take on a contract, no one has the authority to sign it in Royal Cove II. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I understand that. COHHISSIONER HANCOCK: So if that should be resolved, then great, we have a way to proceed until we get a final solution. But should that not be resolved or should Mr. Vetter continue to maintain that he's not responsible for fines of DEP and he's not going to allow someone to operate it, then we have a problem. I think we need to be prepared for that and to act on that with whatever prudence we can muster at that time. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: What recommendation are we going to get, Mr. Cuyler, with what's happened to this? Supposedly Mr. Vetter's going to walk away from this on Friday. MR. CUYLER: We will do as Mr. Hancock has suggested and do everything we need to do to be prepared to move in on that situation if we need to. Why don't we plan on giving you a report on Thursday, and then you'll know what's going to happen based on the various options that could happen. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Just so anyone who is in Royal Cove II that may be watching knows, I understand the county manager's office and the county attorney's office has been working very hard on this. I thought it was important that we give a status report in case this commission needs to take action outside what we've authorized the county manager to do on an emergency basis. Mr. Cuyler, I thank you for your efforts, and we'll be talking quite a bit this week I'm sure. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Dorrill, you have the authorization you need to step in on this? MR. DORRILL: I feel I do subject to whatever authority we need from the court in terms of actually accessing the property that is there. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. We can work with it. Any other questions on the item? Item #SF1 RADIO TOWER LEASE AGREEHENTS TO ACCOHMODATE EQUIPHENT AS PART OF THE 800 HHZ RADIO SYSTEM - CONTINUED TO CONCLUSION OF MEETING Let's move on to the next one then, which is 8-F-l, formerly 16-F-2. Commissioner Constantine, you can read this. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: This is a recommendation the BCC approve radio tower lease agreements in order to accommodate equipment as part of the 800 megahertz radio system. Perhaps my memory is mistaken as it so often has been on this board. I was under the impression we were told by Edwin Goodland on behalf of General Electric that all tower leases, all tower -- anything associated with those would be taken care of by General Electric, and I'm wondering why now we're being asked -- it's not a great deal of money, but my recollection is we weren't going to be asked by anyone to spend any money on this item over and above what already existed in the GE contract. MR. DORRILL: Okay. If you will give me just a moment to touch base with Mr. Hargett, I can get you an answer on that. Skip over it. We may have to do it at the conclusion of the Naples Park public hearing. The specific question is why are we, the lessee, there. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Correct. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: But I seem to remember -- and Mr. Dotrill, I'm sure, will find this out. I seem to remember some small conversation in our last discussion on 800 Megahertz that there would be a lease payment somewhere of like around $1,000 a month, but I don't know. So you want to continue this item until -- MR. DORRILL: Good question. I don't have an answer, but I'll get you one within five or ten minutes. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Motion to continue the item until the conclusion of today's meeting. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Motion and second to continue this item till the conclusion of today's meeting. All in favor please say aye. Opposed? There being none, motion passes five to zero. Item #SH1 BID #95-2419 TO CONSTRUCT THE NCRWTP & SCRWWTP DEEP INJECTION WELLS - AWARDED TO YOUNGQUIST BROTHERS, INC. IN THE AMOUNT OF $4,848,000 Next item on the agenda is item 8-H-1. This is staff's item on the consent agenda to award a contract to construct North County Regional Water Treatment Plant. MR. CONRECODE: Good morning, Commissioners. For the record Tom Conrecode, your new public works manager. This item before you was put on the consent agenda, because we didn't really want to lose the three weeks in starting this work. As you know, the bid originally came in over budget. Our recommendation and the board's recommendation is to rebid the project aligning it with the work at the south plant. I'm happy to report that resulted in a solid 1.2 million dollars, getting a much more competitive bid process. Staff recommends that we award to the low bidder in the format described in the executive summary. Do you have any questions? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Are there questions? There being none, is there a motion? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Motion to approve staff recommendation. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Second. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. We have a motion and a second to approve staff recommendation and award bid 95-24-19. Is there further discussion? All those in favor please say aye. Opposed? There being none, motion passes five to zero. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Madam Chairman, I want to thank Mr. Conrecode, that by putting this together -- there was some discussion on this when it came before us last. We did, in fact, save money as anticipated. Work well done. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Congratulations on your new job. MR. DORRILL: An update on that last item: As part of your purchase price for the 800 megahertz system, that includes all of the what I would call fixed operating capital, the radio devices, the hardware system, the processor that drives the system, and includes the construction in the microwaving of, I believe, five tower sites. Two of the sites are owned by the state and are shared under some other arrangement, but the other sites -- and there was an obligation on the part of Erickson to acquire those sites. But as part of the maintenance cost, the ongoing costs, we will be responsible for the lease of those sites, but the capital costs to construct the towers are part of the total package. There's perpetual cost under the maintenance provision for you to maintain and lease the tower sites in perpetuity as long as you own the system that's there. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Do we want to bring that back off of the -- do we want to address that now, or do we want to wait till after Naples drainage? We continued it to the end of the -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Your call. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We'll keep it continued then. Next item on the agenda is item -- well, wait a minute. We're at public comment. Do we have anybody, Mr. Dotrill, this morning? MR. DORRILL: No, ma'am. Item #12C1 RESOLUTION 95-476 CREATING THE NAPLES PARK DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS MUNICIPAL SERVICE BENEFIT UNIT - ADOPTED CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Item 12-C-1, a resolution creating the Naples Park drainage improvement municipal service benefit unit. Mr. Boldt. MR. BOLDT: Good morning. John Boldt, your stormwater management director. This morning we're considering one of the several steps we're asking you to take over the next few months in relationship to the construction of the Naples Park drainage improvements. It is merely an adoption of attached resolution which creates the Naples Park drainage improvement municipal service benefit unit. The boundaries of the assessment unit are roughly speaking -- or not roughly speaking, are exactly on North lllth Avenue. On the east it's on the boundary of U.S. 41. On the south it's Vanderbilt Beach Road. On the west it is Vanderbilt Drive. So that encompasses all the areas of Naples Park, including all the commercial frontage, the Beachwalk project, and the Pavilion and the Pavilion Club condominium projects. The next step I want to point out, just to give you an idea of where we're headed on this thing, we're back to you again on a couple items on September 5 and again on September 12 at which time we'll be bringing to you a financing method we propose you use on this project for your approval, and also at that time will be presenting to you the tentative assessment rule, the total estimated cost of the project, and a statement of the methodology that we use to allocate the cost on this project. You realize up to date we have had several public meetings and workshops, and we've had some proposals on a preliminary cost allocation. And that will be back to you for a final consideration. Also, on the September 12 meeting we'll be adopting -- asking you to adopt a resolution that will set the time and place of October 24 as a public hearing on the tentative assessment rule. It will be the first time we'll be able to show you the complete rule and the assessments. At this time under the guidance of the county attorney's office, the consultant, Agnoli, Barber, and Brundage, is reviewing this cost allocation methodology and has reviewed it in the past, and they're probably going to be making some adjustments to the various variables that are involved in that methodology. If we should be challenged and have to go through an appeal process, they'll be the ones that will have to stand up and give the expert testimony on the fairness and reasonableness of the methodology. So they're going through that process right now. Also in conjunction with the staff, the consultant is revising the estimated cost of the projects, bringing in all the components that are needed, and this information is now under review by the county's financial consultant, Mark Samet, who is evaluating the cost of the financing of the project. Again, we'll be bringing that back to you in a package here within the next few weeks. By October 1 we need to again for the second time do a first-class mailing to everybody that's a property owner in this unit stating the dollar amount of the tentative assessment for each property owner, and that will -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm sorry, Mr. Boldt, that date Was '- MR. BOLDT: By October 1 we have to make that mailing. That's in preparation for the advertising for the public hearing. It will be held on Tuesday, October 24. That will be the public hearing on the tentative assessment rule. Today's meeting was the first one we were required by law to notify by first-class mailing everybody within the unit establishing the boundaries. This will be the second mailing for the October 24 meeting. And that one will include the tentative assessment of cost based upon our estimates to date, recognizing we're not going to know exactly how much it's going to cost until we open the bids, perhaps some time in December, and go into the January construction. So this morning we're asking you just merely to adopt the resolution creating the Naples Park drainage improvement municipal service benefit unit and then authorize us to proceed with the special assessment project and the steps I've outlined in accordance with the ordinance you previously adopted. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Are there questions? Mr. Dotrill, I presume we have speakers. MR. DORRILL: Yes, ma'am. We have about eight. The first one is Joseph Wachter, if would you come forward. And then, Mr. Sherman, I'd like to have you stand by, please. Mr. Wachter? MR. WACHTER: Honorable Commissioners, my name is Joe Wachter, and I've been a resident of Naples Park for 14 years. I come to protest against this assessment. Now, the notice here says, "A special assessment against the benefitted properties." Well, there's many of us in Naples Park, probably the majority, who have already benefitted our properties by paying to have a drainage pipe put in and the swale -- the ditch -- covered. Now, our property has already been improved. We don't see how we're going to obtain any further benefit from this. A few times, admittedly, on a very heavy rain there was a little rain on the street -- a little water on the street which soon dissipates. You can't provide against every act of God, for heaven's sake, so they're not going to -- this isn't going to help those of us who have already improved our property. And I don't know whether I represent the majority of people in Naples Park who have had our ditches filled in, but as one of those I want to protest this assessment. I don't see any benefit to us. Thank you very much, Commissioners. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. Commissioner Hancock. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Wachter, there may be some other people here -- please go ahead. There may be some other people here that may misunderstand what is being done here. This does not have anything to do with the swale in your front yard. It never has, and it never will. That's something that is separate. There are two systems in Naples Park. One is a primary system, and one is a secondary. The swales in your front yard are called a secondary system. This is just dealing with the primary. That's the ditch on 8th Street, the ditch between 91st and 92nd, and all the outfalls on Vanderbilt Beach lagoon. For those who have been through this time and time again, I'm being redundant. For those who haven't, this is simply the main conveyance system, which no matter where you live in Naples Park, the water that falls on your property goes into your pipe and leaves your pipe. It has to be carried to the Gulf through one system or another. This is the main system that's being improved. Everyone who owns property in Naples Park contributes to those systems. The water that falls on your property goes somewhere, sir. If you've piped it, it definitely goes somewhere. So these are the main conveyance systems, not the front yard swales. That would be on 8th, 91st, and 92nd, and all the outfalls along Vanderbilt Beach Lagoon side. Just for informational statement, that's what we're talking about, not just the front yard swales. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. Next speaker. MR. DORRILL: Mr. Sherman. MR. SHERMAN: I'm A1 Sherman, and my property's right up in here (indicating). That's at 104th and 6th Street. And I'm like this gentleman that just talked. My culverts are in, and I put them in with the permission of the county. We did that all up the way we had to. We in this area have not contributed to the problem down on 91st and 92nd Avenue. We just haven't. Regardless of what Mr. Hancock says about it, our property drains out to the Gulf and does not come down in here or in here (indicating). When I bought my property, I researched the entire situation that I would not be down in that area. I think it is unfair for you folks up here to say that I have to pay at least $1,400 in order to alleviate a problem that's out on 91st and 92nd. I think that what you should do is not to pass this resolution at this particular time, but I think it is only fair that what you do is put a referendum -- put it on the ballot and let all the people -- if you look here, there isn't many people here. The reason there isn't is there's a very negative attitude in Naples Park about the board and what they are doing. And I, for one, say I don't want to pay $1,400, because I just can't afford it. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Sherman. MR. DORRILL: Mr. Westin, then Mr. Stahl -- or Ms. Stahl. Mr. Westin, go ahead. MR. WESTIN: I'm Mr. Westin. I have lived in Naples Park for 20 years. And it sounds to me that in the past couple of months that this board has created in its mind a new law of physics that's greater than anything Sir Isaac Newton ever invented. And that is this that you claim, with the help of your engineers, that water that falls perpendicular to a surface -- and it's a big level surface -- somehow is going to flow by gravity. There is no gravitational flow. There is no angle for it to reach any drainage along 8th and down to that awful, muddy, good-for-nothing exit down between 91st. And even if you spend many millions and put in sump pumps and take it by gradients of 100 feet a sump pump, 100 feet a sump pump, to get it to flow towards 91st Street, that's the only way it's going to get there. I have gone up and around every time this summer when we've had a big rainstorm. The water sits in all of our little swales. It sits. And how does it get out of there? Evaporation and drainage into the soil that helps our pumps that most of us own to water our lawns. This drainage system might -- if do you it right, but I don't see how you're going to do it right -- help out maybe some of the people between 8th Street and 9th or 41. It might help them a little. The water is very stagnant there. And this whole thing -- people, I think you've been lead by hope that the Lord is going to do it, because it's impossible with what I have heard in all of the information that has come from our board. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Westin. MR. DORRILL: Ms. Stahl and then Ms. MAcala, I believe. MS. STAHL: MAdam Chair and Commissioners, what I want to -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Can you identify yourself. MS. STAHL: I'm Jo Stahl. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. MS. STAHL: All right. And I am a property owner in Naples Park, and I live in the 800 block of 94th Avenue. And it -- when we received the notification of these drainage improvements, we questioned immediately the fact that yes, there are some areas in Naples Park that have drainage problems, but it's also my understanding that the development of Naples Park has been going on for decades. And as time has gone on, the properties that were built at later dates had to meet certain drainage requirements and pay for those improvements as some of my fellow property owners have already addressed. And it just so happens that our builder did an excellent job. Our property has withstood the no-name storm, it has withstood the remnants of Hurricane Andrew, and has never had water standing on it. Therefore, my question is: Is this not somewhat socialistic when we start saying, okay. Let's assess everybody whether they have the appropriate improvements because they built earlier when Naples Park was first beginning, or the people who built later, or the people who on their own made their own improvements? So should the assessments be per acreage as we were notified they would be, or should they be per need? And that's my argument. Thank you very much. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hancock. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Ms. Stahl, just to make a point, where do you think the water that -- from your property went? MS. STAHL: I believe like this gentleman -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: You have to get it on the microphone, ma'am. MS. STAHL: I believe, much like this gentleman before me, that the water goes down and up. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: After a heavy rainfall it just went immediately in the ground and didn't go to anybody's property? MS. STAHL: It hung around, and then it went down and went up. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Most of the newer properties were built higher. The reason you don't have water is because there's two other properties off of yours, so the water that originally fell on your property was conveyed to somebody else's. You say you don't have any problems. You may not. But your property possibly is creating a problem for the adjacent one. That's where the inclusion of more than just those people who have standing water in their front yards becomes a fairness issue, because your water doesn't percolate in a heavy rain like that. It moves off your property, because you're higher. So the water that landed on your property now isn't your problem anymore, it's somebody else's. So should they bear their burden and yours? MS. STAHL: But am I being penalized for meeting the county code? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: No, ma'am. When a heavy, heavy storm falls that no system can handle, you're going to be in better shape than your neighbor. So you're not being penalized. You're doing the right thing. My point is the water from your property moves somewhere else. Where it moves, is that their problem or yours? That's where the problem comes in. I would be happy to talk to you more about it after the meeting's over with. Just to make a point, just because you built high and you don't have water problems doesn't mean that that water doesn't percolate right away. It moves, and it moves to somebody else's property. MR. DORRILL: Ms. Maile. After Ms. Maile, we have Mr. Wood. MS. MAILE: Good morning, Commissioners. Why am I here? My name's Janet Maile, and I'm always here. I was here 15 years ago when Fred Voss was a commissioner, and he put a pipe from the Pavilion Beachwalk under 91st Avenue so it would drain into our stream. And at that time I stood here and I said, "I don't want their water." And he said, "But you'll get their money to pay for it." Well, I don't want their money either, and I said that at that time. And here I am, what, 10 or 15 years later, and it's the same thing. And also, Commissioner Hancock, that is a stream -- an old stream that flows between 91st and 92nd Avenue. It's been here for thousands of years, even when the Caloosa -- when the Caloosa Indians were here. And I object to your closing that natural stream with springs to put in 8 foot in diameter -- that's huge -- pipe there and send the water down to the Gulf of Mexico. I think we should be preserving that water in our aquifers, not sending it out. And I really would appreciate it if you didn't call that a ditch, because it's a stream. And also, the second thing I wanted to point out is that I saw an article in the paper that Commissioner Mac'Kie gave to the Naples Daily News. She gave a report that we should be conserving our water and not sending it out to the Gulf. Do you remember that? Well, you voted a week before to send that water out. So which do you really believe in? And as I told you before, you all saw my pictures of the wildlife that exists on that beautiful stream where I showed you my banana trees are planted. And I think it would be a lot cheaper -- you would save money if you simply graded the land and planted banana trees along there. Banana trees are a win, win, win situation. They put oxygen into the air. They clear the stream. And they also give us food. And we're spending millions of dollars for this. I don't object to what you want to assess me, if that's what people want. I'd rather you'd assess me to leave it the way it is. I think you have to watch the money trail. Ross Perot says that. Look for the money trail. That's the money that goes into the engineers. It's the money that goes to the contractors, that kind of thing. I really enjoy living there. That's why we moved there, because of that stream. So I'm asking you for one thing. The other gentleman who was up here -- we do not flood on 91st and 92nd Avenue. Our water goes right into that stream where itls supposed to go, where itls been going for thousands of years. So I have to -- I just donlt believe those stories of the people who say that the water will go down into the ground or that would flood and theylre solving our problem, because theylre really not. So Iim just asking you -- you have a copy of my letter. Do not send our water out to the Gulf of Mexico in an 8-foot pipe. Thank you. MR. DORRILL: Mr. Wood and then Ms. Wiegold. MR. WOOD: Good morning, Commissioners. My name is Richard Wood. I live on 92nd Avenue, Naples Park. Thank you for seeing the need for fixing the drainage problem in Naples Park. The only thing I disagree on is how the financing is or was decided, which is quite different than we proposed seven years ago or even a year and a half ago. Quickly, I would like to suggest to you an alternative method for paying for all drainage in the various communities in Collier County who have potential flooding during large storms. My simple proposal is for the next three years use a penny sales tax for solving -- I thought I would hear something about that but didnlt -- stormwater flooding problems. This would generate about $42 million. This method would generate enough money to solve Naples Parkls problem and many other communities that have drainage problems. Also, this money would pay back the money that Willoughby Acres spent; thus, we would all be starting over again on the drainage problem of the county. After three years of helping thousands of local residents in Collier County, the residents would then be happy to go nine more months with a penny sales tax and give the county and the City of Naples the bridge that thousands of residents do not want today. The above payment method would unite -- as you have noticed today, our community has been divided, very much so. This method Iim proposing would unite instead of dividing the communities in Collier County. It would solve a lot of the mosquito problems. Also, it would enhance the appearance of the entire county. And best of all, it would not put a hardship on the senior citizens who are retired and are on a fixed income. What do you think of that proposal? Iid like to hear. If I could have a couple more minutes -- if that proposal doesnlt go over, then on the route that welre going today -- why welre here for -- the only thing I object to is paying -- again, if we go another way -- the way it is now would be -- if you look here, the people living on 8th Street and -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Sir, I think you -- we have to get your voice on the microphone. Therels a hand-held over in the corner. MR. WOOD: Okay. Iill start over. A 91st-92nd Avenue ditch and the 8th Street ditch, the people living there have been assessed 2.2 percent, which is 1.2 percent higher than anybody else in the park. I donlt think thatls fair. Thatls dividing the community. If you want to help us a little bit better and give us a better price, then why not the people living in the south basin all pay the same, because all their water is supposed to be -- according to the survey, supposed to go down to 91st, all the people in the north basin up here (indicating). Instead of just these few people living along 8th Street have to pay 2.2 more, the rest only one -- why not the north basin pay the same, because all their waterls going to go this way -- supposed to, anyway -- after itls fixed. All the people on the Naples west basin over here (indicating), they should all pay the same. The way it is now, we have people paying several prices and just a few carrying the burden along this ditch. I'm paying $1,366 according to your figures today per lot if I live here, which I do. People living up here will pay $1,366 a lot while everybody else is paying anywhere from $95 up to four or five hundred dollars. You think that's fair? That's dividing the community, and I think my proposals make sense. Thank you very much. MR. DORRILL: Ms. Wiegold. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Wood. MR. DORRILL: And then Ms. Johnstone. MS. WIEGOLD: Good morning, Commissioners. Hay I pass these out? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Why don't you hand them to Mr. Weigel, and then he'll come our way, and you can begin your presentation. MS. WIEGOLD: I understand that is the opening for the public comments. So some of the things I may speak about your staff members have not yet addressed but are planning to do so. We have been working with -- first off, let me explain who I am. Mary Wiegold. I am with the Vanderbilt Beach Property Owners Association, and I'm standing here before you representing approximately 2,000 residents of Vanderbilt Beach that currently belong to our association. We, with staff, have been working over the last couple of months to take a look at the Naples Park drainage project and also conditions within the Vanderbilt lagoon to assess what has been happening and what is proposed to happen based on the plan. We have been working with Mr. John Boldt and also Mr. Bill Lorenz and their staff, and they have provided us a lot of information. We still have a lot of questions, but I would like to address what we've learned in the last few months. We have gone out, also, and done two water quality testing samplings only for dissolved oxygen, and that is the level within our lagoon and also eight other stations, testing the water quality for dissolved oxygen. According to the class two standards of which our lagoon has been designated by the State of Florida, that level cannot fall below five as a minimum standard within a 24-hour period. If you will look at the information I've presented you, based on the two studies, one done in the afternoon and one done in the morningtime around 6 to 8 a.m., you're going to see the latest study done at the end of July points out that the highest level of dissolved oxygen in any of the stations that were tested was, I believe, 3.5. The lowest, which is at the entrance of the culvert that goes into the lagoon from 91st-92nd Avenue, was a point 1. We are very much not in compliance with the state standards for our level of our water just in this one testing, the dissolved oxygen. We have a lot of work to do. A lot of things have been ignored and not addressed, and we need to address them. One of the things I'd like you to pay attention to at this time is while you're going through the budget process for the HSTU, please bear into mind -- and we feel it's very germane to the issue -- that you also allow an allocation for an ongoing study for the funds to test the water quality, the cause and the effects of what's happening with that water entering our lagoon system. It is very important that you consider this at this time, because dollars will be needed, obviously, to do the testing, and we don't want to hear that we're going to be left as an orphan child, because there's no money available to do the study. One of the things, too, that wewd like you to take a look at is that weld like to insist upon the following methods in determining whatls happening to the lagoon area and trying to help us out in Vanderbilt. The drainage project itself -- we have talked with Mr. John Boldt and his staff. We have come up with some modifications. Theylre not engineering modifications, but they may help in retaining some of the water on Naples Park property prior to it entering the lagoon area. We are not satisfied with those, but we do understand that by working with staff we have come up with some design changes -- very small design changes that might help prior to the flow into the lagoon. Weld also like you to take a look at creating the piping system to the Gulf to provide the natural flushing action that we need in Vanderbilt. And third, weld like you to consider the reopening of the natural flow leading to Clam Pass which we had approximately 12 years ago and was shut off. So if you would take a look at what welve presented to you and possibly consider these while youlre determining your budget for the MSTU and the cause and effect of what happens to Vanderbilt, we surely would appreciate it. We feel itls time to stop the degradation of our water and to improve our property. We also realize there are neighborhood programs which we are looking into that were put into place in Pasco County. Itls a neighborhood program for water quality where certificates are issued to your homeowners. It is something thatls done without a lot of money, but it does create awareness to the problem, and then we can rectify our situation based on the pesticides and runoff problems that we have in Vanderbilt. Thank you. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Good timing. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Good timing. MR. DORRILL: Ms. Johnstone and then Ms. Fitz-Gerald. MS. JOHNSTONE: Good morning, Commissioners. Iim Judy Johnstone, a resident of Vanderbilt Beach. In addition to being a director and treasurer of the Vanderbilt Beach Property Owners Association, Iim assistant secretary and a director of the Wiggins Pass Conservancy. Wiggins Pass Conservancy represents approximately 400 families and many hundreds of nature lovers. Mr. Johnstone, president of the Wiggins Pass Conservancy, could not be here today due to a distressing personal situation in his family. He has asked me to inform you that, quote, The Wiggins Pass Conservancy stands solidly behind the position of the Vanderbilt Beach Property Owners Association relative to the accelerated introduction of Naples Park water runoff and the Vanderbilt Lagoon system. The Wiggins Pass Conservancy undertakes to monitor this environmentally threatening situation and to ask as called for, closed quote. Thank you for hearing us and our constituents. MR. DORRILL: Ms. Fitz-Gerald and then Mr. Singleton. MS. FITZ-GERALD: Hi. Iim Vera Fitz-Gerald. Iim sorry. That last speaker was saying about the Naples Park water -- itls not our water thatls going into Vanderbilt Lagoon. Itls the water from the Pavilion shopping center and the Pavilion Lakes that has been shoved down that drain -- not drain, Iim sorry, stream. It didnlt have anything to do with us, and yet welre being hit to pay for it. And I was very disappointed at this last hearing where the Pavilion Lakes condominium had obviously come in and lobbied and had their share reduced. They had been to the South Florida Water Management the day before I had, and so they knew well what they were talking about. They found out that they really do owe big time for that ditch -- I mean that stream, because without it that's where all their water goes. I have to object to the way that this financing is being set up. Actually, a lot of Dick Wood's comments had merit. I don't -- I really object to my area being hit so hard. The last time I heard, it was about fourteen hundred dollars, thirteen-something. I don't get any benefit. My water doesn't go anywhere, by the way. It doesn't drain to the other neighbors. It doesn't drain down the hill. Everybody else drains on it. I flood. I have a dirty, slimy ditch, which is even dirtier and slimier now, as you all know. You've seen pictures of it. I'm not going to get any relief for this. All I'm going to get is a great big bill, which I can't afford, and then I can't do anything to fix my own property. John Boldt says he couldn't even find the salesperson that was supposed to be looking after this new type of drainage. There are certainly alternatives to the -- to the way they're planning the drainage. They could put the Pavilion shopping center drainage across the highway onto the property that's owned by the same company instead of shoving it down 91st and 92nd. That would help the Vanderbilt Lagoon people considerably. But I am here to object to the fact that I am being penalized over this. I don't get any benefit. I'm not -- I'm just being penalized, and I keep saying this over and over again. And I want to please leave these comments as part of the record for future purposes. That's about all I have to say. I've got all the '- I've got all the permits for all of these areas. And if you haven't read them, they're very easy to read, and you will see that what I'm saying has a lot of validity. I wish you would look into it, because what you're doing to people like me is really very, very unfair. The county, first of all, should be paying at least 30 percent, which was the share that they were allotted by both the engineering firm and by John, the stormwater manager. And considering the fact that previous action by this county has caused this problem, I think the least you could do is pay your own fair share to fix it. Thank you. MR. DORRILL: Mr. Singleton and then Mr. Vance. MR. SINGLETON: Good morning. My name is Jack Singleton. I'm opposed to this also. I live on ll0th Avenue, and I believe this -- what you're going to do here is not really going to benefit me or my neighbors, because anytime that it rains I go outside, and my water is like the other people said before me, that it goes up or it goes down. It doesn't run on my neighbor's yard. It runs on my yard. If my water runs on my neighbor's yard, then my neighbor's water runs on my yard. The only solution to this problem is regular storm sewers. If the water that goes on my property -- most of it drains down and ends up in a swale or catch basin. And I can go out there anytime, and my water's not moving west or east. It's sitting there. And it either goes evaporation or it goes in the ground. If you had a storm sewer that would run my water somewhere, I would say it's benefitting me, but I do not believe that we are being benefitted at all. And I don't -- I'm not sure people on 108th or 91st or 92nd will be of benefit. I think their big problem is the water coming off of 41 where the concrete is and no opportunity to run down. I think all that water runs down from the 800 block of Naples Park, and I think that should be the county's -- the county ought to be responsible for that water. I just want you to know that I'm opposed to the assessment, and I don't really like what they're doing. I would rather see regular storm sewers. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: It's my understanding when the six lanes on 41 is accomplished that the water currently going into -- off of the west side of 41 will be diverted -- Mr. Dotrill, is that correct -- over to Pelican Marsh to their retaining ponds. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: That is correct. The current plan is to move it over the road and over to the east side of 41. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: So we're solving that problem. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, we're addressing that problem. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Well, we are addressing where the water goes. MR. DORRILL: Mr. Vance and then Mr. Wiener. MR. VANCE: My name is Robert Vance, 642 93rd. Ladies and gentlemen of the commission, where I came from we always tried to put the horse first. I think you're trying to put the cart before the horse. You're trying to tell us that you're going to approve something that nobody has any idea what it's going to cost. You know, that's -- to me I think the commission should find out where they're at before they even consider discussing how they're going to go with it. That's item number one. I've always felt like if this is Collier County -- we are all members of Collier County. If there's problems in Golden Gate, I would expect to pay for it. If there's a problem in Naples or east Naples, I would expect to pay for it. I live in Naples Park. If I were in Marco Island, I would still expect the county to pay for it. This is a county problem. This is not a Naples Park problem. If you got a storm surge problem throughout this county, let's get together, get the funds like the gentleman said. If we have to have a sales tax, however we have to get it, let's get it and take care of it. Don't penalize somebody. This problem is not a problem of mine on 93rd Street. I've never had a problem with water on 93rd Street. I'm only two streets over from the rest of these people. If there's a problem over there, let the county take care of the problem. If we have to have a sales tax, fine. But in fairness, if you don't want to go with the sales tax, let's have a referendum. Let's see what the people of Naples Park think about this. I know probably none of you live in Naples Park. That's neither here nor there. I do live in Naples Park, and I want people to be fair to me, and I want to be fair with all the rest of the people in Naples. If Collier County has a problem with a sewer system in Lely, we're going to take care of it. We're not going to -- I don't think we should expect the people in Lely to take care of the problem. It's a county problem. Money-wise, I could care less about your golf tournament, but we just pitched out $500,000 so they could have a golf tournament here for the golfers. I play golf. I love golf. But I don't think I should pay through county funds to have it. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Excuse me. Unless you stay in hotels here in the county, you're not paying for it. It's tourist tax money. MR. VANCE: It's Collier County tax money. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: No. It's tourist tax money specifically denoted to pay for events just as it was allotted to. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: It's restricted funds. We can't use it for -- HR. VANCE: I still feel it's -- COHMISSIONER NORRIS: If you stay in hotels here in Collier County, then you're paying part of it. MR. VANCE: I have. That's still part of my money. All right. Another 68,000 to bring some cat from Washington D.C. down here -- COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Same thing, sir. Same thing, sir. MR. VANCE: That's still my money. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Same money. MR. VANCE: Doesn't belong to the people of Collier County? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: It's restricted funds. We cannot use it for any other purposes other than tourist development. MR. VANCE: My position is let's have a referendum. Let the people of Naples Park decide what they want. That's all I got to say. MR. DORRILL: Mr. Wiener? Mr. Lewis Wiener? He's your final speaker. MR. WIENER: My name is Lewis Wiener. I live at 781 99th Avenue North in Naples -- or, rather, in Naples Park, whichever you prefer. Before you take it upon yourself to spend any more money, I think the whole process should be reviewed. You've heard from other people that a culvert was put in behind the Pavilion Lake. What you haven't heard is that they promptly filled in that lake or at least a good part of it. It's been reduced in size. There's also a wetlands on the south side of 91st Street at the Lazyboy complex that has been degraded. The wetlands at Vanderbilt Drive and Vanderbilt Beach Road was allowed to be overgrown with brush. And rumor has it is that the two 84-inch culverts on the west side of Vanderbilt Drive that permitted that -- permitted that whenever the stream was diverted -- in other words, we cut off the natural flow of the stream between 91st and 92nd which was going down across through that wetlands, across Vanderbilt Beach Road, and on down into Clam Pass. Now, you've seen an occasion where 20 acres of wetland in Pelican Bay, another wetland, but a mangrove forest has suddenly died and nobody knows why. And I think the whole system should be reviewed from the beginning to the end. That's all I ask. There's a rumor that the two 84-inch culverts that exist that diverted the water from that stream in the Vanderbilt Bay -- in the Vanderbilt lagoon are supposedly placed below high tide. Now, I think it is only fair that you go into that and find out what the facts are on all this before you proceed any further to slap a tax on Naples Park where others are getting the gold mine and Naples Park is getting the shaft. That's all I have to say. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. He was our last speaker, Mr. Dotrill? I'm going to close the public hearing. I do have one question, Mr. Boldt. Mrs. Fitz-Gerald said something that to me is disturbing, and I need to clear it up. And that is when we were at the Naples Park Elementary School hearing several months ago, you had a demonstration with semicircle pipe there, because one of the things that we were discussing was that if we close in the 8th Street and the 91st and 92nd Street ditches, swales, streams, whatever they are, that the other property owners will not be able to close their swales in front of their yard but that you had found this device. And she indicated that we may not be able to have that now. Is that true? MR. BOLDT: No, ma'am. We're still working on that process. So we've been in contact with the Department of Environmental Protection for the use of materials. And what we're waiting on now is inventory. We have like 20 miles of avenues. There's 40 miles of swales. We need to go through the whole park and identify those areas that would be deep enough to allow the use of that so-called infiltrator product. As you mentioned, swales would not be allowed, because they're shallow and quite sloped. The deeper ditches that have water standing in them during the wet season -- I think the cutoff is going to be about 36 inches, which would allow for the height of the product, cover, and then a swale over that. So we need to go through those 40 miles of swales and inventory them and take surveys. So that's really what's holding us up in getting some resolution to this. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: So in the intervening months, though, you have not yet gotten that process approved by the DEP? MR. BOLDT: No. We've been working on it, but we haven't gotten it approved. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: What happens if we move forward with this today, and you can't get that approved? MR. BOLDT: This is still August. We still have a couple months to resolve all this before this all comes together. Before the end of the year, we've got to make a decision again. You make a decision on the moratorium that's in place, whether to extend it another year or make permanent or cancel or whatever, and then we need to get that information to you in the next couple of months. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I'm just concerned that we've said we're going to try to do something, and we don't have all the pieces in place yet in order to allow people to do what it is they said they wanted to do over the years. And I'm a little hesitant to move forward with this project until we know the DEP is going to accept what you have offered us in alternative to the open swales. MR. BOLDT: Our preliminary indications from them is that they would indeed give us favorable reaction to that. We haven't got that. I apologize for not following through more vigorously on that. There's a half dozen things going on in this project all at one time. We're trying to get it all together. And this is one thing I perhaps haven't given as high priority as I should have. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I understand that. This is a big project going on, and there's lots of things happening. This is where -- we're at a point where we're being asked to move forward to set up a taxing district and the boundaries of this, and this thing that you introduced at the school to me is a key part to it. Any other questions? Commissioner Hancock. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: For some of you that have not been a part of these discussions over the past eight years, this isn't a process that began six months ago, nor is it one that was entered into hastily. The amount of backup, background, and time I had to spend just to try and get up to speed on what has occurred was extensive. And I will tell you right now there is no perfect solution to this problem. There is no way to get done what has to get done and not someone get hurt or someone get affected in a less than desirable way. It's just not possible. Many of you have looked at this as a -- as a foul ball. And I will tell you now it's not. There are two things at work here. What we're talking about here and what has been designed by the engineers that were paid by the residents of Naples Park some eight years ago was a realization that there are two systems, a primary system and a secondary, and I liken them to arteries and veins. What conveys most of the water is, in essence, an artery. What's in your front yard is, in essence, a vein. Before we can move the water out of your front yard, there has to be somewhere for it to go. If the arteries are clogged, making the veins work does no good. So the system that's been designed is one that's -- if we are going to be able to improve the ditches in your front yard to get it out of your front yard when realistic and when possible, there has to be somewhere for it to go. There has to be a conveyance system. Those are the arteries that are covered by this. I could spend hours going into things. And I can't tell that you I'm terribly happy about this or that I think it's a success, but I think it's a necessary step, and that's -- that's the best I can do at this point. And with that I'll move staff recommendation on the item. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second. Is there further discussion? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just a comment. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Constantine. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm going to go against the item as I did January or whenever this board first took it up, certainly not when the commission first took it up. I appreciate the work Commissioner Hancock's done and Mr. Boldt has done in a very challenging situation. But knowing the background where the original intent was that a majority of the homeowners of Naples Park would come together in agreement on some scenario -- again, I appreciate the work you've done to come up with what you think is the best scenario, but we haven't had that happen. We haven't had a majority of Naples Park owners. So no criticism intended. I don't intend to support the motion. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Other comments? I'm going to call the question. I'm not going to support the motion either because of the problem with the closing of the swales after we close these ditches. And I don't think we've got the proper answers yet, and we -- I'm not opposed to what we're doing so much as I think it might be a little premature, because we don't have the answer to that part of this. Anyway, with that I will call the question. All in favor please say aye. Opposed? Is it a three or two vote? MR. WEIGEL: It appears it passes by three. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I mean do we need three votes or four for this? MR. WEIGEL: Three's all you need. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Motion passes three to two, Commissioners Constantine and Matthews being opposed. Is there -- the motion passes three to two, Commissioners Constantine and Matthews being opposed. Item #14 BOARD OF COUNTY COHMISSIONERS' COHMUNICATIONS - DISCUSSION REGARDING PSC AND SSU APPLICATION That concludes our agenda for today. We are at staff communications and BCC communications. Commissioner Norris, do you have anything? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Nothing today. Commissioner Hancock? No, ma'am. Commissioner Mac'Kie? No, ma'am. Commissioner Constantine. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I have one quick item, and this is more for the attorney's office. Several months ago we were discussing action involving the PSC, SSU, and their state-wide rate application. And I think in view of what we're hearing in the community at large right now, I think this board needs an update on that. And if we could get that before the September 5 meeting, I would appreciate that. MR. CUYLER: Sure. Be happy to do that. We sent the memos, and we can give you a history and update summary. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah. I think we need to know what our position will be if the -- if the appeal and so forth to the hearing is successful, what are the options that are available. MR. CUYLER: Okay. We'll provide that to you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thanks. That's all that I have. MR. WEIGEL: Madam Chairman, it's my understanding that there's an interest within the board to actually have a presentation made at the September 5th or 12th meeting as a county attorney agenda item in that regard. I'll clarify that at this point. But as Mr. Cuyler indicated, we are coming together with information and opinion which I think will be of great assistance to provide you prior to either of those agenda dates in either event. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. I think we just need to hear more about what's going on, because it looks like we're going to have a critical mass here fairly soon, I guess, for lack of a better term. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I think we already entered the fishing stage. Item #15 (2) SAND CORES RE BEACH RENOURISHHENT - STAFF WORKSHOP TO BE HELD CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Hr. Weigel, do you have anything for communication? MR. WEIGEL: No. I'll defer to Mr. Cuyler. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Dorrill, I know you said you had a couple of things. MR. DORRILL: I have three items. First, I was on the radio journal show yesterday, and there was a call from former Councilman Hermes, who indicated that he felt that the board had consented to hold a public workshop and to display the sand cores for the beach renourishment project. That was not my recollection, but I said that I would -- I would determine what your discussion had been and then discuss it with you briefly today. The sand core information is -- and I consider certainly to be public information. At your discretion what I'm going to do is to incur what I would call a staff-level workshop. And if representatives of the community are interested in seeing the final sand cores that were taken and what the quality of that material is and also to make sure at the workshop that the public understands that inland sources of sand are also an eligible source of material as determined by the final permit. I'm just going to pass that on to you. But the contention of Mr. Hermes was that you had consented to have a public workshop. We found nothing on the record that day that indicated that you would have a public workshop. I'm just saying I'm -- I'll handle it as a staff item. But we don't have anything to hide, and if people -- Mr. Hermes and others want to see that sand, I certainly want them to see it. Unless you instruct me otherwise, that's what I intend to do. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hancock. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I, for one, as a result of that particular meeting became curious, you know, what does it look like. And I think that's a normal course. What you're proposing as far as a staff-level workshop where -- I personally would just like to see what samples were brought up. But I also understand that most offshore samples are greyish in color initially and become white and bleached over time. So there is a process there that if we're going to have a display of it, we need to educate people that what's drawn off the bottom isn't what's there 18 months later. It gets washed out and cleansed and stuff. So I personally would like the opportunity to see it, but I don't think we have to have a board workshop per se. MR. DORRILL: We'll proceed then accordingly. Item #15 (3) NOTIFICATION RE NATION-WIDE FILL ACTIVITIES FOR SINGLE FAMILY HOME - BCC TO REVIEW DRAFT LETTER OF OBJECTION The second item that I have, and I apologize, we received -- and there's some history concerning this -- notification I'll say a year or more ago concerning a nationwide permit for fill activities in the Golden Gate Estates for single-family homes. The federal government on March the 23rd proposed to issue a new nationwide permit for single-family homes, and the final attendant administrative code did not appear in the federal register until the end of July or first of August. We did not receive a subsequent request for comment concerning single-family housing permits until -- and it was received here on August the 8th. Unfortunately, that was beyond our deadline for the 15th agenda. And I bring it to your attention today, because they're asking for public comment from affected communities by September 1st. You're not meeting again until the 5th. There are several issues. And I would just like to address these quickly, because I'm going to tell you that I either intend to send our comments, or I will ask the chairman to review a letter that we've drafted for her signature to make sure that we just don't miss the deadline of September the 1st. This would deal with what I call the northern estates, that portion of the estates that is north of 1-75. It would not include a number of units that had previously been identified as special treatment wetland areas in the northern estates. And there's a copy of what would have been in the executive summary that I'm going to provide to each one of you at the conclusion of the meeting today. And there's one area that we have a particular concern of, and that's if a homeowner is impacting or filling less than one-half of an acre, the current proposed national permit conditions would require those individuals to do a wetland delineation map for every site of every home that would be built in the estates. And we're going to take exception to that and indicate that if that homeowner is impacting less than a half an acre, we do not feel they should have to do that wetland delineation. We think that's a burden and hardship on that individual who may be building a home. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Dorrill, this is replacing the current 8,000 square feet? MR. DORRILL: I'll say yes, and staff is indicating yes. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I thought the discussions we were having last year with the corps is they were entertaining the idea of 20 percent of the parcel of land. Now, I don't want to hold this board up on this discussion but -- MR. ARNOLD: For the record, Wayne Arnold of the planning services staff. Your recollection is correct. Last year they were contemplating some different restrictions. The new nationwide proposal has what is termed a half-acre wetland limitation, which from some perspectives that may be beneficial to people who build in half of an acre. But the disadvantage in the way it's structured is that it would require wetland delineation to be supplied to the army corps which would have to be prepared from the sites. We think the option we discussed last year from this board relative to some sort of direct agreement with the army corps to put things back sort of how we did things three years ago might be an advantageous position for us. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I thought last year when we had just some general conversation on this that we -- we were talking about a 20 percent relationship to the parcel and that Collier County was going to be able to essentially issue the corps permits if it was less than 20 percent and that Collier County was going to withhold permits until a corps permit had been received if it was more than 20 percent. MR. ARNOLD: That's fairly accurate. However, they didn't follow through. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Haven't done it yet? MR. ARNOLD: Some of the other agencies we understand -- especially the federal agencies -- objected to that proposal, and it did not move forward. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Constantine. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I want to hear more about this both from staff and Mr. Dotrill. I don't know if we need to do that here or elsewhere. This is outrageous. We're talking about people building single-family homes. They're trying to build a home for themselves and their family, and now the federal agencies want to get involved and have them hire some professionals and provide information. MR. DORRILL: We'll do that. I'm mentioning it today under communications, because it's imperative that we be on the record before the first of September, and I intend to share with all of you what the executive summary will be, what the draft letter to the colonel in Jacksonville will say specifically, and our intent to enter into separate agreement with the corps if our concerns are not incorporated into the national. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I, for one, object to any restriction on -- primarily the people who are building on estate property are those who can least afford to be spending more on engineering and permitting and those things. They're building homes that are -- not always, there are some pretty nice homes, but oftentimes less expensive. So to try to tag these people, I think, they're way, way, out of wack. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I just have one question. Is there an estimate of how much added cost this will put on an average home? MR. ARNOLD: I think we've -- that's going to depend on the location. Some units will have no additional cost. Some could possibly have a thousand dollars to hire an environmental person to come out and do a wetland assessment and file paperwork with the corps, including the time it may take to get through the corps permit. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Commissioner Hancock. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: If you're just looking for a third voice to convey an item -- COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Or fourth. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: -- this is simply regulation without regard, and it's ridiculous. If you're looking for a position, I think you've got it. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Let the record reflect that the words "outrageous" and "ridiculous" both have been invoked here and should be contained within the body of the communication. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Unanimously. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Do we want to try to incorporate into our objections what we discussed last year? MR. DORRILL: Already have a draft letter for you to review. And if you want to mark it up and change it, then I'm going to make copies of all of this available before this board. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I thought we came to a reasonable conclusion of this a year ago. MR. DORRILL: This may be an item where we're going to need to solicit some help from our congressman, because they're painting with an extremely broad brush here with no regard for the preexisting condition which is in Golden Gate Estates. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Thank you. Item #15 (1) STATUS OF THE DISCUSSION OF THE MEETING WITH THE COLLIER COUNTY PUBLIC SAFETY COHMISSION MR. DORRILL: Final item that I have -- actually, I have one additional. Just to update the county commission on your trying to impanel a meeting of the Collier County Public Safety Commission, which Ms. Matthews found that she's a member of, they were not able to have a quorum at their most recent meeting. It is only important because you have instructed us to impanel that group to take action on the concept of evaluating a regional jail. You gave that direction at your last meeting or meeting before last in Fort Myers with the Lee and Charlotte County Commissions. And this is -- it is somewhat timely, because Lee and Charlotte are proceeding under separate contracts with the consultants to do that. That's just an update. Apparently, Ms. Matthews, you did go to the meeting. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah. We had a real short kind of update information, because we didn't have a quorum, and decided to -- our next meeting will be September 21, I believe, and hopefully we can urge everyone to be there so that we have a quorum and can get this issue moving forward. MR. DORRILL: One quick note. In addition to the executive summary in the proposal from the citizens fire consolidation committee, we're going to send to you under separate cover the balance of our file for background as it pertains to the original evaluation that was done by an intern in our office, a grad. school intern several years ago. And we're going to provide the board copies of what I call the blue ribbon committee, a study of two or three years ago. And if any member of the board needs or would like to see additional information, I'll just leave it to you to contact my office. But that is tentatively scheduled to be reheard the 5th of September. And I wanted to remind you -- you may have heard in the invocation this morning that Mr. Brock's father passed away yesterday afternoon, and you may want to express your regrets to him. I believe the gentleman lived in north Florida somewhere. That's all I have. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. Mr. Cuyler? MR. CUYLER: Madam Chairman, I assume you're going to stay in your session after break and just pick up with your workshop. There's something in the works that I may need to talk about. It's more informational than anything. It's nothing critical. So if we could just save the staff communication for the county attorney until perhaps sometime in your workshop. Just leave it open. I may have to give you some information. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We'll leave that open. Thank you. We are finished. Let's -- we're finished with today's agenda; right? Okay. We'll adjourn. Let's reconvene in 15 minutes and start the workshop. (A short break was held.) CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We're going to convene the workshop for the Board of County Commission, August 22, 1995. I don't think we really have a prepared agenda. The subject matter is the growth management and -- Item #SF1 RADIO TOWER LEASE AGREEMENTS TO ACCOHMODATE EQUIPMENT AS PART OF THE 800 HHZ RADIO SYSTEM - APPROVED MR. DORRILL: There were three items that were on your index. Did you want to reconsider that 800 megahertz? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yes. We do need to finish that. We had one item carry over to the end of the meeting. So I want to close the workshop; right? I'm going to reconvene the Board of County Commission meeting for August 22, 1995, so we can finish with the item that was continued to the end of the meeting that we didn't handle, and that is the tower lease. COHHISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Dorrill, what's the item number? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: It's 8-H-1. MR. DORRILL: It's under emergency services. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: So it's 8-F-l? If Sue says it, that has to be true. I assume the question was answered. I didn't hear any rebuttal. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Tower lease? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah. I also spoke with Mr. Daly and Mr. Ijams. I'm very comfortable now. I'll move approval of the radio tower lease agreement for the 800 megahertz system. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second to approve the radio tower lease agreement for the 800 megahertz system. All those in favor please say aye. Opposed? There being none, motion passes five to zero. We're adjourned. ***** Commissioner Hancock moved, seconded by Commissioner Constantine, and carried unanimously, that the following items under the Consent Agenda be approved and/or adopted as follows: Item #16A1 MODIFY PURCHASE ORDER 500930 BY INCREASING THE PURCHASE ORDER AMOUNT BY $6,000 TO COVER THE COSTS OF REQUIRED ADVERTISING FOR LAND USE PETITIONS Item #16A2 RESOLUTION 95-469 RE PUBLIC NUISANCE ABATEMENT ON COMPLIANCE SERVICES CASE NO. 50508-018; OWNER OF RECORD ERIC A. MANDELL, TODD A. HIGGINS See Pages Item #16A3 WATER FACILITIES ACCEPTANCE FOR BUDGETEL INN - WITH STIPULATIONS O.R. Book Pages Item #16A4 RESOLUTION 95-470 RE FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE ROADWAY, DRAINAGE, WATER AND SEWER IMPROVEMENTS FOR FINAL PLAT OF "CARILLON" See Pages Item #16A5 RESOLUTION 95-471 RE RECORD FINAL PLAT OF "VILLA LA PALMAAT BAY COLONY" - WITH CONSTRUCTION, MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT & PERFORMANCE BONDS See Pages Item #16A6 PERMIT STAFF TO EXTEND UNTIL OCTOBER 31, 1995, A PREVIOUSLY ISSUED TEMPORARY USE PERMIT TO LEVITT HOMES FOR A TEMPORARY SALES TRAILER ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF IMMOKALEE ROAD TO SERVICE THE HUNTINGTON LAKES PUD Item #16A7 RECORD FINAL PLAT OF "LAPORTE COMMERCIAL PARK"' - CONSTRUCTION, MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT & PERFORMANCE BONDS See Pages Item #16B1 ACCEPTANCE OF QUIT CLAIM DEEDS FROM FOUR (4) PROPERTY OWNERS LOCATED IN TOWNSHIP 51 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, SECTION 11 WHICH WILL ALLOW COLLIER COUNTY THE AUTHORITY TO IMPROVE AND MAINTAIN A ROAD KNOWN AS ROOST ROAD See Pages Item #16B2 RESOLUTION 95-472 RE JOINT PROJECT AGREEMENT WITH THE STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION WHEREIN COLLIER COUNTY AGREES TO MAINTAIN PROPOSED HIGHWAY LIGHTING IMPROVEMENTS TO S.R. 90 (U.S. 41) See Pages Item #16C1 RESOLUTION 95-473 RE EASEMENT TO FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY FOR UTILITY FACILITIES TO BENEFIT THE COLLIER COUNTY FAIR & AGRICULTURAL EXPOSITION, INC. See Pages Item #16C2 moved to Item #8C1 Item #16C3 LEASE AGREEMENT BETWEEN GULF COAST SKIHMERS WATER SKI SHOW, INC. AND COLLIER COUNTY FOR UTILIZATION OF A PORTION OF LAKE AVALON See Pages Item #16D1 SATISFACTIONS OF CLAIM OF LIENS FOR R. PETE HAZZOCCHI, NAPLES RECYCLING RESOURCES INC., ROY TICE ENTERPRISES, INC. AND SHERRI LYNN BROHMELAND See Pages Item #16D2 SATISFACTIONS OF NOTICE OF PROMISE TO PAY AND AGREEMENT TO EXTEND PAYMENT OF SEWER IMPACT FEES FOR ALETHEA YACHT CHARTERS, JOHN AND CHRISTINE BOOHGAARD AND ELLIS BOOHGAARD, MICHAEL AND CATHY CALDWELL, ELAINE GARD AND RUTH JURGENSON, PAULA AND WILLIAM LHOTA, NAPLES FUNERAL HOME, INC., HIROSLAVAND IRENE POUL, EMMA H. SHEFFIELD, RUSSELL P. STAHLHAN, AND BRUCE AND TERESA STODGEL See Pages Item #16D3 - this item deleted Item #16D4 PUBLIC HEARING SET FOR SEPTEMBER 26, 1995 AT 9:00 A.H. FOR A RATE INCREASE ON USER FEES FOR MARCO WATER AND SEWER DISTRICT CUSTOMERS Item #16El AWARD BID #95-2397 TO QUICK KEY, HOTU, INC., "A" LOCKSMITH, AND HERH'S LOCK & KEY FOR LOCKSMITH SERVICES Item #16E2 BUDGET AMENDMENT TO THE WORKERS' COMPENSATION SELF INSURANCE FUND (FUND 518) Item #16E3 RESOLUTION 95-474 RE COLLECTION OF FEES FOR THE PILOT VENDOR SUBSCRIPTION PROGRAM See Pages Item #16F1 moved to Item #SF1 Item #16G1 AWARD BID #95-2395 TO FLEXSTAKE AT THE COST OF $14.85 PER WEED HAT MADE FROM OLD TIRES Item #1662 REMOVAL OF A SANDBAR IN THE COCOHATCHEE RIVER AND AUTHORIZE THE CHAIRMAN TO SIGN THE DREDGE AND FILL PERMIT See Pages Item #16H1 BUDGET AMENDMENTS 95-437, 95-438, 95-453, 95-456, 95-465 AND 95-472 Item #16H2 AWARD SHERIFF'S DWELLING MOBILE HOME UNIT CONSTRUCTION AND INSTALLATION, BID #95-2426, TO CENTRAL MOBILE HOMES, INC., IN THE A_MOUNT OF $30,650.00 Item #16H3 REAUTHORIZE REIMBURSABLE UTILITY RELOCATION COST TO FLORIDA POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY RELATING TO GOLDEN GATE PARKWAY SIX LANING IMPROVEMENTS - IN THE A_MOUNT OF $196,766.15 Item #16H4 moved to Item #SH1 Item #16H5 RESOLUTION 95-475 RE NOTICES OF DELINQUENT SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS FOR SOLID WASTE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL SERVICE CHARGES PURSUANT TO COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE 90-30, AS A_MENDED AND DIRECTING THAT WRITTEN NOTICES OF SUCH RECORDATION OF LIENS BE MAILED TO THE AFFECTED RESIDENTIAL UNIT OWNERS See Pages Item #16H6 RECOGNIZE PREVIOUSLY COLLECTED TOURIST DEVELOPMENT TAX REVENUES Item #16H7 CHANGE ORDER NO. 2 TO PROFESSIONAL SERVICES INDUSTRIES COMPANY FOR ADDITIONAL SERVICES TO THE CAXAMBAS PARK CLEAN-UP PROJECT - IN THE AMOUNT OF $50,000 AND $10,000 FOR CONTINGENCY PURPOSES See Pages Item #16H8 CONFIRMATION OF THOMAS E. CONRECODE AS PUBLIC WORKS ADMINISTRATOR Item #16K1 APPROPRIATION OF ADDITIONAL FUNDING FOR OFFICE COURT REPORTER COSTS - IN THE AMOUNT OF $40,000.00 There being no further business for the Good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by Order of the Chair at 10:55 a.m. BOARD OF COUNTY COHMISSIONERS BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS CONTROL ATTEST: DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK BETTYE J. MATTHEWS, CHAIRPERSON These minutes approved by the Board on as presented or as corrected TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF DONOVAN COURT REPORTING BY: Anjonette K. Baum