Loading...
BCC Minutes 10/24/1995 RREGULAR MEETING OF OCTOBER 24, 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 9:07 a.m. in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRPERSON: ALSO PRESENT: Bettye J. Hatthews Timothy J. Constantine John C. Norris Timothy L. Hancock Pamela S. Hac'Kie W. Neil Dotrill, County Hanager David Weigel, County Attorney Item #3 & 3A AGENDA AND CONSENT AGENDA - APPROVED WITH CHANGES CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Call to order the Board of County Commission meeting for Collier County, Tuesday, October 24th. Mr. Dotrill, would you lead us in an invocation and pledge. MR. DORRILL: Heavenly Father, we thank you. We give praise to your name this morning for the wonders that you had bestowed on southwest Florida and Collier County. Father, we are thankful that we have a respite from the rain for people in Bonita Springs and northern Collier County. Father, as always, it's our prayer that you guide the hand of this county commission today as they make important business decisions for our community. We give thanks for the opportunity to recognize young people as part of Red Ribbon Week and also career achievement upon the part of several county employees this morning. We'd ask that you bless our time here together, and we pray these things in Jesus's name. Amen. (The pledge of allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Dorrill, we have a few changes to the agenda? MR. DORRILL: Yes, ma'am, good morning. Very few. I have two add-on items. Several items are requesting to be continued. The first add-on item is item 8(B)(3), which would be under public works and is a revised conceptual agreement between the Board of County Commissioners and Florida Communities Trust. Commissioners received an executive summary this morning with a changed list that explains this particular request. The second one is 8(C)(2) under public services. This is part of the regular agenda. That's a recommendation that the board respond favorably to a request by the Florida Association of Counties as it pertains to the state health care committee's proposal pertaining to Hedicaid; that's 8(C)(2). CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Uh-huh. MR. DORRILL: I have three items that are requested to be continued this morning. The first is under public hearings; it's 12(A)(1) to be continued for three weeks -- excuse me, four weeks until your meeting of the November the 21st. It's an amendment to the land use element of the comp. plan pertaining to the area of state critical concern. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Dorrill, I understand that that's being continued because of a lack of quorum at the CCPC. MR. DORRILL: That's my understanding. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Is there any way that we can urge the members of the CCPC, because we have several members conflicting out of this one, to -- to attend so that we can get a quorum? MR. DORRILL: I'm sure Mr. Cautero can make an extraordinary request and phone calls and whatnot to make sure that we have adequate representation there. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay, thank you. MR. DORRILL: The next item is item 12(C)(10). It's requested to be continued until your next regular meeting, which would be two weeks from today. That was at the request of the petitioner as it pertains to the creation of the Islesworth Community Development District, 12(C)(10). And then finally also for two weeks a request to continue consent agenda 16(I)(1), which deals with making a partial payment for final judgment for a lien on certain property associated with the county attorney's report, item 16(1)(1) continued for two weeks. I have two agenda notes this morning. The first is that item 8(C)(1), which is the annual agreement between the Board of County Commissioners and the health department be heard just prior to your lunch recess in order to accommodate HRS's attorney, who will be traveling down from Fort Hyers, and also that item 8(B)(2) be heard later in the day so that an agreement -- the final agreement that was dropped off by Mr. Siesky's office can be reviewed by our county attorney's office. We're not in receipt of that yet this morning, and there's a concern that we not take action on that until it's been properly reviewed. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Do we have a specific time at the end of the day or -- MR. DORRILL: It will be near the end of the day unless it arrives and there are no problems with it, and then I'll bring that to your attention at the appropriate time. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hancock. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Weigel, is that sufficient time to review a contract of this nature, or would you prefer to continue the item? MR. WEIGEL: Well, we've reviewed the document as it's evolved very significantly. The changes we are looking to now, potential changes, are small in number, although important. We can do the review during the course of the day and advise the board appropriately when it comes back this afternoon. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Thank you. MR. DORRILL: Those are the only changes I had. I will be at your discretion concerning the Naples Park item. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Our discretion concerning -- MR. DORRILL: Yes, ma'am. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I know we have a lot of people here who, I think, are Naples Park, but that's advertised in our afternoon agenda as a public hearing. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yes, ma'am, but as has been the case on different occasions when we have a significant turnout from the public on an item, we have taken liberty to move it in the schedule to try and accommodate those people. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I don't know if we can do that on a public hearing, Mr. Weigel, can we? MR. WEIGEL: Yes, you can. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We can? MR. WEIGEL: The legal advertisement that appears in the newspaper states 9 a.m., so it gives us that flexibility. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. All right. Commissioner Hancock, then are you proposing that we hear that earlier in the agenda? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yes, ma'am, I would like to move it up to one of the earlier appropriate slots in the agenda. I know it is going to be a timing item. It's probably going to take a few -- few more minutes to hear than others. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Can I make a suggestion that we make that the very first public hearing, because I think the morning agenda may only take 90 minutes, and that way we can take that first and still have it before lunchtime. COHHISSIONER HANCOCK: That's fine. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Do you have any other changes, Mr. Weigel? MR. WEIGEL: No, thank you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Hancock, anything else? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Norris, Commissioner No, ma'am. Commissioner Hac'Kie? No, thank you. Commissioner Constantine? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah, I'd like to remove 16(C)(3) from the consent agenda to comment and clarification; that has to do with the roof on the museum's gallery. HR. DORRILL: 16(C)(3) will become 8(C)(3). COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: 8(C)(4)? I'll also have a couple of items under BCC communications, but I suspect that will be eight or ten hours from now, so we'll get into those things. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Good night. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: It will be a while. I have essentially a question and two items to remove if we need to do that. It's a legal question for Mr. Weigel. MR. WEIGEL: Pardon me? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah, that's okay. We have two items on the consent agenda that are companion items to public hearings. Can we approve the consent agenda making those two items subject to approval of the public hearings, or should we remove those and hear them concurrently? MR. WEIGEL: You may -- if -- if you make the record specific as you stated, you may do -- do what you wish. However, you may -- you may take that -- take that option. However, if you do not approve the companion item in the regular agenda, the record should reflect that these consent agenda items are not approved either if you wish to leave them on the consent agenda that way. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Anyone on the board have any druthers as to how we should handle that? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: If we just state for the record the number of the two items, and if the consent agenda is not approved, that those two items are to be not approved either, that should be sufficient. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: And then at the conclusion of the vote on the public hearing, we specifically say on the record that companion item 16 something or other is not approved? MR. WEIGEL: Well, I think that would even be redundant at that point. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. MR. WEIGEL: If you made the clarification early on, the record will reflect your action. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Madam Chairman. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hac'Kie. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: While we're on this subject of the consent agenda, I need to abstain from items 16(A)(1) and its companion item which is 12(C)(5). That's the Walden Shores plat. I have a conflict there. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. 12(C)(5). COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And 16(A)(1). CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I'd like to recommend to the board that we stipulate in our motion to approve the consent agenda that items 16(A)(1) and 16 -- what's the other one -- (A)(10) be noted to be approved only if the companion item is approved. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Madam Chairman, I'll make a motion to approve the agenda and consent agenda subject to the changes we've made today and to the stipulations you've just outlined. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Second. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: A motion and a second to approve the agenda and the consent agenda. All in favor, please say aye. Opposed? There being none, motion passes five to zero. Item #4 MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 26, 1995 - APPROVED AS PRESENTED COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Madam Chairman, motion to approve the minutes of the September 26, 1995, regular meeting. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: A motion and a second to approve the minutes of September 26 meeting. All those in favor, please say aye. Opposed? There being none, motion passes five to zero. Item #5A PROCLAivLATION DESIGNATING OCTOBER 23 - OCTOBER 31, 1995 NATIONAL RED RIBBON WEEK - ADOPTED Next item on the agenda, proclamations and service awards. Commissioner Mac'Kie. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'd like to ask our State Representative Butt Saunders if he would come forward, please. He is the honorary chairperson of the Collier County Red Ribbon Week. And if anybody can question Collier County's commitment to this with the red in this room, I -- I doubt it. So if you would come forward, Butt, I'll read this proclamation. Whereas, the Collier County Red Ribbon Coalition is proud to participate in the eighth National Red Ribbon Week by sponsoring the local celebration with the theme, "We have better things to do than drugs!"; a theme we invite each member of the community to help us celebrate; and Whereas, Red Ribbon Week began after Federal Agent Enrique Camarena was murdered by drug traffickers in 1985. The red ribbon then became the symbol to reduce the demand for drugs. The week-long activities developed as a way to spotlight a community's many prevention education activities and programs; and Whereas, the ultimate goal is to end the use of illegal drugs and the misuse of legal drugs. The coalition's approach is a proactive one to show that a drug-free life-style is not only healthy, but active, fulfilling, and fun; and,. Whereas, you can demonstrate your personal commitment to a Drug Free America by wearing and displaying red ribbons during Red Ribbon Week, by wearing red on Red Day and by attending scheduled activities such as the Monster Dash Run/ Fun Walk, the Health Fair, and the Swamp Buggy Parade; and Whereas, following the acceptance of this proclamation, the fifth grade D.A.R.E. Students from Golden Terrace Elementary School will demonstrate an important message for us with a silent skit. Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that the week of October 23rd through 31st, 1995, be designated as National Red Ribbon Week. Done and ordered this 24th day of October 1995, Board of County Commissioners, Collier County, Bettye J. Matthews, chairman. I'd like to move we accept this proclamation. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Madam Chairman, I'll second that motion. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second to accept the proclamation. All in favor, please say aye. Opposed? There being none, motion passes five to zero. (Applause) REPRESENTATIVE SAUNDERS: I'd like to compliment the county commission, the county manager, and the county staff for the enthusiastic support for a drug-free community. You can be assured that this type of publicity sends a very strong and very positive signal to the youth in our community that drug free is what we expect in Collier County. So, again, I just simply want to thank you for your enthusiastic support of the proclamation. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. Thank you very much. Do we have -- okay, I guess that's all. (A silent skit was presented by Golden Terrace Elementary School students.) MR. BUSH: My name is Lee Bush. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Before you start, let me just say that we keep saying that pictures are worth a thousand words. I think we just saw a million words. Great! MR. BUSH: Thank you. (Applause) MR. BUSH: My name is Lee Bush. I'm principal at Golden Terrace Elementary School. I would like to publicly thank our youth relations officer, Deputy Jackie Nolder, for the skit, for being with us to do our DARE lessons. I'd like to thank Sheriff Hunter for his commitment to Collier County students to have youth relations deputies in our schools. It does take a whole group of people like the skit portrayed to stop our drug problem. We do our part in our schools to educate the students, but it takes parents, teachers, all elected officials from the legislation and judicial branches of our government to help stop this problem. So, please, parents, if you're listening, if you are going to do drugs, don't do them at home. Don't let your children see them, and please try to get help. But we need to help all of us together to stop the problem. Thank you very much for Red Ribbon Week and your proclamation. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. (Applause) Item #5B EHPLOYEE SERVICE AWARDS - PRESENTED CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: That's a tough act to follow. It gives me pleasure -- we're at the service awards portion of our agenda, and it gives me great pleasure to ask Kathleen HcLarty to come forward. Kathleen has been with budget and management for 20 years. (Applause) CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you very much for so much hard work. (Applause) CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Alice Toppe. Alice has been with management for ten years. (Applause) CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: And thank you very, very much. MS. TOPPE: You're very welcome. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: And Kevin Dugan, is he here? He certainly is. He's been with natural resources for five years. (Applause) Item #SA1 RESOLUTION 95-608 APPROVING THE COLLIER COUNTY NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PROGRAM (NTHP) - ADOPTED CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Next item on the agenda is -- I have my pages all mixed up today. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: 8(A)(1). CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: 8(A)(1), the neighborhood traffic management plan. Mr. Perry. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Wonderful article in the newspaper, Mr. Perry. MR. PERRY: Thank you. Good morning, Madam Chairman, Commissioners. For the record my name is Jeff Perry, chief planner in your planning services department and also the coordinator for the metropolitan planning organization. I'm here today with two of your staff members, Anita Chapman and Joe HcHarris, the co-authors of the neighborhood traffic management program. It was developed by your staff for the City of Naples and Collier County. The -- about a year ago during the review of a -- during a hearing on the -- an amendment to the growth management plan, there was a discussion about the quality of life in our neighborhoods and the streets that were being impacted by speeding vehicles and cut-through traffic. The board directed staff to look at policies that could be implemented in its growth management plan, and to that end we went a little bit farther and developed not only the policies, but we also developed a program to help the City of Naples and Collier County to deal with -- with traffic problems in neighborhoods. With the help of a task force and your staff, the neighborhood traffic management program was developed. It has since been adopted by the City of Naples. It is identical to the one that you have in your agenda package with the exception of the names changed. Anita will be making a short presentation to you today to explain the program, give you a little bit of taste as to the techniques that can be employed within neighborhoods. And then we'll be coming back to you asking for adoption of a resolution that would implement the program and set into motion the process that will help our neighbors and communities reclaim their streets. Anita. MS. CHAPMAN: Good morning, Commissioners. I will be making a brief presentation this morning on the neighborhood traffic management program. First, wewll begin with the goal of the neighborhood traffic management program, and this goal is to establish procedures and techniques that will promote neighborhood liveability by mitigating the negative impacts of the automobile traffic on residential neighborhoods. We developed this program with the traffic calming task force that was made up of 25 citizens and transportation professionals. We began meeting in September of 1994, and we met through June of 1995 for a total of 15 meetings in over 30 hours of meeting times, but it equaled almost 600 man-hours that went into this program. We also began the development of this program by extensive research. We researched traffic calming in other communities in Florida and found that we are really on the cutting edge in Florida. There are very few communities in Florida that have adopted formal traffic calming programs. Some cities that have them are the City of Sarasota, Sarasota County, and Hillsborough County is in the process of developing one as well. We also looked to the United States to some of the top programs in the United States including Portland, Oregon; Seattle, Washington; Boulder, Colorado; and Montgomery County, Maryland. We went back to the beginning of traffic calming and found that it began in Australia and England in the 1970s due to the carnage that they were experiencing on their streets. We invited professionals to come and make presentations to the traffic calming task force to learn more about their successes and failures. And we also distributed questionnaires to learn a little bit more about the management of these programs, exactly what type of funding and managerial resources we would expect for this program. The program components include the goal, objectives, and policies, application requirements, the procedures, the techniques, and the application forms. This is the procedure as it was developed by the traffic calming task force, and wewll go through this in a little bit more detail by breaking it down into three different issues, the first being identifying the problem. This procedure establishes identifying the problem by the application submittal; whereas, the neighborhood representative would come to the staff and say we have some type of problem on our street and we would like some help with it. Then the resident is expected to go back to their neighborhood, collect over 50 percent of signatures on a petition form, fill out the necessary application, and then resubmit that to the staff. The staff will go through a preliminary analysis which will include traffic counts and speed counts among other neighborhood characteristics. We will then schedule the first neighborhood workshop. In the first neighborhood workshop, a traffic team is formed which will be made up of one to four citizens from that neighborhood and the staff. The next procedure will be developing the project. And developing the project is left up to that traffic team which again is made up of the residents and the staff. They will go through the process of developing different alternatives and then form the second neighborhood workshop where they will present their alternatives to the neighborhood, and the neighborhood will be expected to come up with a consensus of which project theywd like to support. We will then go into implementing the project where the staff will prepare the necessary documentation and report for the commission to review. With favorable action from the commission, staff will prepare the final designs and implement the project. We will then go through a period of testing and monitoring the project to make sure that it is meeting the objective of the neighborhood traffic team. Some of the techniques that are included in this program can be broken down into simply physical or psychological techniques. Physical techniques physically change the design of the street where psychological techniques merely change the feel of the street. Some examples of these are -- of the physical techniques include roundabouts. This one here is the first one in Florida, and it is in Gainesville, Florida, and it replaced a traffic signal. Some other physical techniques -- this is in Montgomery County, Maryland, mid-block pedestrian crosses, crossings which netdown the travel lane for the automobile, slows them down, and it also gives the pedestrian greater ease to cross the road. Speed humps are a popular technique that are being used in Hillsborough County and the City of Sarasota. Therews research going on at this time to see exactly what the length should be and how long that they can contain that slower speed for traffic. Netdowns at intersections controlling the entrance and egress of the neighborhood is also another physical traffic calming technique; chicanes which allow the motor vehicle to slow down by changing their direction while theywre traveling down the street; and the raised crosswalk. These physical techniques can also be accompanied by psychological techniques as seen here in this slide with the sign that says, "Motorists, we have people walking, children playing. We live on this street, so please drive appropriately." It sends that clear message. Also a change in surface pavement breaks up the segments of the street so it doesnwt appear to be such a long, straight shot. This also acts to get better behavior out of the motorist who will then be expected to yield to the pedestrian and give the pedestrian the right of way. Tunneling effects can be done horizontally by just simply restriping the roadway and also pigmenting it in some certain situations. This gives the bicyclist a space to be. And also, again, it narrows down the lane width so the automobile travels more slowly. The tunneling effect can also be done vertically with landscaping. So by vertically having this treatment, the tunneling effect, again, takes place, and the drivers will slow down. Those are some of the techniques, and today our recommendations for implementation of this program will be to adopt it by resolution, to provide the necessary staff resources to manage the program, to establish the appropriate funding levels to make improvements, and also to continue to support and enhance vehicle trip reduction efforts. That is the brief presentation of this program. Wewll be happy to answer any specific questions that you have on it now. We'll ask Mr. Perry to come back up and also explain any funding questions that you may have. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. Commissioner Constantine. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: A couple of questions. Miss Chapman, in the recommendations it says, "Ensure additional staff will be considered if needed for the successful management." Yet at the conclusion of your presentation you indicated, I think, that staff was wanted. MS. CHAPMAN: At this time until we get the program up and running, we don't know the complexity or the number of projects we'll be dealing with. So at this time at the start-up of the program the existing staff will manage the program, but if we experience a tremendous increase in these projects, then we will be back to the board and ask you to consider additional staff if it's needed at that time. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Okay. The level of funding in here you suggested is somewhere between fifty and seventy-five thousand dollars in the first year? MS. CHAPMAN: Yes. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: From where do we anticipate getting those funds? What source are we looking toward? MR. PERRY: We're looking at the transportation revenues. Each year the county includes in its capital improvement program funds for major reconstructions and different types of projects that are not necessarily capital improvements, traffic signals and the like. We're hoping that some of these types of improvements would actually take place instead of those more expensive improvements. A lot of them would be very inexpensive. Others would be perhaps at your discretion would be -- a little more expensive types of projects. What we're asking in -- in the resolution is that if you -- if you support the project, is give us direction to go back and work and give us a feel for the amount of money that you'd like to invest in the project at least the first year, and we'll put together a budget for you. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So for clarification purposes, the money is available there. It's a matter of prioritization, and you're suggesting this may be a good priority item? MR. PERRY: That's correct. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I just want to interrupt. We have a lot of background noise in the room, and all that's going to do is slow the meeting down for the day. So I ask you to keep your conversation to a minimum while we're trying to get other business done. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The final question I have is are we looking for any sort of pilot programs to begin this, or is it just -- I know you outlined the procedure a community or neighborhood would go through. It's just open to everyone and first come, first serve? MS. CHAPMAN: Exactly. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Okay. MR. PERRY: And they're already standing in line. We've made several presentations already to the President's Council and other groups have contacted us. There's a lot of interest in the community in trying to see if we can actually solve some of their problems. I might mention the City of Naples has had their first application, Central Avenue. They've had their first workshop and have had success in getting the community to come together to talk about the problems to try to resolve those, so we think it will work. COHHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: As part of that will there be any procedure to weigh -- I mean, if three or four projects all come in in a week's time, one is more clearly needed than a couple of the others, or is it strictly whenever you turn it in? MS. CHAPMAN: It's strictly right now first come, first serve. If we -- I think if we see some problems that are problems with the procedure, then we can ask the traffic calming task force to go back and look at that and see if we need to set up some sort of prioritizing criteria, but at this point it's strictly a first-come, first-serve basis. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you. MR. PERRY: Some of the projects will be more complicated than others and will require longer times to work through and to implement. Others may be quick fixes where we may be able to go out and solve the problem -- identify and solve it fairly quickly. So we would hope to have a number of projects in the pipeline at any one time, but they would not all be competing basically at the same time. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. Commissioner Norris. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Yes, Hiss Chapman, this is driven by the neighborhoods themselves. That's the way I understand it. The county commission is not going to come in and impose any plan on anybody's neighborhood, but the neighborhood is going to come to us with the request for the plan. MS. CHAPMAN: That's correct. If -- the neighborhood representative has to present to staff their problems as they see them. Then they have the responsibility of collecting over 50 percent of the signatures within the petition area that's identified. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: All right. So the neighborhood will bring this forward, not the county commission bringing it forward. MS. CHAPMAN: That's correct. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: And funding for a specific neighborhood will be accomplished how? MS. CHAPMAN: That's what we're just discussing with Mr. Perry, and you have those options. But right now we're looking at the funding from the transportation funds. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. Are we also looking at perhaps HSTU-type funding? MS. CHAPMAN: I'll let Mr. Perry address that. MR. PERRY: In certain instances where we find the problems being created in the neighborhood are really the neighborhood's problems, they're the fault of the neighbors themselves, for instance, speeding vehicles that might be the neighbors that live next to the -- next to you. In many cases things like that should probably be solved by the neighbors themselves at their expense. But in some cases where -- where -- where the problem is created by the general public, the cut-through traffic and the like, those types of things -- COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, I just want to make sure that we do have that sort of review process in our search for these -- these neighborhoods that are going to have a program that we do take that into account who -- where is the most appropriate funding source. MR. PERRY: I think that's going to be a case-by-case situation where each -- each one will be examined separately. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Thank you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Commissioner Hancock. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I know at least in North Naples we've got neighborhoods lining up waiting for this to move ahead, and I know we can expect an initial swell of applications, probably at least two or three the first week or two or three inquiries the first week, so my concern comes into the staffing aspect. I think initially you are going to find a very broad and hurried attempt to get in and get working. I would encourage you to muster your way through that and wait for it to level off before making any staffing requests, because I think initially we can expect a pretty big workload on this, but I am supportive of the plan. Naples Park, Pine Ridge, these are areas that experience cut-through traffic significantly, and I see this as a way to bring the community into that decision and to curtail some of it, so I am supportive. MR. PERRY: I would expect to be back here about nine months from now during your program priority budgeting process to determine whether or not -- to explain to you whether or not the program has worked and whether or not it should be funded again for the following year. I think that's a good opportunity to evaluate it each year whether or not it's -- it's serving its purpose. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Constantine. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: First, my compliments. I think we do have problems, as Commissioner Hancock mentioned, in neighborhoods; and that's throughout the county. And I think the fact that you all are taking a proactive attempt -- making a proactive attempt to correct that before it worsens or before it becomes unbearable in those places and adds to other communities should be complimented. I'll make a motion to approve the item with the three recommendations that we consider and ask Mr. Perry and his staff to work with a $50,000 capital budget and to return to us at some point, I assume as part of the process, what you foresee that being as the items come up. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I'll second that. MR. DORRILL: Hiss Matthews, you do have two speakers. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have two speakers? MR. DORRILL: Mr. Fernandez and then, Miss Barker, if I could have you stand by, please, ma'am. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Michael, your neighborhood was the first to be traffic calmed already, wasn't it? MR. FERNANDEZ: Yes, Commissioners. Michael Fernandez representing the River Reach single-family homeowners association as an owner. We came before you last January and, of course, one of the things that happened was that some of the remedial changes that we asked for our street were tabled until this program was underway. Two concerns that I have: One is that right now it would take us significant greater effort to go and get all these signatures. In our particular case we have the ability, because we're all one homeowner's association. We've already made the effort. We've come before you. We've come before staff. I would suggest that in the procedures that you make an amendment that when a homeowners' association covers the entire area that's being reviewed, that in lieu of a petition, that the homeowners' association can bring forth representation that they need this done as in the case that we did before. That will speed up the process, which looking at the procedures, my other concern is that in the procedures they're showing a time line of about 22 months. And it's a very staff-intensive process which, you know, I believe can be streamlined. And if nothing else, let's streamline that portion for the petitioning process which can be very difficult, because I learned in my own neighborhood petitioning for additional street trees. So I think that in -- in those cases where homeowners' association has a -- has governing powers over that district, that they should be able to come in through that process rather than doing it on a signature-by-signature basis. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Thank you. MR. FERNANDEZ: Thank you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Hiss Barker. MS. BARKER: Good morning, Commissioners. For the record my name is Sally Barker. I am a member of the traffic calming task force. And I'm sorry Mr. Fernandez was not on the task force. It was open to everyone who wanted to join, and some of these issues could have been resolved at the time. But all in all, I think it's a very good program. Primarily I'm here this morning -- I cannot speak for the entire task force, but I do speak for a lot of the task force in saying that we are very grateful and very thankful to the county for giving us the opportunity to put this program together. As citizens we are very quick to criticize the sins of omission and commission by our elected leaders and our government, and I've been known to do it once or twice myself. Unfortunately, we're not always so quick to tell you when you've done things right. And this is one of those instances when I think you've done things right. And I particularly want to thank Jeff Perry and Anita Chapman and Joe HcHarris for the tons and tons and tons of work they did on this program. They presented us with a foot-high stack of material to go through. They were patient in translating technical terms into plain English so we could understand them. And I think they went above and beyond the call of duty to make this program as user friendly as possible. And once again, thank you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you, and I'm sure we all thank Mr. Perry and Hiss Chapman. We have a motion and a second on the floor. Is there further discussion? All those in favor, please say aye. Opposed? There being none, motion passes five to zero. Thank you, Mr. Perry and Hiss Chapman, for doing what appears to be an excellent job. Item #8A2 CP-95-3 RE PETITION CP-95-4, REVEREND JOSEPH SPINELLI OF ST. ELIZABETH SETON CATHOLIC CHURCH, REQUESTING A PERMIT TO CONDUCT A CARNIVAL FROM NOVEMBER 8 THROUGH NOVEMBER 12, 1995 AT 5325 28TH AVE. S.W. GOLDEN GATE - APPROVED Next item on the agenda, 8(A)(2), petition C-95-4. Joseph Spinelli. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I make a motion to approve. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I second the motion. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second to approve the item, which is a permit to conduct a carnival from November the 8th through November the 12th at 5325 -- what road is that -- 285th Avenue -- 28th Avenue Southwest, Golden Gate. If there's no further discussion, all in favor, please say aye. Opposed? There being none, motion passes five to zero. Item #8A3 RE-ENGINEERING OF THE WESTERN HALF OF THE DEVELOPHENT SERVICES BUILDING AUTHORIZED SUBJECT TO REVIEW OF THE PROJECT REGARDING AIRPORT AUTHORITY FUNDS Next item on the agenda is a recommendation the Board of County Commissioners authorize reengineering of the western half of development services building. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Madam Chairman, I'm going to move approval on this item. It's simply following up with the board's direction -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- during the budget hearings. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second -- MR. DORRILL: We have one speaker. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: -- to approve the item. We have a speaker before I call the question. MR. DORRILL: Mr. Drury is here at the request of the airport authority board. I'm looking for him. Here he comes. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: An important note for those who don't have the executive summary in front of them, this is saving -- how much is it? $108,000 annually or something. MR. DORRILL: Ten thousand a month. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Ten thousand a month. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: That's 120,000 then. MR. DRURY: For the record, John Drury, executive director of the Collier County Airport Authority. This item calls for the airport authority to expend $10,000 to participate in the redevelopment of the building, and we were not made aware of that until yesterday. And basically it calls for a budget amendment to come out of our reserves to participate in the department of revenue's needs. And in our case, as you know, we are very conscious of all of our expenditures, because we are going to be paying all of our expenditures back plus interest. And the airport authority had concern that this is a budget amendment not of our request, but basically coming out of our funding. And we needed to take objection to participating with that kind of a cost. With that I can answer any questions. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Constantine. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm a little disturbed that one of our departments is being charged and wasn't aware of it until 24 hours before this came up. Excluding capital costs, excluding the projects we're working on, how much is the annual budget for the airport authority right now? MR. DRURY: About at $700,000. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Okay. So this is a fairly substantial chunk to just pull out of thin air unexpectedly. MR. DRURY: It's coming out of our reserves, and we just -- for us it's an expense that we will carry, and we will pay back. We -- we're -- we're like tenants in the development services building. We pay about $4,500 a year. We budget for that. We lease about 250 square feet of office space, and we're just being asked to re -- move for the department of revenue and -- and then pay $10,000. We just weren't -- had budgeted for, and that's -- from our perspective, we just need to make you aware that -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Dorrill, is there a rationale for this, or is there an alternative? MR. DORRILL: Two different issues. I'd be happy to look at what their pro rata share of the cost is. If we did not adequately bring this to their attention -- we didn't have a cost in order to present to you for your final budget hearing, and rather than make up costs, we thought we would wait until we had final costs from the contractor. If we need to relook at the airport authority's costs, that's fine. The separate issue, though, is one a little more important. Everyone in that building pays not rent, but they pay allocated costs. And everyone in the county pays allocated costs to pay for the light and utility bills, the insurance, and the custodial costs. That's a separate item. If those have not been budgeted for in the airport authority's budget, they need to be. My impression is that they're the smallest tenant over there, and we'd be happy to take a look at that. Otherwise we're recommending approval. MR. DRURY: And we do budget every year the 4,500 to pay for our two offices. We just weren't ready for this $10,000 renovation program. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, it sounds like a review is in order. And, Mr. Dotrill, you've agreed to perform that review? MR. DORRILL: Yup. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: With that in mind I'll make a motion to approve the item subject to the review of the airport authority and perhaps reporting back to us before any final action is taken. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: COMHISSIONER NORRIS: floor? COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Second. We have a motion and a second to Don't we have two motions on the Yeah, we do. I'll withdraw. What the heck. Withdraw the second on the first motion -- or I'll withdraw the motion. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And I'll withdraw the second on the first motion. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Now we have a clear table. Do we have a motion? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll make a motion we approve the item subject to the review of the airport authority's portion of that and request that Mr. Dorrill return to us with some sort of solution to the airport authority's dilemma. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second. MR. DORRILL: Is it -- is it necessary for me to have to bring this back to the board after -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just as an information item. MR. DORRILL: Okay. But otherwise we can proceed and sign the contract to do the renovation or the demolition in the balance of the building? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: As long as you're not charging the airport authority $10,000 to do it. MR. DORRILL: We'll proceed with the other tenants, and then if Mr. Price has a problem that I can't solve, then -- or as a result of my conversation with him, then I'll be happy to come back to you. COHHISSIONER HAC'KIE: Perfect. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Good. Okay. We have a motion and a second to approve the item pending a review of the project as it affects the airport authority. All those in favor, please say aye. Opposed? There being none, motion passes five to zero. Item #SB1 RESOLUTION 95-609 AND RESOLUTION CWS-95-8 APPROVING PRELIHINARY PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS AND ESTIMATE OF COSTS OF THE PROPOSED SANITARY SEWER SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS IN THE ROYAL COVE SEWER SPECIAL ASSESSMENT DISTRICT; TENTATIVE APPORTIONMENT OF SUCH ESTIMATED COSTS AMONTH THE PARCELS OF PROPERTY TO BE ASSESSED; FIXING THE DATE, TIME AND PLACE FOR PUBLIC HEARING ON THE CONFIRMATION OF THE DISTRICT'S RESOLUTION 95-583 INITIATING THE PROGRAM FOR THE ROYAL COVE SEWER SPECIAL ASSESSMENT; ORDERING THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE ASSESSABLE IMPROVEMENTS; AND PROVIDING FOR MAILING AND PUBLISHING NOTICE OF SUCH PUBLIC HEARING - ADOPTED Next item on the agenda is public works, 8(B)(1), approval of a resolution approving preliminary plans, Royal Cove. MR. CONRECODE: Commissioners, for the record, Tom Conrecode from your public works division. And the item before you is the next step in a multistep process in establishing an assessment district. And it would be -- it would require the board to approve a resolution today that approves the preliminary plan specs and estimated costs for the proposed sanitary system improvements that are occurring as a result of the abandonment of the current system in Royal Cove. A tentative portion -- apportionment of such estimated costs among the parcels of the properties to be assessed is submitted by the district's engineer for the project. And the resolution also fixes the date, time, and place for the public hearing for the confirmations of the district resolution. It initiates a program for the Royal Cove sewer special assessments and orders the construction of the assessment improvements providing for the mailing and publishing of notices for such public hearing. The process started on October 10th, and the board approved the resolution initiating the establishment of the sewer special assessment district for Royal Cove and Royal Cove unit 2. And at that point the board received the preliminary engineering report from Agnoli, Barber, and Brundage. In order to proceed, staff is requesting the board to adopt the resolution regarding the above-written items subject to any questions. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hancock. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Conrecode, we have moved ahead at each step out of necessity on this matter, but the prevailing question has always been the folks in phase one that this line has to go through, the required hookup of them, and at what time it would be required and what mechanism would be available for them to do so when their septic system fails or the house is sold. I -- we continue to move ahead, and I continue hearing that we will work on those questions, and I'm just looking for some definitive answers at some point before we get too -- so far down this process we've expended too many dollars to turn back. So whether it be Mr. Weigel or Mr. Conrecode's answer, I'm looking for some level of comfort that the folks in Royal Cove are going to have options here as opposed to being forced to hook up when the line is in place. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Weigel and I discussed that yesterday, and he still has, I think, some research to do. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. MR. WEIGEL: If I were to give a definitive answer today, it would err on the side of caution and say that, no, that there would not be an ability to provide a variation in the -- in the requirement to hook up once the facilities or infrastructure is close to the premises of the -- of the subject properties, whether they have septic tanks on their premises or not. We continue to look to see if we can avoid the legal issues that -- that would appear to exist if we attempt to make that distinction. At this point if the board does not approve this resolution from a timing standpoint, the staff and -- and the project can't go forward, and we are not permitted to assess anyone at all with the matter before you today. But it's a difficult issue, and we're striving to see if we can resolve it favorably to all of the parties, those with septic tanks and those with not, so that the timing works best. But we do have some credit and finance issues that are very difficult to -- to give you the comfort that I want to with the response saying that we can do it. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Essentially what I read in this today is that we're -- we're initiating the program and ordering the construction of the -- of the improvements and providing for the mailing and publishing of a notice of public hearing. So it appears that all we're doing is letting the bids to find out what it's going to cost; is that correct? MR. CONRECODE: The most important element of this is you giving us direction to proceed with that process as well as noticing the public hearing, which would be held in November. That's mainly what we're asking for today. If I could elaborate on what David was saying a minute ago, currently the board requires connection within 90 days of the line passing in front of the home. We are looking at an alternative, because Royal Cove is a relatively low-income area. At an alternative of taking just the Royal Cove Two portion and going with a pump station and allying down the FP&L easement as opposed to going the 41 connection, we would connect to the pump station in Imperial Golf Estates. It may be a lower-cost option for those in phase two. At the time phase one would come on line, we could then run a gravity line serving phase one, which would feed into the pump station and transmit the rest of that. So we're looking at some of those options. By the time we have the public hearing in a month, five weeks, we can come back to you with more specific items. The problem there may be in getting FP&L to allow us to run a pipeline within their easements. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Constantine. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I share Commissioner Hancock's concern that we go too far with those unknowns. Like him, I have heard several times -- and I appreciate where you're trying to go, and I appreciate how difficult a situation this is. But I've heard -- we've heard this maybe four or five times now, and each time while we're looking at those options -- we should have those questions answered soon -- we -- and we don't. I just hesitate to move forward because there -- yes, we have the option if we get bids back to turn those down, but there's some level of commitment and I think some level of expectation we create by moving to that next phase. And it is much harder. We certainly have the authority to, but it becomes much harder to turn back at that point. So I think I would feel more comfortable if we knew some of those answers with some definitiveness. MR. CONRECODE: Okay. I would be -- I would stand here today and make you that promise that I will have those answers and will provide them weeks in advance of the public hearing, which is when you would actually take your next step and approving tentative assessments up there. We need to have those final numbers before you can do that tentative assessment anyway. This whole Royal Cove drainage issue, as you're aware, is as a result of the abandonment of that pump station or that small package plant up there, and we're kind of in a jam in both directions. He has approval to shut that thing down next month, so -- COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: How long will it take you to get that information? MR. CONRECODE: Probably two to three weeks. The big holdup is going to be getting approval from FP&L to run a line within their easement. And dealing with their attorneys is never a quick process. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm somewhat comforted in that this is something we have not heard until today. So it appears that Mr. Conrecode is looking for plan B, so to speak, if we can't get around the assessment issue through Royal Cove One, that there may be another option. If we move ahead on this today, letting it go out to bid, and that option does not become available, have we expended efforts that are significant by the time this board has the opportunity to hear this item again? MR. CONRECODE: Only staff effort and not -- not a significant staff effort. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. So not a tremendous amount of time on staff's part for this to the next step. And how far away is that next step that this board would heard an item on? MR. CONRECODE: That would be November -- I think it's November 28th in the resolution. November 28th at 9 a.m. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Can we -- MR. CONRECODE: And I could get you something two weeks in advance of that meeting. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: I was just wondering if we could get an interim report to find out where we are on some of these items so that we could -- you know, if there is different direction, that we could issue it then as opposed to waiting five weeks. What I would like to do is, I don't want to -- I understand because of -- of the situation of that plant being shut down, that we need to continue moving in a direction. We're almost bound to. But what I would like to do is I would like to approve staff recommendation with a stipulation that we receive a report three weeks from today on the items we've discussed and ask that that report be rather definitive in nature so we know what options do or do not exist. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Is that a motion? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: That is a motion. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll second that. My concern, again, is I don't want us to create some sort of expectation either amongst the board and staff or, more importantly, amongst the people who live there but realizing a sensitivity of the shutdown of a little sewer station there, we could be in a heap of trouble. MR. CONRECODE: Well, and on the other side of that, we have major concerns of the fact that the assessment is going to be more than the value of the home on some of those properties up there. So that's a serious concern that we have in realistically providing them sewer service. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'll say. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hac'Kie, did you still have a question? COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No, they've addressed them. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second to give direction, I guess, to adopt the resolution; is that correct? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Correct, with the stipulation that we receive a report -- MR. CONRECODE: In three weeks. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Within three weeks. MR. CONRECODE: Yes. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: All those in favor, please say aye. Opposed? Motion passes five to zero. I guess we'll see you in three weeks then. MR. CONRECODE: Thank you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Conrecode. Item #883 REVISED CONSEPTUAL APPROVAL AGREEHENT WITH FLORIDA COHMUNITIES TRUST - APPROVED Next item has been delayed. That's the Bathey item. Next is 8(B)(3) dealing with the Florida Communities Trust. MR. GONZALEZ: Good morning, Commissioners, Adolfo Gonzalez with your office of capital projects management. In August of this year, you approved the conceptual approval of the agreement with Florida Communities Trust to acquire through a matching grant up to $388,000 worth of land to meet some of our mitigation needs for transportation projects. The revised approval agreement that you have before you today is to acknowledge that we, Collier County, already had done some negotiations with property owners for three out of the four parcels. And the Florida Communities Trust is acknowledging that we can follow our policies and procedures for the first three parcels, and we will follow their policies and procedures for the last, the fourth parcel. Staff's recommendation is that you approve the revised agreement as submitted to you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Questions? Is there a motion? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Motion to approve. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second to approve the item. All those in favor, please say aye. Opposed? There being none, motion passes five to zero. Item #8C1 ANNUAL AGREEMENT WITH THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES (HRS), COLLIER COUNTY PUBLIC HEALTH UNIT (CCPHU); AND LEASE AGREEMENT FOR USE OF COUNTY OFFICE SPACE BY THE CCPHU AND STAFF DIRECTED TO NEGOTIATE A SEPARATE AGREEMENT REGARDING THE USE OF COUNTY VEHICLES BY THE CCPHU - APPROVED Next item is 8(C)(1). This is the recommendation -- COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Excuse me. We had another add-on item, number 4, wasn't it, 8(B) (4), the huntoon (phonetic) roof? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I thought that was 8 (C) (4) -- 8 (C) (3). COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Oh, okay. Sorry. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: 8(C)(1) is recommendation of Board of County Commissioners to approve the annual agreement -- do we have a request to hear this as close to noon as possible? MR. WEIGEL: No. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Or just in the morning? MR. WEIGEL: That's right. They're ready if you're ready. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: They're here? Okay. Let's move on with it. Mr. Olliff. MR. OLLIFF: Yes, ma'am, good morning. For the record, Tom Olliff, your public services administer. This item originally was designed to ask for three specific and separate items. One was the approval of the annual agreement with the Collier County public health unit. The second was the approval of a lease agreement for the office and clinical space that the public health unit uses in building -- it's not building H anymore. It's the health and community services building. And the last was direction and negotiate by separate agreement the use of county vehicles by the public health unit staff. Unfortunately, there are still some outstanding issues with regard to the lease. We're asking that that item be continued off of this particular item, and we'll bring that back hopefully at your next meeting. In regards to the contract, the easiest way to outline the contract is simply to move to the fiscal impact statement of the executive summary in terms of cash from the county, the actual contract request is a request for $1,094,000 in cash from the county. $875,000 of that cash is for direct service provisions. $219,600 is actually a pass-through type account where the health department is required to pay, as we saw with the airport authority, its fair share of utilities, janitorial services, and other expenses associated with the building and insurances. In terms of the agreement, the last year we -- we spent a great deal of time discussing liability, indemnification, and those issues. And just so the board is aware, the language that was agreed to last year is included in this year's contract as well. The three issues that I need to discuss with you regarding this contract are -- are, again, the trust fund issue, which is part of this agreement and as outlined in the executive summary; the health department by contract -- according to this contract, will continue to keep unexpended funds provided by the county from last year's contract. Unlike other contracts which we generally return those monies to the general fund, the health department is allowed to maintain those and can use those at their discretion. The amount of what would be carryforward money in this particular case is about $199,000 of county funds. The second issue is -- is the vehicle issue, and this is a new issue for you to consider. The health department has for years used county vehicles primarily just out of necessity. Actually, I was the county's fleet management director at the time when we made this transition. The vehicles that were currently being used through the state system were, frankly, inadequate for the use of the health department staff. They requested; we approved use of county vehicles which they pay for like any other county department. However, we do not have an agreement that covers that use. And it's been recommended that we have an agreement. I support that recommendation, and we're only looking for direction this morning that you -- you tell us to actually go negotiate that agreement with the health department and bring that back to you. The last issue is -- is a subcontracts issue. And under their current agreement, the health department is allowed to subcontract for any and all of the services that they provide. Unfortunately, as the agreement is currently structured, it would have to amount to more than 10 percent of their current contract for you to have any review or approval of the subcontract. And there are currently some subcontracts where it's been determined that there is a certain amount of risk and/or liability associated with those subcontracts to the county because they're provided in county space using county equipment. There is a current move to subcontract the largest portion of the clinical service that the health department is providing. And that has some very specific liability related issues to it. And there are two ways that we can handle subcontracts. Either you can approve each and every subcontract that the health department has -- and they're not recommending that and neither are we, because there are a number of minor subcontracts that you, frankly, don't need to see. But there are those subcontracts that either you need to see or we need to develop some standardized language that would be liability insurance-type protection language for all those subcontracts for the county. What we're asking this morning is that you approve this agreement subject to the development of that language and inclusion of that in the contract. And I think Roger agrees to that. We've got a draft language, but I don't think that we've had an opportunity to actually agree to that language. I think we can come to an agreement of that. And if you'll approve this contract subject to that language being developed and incorporated as part of the agreement, that's what would be recommended. With that, I think Roger's here to answer any questions that you might have, and I'm available to answer questions as well on this annual agreement. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Questions? Are there speakers, Mr. McNees? MR. McNEES: No, ma'am. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I didn't think there were. Commissioner Constantine. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just a quick question, if you can help me clarify something. You mentioned early on the indemnification language that we had included last year is included again now. Then you went on to talk about the subcontracts that go out and the liability that the county may be responsible for. Where is the line drawn there? What's the difference? Why aren't we indemnified there? MR. OLLIFF: The language that was developed last year was specifically for services provided by the public health unit as an agency unto themselves. When they subcontract -- and I will tell you that they are working on an agreement with Collier Health Services, Incorporated, to come in and provide all of their prenatal, maternal, and child health services through the clinic. That language would not cover any subcontracted entity. MR. EVANS: Commissioners, Roger Evans with the public health unit. There are several vehicles which can be utilized to cover the liability issues, one of which, of course, is the discussion of the additional element, attachment, additional component of an agreement that Mr. Olliff is discussing. The other is what will be generated and is -- is currently being drafted in -- in the form of a lease agreement for the use of portions of building H within the content of the lease agreement that would be generated between the Board of County Commissioners and Collier Health Services -- can be included language with respect to liability and responsibilities associated with that. So what's being discussed is a broad issue with regard to any -- any types of services agreements that we might have to put together in order to assure that services are being provided to the community. The major issue with regard to the CHSI service delivery, the liabilities associated with that would be covered hopefully adequately to the board's commission agreement with regard to the -- to the lease agreement. MR. OLLIFF: Commissioner, in its simplest terms we have an agreement with them where they are protecting us. But when they subcontract, their agreement has nothing to do with Collier County. So it's an agreement between the state and some other agency, whoever that is, and they don't reference Collier County at all in their agreements. And we just need to make sure that when they do subcontract, that they do include that language. MR. EVANS: And we're agreeable to work with Tom and staff to make sure that a document is prepared that can either be connected to any service agreement that we create with appropriate language to protect all entities involved. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Weigel, I don't need to know the hows, but I need a simple yes or no. You're comfortable that we can cover the liability issue in this type of agreement? MR. WEIGEL: I think we can. Yeah, I'm comfortable. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: motion? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: recommendation. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Any other questions? Is there a Hove approval of staff's Second. A motion and a second to accept staff's recommendation. I presume that's all of them? COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yes, ma'am. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: If there's no further discussion, all those in further please say aye. Opposed? There being none, motion passes five to zero. Thank you, Mr. Olliff. Item #8C2 RECOMMENDATION THAT THE BCC RESPOND TO THE FLORIDA ASSOCIATION OF COUNTIES' REQUEST TO OPPOSE THE STATE HEALTH CARE COMMITTEE'S PROPOSAL THAT COUNTY'S ADMINISTRATE MEDICAID BLOCK GRANTS - APPROVED Next item on the agenda is 8(C)(2). This is the FAC's request to oppose the state health care plan. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: While -- while Miss Skinner's coming up, we can probably boil this down to a pretty simple question. In essence, this shift would cause an additional tax burden on Collier County, the administration of a program that currently occurs at the state level. Is that about what we're talking about? MS. SKINNER: Significantly. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: And this is going to occur in all counties throughout the state, and now we're being asked by FAC to support a countywide position or statewide position of counties that we don't want to bear the burden of the cost of administering this program and, in essence, it becomes an unfunded mandate? MS. SKINNER: If they proper -- if they go through with it. It's -- it's to administra -- take over the administration of Medicaid program. That goes off in every direction. The questions that I had were the ones I supplied to you at the back of the packet here, and I don't know the answer. I have no idea what it will cost the counties. I think the reason is that the state is anticipating a shortfall of funds when congress hands down the Medicaid block grants. And the easiest thing, I guess, to do would be to get counties involved. And FAC is opposed. They say many, many of our small - to middle-sized counties could not handle these kind of programs at all. There are one or two of the large counties in the state that would like to give it a try, but they're set up for this. And I would like very much for you all to go on record by sending a letter to the parties that I've requested you to in opposition, if -- if you will. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Constantine. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Hancock's comments and mine -- obviously we will likely agree to such a letter, a resolution. However, we also just received a summary this morning. I haven't had a chance to read it all -- MS. SKINNER: I received it last week -- COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Could you close that door, please? It's hard to hear. MS. SKINNER: -- and it was a rush-time item, and I regret that, but I didn't have enough time to get it to you -- COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I was just going to ask you if you could give me like a 60-second-or-less synopsis of the specifics of what they will be asking the county to do beginning -- MS. SKINNER: Okay. In your packet -- COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- with Commissioner Hancock's explanation, I think -- MS. SKINNER: In your packet page number 5 is the proposal as it is written now. The house health care committee has put this proposal together, their chairman, Ben Graber (phonetic) from Broward County, I understand. And the second -- they -- each county will enter into contract with the state to receive the county's block grant money. And participation by each county is anticipated. The state will establish the minimum eligibility levels. Of course, the counties can adopt higher levels if we want to pay for it. Eligibility determination will be done by the county and monitored by the state. So, of course, that would be -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I don't have any problems in doing that. MS. SKINNER: We would have to do that. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: In essence, the state is going to cut its administrative costs by passing it on to the counties, in essence, and then we have to create the structure to administer the program, which is, in essence, in my opinion, an unfunded mandate. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Hancock, would you like to make a motion? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I make a motion that we authorize the chairman to sign a letter supporting the FAC position in opposition to the Hedicaid block grant state transfer to the counties. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: A motion and a -- and a second. I don't want to delay this, but it seems to me I see a little bit of arm twisting here that if we don't agree to what they want, we don't get the money, which we're automatically getting now. MS. SKINNER: I see that too, but I think this is going to be developing. Their initial meeting with the house is the 31st of October, and FAC is going in opposing. And they would like county backup to their position. And I think this is just a start that -- of something we really need to take care with and be advised and know what's going on. And, of course, as it develops, I'll certainly let you know. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. We have a motion and a second to support the chairman signing the letter in opposition to the state's proposed Hedicare block grants. All those in favor, please say aye. Opposed? There being none, motion passes five to zero. Perhaps Commissioner Hancock might want to argue that issue in Tallahassee next week. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: We certainly will. And thank you, Hiss Skinner, for your work on this. MS. SKINNER: Thank you. Item #8C3 BUDGET AMENDHENT FOR $5,500 TO REPLACE THE ROOF AT THE HUSEUH'S HUNTOON GALLERY - APPROVED CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Next item on the agenda is item 8(C)(3). This deals with the roof on the Huntoon Gallery. Commissioner Constantine. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I had removed this from the consent agenda. I certainly do not object to our participating, but I wanted to make sure -- I know -- I think all of you received a copy of a letter from CBIA this week. I had asked them maybe even a year ago, a long time ago, if they would help out with this, and they had agreed. My concern is with some of the numbers here. We're being asked for a budget amendment of $5,500. On -- the removal of the asbestos shingles will cost 4,000, an additional new roof, it says 3,000, and a thousand for interior ceiling. Estimated cost of putting the roof on from CBIA is about twenty-seven fifty as opposed to the three thousand which they have indicated, A. It's less but, B, they've indicated they're willing to cover. And then I was under the impression -- I may be mistaken -- that the museum folks were going to -- were either in the process of starting some preliminary work or were going to do the work on the interior ceiling as -- as the roof was completed. It's only $1,500, but $1,500 is $1,500. And if there is a differential between 4,000 and 5,500, I wanted to make sure we clarified that. MR. OLLIFF: The only -- the only issue here is actually we had put together this executive summary prior to getting the actual hard number from CBIA as what their actual contribution would be. We've asked for $5,500. Because of CBIA's contribution, it looks like we may be spending a little closer to 1,500 as opposed to 5,500. We would ask that you go ahead and approve this only because with asbestos removal and destruction of it according to federal law, it's a difficult issue. And we've gotten some very wild estimates from one end to the other in terms of how much that will actually cost, but we don't anticipate spending anywhere near the amount because of the CBIA participation there, and all the rest of the money we would return by budget amendment back to the general fund reserve. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The -- two other items. One, CBIA will keep this offer good through December 20th, 1995. We can stay on that schedule so we can take advantage of that? MR. OLLIFF: If we don't by then, we're not going to have a roof there. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And just a comment, I certainly support, and I will make a motion to approve it, but a little bit disappointed in that when the gallery was brought over, we were -- we were assured it would not cost one dollar to take care of it. Now, I know they did not anticipate the problem with the asbestos on the roof. But I'm a little disappointed that we ended up having to expend funds on that when we were promised we would not have to. But, nonetheless, I will make the motion that we approve the item and take full advantage of CBIA's offer to assist us in that. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I call for a second. MR. HcNEES: You have one registered speaker, Doug Nelson. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Nelson. MR. NELSON: Hi, Doug Nelson, president of CBIA. I don't want to really cloud the issue, because as I understand it, the executive summary just went in to obtain funds to fix the roof. CBIA's offer from the very beginning was to assist in putting a new roof in. We've obtained a donation of roofing materials, and we will work with our subcontractors to obtain donation of labor. We have additionally allocated funds within our own budget to step forward if we can't get our own people to step up to bat. The real issue that wasn't there beginning, which makes it kind of look silly, was the issue of the asbestos and actually how to deal with that. When this first came up a year ago, there was a large sentiment that this type of asbestos was not a big deal, and it was just taken care of, and nobody knew about it. Today the world has changed. Like with a lot of things, it's big dollars to get rid of the asbestos. So what we're trying to do is if the county working with their resources -- and we'll assist them -- can get rid of the asbestos, we will then step up to bat and do everything we possibly can to get that roof on at the least cost to the taxpayers. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll amend my motion also to commend CBIA, because they don't have a darn thing to do with this except just being good neighbors and helping out the county so -- MR. NELSON: Appreciate that. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- we appreciate that. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Norris, do you have a second? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Yes, I did. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. We have a motion and a second to approve the item. And to thank CBIA for its aid in the project. Any further discussion? All in favor, please say aye. Opposed? There being none, motion passes five to zero. Thank you, Mr. Olliff. Item #BE1 NET PRESENT VALUE SAVINGS TARGET REVISED FROH 8e TO 7e FOR THE REFUNDING OF THE COUNTY'S GENERAL OBLIGATION REFUNDING BONDS, SERIES 1986 - APPROVED Next item on the agenda is 8(E)(1), recommendation to revise the net present value of savings target from 8 to 7. MR. HcNEES: Good morning, Madam Chairman. I am Mike HcNees representing the county manager's office. This is a relatively straightforward item. 1994 you authorized the advance refunding of series 1986 general obligation revenue bonds. And the finance committee at that time recommended to you that we hold out for a target net present value savings of 8 percent. We have not been able to reach that target. In fact, we considered at one point changing that recommendation and decided that given the size of this issue, it would be appropriate to hold out for interest rates to come down to a point where we could actually maintain the 8 percent. The situation has changed somewhat, and there are two factors that we want to iljustrate for you. One is that we just don't think we will get the 8 percent, at least not anytime soon. That doesn't necessarily change. We thought that was a good target, but the other factor here is those bonds have now become callable so that on top of the unlikelihood of getting 8 percent, if we wait a year and get 8 percent, we will make less money on the refunding given the shrinking pool then we would make today if we go with a near certain 7 percent funding. In other words, a bird in the hand today is worth more than three-fourths of a bird in the bush a year from now is essentially what it comes down to. And we would recommend to you that we take advantage of what is approximately a $335,000 savings if we go with 7 percent target today as opposed to waiting until some future uncertain date when we might get 8 percent and still make less money at -- at a future date. So I will be happy to answer any questions. Mr. Ziev is here representing Raymond James, your financial advisor, also to answer any questions on this issue if you have any. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hancock. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Two quick questions. Mr. McNees, are we fairly sure that it's 7 percent, this refinancing will go? MR. McNEES: Yes. And I'll let Mr. Ziev speak to the marketing conditions if you'd like to. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. My second question, probably more appropriate for Mr. Ziev, is I assume what we see is a fairly stagnant market in the foreseeable future on these types of bonds, and that's why we're here today talking about 7 percent instead of 8. MR. ZIEV: Yeah, I believe the general thought is that rates are going to stay pretty much the same. They may trend downward a little bit. But as part of our analysis to the finance committee to you, we determined how far interest rates had to go in order to get to 8 percent, 8 percent savings. And it was basically a drop of almost a half a percentage point in interest rates, and I don't think the general consensus is that it's going to be that big of a drop in the near term. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Questions? Motion? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm going to make a motion to approve staff recommendation to revise net present savings value target from 8 percent to 7 percent for funding the county's general obligation refunding bond series 1986. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I'm going to second that. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second to approve staff recommendation on item 8(E)(1). Any further discussion? All in favor, please say aye. Opposed? Motion passes five to zero. Item #8E2 DISCUSSION REGARDING COLLIER COUNTY UTILITIES RATE AUTHORITY; IMPLEMENTATION PROCEDURES - REPORT TO BE PRESENTED ON 11/14/95 Next item on the agenda is a discussion regarding Collier County utilities rate authority implementation procedures. Mr. Weigel, is that you? MR. WEIGEL: Well, in part. The board directed the county staff and the county attorney office to come back to the board at an advertised -- for an advertised public hearing or an advertised date to discuss both the logical and procedural office type of considerations that would be necessary if the county were to take back, once again, utility jurisdiction, including rate making and all the other functions. And also the board was looking from the -- from the legal side to be apprised of what needs to be done to actually accomplish that task of -- of jurisdiction coming back to the county. And so although today -- today's agenda was a date that came up as a potential interim informational fill-in date, you do not have before you the formal report from the manager's office, nor do you have advertised resolution or ordinance from the county attorney office, although on behalf of -- of the legal side of the question, we provided the informational and legal and technical memo that we provided the board in mid-September. Once again, important to note that different utilities have different -- in Collier County are under particular jurisdictional requirements based upon public service commission proceedings and Chapter 367 of the Florida Statutes. Again, that's -- it's just a restatement of what you had learned and the public had learned from the previous meeting. All the -- all that the county attorney office would have to do is adopt a resolution which supersedes and rescinds the previous 1985 resolution that states that the county is exercising its legal prerogative to take back jurisdiction. Beyond that, however, is the requirement to make it work, is that once you have the -- the authority and the responsibility, there must be the mechanisms in place to make it work, which would be an ordinance that would create or recognize the appropriate rate making review authority and setting authority. Prior to 1985 we had an ordinance in place with an entity called CCURB. CCURB is the acronym, and it was the Collier County utility ratemaking board, and it was an especially-appointed created by ordinance board that purported to do all of the responsibilities, including ratemaking and rate review, that would be contemplated if we were to take back jurisdiction at this time. The county attorney office, based upon the information that would ultimately come forward and be directed by -- come forward to the board and be directed from the board to the county attorney, we can create an ordinance that provides for in-house expertise or expertise outside of the -- outside of county staff. But -- but we need that information before we could, I think, effectively draft such an ordinance that would be advertised and brought back to the board for consideration. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Constantine. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We in the Golden Gate community and I know more recently particularly on Marco Island have been anxiously awaiting 1995 to come around where we had this option. Under the current scenario with the Public Service Commission, water rates in Golden Gate are up over a hundred percent over the last five years. Sewer is up at half of that. If you combine those, and if you're paying a water and sewer bill every month, it's almost 80 percent higher than you were paying five years ago. We've had three rate hikes in that period of time. I know Marco has experienced a couple of very, very big spikes. And I think -- I thought the board had sent a fairly aggressive message that we want to move with this. And, Mr. HcNees, maybe you can help me out with why the manager's office is still doing whatever it is they're doing. But -- and where we are in that. Hopefully that would unfold fairly rapidly. MR. HcNEES: Well, I guess the why would be we want to bring to you fully developed costs, because the last thing that we want to see happen is you undertake this and then find out that the costs for the petitioners to bring the petitions forward to your rate regulation board or to you, whichever you decide to do, ends up costing more than it would have cost to either do the same thing with the PSC or to do, you know, some other process. So we recently received, I would call -- I won't call it pages, but a few inches of documentation that the attorney's office gathered from another county that does the similar effort. And it's just -- we don't want to give you a quick answer; we want to give you a good answer. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I guess if we're not going to have a final answer today -- we've got a long agenda. We probably don't want to spend a lot of time. I'd like to have a target date where we can do this, because I'd like to -- assuming that it makes sense, I would like to move forward with it fairly rapidly and make sure that -- we have just completed in both Golden Gate and Marco two rate increases. I think yours is still in the review process -- COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Yeah. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- but I don't want to wait a year down the road where they'll be filing for another increase at some point. So if -- do we have some time frame of which we can expect a report on this? MR. McNEES: We can be prepared by the end of November. We have some advertising time, so I think that would be about as quickly as -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Why do we need to advertise this? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah, if we're not taking specific action that day, I mean, we don't need advertising time for a report. Obviously I'd love to be taking some action at the end of November, but is there any way to get any information prior to that? MR. HcNEES: If that's necessary. I guess what I'm saying is we could be prepared for the public hearing and have all the information to you. That way we don't have to come back twice. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Right. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Is it possible that we can go ahead and advertise the public hearing for the end of November, but, again get some interim information along the way so that we're not having to digest all of this at one time? MR. HcNEES: Yes, ma'am. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I think you're going to put 18,000 people in Golden Gate and how many in -- on Marco at ease as we move forward with this. MR. HcNEES: Okay. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: About the same number. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Weigel. MR. WEIGEL: Madam Chairman, in regard to an advertised public hearing, there is obviously statutorily required lead time where an ordinance is drafted; and it must be on file with the clerk, the board office, and the county attorney office. We always have those available for the public ahead of time. It may be that we still have a two-step process before us in the sense that the manager's office, again, working with the county attorney may come forward with some alternatives in regard to whether -- and the board may have the opportunity to make choices as to whether to use, as an example, the in-house expertise or outside counsel or outside rate making board expertise. And if -- if this is to be the end-all, be-all hearing, a definitive hearing on this, the county attorney office will have to make a determination early as to which way it's going to be, and the ordinance will be drafted and advertised accordingly. So it may be that the -- the informational meeting might be separated from the ordinance creation meeting whereby you could give us direction, and we could immediately at that point go out and craft and advertise the ordinance to follow what you determine having the benefit of the information before you that will -- that will come to you at that date in November. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What I want to avoid is having this the last week in November and then start advertising and end up in January or February by the time we actually get around to having the public hearing. MR. WEIGEL: Yeah. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Can we have that informational meeting like November 14th, three weeks? MR. McNEES: Yes. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yes. And it will be a good answer, not a quick answer? MR. McNEES: Yes. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. Commissioner Norris. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Thank you. As to the subject of funding for the petitioners when they come for rate adjustments or so forth, it's my understanding that currently those utility customers that are served by private utilities have four and a half percent gross of their bills as paid to the PSC to fund PSC operations. I think probably that our operation would be more cost effective and that we wouldn't need to assess them four and a half percent, that we could come up with some figure that would be substantially less to fund our regulatory operation. MR. McNEES: The old CCURB board only had one employee and charged -- I think it was a 2 percent franchise fee, and then the costs of the rate cases themselves were additional payments. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay, thank you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah, I know that -- that hopefully we can do it for less than four and a half percent, but we have to remember the PSC has economy of scale, which is probably one of the reasons they're trying to consolidate all these guys into a single hearing in the first place. So I would hope we could do it for less, but I'm anticipating, because rate studies are not cheap. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I take the somewhat more cynical view that the utilities are pursuing having one single rate hearing for their own advantage rather than for the economy of scale. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Talk about reducing the franchise, are they? But anyway, Mr. McNees, you can get us that report on the week of the 14th. MR. McNEES: Yes, ma'am. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: As a quick side note, it's probably very important for us to continue to follow the Florida Association of Counties' lead on trying to -- we have intervened in the suit that -- that tries to break away the ridiculous assertion that you can -- if you provide service in one county, the mere fact that you drive across county lines gives you the ability to average the service in cost and repair from one municipality to another. If we can break that off, a lot of these problems will be solved. Marco will pay for Marco, not a faulty plant in Englewood and so forth. So if we can accomplish that, some of these things may go away. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I thought the assertion was merely that they were mailing their bills across county lines. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: They've tried to make that one, tOO. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Weigel. MR. WEIGEL: Thank you. Thank you very much, Mr. Item #9A SETTLEMENT OF CASE NUMBERS 94-1182 AND 95-3482 CONCERNING THE OPERATION, MAINTENANCE AND INTENDED ABANDONMENT OF ROYAL COVE OF NAPLES, INC.'S WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT - APPROVED CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Next item on the agenda is county attorney's report, 9(A), a recommendation to approve a settlement of case number 94-1182 and 95-3482. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Madam Chairman, Mr. Weigel probably has -- and Mr. Pettit probably has a very nice presentation planned for this, but the truth is the sum of these cases has allowed us to get to the point where Mr. Vetter has to continue operating the plant to a date certain, and then the county's options become available. There's been a lot of work put in on this, we've heard, every step of the way. Unless there's something dramatic presented today, I'm going to make a motion to approve. MR. PETTIT: Commissioner, Mike Pettit from the county attorney's office. I have nothing dramatic to add, but I do have some responses to some questions that were raised on the other Royal Cove item by you and Commissioner Constantine. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. MR. PETTIT: First of all, the settlement agreement as drafted -- and I intentionally drafted it this way -- does not obligate us to connect Royal Cove 1 and 2 or its Royal Cove and Royal Cove unit 2 to our sanitary sewer system. It obligates us to consider the necessary steps. In that regard I think in good faith we would go through the November 28th hearing. The concern about bidding, we are on a very tight time leash, as I think you know, at least, on accomplishing all these things and getting on the tax roll assuming an assessment district is created. We had contemplated going to bid somewhere in the middle of November. Certainly that could be postponed until after the public hearing. You know, if a decision is made at the public hearing that, no, we're not going to proceed with an assessment district, we wouldn't have the issue of having put out bids and having contractors prepare responses. We simply would have to then make sure when we did bid and if an assessment district went forward, that those contractors were on notice that time was going to be critical in the project. So I think that answers at least a couple of the questions. My understanding is that the only costs we're going to incur, if go through all these steps through November 28th, is the engineering cost to date and the prep -- from Agnoli, Barber, and Brundage. I'm not aware of what that cost is to prepare the preliminary plans and so on and the tentative assessment roll; and, secondarily, we will owe the property appraiser and the tax collector a little money, my understanding is a very small amount of money, as they begin to get involved with the process. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Our credit is good with them. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Agnoli, Barber, and Brundage didn't volunteer their services for this? MR. PETTIT: No. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I have a question before we have a motion on this. There was some discussion early on. And I'm assuming, since I didn't see it here, that it's been put to rest, but that Mr. Vetter was looking for something for the lots that this plant sits on. He's abandoned that concept? MR. PETTIT: Yes, he has. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Wisely so. MR. PETTIT: He initially had sought -- in addition to having the DEP drop its suit and being relieved of the potential of approximately $15,000 in fines, he has signed a waiver of any financial assessment if the assessment district went through and also a waiver of impact fees, and he's -- he's abandoned those requests. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: He's abandoned that request? Well, that's -- that's wise. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: floor to approve. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Smart. Is there a motion? I believe I have a motion on the Is there a second? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll second it. Again, I understand and I appreciate the fact that we can put the brakes on at the next step. I just don't want to -- government sometimes has a hard time doing that, and I want to -- I think the board after our discussion today will be comfortable doing that if it's appropriate. But it's -- I get a little nervous every time we keep that train rolling. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I have a question now because I just heard if we keep moving on, this is a -- this s a settlement of the issues? MR. PETTIT: This is a settlement agreement -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah, he was referring to this morning. MR. PETTIT: -- resolving the lawsuits. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Uh-huh. MR. PETTIT: It is actually on a separate track from the creation of the assessment district except to the extent that we've obligated ourselves, and DEP was looking for this certainly, to explore a way to provide permanent service to these residents. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I apologize. My comments were in reference to you answering our earlier question. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I was just a little bit concerned about settling this and letting Mr. Vetter off the hook, and then we have another problem. MR. VETTER: Right. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. We have a motion and a second. All in favor, please say aye. Opposed? Motion passes five to zero. Let's take a short ten-minute break, and then we will come back and hear the Naples Park. We're going to take a short break COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Nature calls, folks. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: -- till five minutes of. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We'll take the Naples Park item when we get back? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: And we'll take the Naples Park item immediately upon reconvening. (A short break was held.) Item #12C9 STAFF TO WORK WITH CONSULTANT TO REVISE THE METHODOLOGY BY USING PHASING, OUTSIDE STORHWATERAND BASINS REGARDING NAPLES PARK DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS MUNICIPAL SERVICE BENEFIT UNIT; STAFF TO RETURN IN 90 DAYS AND ALSO TO INCLUDE THE USE OF PLASTIC PIPE AND THE PHASING ASPECTS WITH REGARDS TO COST CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Call to order -- we reconvene the Board of County Commission meeting for October 24, 1995. We -- we are going to take the next issue, which is the Naples drainage -- what number is it? MR. DORRILL: 12 (C) (9) . COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: 12 (C) (9) . CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: 12 (C) (9). Before we get started on this, we are -- we are intending to take our regularly scheduled lunch from noon to one, so we will be taking the information part of this and moving into public speakers, but it -- it is our intention to take our break at noon until one o'clock and then come back and continue with this. Mr. Boldt. MR. BOLDT: Good morning. For the record I'm John Boldt, your stormwater management director. The objective of this morning's hearing is that the board consider adoption of the attached resolution which approves the plans, specifications, the estimated cost, the tentative assessment roll for the Naples Park area drainage improvement municipal benefit unit. In addition, it would confirm the initiating resolution and the ordering of the construction of the assessable improvements. This public hearing on the tentative assessment roll has been duly advertised in the Naples Daily News, and each of the 3,700-plus property owners within the improvement district have been sent a notice of the public hearing along with the amount of their tentative assessment for the stormwater drainage improvements. A letter that was sent out -- the first-class letters made provisions for those people who would want to have opposition to it to send a letter in. We have received a number of letters. The memoranda I put on your desk during the break outlines those. I need to read some of these things for you into the record. There's a number of just individual letters that were received from people who were stating their opposition to the tentative assessment roll that was prepared to fund the proposed improvements of 91st and 92nd Avenue and the 8th Street ditch enclosure project. And you'll see the nine names there that had submitted individual handwritten or typed letters in opposition. In addition, there was a standard form letter that was widely circulated in the Park indicating opposition to the project and to the tentative assessment roll. And there are three separate lists attached to the memorandum I gave you this morning showing the 239 property owners who had signed that form letter and returned it, and the recorder has the originals over there. So it's a -- it's quite a stack of papers, but those are all basically a standard form letter. In addition, there are two property owner groups in Naples Park that sent letters directly to me, and I think they copied you. The first one was from the property owners in Naples Park. Doug HcGilvra is their president. And the letter states basically that Property Owners of Naples Park has withdrawn their support of the Naples Park drainage plan; in addition, the Naples Park Area Association, Ray Sarb (phonetic), their president. The letter states that the improvements at any price is not being well accepted by the people who live in Naples Park. (Applause) MR. BOLDT: Even though -- even though the first-class letter that was sent out didn't ask for people in support of the project to file letters of support, we did receive six letters signed by six individuals that took the time to send in and support the project. In addition, also there were two letters received which questioned the computation of the square footage of the property they owned that was used to compute their assessments. Not all of the lots in there were nice and square and even. There were some of them with some odd shapes and had some lake property involved; and both of these situations have been directed to Agnoli, Barber, and Brundage on the project. They are evaluating them, and they'll be making recommendations eventually to make some real minor adjustments to the roll with just a matter of a hundred dollars or so. That's very, very minor. At this point I'd like to just briefly outline some of the costs that are involved here and what's in -- what we're looking at today. The current cost of the construction of the project, which is the -- to enclose the ditches between 91st and 92nd and along 8th Street is estimated at about $3,900,000. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Boldt, let me interrupt you. Ladies and gentlemen, you know, this is a public forum, and we all have our own ideas. I'm going to ask you to keep your ideas to yourself until we get to the public comment, and then be courteous to one another and allow each other to speak. Thank you. Mr. Boldt. MR. BOLDT: That boils down to for a typical 50-foot lot in Naples Park at $1,071. There's quite an elaborate procedure we developed, the methodology we'll explain in a little bit that puts higher costs or different costs or different benefitting people, but the typical lot in Naples Park would be $1,071 per 50-foot lot. That -- that figure would be adjusted if somebody were to want to pay the cost total up front. In the first year the figure would be reduced about 10 percent, take advantage of their proration share of the finance cost, the cost to set up the financing. If they were to decide to finance that over, say, a seven-year period, there would be about 23 percent more than that $1,071 figure. We can get into that, again, in a little more detail. If bids were to come in around three million dollars, which is real close to our original estimate, which was originally two million seven and then raised later on to three million two, the cost of that fifty -- typical 50-foot lot would be about $850 or about $150 a year for the seven-year period. So that's where we think we would be at if the bids were to come in closer to our original estimate. Some questions had been raised earlier about the possibility of a stormwater utility in Collier County and funding these type of projects. The state legislature authorized the development of stormwater utility a number of years ago. I was to a meeting not too long ago up in Orlando, and there's like about 60 different communities and municipalities in the State of Florida now that have developed and have implemented a stormwater utility. Fifty-five of them are cities, which are typically small -- smaller homogeneous compact unit of government that has a monthly billing system built in. Only 5 counties out of the 67 counties in the State of Florida have adopted a stormwater utility, and they're all in a state of struggling at this point in time. There's a case going on in Sarasota between the County of Sarasota and the churches up there that really only originally attacked the fact that we're talking about assessment or utility assessment versus a tax. The judge involved got more wide ranging in that. It's gone through an appeal process. The last I knew it was in the state supreme court, and they expected to have a hearing by now. Most of the people in the state familiar with this case are not pessimistic. They feel like it's going to be challenged greatly and that the state supreme court's going to throw it out, which means the five counties that are up and running stormwater utilities at this point may have to start over from scratch. You also need to know that the stormwater utility that we were in the process of developing here in Collier County was really basically only for the operation and maintenance program for the county stormwater program. It was not intended to fund capital improvements and especially neighborhood-type improvements like we're dealing with here in Naples Park. So at this point it doesn't look like a stormwater utility is a viable option, particularly considering the court challenge that's going on. Now, if we should decide -- if you should decide this morning to proceed with this project and authorize us to go out for bids so we can actually get the actual construction dollars the contractors are going to charge us, we're prepared to do that within the next couple days. We have the bidding documents basically all roughed out ready to go to the printer, and the plans are ready to go out for duplicating. We would propose then to open bids from the contractors in mid-November and return to you with recommendations on an award in mid-December so that we could start construction the first part of January of '96, which is the very beginning of what we hope will be a dry winter season, because it will be absolutely crucial to construct this work in a dry condition. We have a window of opportunity for construction from like January through maybe April or May. The assessments on this project, once we know the actual cost and -- would be put on the tax bills next fall, would be the very earliest these assessments would be made. And they could then be, as we mentioned, spread out over the seven-year period. At this point I'd like to introduce Dan Brundage from Agnoli, Barber, and Brundage who is going to review with you some of the methodology that was used to develop the tentative assessment roll and answer any of the other technical questions you have maybe about the design or assessments. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Mr. Boldt, as he's coming up, could I ask a question -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Sure. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- maybe of the county attorney? I've mentioned this in forums a couple of times, and that is that I'm aware that in the City of Naples that they offer an additional funding alternative to property owners. I became aware of this in the Seagate sewer improvements that are currently going in. They have the same alternatives that Mr. Boldt just outlined as far as immediate payment, monthly payments with interest, and that kind of stuff, or another alternative, which is since you're improving the value of the property, the assessment would be due upon the sale of the property or the death of the property owner or 20 years, whichever comes first. And I wonder why that alternative wouldn't help in -- why -- I think it should be able to be available in this circumstance and -- and that it probably should have been available in the East Naples sewer district issues and others where these property value increases are significant and the tax is significant, but the property owner doesn't realize that increased value until the property is sold. Why can't we lien the property and -- and do what the City of Naples does? MR. WEIGEL: A very good question. Without having reviewed specifically the -- the total operation of the City of Naples in regard to funding and how they cover a shortfall or window period when payment isn't made for individual properties, I can't respond too definitively now. But we have the -- the ever present concern of the county or an enterprise fund of the county providing credit for extended sometimes indefinite periods of time for capital and construction. And both the county attorney office on behalf of Collier County and the clerk's office have viewed these things rather closely, always cautiously, and have tried to afford the board the flexibility that we legally thought they could have. Again, I think this -- yes, this presents an opportunity to review the city and see if there's something that applies to the county operation, and in no way am I attempting to make a legal review or comment as to what the city does for legal sufficiency, et cetera. But at the same time it's -- it's -- it's an element where we have ratepayers or taxpayers or some funding source potentially providing an indeterminate loan to property owners -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Now, it would be a maximum of 20 years -- MR. WEIGEL: Okay. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- or death or sale, whichever occurs first. So it's not an undetermined length of time. Twenty years is the perpetuity issue. MR. WEIGEL: Okay. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It seems to me that that would be a real solution for people who are going to have to pay $1,400, don't want to pay it now, but when their property is sold could add $1,400 to the purchase price. MR. WEIGEL: Right. It may be, and I read a week or so ago in the newspaper that City of Naples -- I stand to be corrected -- has an additional like $1 or some fee that they charge households generally for stormwater management. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: They do. MR. WEIGEL: That may provide the funding source to provide this kind of flexibility. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: This is different. Because the one I'm referring to, and I'll -- I just want to give you enough information to be able to ask the questions, because I'd like to know the answers for future reference and with regard to this one, too. This is a sewer -- this is the installation of sewer lines in the Seagate subdivision -- MR. WEIGEL: Okay. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- so that in particular I'm aware that they can either pay up front, and that's cheapest; they can pay it monthly with interest; or upon the sale of the property. And I'd like to have that alternative available if it's possible. MR. WEIGEL: If it's possible, we'll respond quickly in that regard. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: MR. BRUNDAGE: Yes. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: services on this one? MR. BRUNDAGE: Sure. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Thanks. Thank you. Mr. Brundage. Are you volunteering your Do we have that on the record? MR. BRUNDAGE: For the record my name is Dan Brundage. I'm president of Agnoli, Barber, and Brundage. We're the engineer for the project. With me today I have Laurie Swanson who is the project manager and the design -- chief design engineer for the project. She'll be assisting me today as we describe some of the methodologies that we used to come up with the cost allocation. First, if I will, I'll go over to the overhead here and see if we can get this to show up. It's kind of bleached out. This is the chart that we used to basically develop the various cost allocations, and the first column we have here is column one. These are the various individual types of CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Brundage, we have to get the lights down. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah, I can't see it. MR. BRUNDAGE: There, I think you can see it a little bit better now. As I was stating, column number 1 contains the various groups of properties that are located within the Naples Park area that either have a unique location with regards to the specific issue itself, or they are a commercial property or something that makes them unique. And you can see there we've listed Beachwalk Condominiums. There's a real small condominium called Kingswood Condominium, and that's that little orange dot toward the top of the Park there. Beachwalk is the dark red area located to the south. We have Pavilion Club Condominium, Coventry Square Commercial Center, Pavilion Shopping Center and its associated outparcels, Pavilion Terraces Commercial Center. I might mention that all of the land uses up here have the word Pavilion in them use a common water management system; the Naples Park strip commercial, which is the general yellow color running along U.S. Highway 41; and then we have the three categories of the Naples Park residential lots themselves. The first category would be the Naples Park lots along 91st and 92nd Street. And this is the location where the major outfall channel or ditch, if you will, flows from east to west and discharges into the receiving waters. The next category is Naples Park lots along the Eighth Street, and those are colored in this plan in the light blue that runs up along Eighth Street. And then finally we have the balance of the lots within the Naples Park community which are not colored at all. They're -- they're remaining in white. These are the various categories that we felt that we needed to look at specifically to see if there's a unique cost associated with each one of the properties. The next column we have there is what we call the land use I.D., and that's just a number that we assigned to these properties so that the computer could help sort them through the database and generate the appropriate charge for the property. The third column there is land area, and basically that's just the area in acres of those parcels that we just described, and that is directly -- you know, the amount of acreage you have within a property is directly related to the amount of stormwater that it generates. Column number 4 is a column really that we just use for the condominiums basically to identify the number of units in each of the parcels. As I'll mention later on, a unit in a condominium rather than being charged on a per-acre basis, which doesn't make a lot of sense -- it would make more sense to us to charge them on a per-unit basis. When you add up all the units, though, they would be charged for the total amount of acreage that that particular condominium occupies. Okay. Now, column number 5 is the runoff intensity factor, and I'm going to let Laurie Swanson describe how that was developed, because she spent the most time working on that particular number. Laurie. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Could I ask just a question on the different land use sections? Is -- is there -- excuse me. Is there no distinction -- on the white lots, you know, the balance of Naples Park, I'm surprised that those are -- that there's no distinction among any of those, no differing benefit or no differing impacts. Does -- how did you come to categorize the balance in one group? MR. BRUNDAGE: Okay. Well, basically we're looking at the areas that specifically are impacted, say, by the large ditch that flows between 91st and 92nd, the green area there. People along those properties could experience -- and I'm going to get into this a little bit later on, too, with another factor, that benefit factor, but they're having to put up with a lot of erosion. There's a specific health, safety, and welfare issue -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I understand why the green and why the blue and why the yellow and orange. I don't understand -- it seems to me that there might should be subcategories among the white lots, and -- and if you're telling me my assumption is incorrect, that's fine. MR. BRUNDAGE: No. We looked at that a little bit to see if there was any engineering rationale to do that, and it really -- we really couldn't come up with anything that we thought was definable. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. MR. BRUNDAGE: We looked at perhaps some of the properties being located further away from the outfall. We'll have what we call in the drainage ditches a length and time of concentration and that sometimes that will have an effect on the amount of runoff generated, but to get into analyzing that on a per-lot basis would be inordinately complicated and, again, in the final analysis wouldn't have that much of a bearing on the final results. So that's basically -- we basically looked at health, safety, welfare, aesthetics, and those types of issues to identify -- or the amount of runoff that was contributed specifically from the condominium and the commercial sites. Laurie. MS. SWANSON: Good morning, Commissioners. Laurie Swanson for the record. I'm a project manager with Agnoli, Barber, and Brundage. First, I'd just like to explain to you what we based the runoff intensity factor on. For those land type -- land use types that did not have an improved water management system, they were based upon the amount of what we call pervious and impervious coverage. And that has to do with the amount of area that your house and your driveway and so forth take up. The range that could be applied to something -- for a residential lot could be anywhere from .3 to .5, and those are typical numbers for Naples Park. For our typical residential lots, we assigned a factor of .3, which is a more conservative value. Now, for the commercial areas, those are more intensely developed. They have a higher amount of impervious area, and those were the yellow area that Mr. Brundage pointed out. Those were given a factor of .7. So none of those areas that we've just talked about have what we call an improved water management system that would provide a sufficient amount of storage to reduce the runoffs. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Laurie, I have a question there, if I may. Some of the yellow commercial area that you assigned a .7 to are actually commercial lots with a single-family home on them. Should those be adjusted to .3 if they're based on runoff intensity, because if it's not a commercial property, they don't have higher impervious, because there are some commercial lots in there that have homes on them actually. MR. BRUNDAGE: We considered that. However, there's nothing to prevent that homeowner from selling that -- that single-family residential lot and then letting a commercial establishment get established there. That's fairly typical for -- you know, to base it on zoning rather than the current land use for a drainage assessment such as this. So we're really relying on the permitted zone use for the parcel because in the ultimate analysis that's what it could develop at. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: And we're really not basing this on contribution then if there's a house with a yard. It's pervious, yet you're still assigning it a .7 which is relatively impervious according to the properties around it that have -- MS. SWANSON: That would address the potential that somebody could come back, though, and develop that to a much greater extent, though -- MR. BRUNDAGE: In 95 percent of the parcels it would be true that it does address the currently existing runoff characteristics. There are a few unique parcels, as Commissioner Hancock pointed out, that may be zoned commercial, but they have a residential house on it that perhaps would not be contributing the .7 percent of -- of impervious surface at this time, but there's nothing to prevent that from happening in the future. As a matter of fact, when we designed the system -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Did we do this on contribution, current contribution, or not? MR. BRUNDAGE: I believe -- in our opinion, it would be better to do it on the potential contribution that could occur, because we're designing a water management system based upon the potential. I don't think you want to go out and construct a storm sewer system that may be based on an area today that is developed, say, a three-tenths percent but is zoned and it could be approved to develop it something more intense and end up with a pipe that is too small. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The answer is no, that it's not based on current contribution. MR. BRUNDAGE: No, it's based on potential contribution. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: If one of those parcels were to tear a house down and build a commercial property, they would have to go through a current permitting process for water management for their site; is that correct? MR. BRUNDAGE: That's correct, but the sizes for these along the commercial area are so small that, generally speaking, they fall within a category where all you're required to do is store the first inch of runoff. That usually gets occupied during what we call the initial part of rainfall. In other words, that storage system -- it maybe a swale or retention area -- fills up during that first part of the rain, and then when the real intense rainfall comes, you get a direct runoff from it. So you don't really see -- as far as a stormwater removal system, you don't see a benefit. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Would holding that first inch be an improvement over what they're currently doing? In other words, would there be actually less -- well, I guess that's not proper. I'm looking for an economy of scale here. Obviously commercial properties that were built 20 years ago weren't built to the standards we've had to build today. They weren't required to hold that first inch. So something that's not going to be commercial may determine that fall under today's standards which is going to give a better level of protection than say a built commercial area that was not required to do that. I understand your argument, but I'm looking for something in the middle there that there may be an economy of not charging a residential structure a .7 ratio, something reduced. MR. BRUNDAGE: Yes, there could be. And, again, that's your decision, too. If need be, we can go back and adjust the database we have to take into effect certainly a decision like that if it's made. Let me state on the commercial area, though, of what you'll see. If they do put that first inch of storage in, you'll see an improvement in the water quality contribution, but we believe that you'll still see the same quantity of intense runoff coming off the property during the intense part of the storm, because there's really not enough storage area to continue that. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Just -- another issue that's very similar to what Commissioner Hancock is saying is I've heard a lot from commercial properties that were recently developed, recently improved. There's a car wash right there that was very recently added to and did significant improvements, you know, over -- how did those people who have already paid once to put in what are current water management good retention systems -- how are they compensated? How is that factored in so that they aren't paying once for the improvements they've already paid for and now again for improvements? MR. BRUNDAGE: Okay. That will be addressed when we talk about the really large-scale commercial condominium sites. There's two different levels of water management systems. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm more concerned about the small commercial, the guy who just owns a car wash than the really large. MR. BRUNDAGE: Well, again, the guy that owns the car wash was probably just required to do the first inch of runoff. That's a water quality issue. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: I don't think so. MS. SWANSON: He hasn't -- typically for those -- for those small sites like that, they do not provide atten -- what we call attenuation of, you know, the larger storms. All they do is provide what we call the first flush to improve the water quality. So once that volume fills up, then as a major storm event continues, the water will overflow and still flow into the Park system at the same rate as it would otherwise. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I see this, and I -- and I understand that we're making broad decisions and broad distinctions, but I think that a lot of the problems that we're having is we're approaching this from too broad a perspective, and we have to make some accommodations for exceptions because if -- if it is the general rule that certain sized properties accommodate one inch of runoff and, in fact, there are properties that have done more than that, we aren't -- you know, this assessment methodology, the chart that was up there before, is just too broad and general for -- you know, just take into account particular circumstances. MR. BRUNDAGE: I'll like to point out we do have the flexibility within the database, again, to alter that and create, you know, a slightly altered methodology, if you will. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Let's move forward with the presentation on the methodology that was used and see if our questions are answered as they go. MS. SWANSON: Okay. The runoff factor, intensity factor that was used for those developments that do have modern stormwater management systems -- and those are Coventry School (phonetic) which is located up at the north end just south of lllth, the Beachwalk Condominium project there along Vanderbilt Beach Road, all of the Pavilion development area. And those areas have either a lake system that they discharge into or other storage which, for example, Coventry has below ground, for example, like rock trench. Also part of the Pavilion has a wetland area that stores water. But typically what you see is that you -- you'll have a lake system, and in order to help everybody understand why the runoff intensity factor is lower for a development that has this type of a system, I've brought here a little diagram to help everybody to understand that. The way that we did arrive at the runoff intensity factor for these is that we took the ten-year discharge rate that would come off of those properties, and that was determined based upon the permitted documents that have been approved by all your local jurisdictions. We took those and ran a -- what we call a ten-year storm event in order to determine what the discharge was. That discharge was then divided by the area of the development in order to come up with the discharge per acre. And the chart that Mr. Brundage showed you shows that the runoff intensity factor is lower for those areas than it is for the other areas in the Park that do not have these improved systems. So here I'll give you a little explanation to help to clarify this. Here if you can look, we've got a vegetated undeveloped land area. Now -- and then up here we have an outfall which is going out to a receiving water body. Now, if you can imagine that it begins to rain and over a period of time as it rains -- and we're talking a major event -- the ground would begin to become saturated, and initially there would be very little runoff off of this area because it's all green, and it has a very -- it's 100 percent pervious so that the water can hit and then basically soak into the ground, which is what we call percolate. Now, as it continues to rain, however, this will eventually get saturated, and you will begin to get some runoff into this outfall over here and out to your receiving water body. Now, if we take that same land area and we develop it, we put home or commercial development there, we have just increased the amount of impervious area by the roads, by the area of the people's homes and their driveways. And so under current regulations what is required is that the -- that stormwater storage be provided -- if I can just slide this over enough so you can see this other thing here down at the bottom -- the stormwater storage be provided that essentially keeps the runoff from this developed piece of property -- keeps it from being any more than it would have been in its undeveloped state. And so those are the current regulations. Now, Naples Park in general was not developed that way and -- but these other improvements that we've mentioned were. Some of them have lakes; others have underground. And you can see that the way that this works is that you have a wet season water table right here. And when they dig a lake, you've got an existing ground contour. Usually the fill that comes out is used to build the ground level up, and so the difference between where the wet season water table is and how far they allow this to come up is the amount that's available for storage. And that then is controlled. The amount of discharge that comes off this lake is controlled by a control structure that restricts the outflow into the outfall. And so that is the reason that you see that these modern -- these places that have these modern systems do not have the same amount of runoff coming off of them on a per-acre basis as the remainder of Naples Park. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Questions? COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: That -- I know we're trying to move along, but this is one of the main -- two main reasons why this project has escalated in cost of the typical lot upwards of 40 percent. The two contributing factors of that have been overall construction cost being increased -- or the proposed costs being increased and the methodology changing such that the typical lot in Naples Park begins to bear a larger and larger burden as we've proceeded. If I hear you correctly, what you're telling me is during wet season when we're at the wettest point all through Naples Park and through Pavilion Club Shopping Center and so forth that during a rainfall per square foot the Pavilion Club Shopping Center discharges less than does a residential lot in Naples Park. Is that what I'm hearing? MR. BRUNDAGE: That's correct, because it goes into a lake where the water is stored and then the flow out of that lake -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Ladies and gentlemen, please -- MR. BRUNDAGE: And then the flow out of that lake is restricted. It's controlled by a weir control structure. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Brundage, help me understand -- help me understand this. During the wet season does that make the control elevation and stay at control elevation for any period of time? MR. BRUNDAGE: Yes. It will reach control elevation, stay there for the majority of the time. Usually there's -- within a typical control structure, there's what we call a bleeder. And that bleeder is sized so the amount of water that's stored in the lake will bleed down. I believe the minimum requirement by South Florida Water MAnagement District is that half of the stored area would bleed down within a 24-hour period so that perhaps within a 48-, 72-hour period it's back down to control elevation. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Because here's where we seem to have the problem. You know, street flooding is one thing. But when water gets into people's homes, then we're dealing with a whole 'nother aspect. When that happens it's typically because we've had consistent daily rainfalls, and I think we can exempt most of this past year as an abnormal year. But prior to this year we've had consistent normal 2- and 3-inch rainfalls day after day for a few days, which is typical for summer. If that lake stays at or near control elevation, wouldn't discharge from that lake be an excess, or wouldn't it be roughly equal to what the rainfall amounts are on a consistent day-to-day basis? MR. BRUNDAGE: No, I don't believe so. It's still going to be restricted by having to flow through the weir structure. The only situation I would see something like what you just described happening is if there were a berm around the entire site and that overtopped. In other words, instead of the water from the lake going out through the weir control structure, it was short-circuiting and going out some other place. If that were occurring, then I would say, yeah, there's a possibility you're getting direct -- you know, a hundred percent direct discharge. But as long as those waters are still contained within that water management system and required to go through the restricted weir control structure, I believe you're going to see a reduction. I know you will, as a matter of fact. To go a step further, most lots that you don't have an improved water management system become a hundred percent saturated, you'll see a hundred percent runoff. You'll see -- in other words, the water can't get into the ground anymore, so every drop of water that hits that lot will be runoff, not 70 percent, not 30 percent, but a hundred percent. So that's -- you know, that's really the rationale behind this. South Florida Water Management District and various regulatory agencies requiring these water management systems -- it's twofold. One is to mitigate the amount of discharge that you put into a receiving water and the second to also improve the water quality of that -- of that discharge. So it serves both purposes. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. MR. BRUNDAGE: Okay. As we described before, we have the various land uses, and I've shown that under this land use description for the various groups of properties we have. And it was identified, I guess, early on in the process that various areas may benefit more or less from the improvements that were being proposed. So what this chart is is a -- it's a matrix that provides us a means of trying to come up with what would that benefit factor be, in other words, what type of number should we assign to the location of these parcels and any special benefit that may be received. The first column there is entitled the health, safety, welfare, and convenience. And I just noticed my computer cut off the end of convenience. But anyway, that is a number there that we try to assign. And basically you can see all the numbers, and most of the numbers in the columns are ones. And this is where we get to the issue that all of the properties within Naples Park are going to benefit somewhat from the improvement of a modern water management system. I -- you know, you can tell that during the flooding we've had just in the recent weeks that had an emergency vehicle needed to get to someplace, it was going to be severely impeded by the amount of flow. Traffic in the -- in the entire area was disturbed. There was -- I'm sure that the sanitary sewage collection system with all the infiltration that was evidenced was misbehaving itself and flowing out into the streets, plus just in general the -- the overall appeal of the area is reduced from the fact that flooding occurs all the time. So if you remove that type of flooding, you know, we believe that all the properties are going to benefit in one way or the other from the health, safety, welfare, and improved convenience of a drainage system. The exception to that would be, in our opinion, the Beachway Condominium because all -- their -- a hundred percent of their access is off roads that -- off of Vanderbilt Beach Drive. And the other fact of the matter is they discharge into a part of the water management or the drainage system that's already improved. They discharge directly into a box culvert, and they're also located at the extreme downstream end of the system. In addition to that they have one of these water management systems that have a weir control restriction device that limits the amount of water that can flow into the area. So we took all of these, and we said, gee, what is the impact that Beachway Condominium is having on the rest of the community. And the rationale we used to come up with a figure of 0.5 is even though they're discharging into the stream down end and they're discharging a relatively small amount of water as compared to the whole site, they are having an impact on what we call a tail-water condition. And that tail-water condition is the amount of elevation that the ditch or the storm drains are going to raise during a storm event. It can be argued that if Beachway Condominium was not discharging into the system that the tail water would be reduced somewhat instead of being a, you know, relatively small amount for the reasons I mentioned before. But based upon the impact it would have on the tail water condition, we came up with a health, safety, and convenience factor of .05. In other words, that is the amount of impact that they have on that tail-water condition. The next column I'd like to direct your attention to is flooding correction, and then I'll back up and -- and address the erosion control because they're basically interrelated, but flooding correction comes first. And we feel that the flooding -- the main people are going to benefit the highest from the flooding correction are the Naples Park lots located along Eighth Street. Again, those are the light blue shaded areas there. That's where the water gets the deepest, if you will, where the -- where the most problems are occurring. So, accordingly, if that situation is resolved, then we feel that they've incurred a special benefit. We took a look at how do we assign a number to this value, or how do we assign a value to flooding correction. And what we did was we looked at the probability of a storm event and what kind of a storm event it would take to induce such flooding. And we had a good storm, Tropical Storm Floyd, several years ago that came through the area and basically discharged rainfall equivalent to about a three-year storm. And we saw, you know, extreme amounts of flooding taking place during that three-year storm. So -- also based upon some of the routings that we've run, we believe some -- you know, the degree of protection that's afforded by the existing system is within that area, you know. It's going to be for a three-year storm or less is what you're going to be provided. So the probability that they would flood during any given year is basically .3. And that's the flooding correction factor we came up with. Now, that flooding that occurs out there is what causes severe erosion or one of the main causes for severe erosion that will take place within the lots located along 91st and 92nd within that ditch located along the rear of those lots. That's where you see your high flows, high velocities, and then associated erosion. So we tied the same probability to both of those issues. The next column is improved aesthetics, and we believe that the areas that would benefit the most from improved aesthetics, again, are these particular two sets of lots, the lots along 8th Street and along 91st and 92nd Avenue, because of that stigma and drive-by negative appeal, I should say, overflooding conditions, unsightly ditches, and so forth. As a matter of fact, what we did was we took a look at the county and tax appraiser's records for the area, and we did find that, generally speaking, per square foot the parcels located along the Eighth Street ditch were reduced in value from the appraised value of about .23, which is the number we have in there from parcels or projects or lots located within the rest of the community. So that's the number that we -- we used there. We believe that's attributed to the -- to the drainage problems, the unsightly ditches. And if that area is removed, we would expect to see property values along those areas to increase. Similarly, but it's a little -- little less quantifiable is the improved aesthetics along the 91st and 92nd Street ditch. The fact that that ditch will be closed in and instead of having, you know, an erosion mess in your backyard, you're going to end up with a much more controlled greenbelt area, if you will, with a swale that will exhibit very shallow side slopes, shallow depth. It's really going to look like a grass lawn, so that would improve the aesthetics. So we assigned a value of .1 to those parcels. The final column there is the resulting benefit factor, and this is basically just a summation of all the numbers in these rows across, and those are the numbers we end up with. I'll change -- let me change overheads here a second. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: While you're doing that, Mr. Brundage, I kind of have to follow a similar line again. I think it's tough for me as a layman and probably equally as tough for the folks here to understand how the Pavilion Club Shopping Center can pay roughly 12 cents a square foot while they as homeowners have to pay 16. It's kind of an economy that doesn't make a lot of sense. And I understand your explanation. I guess what I want to know is the system that handles both Pavilion Club residences and the shopping center, if they were to be built today, would that same water management system be permitted today, or would it have to hold more water than what it was designed to? MR. BRUNDAGE: No, I believe it would be permitted the same as today. Do you know of any rule changes that have taken place in the last -- MS. SWANSON: I guess the only thing that I've seen is that they -- it seems to me like countywide we have this thing with different basins where they limit the amount of discharge per acre. And I think that those were permitted before that came into effect, and I think that under today's -- you know, the amount of storage would be a little bit greater than what it currently is. But certainly the amount of storage that is provided is -- you know, is a significant amount when you look at what the amount of CFS -- what we call cubic feet per second -- that would come off of those sites, and you divide that into the acreage. If you were to take the same amount of acreage of typical lots within Naples Park, you would see that the amount of runoff would be roughly three times more than what comes off those developments. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Let me -- let me ask this then. What -- assuming a typical storm produces an inch an hour typically, what kind of rainfall would you have before you begin getting 100 percent discharge from the Pavilion Club, all the Pavilion properties that go into that one drainage system? What kind of rainfall can it handle before it begins discharging 100 percent of that? That's a very tough question. MS. SWANSON: I think it's something in excess of 25-year rainfall. MR. BRUNDAGE: That would be your first reaction, in excess of 25-year rainfall. However, we just had a hundred-year rainfall event, and I don't recall any short-circuiting taking place while we were driving around there looking. I still believe that all the waters was contained on site and was being throttled through their control structure. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: So even during these past storms you didn't see a full discharge situation. There was still a reduction of discharge? MR. BRUNDAGE: Yeah. The flow went through the weir control structure. John, did you observe anything different? MR. BOLDT: Well, I think the whole thing that's clouding this issue is the fact that we're designing this thing for a future condition. We've already talked about the way this is going to develop. The present conditions right now are that there's a wetland on the east side of U.S. 41 over in the Pelican Harsh area that is today discharging under 41 into the wetlands on the Pavilion side and compounding the problem in the lake. That situation is going to go away in the next couple of years when they six lane U.S. 41. That's going to be terminated. Pelican Harsh project is obligated to take that runoff off that marsh area on the swamp on the side of the road and take it east into their project itself. At that point I think the lakes are going to start functioning more in keeping with what Dan was describing it in the way the size and the discharge and the bleed-down between storms will be more traditional. Today it is being overwhelmed by the fact that there is an unusually large amount of water going under there. It's going to clear up in the next couple of years. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Boldt, you're going to hear later, probably from Ms. Fitz-Gerald in a discussion that she had with DOT, that that's not the case. So what I would like to ask you, if would confirm with DOT over the lunch break on that particular element. It's very important, because if they're going to discharge in the system, they need to be included. If they're not, I can understand why they're not included. You know, we need to confirm that with DOT. MR. BOLDT: Okay. I do know for a fact that the PUD documents for Pelican Harsh, that was one of the stipulations, that they had to receive that water. They're not receiving now. They have to make provisions to take it into their project. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Brundage, do you have more? MR. BRUNDAGE: Yes, I do. Just briefly I'll try to run through this as quickly as possible. Column number 7 there is the total contribution factor, and that is the product of the acres, the amount of acreage of the drainage parcel, the parcel times the runoff factor times the location benefit factor. And that's what those numbers are. And that really gives you a handle of how much that water -- that parcel is either benefitting or is contributing to the -- to the issue. The next column over is the percent of total. And basically what we've done, we've totaled column 7. That comes to 206.06 at the bottom. And then the percent of total is what percent of that particular land use type of the total. It's that percentage that it represents. Then the cost -- you see down at the bottom of column 9 is $4,905,000, and that is the cost of the estimated construction costs as well as financing charges, et cetera. And what -- what we do is we take that total dollars and then figure out what percentage based on column 8 each associated land use would be responsible for, and then column number 10 is the results of that. So basically what that's saying is -- for instance, the first one is Beachway. Their costs would be $23.42 a unit. Now, for the condominiums we use units instead of acreage because it just makes sense as the first -- as -- as opposed to, say, the Naples Park lots in general, which is $7,141 per acre. And then finally column number 11 is -- is really just informational purposes, and this is where we just try to give you an idea of what the typical lot or commercial parcel or what have you -- unit would cost, what their billing would be. Now, some -- some people in Naples Park may own more than one lot, so their value, their figure, their billing would be twice that amount basically. That's it for the methodology. You got any other questions? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Are there other questions? Don't seem to be. MR. BRUNDAGE: Thank you very much. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. Mr. Boldt, do you have more you want to add? MR. BOLDT: That completes our presentation. The only thing we would ask, that you consider the recommendation of the executive summary which is to approve this tentative assessment roll and the resolution -- VOICE: Louder, please. MR. BOLDT: I don't know if these things are working. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Seems to be. MR. BOLDT: Okay, excuse me. And also to authorize us to proceed into the bidding phase of the project so we can know exactly what the contractors are going to charge, and we'll have the exact dollars available to know how we can reduce the cost of the project on a per typical lot basis. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Commissioner Hancock. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: There have been over the last year several changes as we've moved along with each step in trying to bring some form of relief and some resolution to the drainage problems that Naples Park has been experiencing. The two items that have resulted in people receiving a notice of $1,071; or if you have more lots, 2,000; or if you have three lots, 3,000, seem to fall into one of two areas. One is an increase in project costs over what we looked at, I'll say, almost a year ago. The second is a change in methodology that shifts the burden of the cost more to the typical lots based on the engineering input that we've received from the consultant. When we moved ahead with this when we were talking about $660 for a typical lot, and that was bumped up to 685, and I think the last number I heard was 705 -- MR. BOLDT: Correct. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- and that was at the very edge of any level of comfort I could find provided this system provided real relief to Naples Park. What I'm hearing today is two things. One is that the project cost, which you mentioned earlier, is projected at 3.9 million dollars for hard construction costs. There's a fair chance it could come in at 3 million dollars or less than 3 million dollars, being optimistic. Even if that were to occur based on the current methodology, the typical lot in Naples Park is looking at $850. This is, again, $200 in excess of where this board found a certain level of comfort or the majority of this board found any comfort in at least moving ahead and considering the project. I need to know that there are some other things in here that can be looked at, that can be worked on to bring that cost back down and in line with what we originally considered for me to support continuing. I think we need to go to bid to find what the hard construction cost is. I think not doing it would be a mistake. That's making a decision without all of the information. But assuming those numbers come in favorably, there are some other things that have to give for this cost per typical lot to come down. And what I'm looking to you for, Mr. Boldt, is what other areas in here, in your opinion, can be adjusted or need to be adjusted to bring that back down, sir. Because if the project costs come back at 3 million dollars and I'm sitting here and you're asking me to approve $850 for a typical lot, I can't look upon that favorably. So I need some more help, and I think we do need to take the next step, which is going to bid and find out the hard costs. But, again, if the anticipation is it's going to come back at $850 for a typical lot, I'm not going to be able to support it because it's far outside of what we originally considered almost a year ago. So I will -- I will say that clearly just to, in essence, set the stage. I know there are areas in here that there are charges that need to be looked at that need to be questioned a little bit further. And I'll put the onus of that on myself to do if this does go beyond today. But I just felt it important at least to set the stage of where I am and where I thought we needed to go. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Constantine. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: This issue has been before us three or four times, at least in the last several months. I voted against the tax each time each time it's come before us. And I've used the analogy throughout of a car. I can go out in the morning and get in my car, and it won't start. And I discover that it's the battery. I fully acknowledge there's a problem my car will not start, and I discover it's the battery. There's a couple different ways I can fix the problem. I can go buy a new car, and the next morning when I go out that new car will start, and for fifteen or twenty thousand dollars then I will have solved the problem, or for seventy dollars I can buy a new battery and put that in the car and solve the problem, and the next day when I go out it will likely start. And I see that here. I think everyone will fully acknowledge there are some drainage problems in Naples Park. No one is arguing with that. But what the level we have to reach to correct that problem is in dispute. And I would say plan A, the 3 million dollar plan or the 4 million dollar plan or whatever it turns out to be, is like going out and purchasing that new car. It will solve the problem, but I don't know that we need to do that much to solve the problem. I think perhaps for $150,000, $200,000, some considerably smaller amount, we can clean culverts, we can do swales, we can do a number of things -- (Applause) CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Ladies and gentlemen, I'm going to have to ask you -- once again, I know you're pleased with what you're hearing, but we want to finish this in a reasonable time. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: From there I think we can then institute a maintenance program annually that is cost effective. But when you have $850 or a thousand dollars, or some of the numbers have come in higher than that per household-- and these are fixed-income retirees and working middle-class people that do not have an extra thousand bucks kicking around. I don't have an extra thousand bucks kicking around, and I'm sure most people don't. So I think we need to look not only just at does it come in at 3 million or 4 million; I think we need to look at stepping away from plan A and going back and looking at a more effective and certainly more cost effective way of dealing with the problem. (Applause) CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hancock. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Commissioner Constantine, you may or may not recall -- I know you weren't at the -- the evening meeting we had in Naples Park where we presented something that I had worked on at that time that we called a plan B. And what it was was a scaled-back version. Instead of going with the full enclosure system to look at increasing pipe sizes under the roadways, which is, in fact, one of the two main constrictions for water flow that we're experiencing, and stabilizing the 91st-92nd Avenue ditch by basically putting -- bringing soil back in, recreating it, riprapping the sides to try and stabilize it. My initial impression when looking at a 3.8 million dollar project was that, you know, there -- there are different makes of cars out there, and we are shopping outside of our budget. My goal and I thought would be the overwhelming support for a -- a less expensive plan. The total number of people that attended that meeting and expressed their voices, the greatest number of votes was in the plan A category. The second was in plan B, and the third was in the do-nothing category. As a part of doing all that research, what I came across is that plan B was about one-third the cost, which was great, but it provided less than one-third of the relief for stormwater drainage. So what we were doing was, in effect -- I had a very real concern that if we were to move ahead with a scaled-back plan that provided what I would call two- or three-year storm relief as opposed to what we have right now, which is -- I call it 24-hour relief, people would end up getting a bill, and the next time we got a 3-inch rainfall the water would be back in the streets, and we would be dealing with the same problems. In other words, people weren't going to see a real relief for the dollars they spent. For that reason I felt that it was my responsibility to find out what, in essence, the -- the greatest car available costs. That doesn't mean you have to go ahead, and contrary to what -- some of you have been passing notes back and forth that I've seen in Naples Park; this isn't at all cost. I'm not pushing plan A at all costs, nor have I ever. And those of you that have taken the time to call me or to write me and I've had a chance to speak to you probably know that. But I think finding out what that costs tells us whether or not it is or is not affordable. And if it's the feeling of this board that regardless of the cost it's not a good idea, I will -- I will go with that. But my goal wasn't to just do the best, but to -- to make sure that was not a possibility. And then if we have no other choice, but to scale it back, then to do that. I just wanted to clarify that, because it -- that discussion has been -- has occurred, and I have done that work, and there is an op -- there is a scale-back plan that will provide less relief at a lower cost, but it won't provide the same relief or near the same relief. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: My hope is -- and I know you're open to this from our discussion today and from other days when it's been before us, but my hope is that we can look not only at plan A and B but at any variety of plans. I'm sure there are -- as with any problem, there are any number of answers, and hopefully somewhere out there we can address the problem, but doing it at a price -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: My guess is there's 150 plans in this room right now. Everyone has their own, but obviously if we don't go ahead with plan A, you know, I've -- I'm not going to take it completely upon myself to come up with plan B. I think there's a lot of people in this room that are willing to help me with plan B. So, again, I want to answer the question of plan A. And if it's not feasible, not doable, then we know where we stand. And that's the whole purpose of being here today and the whole purpose of having the public comment. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We're going to break for lunch, but I have one question, Mr. Boldt, before we do that, and it should be one you could answer fairly quickly. The last time you were before us we had questions about the plastic semicircular thing that you had not yet been able to get DEP approval on that. How is that going? MR. BOLDT: Very well. We've had meetings with DEP involving use of the infiltrator-type product. We've showed them the inventory we've made of the various ditches and swales in the Park, convinced them there is a difference between a swale and a ditch, and we have authority, verbal authority at this point in time, to conduct a demonstration-type project on the use of it so we can get an idea what the costs are going to be and what the construction problems we might have. They've told us that they're very excited about the use of the product within the Park, but if we're going to use it extensively, they're asking for a major modification to the permit, because we want to take into consideration the impact that's going to have on the whole system. And we will be proceeding with your permission towards that end. At this point in time there is a temporary moratorium on the enclosure of swales in the Park. It's due to end at the end of the year. One of the conditions of the permit if we were to do the large enclosures between Ninety-first and -second on Eighth Street is that that prohibition would be permanent. And that's why they have so much interest in what we're going to do as far as use of another product to enclose the other 40 miles of ditches and swales in the Park. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Quickly, for those of you that are a little confused about what we're talking about, the moratorium on closing your ditches in would continue. If we did a closed system, it would continue to apply to those that are swales, the shallow ones. The ones that are deep and hold water for the better part of the year and grass can't grow in the bottom, those are classified as ditches. There's a product called an infiltrator that can be installed similar to a pipe. It's an open-end plastic pipe that would allow you to enclose in these deeper, nastier ditches. Vera knows full well what I'm talking about. So that's what we're talking about is a product that would allow you to close in the deeper ones even if a closed system were provided. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Constantine. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Madam Chairman, before we break, two quick questions. One, do we know how many speakers? MR. DORRILL: Twenty-six. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And we will go directly to public speakers when we come back from lunch? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: It would be my anticipation, yes, public speakers. We have 26 registered speakers. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Are we taking one hour? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We are taking one hour, so we will break for lunch. We will reconvene at five minutes after one. (A lunch break was held from 12:05 p.m. to 1:15 p.m.) CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Reconvene the Board of County Commission meeting for October 24, 1995. We're moving toward the public speakers portion of our public hearing regarding Naples Park drainage. And, Mr. Dotrill, you said we have 26 speakers? MR. DORRILL: I bet we've got 30. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We've got 30. Ladies and gentlemen, I want to ask you -- 30 speakers at five minutes each is almost three hours. I'm going to ask you to contain your remarks to the five minutes or to simply say ditto with someone else who has already said the same thing that you want to say in the -- in the interest of getting as much public comment on the record as you choose to have -- and our interest is in hearing you but not necessarily everyone repeating the same thing. So with that in mind, we'll move forward. I'll ask Mr. Dotrill to call two names. The second name each time will be a person to stand by on the corner over here so that in the interest of time we can move as quickly as possible. MR. DORRILL: I have -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Dorrill. (Commissioner Constantine entered the boardroom.) MR. DORRILL: I have two individuals, Mr. Lucanegro, I believe, and also Ms. Draper who indicated that they did not wish to speak, but they are opposed, and they've provided letters and said that if I would just mention that, that they would waive their right to speak, and we appreciate that. Mr. Cahill, you'll be first. And then, Mr. Krupa, K-r-u-p-a, if I could have you stand by, please, sir. You'll follow Mr. Cahill. Mr. Cahill, good afternoon. MR. CAHILL: Good afternoon, Mr. Dorrill. Good afternoon, commission, staff, public, and neighbors. I am Don Cahill, an architect, a general contractor, and my wife and I have been a Naples Park resident for 21 years. I also work in Naples Park. In the commission of my professional and business work, I am required to do as good a job as possible creating structures to withstand hurricane winds, excessive rainfall, landscaped well, and look good for the present and future owners. I feel it's government's duty to do likewise and to try to keep its citizens secure and safe from harm from at least the detrimental effects of excessive rainfall. I recognize that sometimes costs money, and I am willing to pay my fair share. My wife and I own five lots. I live on one. My son lives on the one next door. We have several other -- two other vacant lots that we've experienced a lot of flooding this summer. I urge the commission to please give us the best protection from high water you can. We deserve a good job, not less than that. I know -- I've heard y'all say this morning we don't want the best at any cost, but perhaps we can have a better system. We do need a system that's going to work and not one that will only do one-third of the job. I've heard that open ditches, no matter how big, perhaps may do it, may not do it, but in my 21 years as a resident here, the county has tried hard to maintain those ditches at -- at -- at -- at a very unsuccessful rate, very unsuccessfully -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Sir, let me interrupt you. MR. CAHILL: -- and they're attesting to that. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Excuse me. Let me interrupt you. I don't want to have to do this, but if you can't control yourself and can't contain your remarks, I will clear the room. I don't want to do that, but this man has every right to speak just as you do. I'm going to ask you to control your remarks. MR. CAHILL: They've tried to keep the vegetation down, but, really, by the time they come around, the vegetation is very unsightly. The litter -- and the water rushing through there transports that litter, and it's usually a slimy, open pit there. It's very ugly. Plus the fact you've got this continuing maintenance forever, you know. If the -- If -- If the good money that you've spent to have these engineers design this system says that we should have a closed system, perhaps that's what we need to do. If there's some way of doing it cheaper, fine, but I think the value of the property has and will be increased. And if there's some way of helping pass that buck to the future owners, perhaps that would be good. But we really cannot afford not to do a good job now, especially with the experience of this past summer. I know my house has been surrounded by water over the crown of the road 10 inches deep. I've had 12, 13 inches in my garage four times. We just need to do what we can do. I know this is an unusual year and appreciate it and hope you give it a lot of consideration. You do have a responsibility up there to make a good judgment. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Cahill. MR. DORRILL: Mr. Krupa and then Dr. Gore. Dr. Gore, if I can -- MR. KRUPA: My name is A1 Krupa. I live at the Pavilion Club. I lived in Naples Park for about 10 or 11 years. I've been reading in the paper how the people of Naples Park are complaining about the Pavilion Club flooding them. Now, during the flood I walked down through there many times to see what the problem was. The water coming out of the Pavilion Club crosses 91st Avenue and goes into the 91st, 92nd Avenue drain ditch. That drain ditch, even during the highest period of the flood, was only half full of water. This shows you that the water coming down the Eighth Street ditch is dammed between 93rd and 91st Avenue is a high spot. From 93rd north, it was over the street. From 93rd to 91st, the ditch was half empty. That should show someone that there's a fault there in the grading. We need a little grading there so that the water can flow, and that will take care of that. So -- That took care of that. Now, about cost sharing of the Pavilion Club, I know that there has to be something done to fix this, but I don't think that the people in Pavilion Club should be responsible for the landscaping of this thing. This is a beautification. For paying for the work is one thing. For sodding this probably 250, $300,000 worth of sod, I don't think we're responsible for fixing their area as far as beautification. And another thing that the commissioner had just said a little bit ago was that he wouldn't like to put in $3 1/2 million for plan B because he would feel very bad if plan B was put in there and it wouldn't work. Well, I would feel even worse than he does if we went to plan A and it didn't work after spending 5 or $6 million. -- And also in the past month or two, the same commissioner had a write-up in the paper, and it said this is not -- this is a fix but not a cure. He said this will help some. If you're going to spend 5 and $6 million, we don't need a fix. I can go out there with a pick and make a little drain field and do that. We want a fix that's going to work, and I haven't heard anybody from the engineering firm saying that they would guarantee this to work after spending 5 and $6 million. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. MR. DORRILL: Dr. Gore. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Gore. MR. DORRILL: And then, Ms. Milford, if I could get you to stand by, please, ma'am. DR. GORE: For the record, my name is Jim Gore. I work for the Conservancy. I was asked, actually, to speak to you on behalf of the Vanderbilt Beach Property Owners Association and for some of the members of the Naples Park citizenry. We've gone through this before, and I do want to reiterate concerns we have about water flow into the lagoon, into Vanderbilt Lagoon. The quality of that water is important. That water is in poor shape now. We don't want it to get any worse. I know that there have been reports that freshwater inflows into that lagoon may actually improve water quality. That's, indeed, a possibility. I've seen that happen. On the other hand, I just read a report here called "Freshwater Inflows into Texas Bays and Estuaries" which actually takes a look at more similar type of hydrology that we have in the -- the gulf around here than we do, say, on the east coast. And at least in about three-quarters of the cases in Texas bays and estuaries, water quality has been shown to decline when they come out of urban areas and goes into these bays and estuaries. So that's a concern. I think that without having to buy that Cadillac, with perhaps buying something in between, maybe a mid-size Ford, there is an alternative that we can reach that can accomplish the drainage that's needed, and we can also do some innovative things. That may mean purchasing some land. It may mean rerouting some of that water by creating artificial wetlands, by doing some bioremediation along the embankments to stabilize them, including riprap, but including also revegetating, doing some different types of vegetating of embankments, that we can actually have the system itself as it's draining the water act to clean the water. So I think that's something to be considered. I think there are some other alternatives that need to be considered besides the top of the line, that enclosed system, because that top-of-the-line system doesn't necessarily afford protection of water quality to the Wiggins Pass area, to Vanderbilt Lagoon. There is a possibility that that may in the future become an Outstanding Florida Water. That may create problems in the future. I don't know that because it hasn't been declared an OFW yet. But we'd like to see some other alternatives investigated, and the Conservancy is certainly willing to provide our help to the county staff, to the consultants, to the citizens to come up with some alternative plans for you to consider, and I thank you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. Thank you, Dr. Gore. MR. DORRILL: Ms. Milford and then Ms. Bateman. MS. MILFORD: My name is Patricia Milford. I've got four pieces of property in the projected assessment zone. One piece of property this year had four inches of water three times, totally destroying the house. The reason that it didn't drain was because of culverts being closed up. After driving around with this knowledge, I saw many people who had filled in their swales. I saw culverts that were not draining that were backed up. I saw lots of things along that line. To me, when I called the road and bridges department, they told me it was the individual homeowner's responsibility. Then I called code enforcement thinking that the guy down the street that had the blocked culvert would be cited or at least got a letter so that he would go out there and fix his drainage. No. I was told, this is not our department, this is not our problem. I called another time with a different scenario trying to get them to understand what I was talking about. I, again, was told, sorry, this is not our problem. If the responsibility for these culverts and these swales belong to the individual property owners, then someone needs to make them conform. And if we don't do that, I don't care what kind of sophisticated drainage you put in, my water is not going to it because it didn't go to it. I had between 4 and 15 inches of water on that piece of property, and my floor is 10 inches above the culvert that it was draining into. So somewhere along the line we've got to start with the first thing and then go to the second thing because you're putting the cart before the horse. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you, Miss Milford. MR. DORRILL: Ms. Bateman and then Ms. Russell. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Can Miss Russell come forward and wait while Miss Bateman is speaking? MS. BATEMAN: Good afternoon, Commissioners. My name is Barbara Bateman, for the record, and I have been a long-time resident of Naples Park. I appeared before you at the board on MArch the 28th, 1995, and I had stated for public record that I had a petition with over 200 Naples Park property owners' signatures not in favor of the MSTBU special assessment to pay for the Naples Park stormwater drainage improvement project to cover Eighth Street ditch, 91st and 92nd Avenues ditches, plus replacement of some larger box culverts under Vanderbilt Drive. After my presentation, these petitions were made a part of the public record. On April 20, 1995, a non-binding straw vote questionnaire was presented at the Naples Park Elementary School. There were 313 responses. 141 or 45 percent favored plan A. 172 or 55 percent did not favor plan A. These responses do not indicate an overwhelming majority of people that are in favor of this improvement project. September the 12th, '95, a resolution -- the board passed a resolution initiating a program for the purpose of providing stormwater drainage improvements within the Naples Park drainage improvement municipal service benefit unit designating the name of special assessment district, describing the area to be improved, providing the cost of such improvements should be paid from the assessments against the benefitted properties, instructing the county's consulting engineers for the project to prepare the plans and specifications, estimate of the cost of the project, and a tentative assessment roll. Yet it continues. The project continues to move forward when the will of the people did not favor the project in the past, and they did not favor the cost of the project as it currently is set up now. The Naples Park drainage improvement will benefit some of the residents; however, it will not improve nor will it benefit all of the property owners. As the water throughout Naples Park continues to stand, it flows nowhere. Small amounts of it may dissipate with the evaporation of the sun taking it away. We, the property and homeowners of Naples Park, do not want to pay for an improvement project that will improve the area for only a small number of property owners. Not all of the property owners are going to be benefitted or improved by this project. And, also, we have a number of property owners on fixed incomes, and they have a need that -- This is going to be a tremendous cost that is going to be unnecessarily -- unwarranted for the needs that they have to do to -- to take care of the project. What could possibly be done would be an ongoing consistent maintenance program throughout Naples Park. Just by going by and getting a number of petitions, there were a number of people disabled that cannot do that. They have to pay their property taxes to the community. They may not even have the cost to go and have it maintained. It has been the board's policy, though, that projects of this nature are to be, from what I understand, financed by special assessment districts, initiated by a petition, signed by a simple majority of the benefitted property. Today, we, the Naples Park property owners, are presenting a petition signed by over 1,100 signatures opposing this assessment. We, the Naples Park property owners, do hereby request that the board do not -- and we ask again -- do not adopt this approving resolution which approves the plans, specifications, cost estimates, and confirmation of the initial resolution as set forth at today's public hearing. If this is mandated by the Florida Statutes, we're asking that the board rescind the cost methodology of this project. Thank you very much. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. Hiss Bateman. Hiss Bateman, you have a petition? You spoke of a petition of 1,000 signatures? MS. BATEMAN: Oh, yes. I was going to run off with them. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: A quick question. How many signatures did you have? MS. BATEMAN: We have over -- We have 1,100. And then, of course, there are, I think, over 2,000 property owners that have multiple ownership, bringing it to -- If we count that, because they are being assessed for those individual properties, brings it up to well over 1,200 which would be 50 plus one. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Did you want to turn the petitions in -- MS. BATEMAN: Yes. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: -- for the record? Would you hand them to Mr. Weigel, and he'll '- MS. BATEMAN: Yes, I will. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: -- see they get taken care of. MR. DORRILL: Ms. Russell. MR. WEIGEL: Thank you very much. MS. BATEMAN: Thank you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. MR. DORRILL: And then Lee Bowein. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Hiss Russell. She declined? MR. DORRILL: Mr. And Ms. Bowein. Lee Bowein. And then, Mr. HacCluge, (phonetic) you'll be next, please, sir. If I can get you to come forward. MR. BOWEIN: I'm Lloyd Bowein. Lee is going to pass. MR. DORRILL: Go right ahead. MR. BOWEIN: Hello. My name is Lloyd Bowein, and I own several lots in Naples Park as well as my mom. We've been here, geez, 30 years, so we've seen it come and go, and we do have a problem that -- I went and got a copy of the plans, and the way I look at it, it will not work. It will not improve what's there. The big problem is, the water can't get down the avenues to Eighth Street or to the 91st Street canal, and it's clear from the turnout and the petitions that the people in Naples Park do not want this plan. In addition, this whole thing was started, I believe, by the Naples Park associations coming to you and requesting this, and they amounted to maybe 200 homeowners, and now both those associations have withdrawn their support for this. So, clearly, they don't want it either. And, again, I'll make it short because I'd just be repetitive with the other people. We just -- What we need is a maintenance program. Clean the culverts out and the swales getting to Eighth Street, cleaning up Eighth Street and the canal, and it will work. The new system will not. That's all I have to say. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. Mr. MacCluge. MR. DORRILL: Mr. Whitford, you'll follow Mr. HacCluge. MR. MACCLUGAGE: Mr. HacClugage, please. I really don't want to waste any time. Everybody that is coming forth -- What Mr. Bowein has said is basically what he said. I would agree to -- Mr. Constantine. Replace the battery. I mean, we don't -- I'm in that business, as you can see. But we don't -- You know, we're all Naples Park property owners. We're all not all new car buyers here. We're regular, general people. We replace batteries. Okay. We don't rebuild, have Pelican Bay stormwater systems. We have Naples Park stormwater systems. We just want a fix. That's all. Not a big thing. Don't want to waste any more time. Plan B looks a lot better to Naples Park people than plan A. That's it. The majority here says that. Just listen. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. MR. DORRILL: Mr. Whitford and then Ms. Hathys. MR. WHITFORD: I've been a resident of Naples Park for 11 years. I've been a contractor for 50 years. I've had a lot of experience with ditches, canals, drain-offs. The solution is what we're looking for, not financial. I'm against the financial situation, this plan A and B. Mr. Constantine has offered what I feel is the most feasible, the most economic, and the most practical solution. You've got to clean out the ditches. You've got to grade them down. I've been there 11 years. The weeds -- The weeds in lllth Avenue are four feet high across from Saint John's church. On Seventh Street between ll0th and 108th, there isn't any ditch. It's almost one inch below the edge of the culvert. You call that maintenance? If you cleaned out the ditches -- and I spoke to Mr. Hancock about two weeks ago about this. If you clean the ditches out and you get rid of all the trash and all the growth in there, if you have to put a permeable barrier, a plastic barrier or porous concrete to inhibit the growth of -- of more flora, then do so, but the answer is not in making another culvert that's going to just back up because what happens, it gets caught up. They clean it out. Two feet from the edge of the culvert they let it grow up. So what have you got? You've got a so-called dam, and everything that flows in there stops there. Now nothing gets into the culvert, except sand. Now we've got sand in the culvert. Who gets that out? Nobody. Unfortunately we don't have the declivity of the land that we get a forceful flow. This is the one thing that the engineering firm, Brundage, didnwt mention. We donwt have the fall. I think, Mr. Hancock, you told me that we had about 30 inches from 91st to lllth, two and a half feet. Thatws 30 inches. Thatws not so much of a fall. But if you clean the ditches out and get rid of the trash, youwre going to have some flow. In construction wewve got a saying. The water will flow if it has a place to go. Thank you. MR. DORRILL: Ms. Mathys. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Ms. Mathys. MR. DORRILL: Then Mr. Simon. MS. MATHYS: Iwm a resident of Naples Park, and I know that our flooding problems are minor compared to Golden Gate, Old Naples, and Bonita Springs. In the hundred-year storm, it was the City of Naples that was asked not to flush their commodes, take showers, or wash clothes because their sewers were overflowing, not Naples Park. We ask Collier County to be a good citizen. We ask them to maintain their property much as you require your citizens who pay taxes to maintain their personal property. I think this is only fair. This would solve the problem of the flooding and the erosion. If the ditch were graded and cleaned and if there is erosion, then Collier County as a good citizen should pay for the repairs. On enclosing the ditches, if anyone wants to improve their property, they should be allowed to at their expense but not at mine. Eighth Street, 91st, 92nd, if they want their yards enlarged, this should be their expense. I also object to this project because of the hidden cost of monitoring the water and, if need be, filtering the water that goes into Vanderbilt Lagoon that Dr. Gore talked on. This could be an ongoing expense for middle class homeowners. The petitions represent the people who were at work, who are too ill to be here, and the silent majority you rarely hear from. Iwm a taxpayer who wants the county to spend existing tax dollars on maintenance. Good maintenance saves dollars in the long run, be it a ditch or your automobile. On the cost, I hear you talking 3 million, but I read the resolution in the Clerk of Courtws office Friday. The figure is 4.9 million. This includes partial of the cost of financing. There is no reason to adopt the resolution calling for 4.9 million if you donlt plan to spend but 3. I was also intrigued by Mrs. MacIKiels suggestion of being allowed to put this on your property until such time as you sold it. But I think before this goes any further, the total cost at the end of 20 years needs to be revealed. With added interest, Iim afraid if I let it sit for 20 years and sold my house, I may not have enough money to buy a house when I pay off the lien. There -- There is no reason to continue with this project. I beg you to pull the plug today. We have had enough strife in Naples Park. We would like to get back to a peaceful existence and all go back to the beach or playing cards or whatever. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. MR. SIMON: Good afternoon. For the record, my name is Jeff Simon. At the beginning of this presentation -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Excuse me, Mr. Simon. Mr. Dotrill MR. DORRILL: Mr. Gagliardi, if youill come forward. Youill follow Mr. Simon. Go ahead. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Go ahead, Mr. Simon. MR. SIMON: The engineer that you hired to do this study for this plan said that this Naples Park project was designed for maintenance and was not designed for this drainage system that you're proposing. Well, how long has this system been here, and how much money has been spent to do this maintenance over this length of time? And if it was not done, where did that money go? And if the money went because it was excess for that and went somewhere else, now there should be money someplace else that could be spent for this. It doesn't make any sense to me that if all this work wasn't done over all these years and the money went somewhere else, now we have to pay for it all at once because someone else got the money for it. Obviously the county budget had money in here all this time for this, and if it wasn't spent -- I know the county doesn't put it away somewhere and keep it and save it. They give it to somebody else if it isn't spent. I -- I don't want to reiterate everything that everyone else here has said. I agree, but a lot of the things that were said I disagree. But there's one thing I'd like to bring to point and put on record, that the general disrespect of these people that have waited here since 9:30 this morning and twice have been made to wait after you saying you were back at a certain time and were not. You demand our respect. MR. DORRILL: Mr. Gagliardi. James Gagliardi. Mr. McGilvra. Mr. Newman, you'll follow Mr. McGilvra. MR. HCGILVRA: Do you want to pass these over to who doesn't have it and give the rest back? Hello, Commissioners. My name is Doug HcGilvra. I live in Naples Park, and I am the president of the property owners of Naples Park. Please refer to my letter to all of you dated 6 October 1995. Copies are now being passed up. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Can you pull the mike down and talk louder? MR. HCGILVRA: Talk louder. Okay. I'll talk louder. I want to thank John Boldt and the commissioners, particularly Tim Hancock and the people from AB and B for all the work they've done on this. This has been going on for eight to ten years, so it's nothing new, and it shouldn't be new to anybody here. We need an improved drainage system in Naples Park and have worked for improvements for many years; however, we can't afford the present plan. Using the April '95 town hall meeting as a starting point, the costs for an average lot have increased by 52 percent if paid in a lump sum up front. The same lots have gone up by 60 percent if paid on a yearly basis for seven years. This is -- information is from the stormwater management press release dated 9-28-95. Increases are due to three main factors; one, a 40 percent increase in the construction estimates; two, about 1.2 million in additional costs not considered at the town hall meeting; and three, extreme changes in the cost allocation methodology. A brief description of the cost methodology changes. Pavilion Center has gone down by 67 percent of reduction in their cost allocation. Pavilion Club has gone back down by 27 percent. Naples Park commercial has gone up by 17 percent increase. Naples Park ditch lots, 5 percent reduction. Naples Park average lots -- and that's roughly 3,431 lots in the whole park -- have gone up by 26 percent on the average. Beachwalk has gone down by 80 percent. It's an 80 percent reduction, but it's at the tail end. It's at the tail end and it's -- it's -- it's possible that that's -- that's fair. Now, a couple of things I want to point out and Tim Hancock pointed them out. The Pavilion Shopping Center -- Shopping centers bring in money -- that promote business, have money, that are really concerned about people being able to get to them are paying on the average 12 cents a square foot whereas the average lots in Naples Park are paying 16.4 percent a square foot, and they present no income to the people there. They're their place of abode. They live there. This, I don't believe, is correct. Also, the Pavilion Shopping Center has been known since its inception, since it was built, that there's a 67 1/2-acre wetland on the other side of U.S. 41 that's been dumping into it, and it's been impinging upon the 91st, 92nd lots all this time, and that, I don't believe, has been given proper consideration. Strangely enough, a place called Coventry Square, which is the little pink place on the top of the map over there, for some reason has what they call underground facilities for taking care of stormwater. It has no retention ponds, but it has underwater -- water -- underground storm retention utilities, and they say that that's very helpful. It must be because it's only down to 6.6 cents per square foot. It's lower than Pavilion. It's lower than everybody else. Unless these three factors are readdressed, going out for bid seems to be an exercise of futility. We need to talk of buckets, buckets to remove water and buckets to put monies into for the older neighborhoods that need stormwater problems corrected. The county commissioners should come up with an equitable method shared by public and private funds of helping the communities. This problem is not going away. It will only get worse. Businesses or tenters of property in the park would be the first to complain as it gets worse. Anyone who believes this county will pay for all of the improvements necessary in the park are wrong thinkers. The board should further remove the moratorium on individual swale work so that those property owners that wish to upgrade the property may do so without any further delay. That's it. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. McGilvra. MR. DORRILL: Mr. Newman. And then, Ms. Sourbeer, if I could have you stand by after Mr. Newman. MS. MAIALE: Anthony Haiale had to leave, but he will be back by 3:30 if we're still doing it. Would you put him to the end of the list, please. MR. DORRILL: Okay. This should be Mr. Newman. Good afternoon. MR. NEWMAN: Good afternoon. Good afternoon, Commissioners. A1 Newman, Naples Park. I live on the 600 block of 94th Avenue. The past flooding from Hurricane Jerry proves that something has to be done with the drainage problem in Naples Park. As a member of property owners of Naples Park, I supported the plan to put these pipes in Eighth Street and 91st, 92nd Street ditch, but the cost has gotten way out of hand. It went from three million eight to four million nine, and the county's share went from 33 percent to 10 percent. The Pavilion Shopping Center got a 67 percent cut in their share. It seems unfair that commercial properties are assessed 12 cents a square foot and residential, 16. And while I'm at it, why should we have to pay for the improvements to county properties? If the improvement was on my property, would the county help me pay for it? I think not. But I was willing to help the county pay for the improvements on their property as long as it was reasonable, but the last figures I've seen were ridiculous. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. Who comes after Hiss Sourbeer? MR. DORRILL: Ms. Hannx, H-a-n-n-x, I believe; or Hanny, H-a-n-n-y. MS. SOURBEER: Good afternoon. My name is Marie Sourbeer. I'm president of the Naples Park Area Association, but I'm also here on behalf of myself. I've lived here 25 years. I've seen what's happened to the Naples Park area over that time, and I'll tell you, the county -- I'm not saying the seated commission, but the county fathers have really hurt us out there. You have not fulfilled your responsibility when it comes to enforcing what's being built on those pieces of land that are out there. We have homes now on a 50-foot lot that take up the entire space practically, three bedrooms, two baths, a big pool in the back, and now they have even on today's docket a variance after the fact. Now, where is the water going to go? I have never seen so much water in anyplace in all my life as we have seen in Naples Park this year but it's -- They're equating it to a hundred-year storm. This is not correct. I don't have all the facts and figures about how much it's costing me a foot or an inch or whatever, but I know my bill for the two lots that my little 960-foot house sits on takes up a lot of water. That isn't running down to Eighth Street or down to the lagoon, and we've been assessed over $2,300 for that. Down at the association, we have a 50-by-100-foot building on eight lots, and the assessment for that is 8,700 and some dollars plus change. We can't handle it. So I would recommend that this be scrapped until we can come up with a better methodology for payment. Thank you. MR. DORRILL: Ms. Hanny. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. MS. MANNIX: My name is Joan Mannix. MR. DORRILL: Excuse me, Ms. Mannix. And then, Ms. Elliot, you'll be next. Go ahead. MS. MANNIX: Okay. I'm glad I came to this meeting. It's the first time I really got involved in something like this, but it was very informative. I'm glad I got to hear all the particulars on what the plan was all about. I did feel, as I had in the past when I looked at the literature initially, that I didn't think it was profitable to me. I've recently purchased in the park in that large white area there. That has no profit to this at all. My home is on a little bit of an incline, so I don't have a problem. It has a culvert pipe which is great, but the water doesn't go anywhere because we're all not unified in having drainage all the way. I agree with the rest of everyone that I think we should have the present drainage cleaned out. You can either have culverts or swales, but when it does end up on lllth, that there should be something set up there to catch the water and then take that either to one of the canals or another area of land where it can drop off into. I've seen that there is more building being done on lllth, and when I noticed the water from the storm, it started at one end which was the Pavilion area, crossed through the park and went northwest. So it crossed right through the center crossing all the avenues and streets, but it ended up with the largest amount of water on lllth. There is building, and it's, like, a berm all around now, and we are the low point. We've got Pavilion on one side, Pelican Marsh in the front, and on the other side a lot of building that's being done on lllth, and that is bringing up like a berm and making us a hole. I don't understand from the beginning why that would even be contemplated because that originally was a runoff area. But now that we have this situation, there is another possible way, and I -- I was listening to TV, and I was listening to Lee County, and they're going to take some of their workers to clean out culverts and swales and so forth that are incarcerated people. That would be one way of dis -- you know, alleviating some of the cost to us. I definitely cannot afford $1,000. I mean, I just purchased a home. I saw that, and I went, whoop. There's no way I can do it. I'm just an ordinary person, and I know they are too. So if we can find some other plan, we can work together, you know, to get something that's going to work, but plan A is definitely out. I don't see it going south. The water doesn't even run that way. It runs the other way. So I didn't see how that was going to work. Let me see. I guess that's about all my points. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. MR. DORRILL: Ms. Elliot. Mr. Elliot, you will be next. MS. ELLIOT: People move to Florida or to little bedroom communities because they want to get away from a big city. They chose Naples Park because they had accesses to the beaches in a small community. If you're going to make this a city, then maybe we should do what California did and get a prop 13 here so that we're not going to be taxed to death and we can keep our homes. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you, Miss Elliot. MR. DORRILL: Mr. Elliot. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Dorrill, could somebody move this projector? MR. DORRILL: And then, Ms. Fitz-Gerald, you'll follow Mr. Elliot. MR. ELLIOT: That was my sister that just talked, and she said exactly what I wanted to say. I came here to retire and enjoy myself, and I feel as though that I'm being milked with all my money, you know. I -- I can't afford it. I can't afford what they're asking me all the time, and just fix the drainage. That's it. Get some shovels out and start digging. Cheap. Thank you. MR. DORRILL: Ms. Pistori, you'll follow Ms. Fitz-Gerald. MS. FITZ-GERALD: I'm Vera Fitz-Gerald. There was a number of things I wanted to say. One of them I want to say for my husband. He insists that if once we pay our assessment for the drainage plan, we're going to be hit twice because then if we're finally able to do something about the ditch, we're going to have -- our own ditch, we're going to have to pay for that. So it's going to end up costing us around 4,000 and not 22 or 23 which was the assessment I got. One of the things people are talking about, we've got to clean out the swales so the water will get to wherever it's supposed to go -- I sure hope I don't live where it's supposed to go. If we clean out the swales and don't do anything about the primary system, there's going to be flooding big time then. I agree we have to clean out the swales, but if we don't do something about the primary system at the same time, all of that water that's now being backed up onto those like myself, that's all going to go down there to that one area, and it's going to be really bad. So we've got to consider that. And Commissioner Constantine's solution about buying a battery instead of a car, that's okay, but if your car is so ugly that your neighbor is going to drive you out of the country, I think you've got to address that. That -- That ditch is totally ugly on Eighth Street and it -- we really have to do something, and I can't think of anything else but piping it because if we pipe it, it will take away an awful lot of water. If we don't pipe it, it won't. And this one woman said she wanted to get back to a peaceful existence. Well, that's fine if you don't live in the flood. It's not very peaceful for those people who are currently trying to clean the mud and the crud out of their houses because they all flooded. One thing that really bothers me is that 91st, 92nd ditch. The people who live on that ditch did not cause that problem, and if it gets fixed, then to charge them extra for erosion control is just about the most fractured piece of illogic I have ever heard. The county owns that ditch. It's now becoming a public-used ditch. We have a shopping center draining into it. We've got condos draining into it. We've got the Lazyboy plaza draining into it. And after I had that meeting with FDOT on Thursday night, FDOT said that pipe is going to stay under that -- under that highway. They said that it is a natural waterway. It drains those 68 acres across the road. This is not Pelican Harsh. This is a Collier-owned activity center, the 68 acres. FDOT is going to build a lake on those acres to handle the stormwater from the highway on the south end. I said, if you build a lake that drains into the swamp, then that's going to drain into Naples Park, and he said, well, we're allowed to discharge "X" number of cubic feet per second. And I said, how many cubic feet per second. He couldn't remember, but he very specifically stated they were being allowed to drain into our system. This really makes this thing public, and I think for the 91st, 92nd ditch, the county's share should be much, much higher. In fact, I think you should pay the whole shot myself. I'm certainly willing to contribute paying for Eighth Street but on a reasonable basis. We told John Boldt years ago that this should be done more on a basin basis, and he said he couldn't be bothered breaking it down like that. But the people who live in the west basin don't contribute to any of these problems. I think we're all willing to pay some but not two, $3,000. The young guy, Joe HcHarris, who works for the county, he lives down around the corner from me, and his bungalow -- it's only a single-family, and it goes across three lots fronting Vanderbilt Drive. He got an assessment notice of about 3,200 or 3,700. He's a whole mile from the problem. And he said he would pay up to 1,000. I said 500. I cannot -- This -- This cost methodology that ABB put forward is just -- It is the biggest boondoggle. I would like to see this thing simplified. I would like to scrap the current plan. I'd like to go to George Archibald just like Willoughby Acres did and said, we want to pipe this Eighth Street. Would you please work it out for us. Let us -- and do some cost methodology that's based on some sound reasoning. I'm sorry, but that cost methodology was so full of holes, you could run a Hack truck through it. I don't have time to tell you why, and I wish I did. Oh, yes. And the final point. That swale moratorium, I finally found out where it came from, but the person who is responsible for it is never going to own up to it. That swale moratorium is so unfair. It is -- It's totally discriminatory. Nobody else in the State of Florida, that I've been able to find out, has a swale moratorium. I phoned the -- the water management over in West Palm Beach, and they said, no, they've never heard of such a thing. They'd never had it anywhere else. And my time is up. I want to see that moratorium lifted. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. MR. DORRILL: Ms. Pistori and then Ms. Veccia. MS. PISTORI: I'm Ginevieve Pistori. I live in Naples Park. I'm just shocked to hear about that water coming into us from the east side of the -- I hope that Mr. Boldt is here. I hope that he's going to stop that. When this -- Any -- I -- I understand that a -- another little mall is going into that and that -- what is that going to happen? It's going to create more water. There's going to be more water into us. And the reason why I'm being flooded is because their water that -- the Beachwalk water -- not the Beach -- the Pavilion water is coming in. It's flooding, and the water is going through on 91st, 92nd, and that is the water that's going there, and the rest of it is flowing right back and is backing up into us. That should not be. Now I'm going to read my '- Now, for eight years concerned property owners have persistently petitioned the county commissioners to curb the flooding and the piping in the unhealthy, unsightly, and erosion -- erosive ditches according to design of our engineers. We have protesters going -- protesters going around the park collecting signatures to stop this plan. They are giving misinformation. Once the correct information was explained, the same people were sorry they signed the poli -- petition. Homeowners are also being told that the proposed system will not work. This is not true. Our engineers say that it will. We also have 3,300 homes in this -- in this -- in this community. 1,100 is not 50 percent. We have reached the final stages of debate. Some Naples Park residents are under the illusion that if the -- they continue to oppose it, the county will pay for it. This will not happen. The past two months many owners have had flood damage to their homes and furnishings. We had the hundred-year storm, and according to the weather bureau, we are entering a wet cycle. That means more water and that -- This -- All this flooding design has got to go through. When this drainage system is -- is completed, our homes will have more of a value and a better resaleable value as well. No one will want to buy into a community that floods. We must have relief from the flooding problem. We must encourage the commissioners to let the drainage system to go to bids. Don't let all of these years go to naught. When the final cost comes in, the monthly payments will not be that high, and I'm sure we will all be able to afford it. Don't be under the illusion that all of Naples Park or a great deal of Naples Park are paupers. We're not. We can afford to pay on a monthly basis for seven years. Don't let anybody fool you. When -- When -- When Willoughby Acres had their drainage pipes in place, they paid them willingly. We have not heard any complaints from them. We cannot have temporary patch-up jobs now and repay it later and -- and at higher cost. The -- They -- There hasn't been any maintenance in the past. Do we really believe there's going to be maintenance in the future? The Eighth Street ditch is always blocked up by all types of debris, trees, yard waste, weeds, coconuts. Lawnmowers we pulled out of there. Shopping carts we pulled out of here, bottles, cans, and whatever else you can think of. We need a permanent situation to our flooding problem now. The larger -- The longer we wait, the higher the cost will be. The reason for which we are here today is to allow the bids to -- bids to be presented to the county and to get a more accurate price cost of the job. To sabatoge this democratic process now after eight years would be irresponsible and very demoralizing. The cost allocation by Mr. Agni Brundage (phonetic) is unacceptable. It is high. So we have to please send this to the bids. Let it come through. We are waiting for a final and accurate cost. Please send it to bids. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. MR. DORRILL: Ms. Veccia. Ms. Veccia. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: She's apparently not here. MR. DORRILL: Ms. Mortensen. Ms. Mortensen. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Apparently not here. UNKNOWN VOICE: They probably can't hear. MR. DORRILL: And then -- MS. MORTENSEN: Did you call me? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Your name? MS. MORTENSEN: Mortensen. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yes. MR. DORRILL: Is that you? MS. MORTENSEN: I'm sorry. MR. DORRILL: And then Mr. And Ms. Amen, A-m-e-n, 92nd Avenue. MS. MORTENSEN: Commissioners, my name is Flo Mortensen. I am a homeowner and a resident in Naples Park. It is disconcerting, to say the least, to see signs like this all over Naples Park on county-owned property. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: They'll clog up the drains, I bet, too. MS. MORTENSEN: Well, I hope they -- I hope someone sees to it that they take them down. And it is despicable that some owners of rental properties who reside in Vanderbilt Beach have chosen to wage war at this late date. Where have they been? For eight years the Naples Park drainage improvement plans have been openly discussed and debated. One can only conclude that these selfish souls are moved only by the cost and not by the pain and frustration of flooding and erosion and filthy ditches. They don't offer solutions because they care not for the health and safety of the residents. And, incidentally, many long-time tenters beg for improvements but there is no forum for their complaints. I would ask, therefore, that you not be persuaded by rebelrousers and their cheap party threats nor by others with personal agendas. Please don't abandon this project before the bids are in, and please reconsider the methodology and allocation of the assessment. Why shouldn't the Pavilion pay more? Their retention lake can't possibly be large enough to accommodate the stormwater runoff. And give some thought to the benefit factor for the Eighth Street property owners. They should not have to bear such a heavy burden. True, they will benefit, but so will many others because when this ditch overflows, it go -- as it does frequently, it flows far beyond the properties abutting the ditch, and Eighth Street is closed to traffic more frequently than any other streets and avenues. Children from other avenues who wait for school buses will benefit if they don't have to stand in water. Please remember that four of you voted in favor of the drainage improvement plan based upon health, safety, and the welfare of the people. Keep that in mind. In hearings past, I mentioned the possibility of encephalitis. Commissioner Hancock says we don't have any in Collier County. Is Collier County immune? When I talk about the children possibly getting hurt, he says the parents are at fault, but I say the county is responsible for an attractive nuisance. Get the bids and proportion the costs equitably, keeping in mind that existing drainage problems at Naples Park are not acts of God. The swale system has been butchered and neglected by its owners, the county, and the ditch between 91st and 92nd Avenues, originally ten feet wide, has been allowed to grow into a river in some places three times wider. It has been said that the county owns 25 percent of the land in Naples Park. Why shouldn't the county assessment be equal to its ownership? Forget Willoughby Acres because it's not at all comparable to the Naples Park problems which are worse than ever before due to the heavy rainfall this year. Those who protest the tax assessment should see the property destruction from all that rain, and it will not get better. I -- Some speakers today have mentioned maintenance. Well, during the last two years, there was an effort to deepen the swales, and I never had any problem in my swales, but I surely have one now because they stopped my -- I have two swales, one east and west, one north and south, and they stopped before the culvert; therefore, they have created an -- a -- a -- a hill, and water does not flow up hills. Now I have water in my swale. So before you decide that all we need is maintenance, please give it some thought, and come out and look at what some of the maintenance has done. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. MR. DORRILL: Ms. Amen. MS. AMEN: My name is Anna Amen, and I live in Naples Park on 92nd Avenue. I urge the Board of Commissioners to move forward today in order to construction -- in order to secure construction bids on Naples Park drainage improvement. These bids are necessary to arrive at a final cost figure knowing that the construction cost is the only way to determine the individual cost to each homeowners. Only then can an intelligent decision be made. I totally -- am totally against the methodology. Do not bail out in midstream. I urge the board to move forward with the bids. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. MR. DORRILL: Mr. Fasone or Faccone. Then we'll be back to Mr. Haiale. UNKNOWN VOICE: Did you ask for Mr. Haiale or Mrs. Haiale? MR. DORRILL: Anthony. Mr. UNKNOWN VOICE: He'll be here at 3:30. MR. DORRILL: Mr. Faccone. MR. FACCONE: My name is George Faccone. I live on 95th Avenue in Naples Park. I urge the board to scrap this proposal today. It's granted that we understand we do have a problem in Naples Park and something should be addressed. I don't believe that this is the proper avenue and the proper solution to the problem. People talk about maintenance. Some people say maintenance is incorrect. Maintenance, if done properly, would take care of the problem we have out at Naples Park. Where the maintenance is done incorrectly -- and it can be seen where it's done incorrectly. There is water standing today in certain swales and ditches where the county did maintain but not maintain properly. What has to be done is proper maintenance, set the swales and ditches up the way they were originally planned back in the '50s, slope them the way they're supposed to be sloped, and connect them to everyone's culvert pipe that do have their ditches covered, and I don't believe we'll have that much of a problem. So I urge you to scrap this proposal and try to find a better solution and a less costly solution. Thank you. MR. DORRILL: Mr. Richardson. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. MR. DORRILL: And then Ms. Haiale. MR. RICHARDSON: Good afternoon. Dwight Richardson. I live on 101st Street in the 700 block right in the heart of Naples Park. I don't envy your jobs today. This is a difficult situation. This issue has divided our community. It's been divided not only by factual matters, but by matters that have not been presented factually, and I'm sure you can sort some of that out. It's also been divided by what I see is a tendency towards some simplistic thinking, simplistic thinking on some of our parts and thinking that, well, the county is going to take care of most of the problems if we just lay low and raise enough of a ruckus; simplistic thinking along the lines, let's say, that if we can just dig out the ditches a little more, it's going to flow better and those structures will work. Well, those structures won't work. We've been here before. The last time we talked to you in this kind of a public forum, we said that we're only going to do this job once so let's try to do it right. You know, pardon the language, but a half-ass job will give us some half-ass results. The other level of simplistic thinking I was surprised at today came from one of the commissioners who suggested -- and see if I've got this right -- I've got this broken down car, you see, and it needs a new battery. So if I go down to a garage that he selects and I get a new battery, then I can drive up to the county, and I can get my bucket and my shovel and go back to Naples Park and take care of the drainage problem. That's just not, I think, good advice for the citizenry in a difficult situation like this. This is a complicated problem. It's one that I think everyone has to step up to and do their part on. You folks have the toughest decision. My suggestion is, as many of the thoughtful people have said today, let's stay the course, let's find out what the costs are, and let's do the job right. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. MR DORRILL: Mr. And Ms. Taylor. MS MAIALE: Did you call me? Haiale? MR DORRILL: Taylor. MR TAYLOR: Clay Taylor? MR DORRILL: Clay Taylor. MR TAYLOR: That's me. MR DORRILL: And then Richard Gollehan. MR TAYLOR: Good afternoon, Commissioners. I would like to say hello. My name is Clay Taylor. I live on 104th Avenue, and I just wanted to mention that my wife and I are opposed to this project because -- well, we spent a nice evening a couple of weeks ago looking out our window watching a silvery moonlight as it danced across the waves of the river crossing our street, and it was a pleasant evening, but, then again, our house -- our impervious area was not under water, and there are areas in Naples Park where it is. I just have a couple responses to one of the computations that was given earlier. The health and safety factor as -- was assigned a value of one to everybody originally, and it was reduced for -- I think it was Beachwalk condominium. That factor to me is nothing more than a way to basically charge more individuals with the cost involved with this project. As described earlier, that factor, the health and safety factor, was made up of results coming from the flooding benefits, the aesthetic benefits, the erosion benefits, but on almost all the properties that were listed, those benefits were zero, and yet there was still an assigned value of one to the health and safety factor, and I -- I didn't see where that came from. Also, I'm a certified public accountant here in town. I've been told in my training that a 5 percent increase is considered material. And the original cost of this project to the final cost at whatever it might be is -- you're looking at a 50 to 66 percent increase in the cost, and that is far more than immaterial. It's -- It's substantially material. And if cost is a major factor of that, then that -- it should be rejected immediately as not meeting the specifications of the project as it was originally outlined. It's really the only things I wanted to -- wanted to say. Thank you very much. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. MR. DORRILL: Mr. Gollehan, Richard Gollehan and then -- MR. GOLLEHON: Gollehon. MR. DORRILL: Very well. And then Ms. -- Ms. Maiale. MR. GOLLEHON: My name is Richard Gollehon. I've lived in Naples Park for over ten years. I think that the -- this thing between 91st and 92nd is the county's fault. If I don't -- if I -- If I'm right, that was only a little swale at one time, and every year it gets deeper and deeper and deeper. I understand one year they had a bulldozer in there cleaning it out. I think it's up to the county to take care of their job. But besides that, we have problems -- Everyone talks about the problem of getting -- cleaning up the swales and so forth. Can't seem to do anything with George Archibald. He says -- He comes to our meetings, says, yes, we'll do everything we can for you. And he promises and he promises and he promises. Nothing's been done for at least four years in Naples Park. The only time he ever comes out there or has the crews come out is to dig a ditch too deep so it -- so we have mosquito ponds spread out all over the park. And another thing I wanted to address is the people who live in the 700, 800, some -- some of the 600 blocks, there's a ridge that runs down through Naples Park. On the east side, it's all flood zone, and there's a big hump in there. If the county would put in what I call a sub -- subculvert or they could put in infiltrators, all those people on that east side of Naples Park wouldn't have to be paying for flood insurance. I think it's -- it's -- I'm not an engineer, but it's a simple answer to a problem that we've had in the park for years. Thank you very much. MR. DORRILL: Miss Maiale. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. MR. DORRILL: Mr. Lamoureux. MS. MAIALE: Hi. Good afternoon. My name is Jeannette Maiale, and I've lived on 92nd Avenue for 25 years, and you all know I live on that famous waterway and that I don't want a pipe put into it. We have never had standing water in our swales on 92nd and 91st Avenue, no standing water in the front, back, or anyplace and even after the hundred-year storm, but I want to make some points here. Number one, for seven of the last eight years, I have belonged to an organization that we call Save Our Sod, and that was what started this. We wanted the county to do something about the waterway between 91st and 92nd Avenue, and what they did was put more water in there for us. So, at any rate, our issue was never flooding. It was -- It was always erosion. That's all that it was. I want my property to be worth more. I want my -- I want to get my land back. I wanted to build a swimming pool. So, at any rate, I had a wake-up call. I'm not for that anymore. And I think the things that Vera said are absolutely right about that 91st and 92nd Avenue ditch, but I think it's wrong for us to put the water into the Vanderbilt Lagoon without any treatment to it, and I think you have solved that problem. For one thing, it used to be that the county would come along, the men, and they would spray all of the bana -- You know about my banana trees. They would spray them all, and they would be done for a couple of months, also the flowers there. Now they only spray in the bottom of that waterway. So that was my first point. The second one is, I don't need protection from a ten-year storm. You've already -- I have protection from a 100-year storm. So I don't see where ABB gives me any benefit. And then the next point is Collier Enterprises. A number of people have told you about Collier Enterprises having the water come under 41 from the east side. Okay. What I'm wondering -- They've been doing that for 26 years, and I'd like to know what ABB wants to give them as their point of benefit for dumping water on us for 26 years. Another thing, Agnoli and Barber and Brundage, also, they have a retainer fee from Collier Enterprises, and I just found that out. Now, why didn't we know that eight years ago when they first started this? So, anyhow, that's all I have to say about that. Madam Chairman, you said to bring you 1,000 signatures and you would rethink your position. We brought you 1,100, and I'd like you to do that, rethink your position, and I'd also like you to vote no on -- on funding plan A. Thank you. MR. DORRILL: Mr. Lamoureux and then Mr. Lugara. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Your jersey tells me you're an optimist. MR. LAMOUREUX: A realist. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Oh, boy. We have a discussion. MR. LAMOUREUX: I'm an engineer, and I have commercial property and I -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Could you restate your name, sir -- I didn't get it -- for the -- MR. LAMOUREUX: Hark Lamoureux is my name. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. MR. LAMOUREUX: Cleveland's my team. And I own property and occupy commercial property in Naples Park. I'm actually very confused and bewildered over how we have taken a county problem and turned it into a community situation. The -- The subdivision has been under development for many, many years, and the right-of-ways have been scrutinized. And -- and for every driveway that's gone in, for every development that's gone in, the county has issued a right-of-way permit because it's their property, and they exercise jurisdiction over it. We have a drainage problem there. We all identify that, and we all agree that there is a problem. But we never did agree -- I never did agree and maybe some people in this room -- that it is the residents of that area, it is their problem only. It is the countywide drainage problem just like our roads are countywide road problems. And what do we do with those? We put those in a prioritized order, and as we have the dollars to repair them, we repair them. I would urge you to think about that particular situation as it applies to Naples Park. Many things have been brought up today about the lack of maintenance. That is the one item that the county has never ever kept up its bargain throughout the county. It is not because they haven't wanted to, but there's lots of drainage work to do every year. I think people who live in Naples Park can see the presence of the county drainage maintenance crews trying to solve certain problems by just redigging swales or whatever they do. Anyway, all I want to say is I think you need to think about the problem as a county problem and not shift the burden of the financial responsibility onto the residents of Naples Park. Thank you. MR. DORRILL: Mr. Lugara and then Larry Pistori. MR. LUGARA: Yes, Commissioners. I want to make this very short. I support the project, and I really feel the commission should proceed ahead, but I can see that there's some interest, especially from Mr. Hancock before, that we need to -- to cut some costs. Therefore, during the break I talked to Mr. Brundage, and I said, what are ways where you can really cut a lot of funds, a lot of money out of the project, and eventually get the project done. And he said -- he said to me that there's about $1 million into this for bonding to finance the project. So my suggestion is, why don't we compromise. Why not we -- Why don't we not bond the project and go pay as you go, and you could reduce the assessments. We would -- If you do it that way, you could collect the assessments first but at a lower rate and then proceed. I think this is something that maybe you could look at with the engineers and maybe look at -- there could be a compromise in how you could proceed. So I think this is a -- you know, I really don't think this -- the time now is to stop everything. I think we've waited too long to get the job done. But I think some compromise can be made, and maybe if we do some bonding or some other projects or maybe even looking into some plastic pipes instead of aluminum pipes, I think some costs can be made and maybe it can be reasonable for -- for the people to pay maybe 650, 750. People may be able to pay something like that if the costs are reduced on some of the suggestions I made. Thank you very much. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. MR. DORRILL: Mr. Pistori. He's your final speaker. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Dorrill. MR. PISTORI: How do you do, Commissioners. Actually, this was written by -- Miss Lucy Veccia had a urgent call, had to leave, and asked me to read it for you. If it's agreeable to you, I'll go ahead. Commissioners, my name is Lucy Veccia, and I have lived on 92nd Avenue since 1978. I request that this Board of Commissioners move the Naples Park drainage project forward into the bidding process. During the past weeks and this morning, each of you have been deluged -- deluged with a negative reaction aimed at putting an end to years of hard work securing the necessary permits and plans and -- and the waste of $68,000 paid by the residents of Naples Park to Agnoli, Barber, and Brundage. There are over 3,000 households in Naples Park compared to that total. The group here today is small -- represents a small representation of Naples Park, and I ask that you not be impressed nor swayed from a positive path. The people in favor of this project whom you have seen and heard many times are still out there. They feel that you know their wishes and reasons by now and need no further repetition. I would like to bring to your attention three contributing factors for your consideration pertaining to why we're here today, and we all know all developments are required by state law to provide all land improvements such as a sewer, street lights, and complete drainage system before the first home is built. With that, in fact, in mind, here is contributing factor number one. When the development of Beachwalk, Pavilion Club and shopping center were constructed, the developments provided for only half a drainage system. For the other half, they plan to take a cheaper shortcut by dumping their outfall into Naples Park drainage ditch between 91st and 92nd Avenue. When their plans became known, I recall standing on this very same spot side by side with other residents of the park protesting that -- the plan and -- and predicting that the erosion and flooding that has become today's reality. We argued and the developers knew very well that the second half of their drainage system should have been -- should have been a -- a buried pipe along the wall of the south side of 91st Avenue carrying their own outfall and their own system out to the bay as the state law requires, but it was cheaper to dump into Naples Park system. Buyers of the units in these developments were never told that they were getting only half a drainage system and would need to pay -- would need to pay for it some day for the other half. We fought a long and gallant battle, but the developers won. Your predecessors allowed the -- the expanded use of -- and overburdening in Naples Park drainage system. This is a contributing factor because these developments were built at a much higher elevation than Naples Park, and the outfall is piped in, getting into the ditch first and faster. Host of all, they should be in their own drainage system. Contributing factor number two, years and years of improper maintenance in ditches, swales in the secondary system contributing to these problems of blocked culverts, culverts of varying depths, culverts of varying diameter, blocked culverts, swales that are dug out at random here and there -- and there. Now and then we have ditches, swales that are dug out and -- oh, excuse me -- that are -- ditches that are sprayed with weed killer, poisoning us and the environment, encouraging erosion. For maintenance is definitely a contributing factor to the -- to the lakes and our streets of flood waters knocking on our neighbors' door. Third and last contributing factor to the purchasing of unimproved land that lacks sewers, street lights, with septic tanks, pitch-dark streets, and drainage systems consisting of narrow ten-feet ditch between 91st and 92nd. By 1978, sewers became a necessity, and sewers were installed. All lots were assessed and were given six years to pay it off at 300 to $400 a year, the next improvement to what we are seeing here today. Street lights were finally installed. We were all assessed the same and given ten years to pay for it once a year. Nobody went to the poorhouse. We are faced with a final and much-needed improvement to the drainage system. So the third factor, the purchasing of unimproved and -- land to locate our homes is on the same as what Pavilion Club and the shopping center did -- be paid -- be spent now because we need this drainage improvement. I have a few more lines, or do I have to stop? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Can you -- MR. PISTORI: Well, one more last comment. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Can you close it up? MR. PISTORI: Huh? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Wrap it up, please. MR. PISTORI: Okay. Well, it said -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: You have two lines you said? MR. PISTORI: Please consider these factors, and let this go to bid. And I -- I'd like to add my own comment, that perhaps a real cheap way of doing this is to dig the Eighth Street ditch as -- as wide and as deep as the 92nd, 91st canal, and maybe that will be the way. Sit by and see what happens, and then by -- maybe five years from now we can pay double for what it costs now. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. That's an interesting solution. Commissioner Hancock. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Pistori, your last comment is exactly what has happened in the past. This thing was designed eight years ago, and I think then the cost was $2 1/2 million for the whole thing. The reason it wasn't pursued is -- is quite simple. It wasn't politically correct to do it. You know, if -- The comments I've heard today kind of center on one thing. If you're standing in your living room ankle deep in water, you think this is a good project. If you you're not, you don't. With few exceptions, that's pretty much where the line is. If you're not being flooded, you don't want to pay. And if you are being flooded, you're asking for help. The problem we have and the problem I experienced is, if this project is killed today and we all go home and we get six inches of rainfall tomorrow, those of you that are not flooded aren't really going to care, but it is left to this commission to answer to those people who are standing ankle deep in water in their homes as to what has to be done. The county commission in 1950 did not design or build this system. The developers of the property that you bought from did. We now know that design is inadequate. It's not capable of handling typical rainfalls in typical years in Naples Park. Everyone has said the same thing. Something needs to be done. UNKNOWN VOICE: Wasn't this before all of the -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Excuse me. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Excuse me. We don't take -- We do not comment from the general floor such as that. Continue, Mr. Hancock. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Everyone has said today -- and I -- I appreciate each of your responses in that something has to be done. Where we all seem to differ is what that follow-through is and who should pay for it and how much it should be, and I don't think any solution that is presented is going to make everyone happy. There are two ends of the spectrum that can occur. One end is promise maintenance and walk away today. I can't do that. I don't think it's going to solve anything. I don't think it's going to better Naples Park. I don't think it's going to get the water out of people's homes that they're experiencing. The other end is to proceed with plan A at all costs. That can't happen either. There is a line at which this entire process stops, and that's a point of affordability. When we began looking at this a year ago, we were talking 8, $9 a month for plan A. In other words, we could give you or proceed with the best protection that the engineers could come up with for about 8 or $9 a month. In the scope of affordability, that's about as close as you can get to it, and that's why I supported it then. Where we sit today is 50 percent more than that and some cases going up from there, and I guess what I'm wrestling with is -- is, on one hand, the need to respond to a flooding problem in Naples Park, and the flip side is, every dollar that's spent has got to provide some positive benefit to the overall park. Somewhere between there lies a solution. Without knowing what the actual project cost is, I can't even sit here and say whether plan A is, in my opinion, too expensive, and many of you already can answer that, I know. No matter what it comes back, it's going to be too expensive. But for me, I need to have that information to make that decision. Without it, I'm -- I'm guessing on an estimate that the engineers put forward, and I'm assuming that's correct. And I worked in the engineering field long enough to know that the upfront estimates are generally 10 to 20 percent higher than the project cost is anyway. That's fairly typical. So I'm looking -- and, of course, I know my colleagues have some comments to make too. But what I'm looking to do today is to achieve some form of a final answer on this, and by walking away today and promising future maintenance, I don't think we're doing that. I think we're fooling ourselves. If we can go ahead with plan A, let's know that, and then let's work as hard as we can to come up with something else that will give a different level or a lower level of service at a lower cost, but I feel the need to answer that first question before going to the other options. With that, I'll -- I'd be happy to hear from my colleagues, and we'll go from there. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Constantine is next. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What I've heard a couple times from speakers at the end and then Commissioner Hancock is, if we kill this today, if we walk away, and I'm -- I'm not suggesting that. And going way back to the analogy early on, if -- if I did nothing with the vehicle, it still won't start and won't do me any good and I -- I -- I'm not suggesting we should do nothing. I am suggesting though -- and I think it was Doug McGilvra who said, at this point, going out to bid is an exercise in futility because the costs have gotten so high. And even assuming if there is maybe a 10 percent buffer in there from the engineer's estimate, we are still way, way higher than this project was a year ago, eight months ago, ten months ago, whatever it was, and -- But it seems somewhere between going forward with those bids and working ahead with a 4 or 5 million, 3 -- $3 1/2 million project and walking away, there's got to be some ground there. And -- And so I would suggest that we not move forward with the bids, but at the same time, that we not simply turn our back on the problem and walk away because you are absolutely right, that when we get into a heavy water situation again, we are going to have a problem again. So I think we need to address it. We need to look at what is the appropriate solution, but I don't think moving forward with A is that solution. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Norris. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, both of my colleagues have brought up very good points. I -- I heard -- In the speakers today, I heard common themes really. One was that the allocation system needs to be redone, readjusted, perhaps done differently, and that the price is too high. Well, how do we know the price is too high? We don't know. We don't have a price. We have a guess. We need to get a price before we know the answer. Let me -- Let me ask for a show of hands. How many people would like to have this issue settled? I mean, have this -- UNKNOWN VOICE: Settled? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: One way or the other. One way or the other. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Settled. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Nobody wants it settled. We don't want to settle? Okay. Well, then let's go on forever. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Perhaps just a motion to continue the item then. UNKNOWN VOICE: They probably didn't hear you. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: They probably didn't hear me? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: The question was, how many people COHMISSIONER NORRIS: How many people would like to have this issue settled? Raise your hands, please. UNKNOWN VOICE: How settled? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Settled. Okay. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: All right. John, that's not -- John, that's not going to work. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. The -- The only way to really settle it is to get a bid. If the price is too high, that settles it. UNKNOWN VOICES: No. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Excuse me. We have -- COHMISSIONER NORRIS: It's my turn. You've had yours. It's my turn now. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you, John. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: The only way to settle it is to get a bid, see if the price is too high. If it is, then fine. We know that. Then we have our answer. We don't have an answer right now. We have a guess, and that's not good enough. We need to -- We need to finish this process and see what the -- the actual bid is, and then we have our answer. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner -- Commissioner Hac'Kie. Ha'am, we don't take comments from the floor in general like that. Thank you. Commissioner Mac'Kie. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, I pretty much echo what Commissioner Norris just said. I have one -- one concern -- is, before when we were going through this process and I knew that there was a lot of debate, that the community was split at Naples Park. Frankly, Commissioner Hancock's leadership in this was very important to me, and also that the property owners of Naples Park supported it was very influential to me, and now I -- I don't understand why they have withdrawn their support, and I wonder if somebody on the board can help me with that. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Doug -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I understand it's just the cost. Well, no. There are two -- Well, Two? -- listed three reasons. The two predominant are that the cost has increased beyond what was anticipated. The second is the methodology has changed in such a way that an increasing burden is placed on the typical lot owner in Naples Park. That's probably the one thing -- We -- I would like to find out what the true project cost is. I think everyone would at least like to know that. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And on the -- Because on the first point, if it's that it's too expensive, then I agree with Commissioner Norris. We need to know for sure before we give up and say it's too expensive. I'd like to know that and -- But at the same point, my question is, have we gone too far -- Maybe Mr. Dotrill is the person to tell me this. After we get the bid, do we still have another shot at the allocation methodology? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Oh, yeah. MR. DORRILL: The -- The answer is -- is yes so long as it's lower. You cannot go any higher in the unlikely event that that were to occur. But the answer is yes. You can always lower assessments when -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So -- So -- MR. DORRILL: -- you get to the final -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- Commercial -- I couldn't raise commercial and lower residential? MR. DORRILL: My impression is that you -- you cannot. MR. WEIGEL: The distinction is assessments are one thing. Methodology is the other. The methodology establishes the allocation of the assessments. If the price comes in lower, then you apply the methodology, and everyone's assessments go down, but you can't change the methodology after today. And, in fact, that which has been advertised for today -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: See, that changes everything for me. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: That changes everything for me. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I think I can take it from there. The one -- The one saving grace here I was hoping for is that if the cost comes in low enough, we can then expend the effort to really work on the methodology, to massage it, to pull from here, to yank from there, to put things together in a -- in a more what I would call a fairer approach. And the one thing I've told people consistently throughout this is that if I can't reduce the burden on the typical lot owner on what is presented, then I can't move ahead. If I can't increase the dollar amount assessed on anyone from here on out, that means that the Pavilion Club Shopping Center is locked in at their cost, not a dollar more. And if this project does go ahead, I was -- I was seeing a little more assessment placed on -- on the commercial properties. That kind of throws a -- a much larger wrench into everything than -- than I had anticipated. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Can I enter my -- I've got a list of things too. Mr. Weigel, you wanted to tell us -- MR. WEIGEL: Yeah. In -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: -- more about this though? MR. WEIGEL: In regard to the methodology, there was no true methodology until Agnoli, Barber, and Brundage were hired to provide a methodology, a legally defensible methodology, and they have done so. In fact, for the first time ever in the history of special assessment districts, we have them indemnifying the county for the methodology that they've created. Previous assessments, assessment districts -- We have lawsuits from time to time and we -- we -- we tend to have to shoulder it more alone and use -- use the consultant as the expert. In this case, we have an indemnification where they have to be legally responsible for the methodology. The methodology isn't arrived at lightly, and that's not to say that that may not be the only methodology or type of methodology that may apply. But the resolution that's before the board today is a -- is a rather all-embracing resolution. That's plans and specs, methodology, and the tentative assessment roll, and it's an advertised resolution. And if -- if this methodology were not approved today, we'd have to get back in the process of creating a new methodology and bringing it back through the hearing process. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: While we're -- I think we were on my question, and I hadn't quite finished that if I can. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Is there -- I understand the resolution that's in front of us. My fear was that we wouldn't be able to readdress methodology after the fact because the resolution that we have includes it. Is it possible to pass a resolution to get the -- have the cost firmly ascertained? Can we get -- Can we do a bid before we do the methodology for the assessment? MR. WEIGEL: Yes. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So -- MR. WEIGEL: I mean, if you wish -- You can continue this advertised -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. MR. WEIGEL: -- hearing today to a date certain. You've got five weeks within our advertising requirement to do that and conceivably go out to bid and get back in the same time. I know they have a rather expedited schedule, and so starting tomorrow they're going out for bid if it were to be approved today, and conceivably they may be able to come back with the -- with the bid responses prior to a continuation date for this. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Because my -- my other comment and I -- I can certainly see the value in having the engineering firm indemnify the county on its -- on its methodology. But just like all the lawsuits in -- against doctors have made doctors be ultraconservative when we get more tests than we need, I wonder if -- As a lawyer, if I'm asked to give a legal opinion and I know they're going to sue me if I'm wrong, then I'm very conservative in my legal opinion. I wonder if maybe that's a source of some of our problems with the conservative nature of this assessment methodology, that we are positive it's legally defensible, but it may not be the most fair for this community. So what -- what I would like to see is -- is if it's possible to go forward with ascertaining a firm price and then looking again at assessment methodology over the next five weeks. That's what I'm going to support. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. MR. WEIGEL: Okay. Well, I think there is a question there, and I feel compelled to respond. The methodology is defensible because it strives to be fair. If it's not fair, that's where the methodology is indefensible -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I understand. MR. WEIGEL: -- And so that was the -- the goal behind coming up with a methodology in the first place. We've just got a consultant on the hook to back it up in court if it should fail. If we come back -- If this matter is continued and we come back after the county learns what the pricing is for the bids solicited, you really cannot change the methodology based upon what is already advertised and has notice to the public and everything else that's brought us here now. Now, in previous special assessment projects, we have tweaked individual parcels within a project, not changing methodology, but recognizing exceptions to the general application or averaging the methodology forces on properties and -- and that is still a prerogative that might exist at some later point in time but -- And usually that happens at the next public hearing step when you adopt the final assessment roll after the project has gotten the previous approval. So that would be next year. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm confused now and -- and-- I -- I promise this is my last comment. But I'm confused now about, can we -- can we get -- send this out to bid and get a firm price and then in the next five weeks completely redo or make significant changes to the methodology of assessment? MR. WEIGEL: No. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's what I was afraid you'd say. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Boldt, I would like to ask you a question. Before lunch, you were -- you were asked to contact the DOT during the break about the 68 acres of wetland on the east side of 41 and the possibility of the drainage pipe will continue to exist. Were you -- Were you able to do that? MR. BOLDT: I was not able to. I called up there, and they were on their lunch and were not available. I did talk -- however, talked to Mr. Archibald who had had conversations with a Florida Department of Transportation representative within the last week about this very situation, and Mr. Archibald expressed his concern about the amount of water coming in, and I understand they come to an understanding -- The county's position is that's going to be the watershed divide between the park and the Pelican Marsh, and the Pelican Marsh is by PUD stipulation obligated to take that water and divert it over the ridge into the Pine Ridge canal. The pipe under U.S. 41 may be left there as an equalizer, but it would not take that wetland area and discharge it through the park. It has to go the other way. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: What's going to make it do that? MR. BOLDT: There -- They physically would berm it and divert it east into the Pine Ridge canal through the Pelican Marsh system. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And I assume through the PUD monitoring process or others -- How would that be monitored to ensure compliance? MR. BOLDT: That's a PUD stipulation, so it's just like the rest of them. We'll monitor it. We have an annual review, and I particularly would watch over that myself. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Norris. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I have a question for Mr. Dotrill. Under the bidding process, will our own road and bridge department be supplied a bid packet? MR. DORRILL: The bid packet would be supplied by Agnoli, Barber, and Brundage through your purchasing department. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, does our road and bridge department get to bid on it, is my question. MR. DORRILL: They would not typically, no. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Would they be able to in this particular case? MR. BOLDT: I would say that's going to be extremely precise-type work. It's going to take a lot of management of the water, dewatering, erosion control, turbidity. It's going to take a highly trained contractor with some large equipment and many forces. It's not a small job that the road and bridge could handle. MR. DORRILL: They -- They could if directed by the board. It could involve a series of subcontractors for cheap pile work or dewatering work and that sort of thing if the board was interested. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, I just thought of that as a possibility. I have a comment too. While I understand the county attorney's and respect his judgment on the -- the legal defensibility of the methodology that the engineer has given us, that certainly doesn't -- and I know that it's based on fairness, but that doesn't mean that that's the only methodology that could be construed as fair, and so we may want to consider that for a while. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Constantine. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: There's three very obvious problems. One is what appears to be a majority of the people are asking us not to pursue plan A at this point. The second is the methodology is clearly a problem at this point and I -- maybe I'm mistaken -- I think everyone has acknowledged that. And, third, I think if we're realistic, the cost is likely to be a problem. I'd like to suggest a couple of things, and we do two motions separately. I'd like to see us -- and I'll make this motion in a moment, but, first, I'd like to see us make a motion and approve a motion to decline to move forward with plan A. After that, I would like to have a motion that sets into mo -- in -- into -- sets into motion a specific calendar for when and how to address this problem. What I don't want to do is turn around and walk away today and say, well, we'll get that at some point. I would like to have a particular outline and a particular calendar in mind for how and when we can address this rather than simply say no. But I'll make a motion particularly with the methodology -- and the cost concerns but particularly with the methodology and the fact that a majority of the residents that are asking us to -- to do this, that we decline to move forward with plan A. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: There's a motion. Is there a second? Motion dies. I -- I'd like to -- I'd like to finish the comments that I had -- I had started a couple of, oh, I don't know, 10, 15 minutes ago and -- and I think that Mr. Weigel has said that we probably can't go this way, but this is what I'd like to do, and I'm not sure how the others feel. But I would like to move forward with the bids to see what it costs but I -- I also want this 68 acres that's currently draining into Naples Park east of 41 verified whether it's going to continue that way or not. I know that there's -- The PUD document says it won't, but I want it verified. The other thing I'd like to do is I heard someone mention an activity center is where this property is now, and we have had already some parcels of land allocated through the methodology based on zoning use, and if this 68 acres is going to continue to drain and it's an activity center, then we have what will become a very impervious source of water. I -- I -- Based on those things happening, I'd like to see a reallocation of cost benefit based on the three distinct basins within Naples Park itself. I mean, we have heard people say their water flows west. We've heard people say their water flows north and others say theirs flows south and then west, and I've got some concern that we're involving people in essentially a public works project that they don't belong in. Beachwalk, Lord knows, in the last week, I've learned a lot about capacity of water and I'm -- I'm a little bit concerned that even though Beachwalk is at the end of the line, that it's contributing enough water to take up capacity which slows down the drainage from 91st, 92nd and Eighth. I understand -- We've heard along Eighth Street at 93rd there's a plug in the culvert, and that's fine. We need to get that cleaned out if that's what is causing Eighth Avenue to back up -- Eighth Street -- I'm sorry -- then we need to take a look at that. And the -- the -- the last thing I'd like to try to get in the five-week period that we're waiting on this, with the proviso that maybe the bids come in too high and we don't want to go forward with it, we get a report on what the maintenance costs are to properly maintain the system as it currently exists and the probability of property owners being able to continue the maintenance of the swales in their own front yards. If they can't do it, we've got to find a way that it gets done for them. I know we have some elderly people in the area. We have some infirm people who just can't do it and -- but yet it may be their culverts that clog up that are causing all the problems for the rest of the people. Those are the things I'd like to find out in the intervening five weeks. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Weigel, if we altered the methodology, we're going to need to readvertise anyway, so we're not really under a five-week time constraint unless we intend to keep this methodology, are we? MR. WEIGEL: That's true. If you alter the methodology, you have to readvertise. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have to readvertise. Okay. Commissioner Hancock. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Assuming that were the case, how far back do we go in this process? And the reason I ask the question is we have -- in essence, in order to set up a taxing district that begins on January 1, our final decision has to be made in this calendar year; is that correct? MR. WEIGEL: Well, the -- the district is created in the sense that this district goes back to 1986. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. MR. WEIGEL: And -- But we're on a very tight time frame because we have to -- we have to have essentially this approved so that by the calendar -- new calendar year so we go forward with the tax collector and the -- and the property appraiser for next year. John, I -- John Boldt -- MR. DORRILL: You need not have your assessment roll approved by January the 1st though. You're under no obligation to do that, if that's your question. MR. WEIGEL: Yeah. I've got a -- We have a time frame that shows when things have to be done, and part of this time frame was based upon the window to do the construction after the bids came in so that we knew what the final costs were so that it all came together to be approved by June to get onto the tax bills as an assessment on the tax bill this next fall. So I -- I think we have a calendar year problem in any event if we have to readvertise. But beyond that, it gets into doing the project if -- whatever project, so it can get on the tax bill for next fall. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: My -- My concern at this point -- One of my many concerns at this point -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: It's our drop-dead day. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah. -- Is that if we go back and revise the methodology, I believe it's going to push us into another construction year. I think that time frame alone keeps the project from moving ahead on January 1. I'm not interested in moving ahead at all costs again. There are a lot of -- There have been a lot of things floated today. I think the numerical and the engineering side of methodology is probably -- it's probably correct. I'm sure in a court of law you could defend it, and I think that's great, but my gut doesn't tell me it's right. When I look at the number of people in Naples Park that don't live on Eighth or 91st or 92nd and the amount that they would be paying if this even came in at 60 percent of the project cost versus what benefit they would be receiving, my gut tells me that's not fair. And if by going in and trying to find another method to make that more fair and appropriate to the individual property owners it pushes us out of the necessary construction window, then, no, we're not talking about five weeks. We're talking about a longer period than that. The risk we run there is that the folks that have been working so hard on this for so many years get to this point, the momentum, in essence, stops, and there's a risk it will never be picked up again. There's a risk that restarting it again in any way, shape, or form is jeopardized. Weighing all of those things, knowing that we cannot change the methodology and get this done in the time frame proposed and knowing that that methodology to be changed would probably put us in a position that we can't defend ourselves, it does require us to back up and -- and revise it, and I think we need to know that schedule. I think part of that is knowing what the construction cost is. So I'm asking you, Mr. Weigel, for a way to separate our actions at this point that provide us with an up-to-date construction estimate or a construction cost if we put it out to bid, what time frame that would be good for and what our time frame is if we have to revise the methodology, the earliest date at which we could get something back. And I've thrown a lot at you at one point -- MR. WEIGEL: Sure. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: -- but I'm really looking for general time frames. MR. WEIGEL: Yeah. I can respond to that. And, again, John Boldt or -- or Dan Brundage may be able to tell us exactly when the bid response time was that we have right now. It's rather short even now. It's -- It's, you know, well before the end of this calendar year. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Nothing's keeping us from really going to bid. MR. WEIGEL: No. Nothing -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: We don't have to -- MR. WEIGEL: Nothing prevents that. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- approve anything today to put that bid out, do we? MR. WEIGEL: No. That can just be a directive to staff to do that. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And we're not married to this assessment methodology if we put this bid out? MR. DORRILL: Not as a function of taking bids, no. MR. WEIGEL: No. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Okay. MR. WEIGEL: The bid is only married to the plans and specs that it must be responsive to. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: The specs. MR. WEIGEL: Yes. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: But -- Okay. The job specs and the methodology are two different things. MR. WEIGEL: Yes. Yes. A couple of -- You had a question and Commissioner Matthews had a question, and she was talking about an activity center, and obviously some information could be brought back to you in that regard. If it's already within the parameters of the district and it has not been included as an assessable property, that can be -- question can be brought back, particularly if we don't approve the tentative assessment roll and the other elements of this resolution, i.e., the resolution today. We can -- We can look at that. Staff and the engineer can look at that and determine if, in fact, there is a misallocation or something overlooked, and those are maybe pejorative terms if there's something that -- for fairness should bring that into play. If it's outside of the Naples Park district that we've already approved in previous resolutions leading up to today, we can't bring it in now for this project now. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: But we're just finding out that -- that it -- that it is or could possibly benefit from this program and it was never considered. I mean, you know, we do PUD amendments all the time -- MR. WEIGEL: Right. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: -- to change PUDs and -- and if we go ahead with this project and make appropriate assessments and get the project done, Lord knows, we'll get a PUD amendment in two years to flow water through that pipe if that pipe stays there. MR. WEIGEL: Yeah. It's -- It's just that if this property -- And, again, I don't know where it's located, but if it's located outside of the district that our -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: It is. MR. WEIGEL: -- that our resolutions have been addressing we've been bringing to you these last several months, then we have -- we may conceivably have to amend the ordinance since it's the ordinance that creates the district and the boundaries in the first place -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: And it's gotten very complicated. MR. WEIGEL: -- and then get back into our resolution process for the project that -- that this is the next to the last resolution of this project. But if it's outside of the HSTBU as defined by ordinance and amended earlier this year, then -- then we -- that's where we have to start before we can legally bring it in and make it a player subject to assessment. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I -- I understand that and -- and -- and -- and I guess that what I would need and whatever time frame we develop this thing is -- is assurances, I guess, from FDOT that that pipe is coming out, and then it -- it's not an equalizer. There's no opportunity for the PUD to be amended, to -- to take whatever water that that pipe can handle and put it into a reservoir system that really wasn't designed to handle it. MR. WEIGEL: Yes. Well, of course, part of what is with today's resolution package is a tentative assessment roll, and it appears this property is not on that tentative assessment roll, and this assessment roll is part of what legally had to be advertised and reviewed by the affected public, including the owner of the activity center who has not yet had that opportunity, whether it's a public entity or private owner. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I under -- I -- I understand. It's just another matter that complicates this. MR. WEIGEL: Yes. I guess back, then, to the time frames Commissioner Hancock and all of you are looking to, it won't take much delay to get us beyond the ability to put it on the tax bill for next year. That's not to say that there's -- could not necessarily be a lot of work to be done to be brought back with the board periodically to shape and tool this early in the new calendar year to get beyond that to -- to a project, but there are certainly some constraints with this resolution before you today and all that -- all that it carries with it. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm at this point contemplating two motions, and before I frame them, I'm going to float them and let's -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Can I just ask an informational question of Mr. Dotrill first? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Please. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: When we issue a request for bid typically, how much does that cost us in staff time, postage, and meeting all the legal obligations and so on? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: They're already written. The steps are already written. MR. DORRILL: Less than $10,000. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: In this case, that will be funded from? MR. DORRILL: In this case, that would be funded from the general fund. We don't prorate out to the various purchasing departments in the general fund. It's something less than $10,000. I believe that we would make prospective bidders acquire the sets or place a deposit on the number of blueprint sets, the construction drawings that they would be evaluating. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you. Sorry. Commissioner Hancock. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: The two aspects I'm looking at are, one, to make a motion to direct our staff to work with Agnoli, Barber, and Brundage in revising the methodology from the aspect of considering a basin division among Naples Park. There are three basins with different work among each. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Can I ask you a question? Is basically -- You're talking about all those white lots need to have -- need to be subcategorized? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: There are three basins in Naples Park. One is, in essence, the western half. The other two is the northeast third and the southeast third. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: That's really the majority of the division. Oversimplification. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, but that's -- Yeah. And that was the question I asked starting out this morning, is -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: There are -- are three things that I think a revised methodology could take into consideration. One is a basin breakdown. The second is -- I lost my train of thought. I'm sorry. The second is, if a project were phased in such a way to reduce the overall construction cost, how does that impact the methodology and how it's applied. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Pay as you go? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: In a sense. And, granted, we just scratched the surface on that today so I don't -- I really don't know that much about it, to be honest with you. And the third is, even though something may be legally and technically defensible, I think we need to be a little more sensitive to the fact that this system when it originally was put in in 1950 did not contemplate outside areas draining into it. The fact that that has happened or has been permitted doesn't take away the reality that it is adding to the system and consuming capacity within the system. That in and of itself to me warrants a -- a look at how those properties outside of Naples Park are assessed, particularly when the burden for the majority of this is falling upon homeowners in Naples Park. Those are the three elements that I think if we review and try and put those in a proper perspective, we can come back with a better methodology. Commissioner Constantine raised a good point. I was going to suggest that we go out to bid. The problem is that if we go out to bid, yet we find a phased project to be the better option, we've wasted the money on going out to bid. Until the methodology is fixed or acceptable, I don't know that going to bid does us a lot of good right now. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I don't know. We -- certainly plan A which is what the specs have been developed to is the Cadillac and -- and while we may not need the Cadillac, it will at least tell us what the maximum cost is going to be. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: When we typically issue bids and we receive them back, how long are those bid prices guaranteed if we're to go to construction? MR. DORRILL: Ninety days, and they post bid bond. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: And by revising the methodology, there's no way we would need a construction schedule that would begin in 90 days anyway. Is that a fair assessment? If we have to go back and revise the entire methodology, that process in and of itself could easily go beyond those 90 days? MR. DORRILL: If I understand your question, not too much, recognizing that we have -- we have a 20-day advertising requirement in advance of that. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: If you have two or three vendors who are fairly close in their bid, though, a change in methodology, if you phase that in, that could alter, and so I don't know that I am excited about doing a bidding process that may be moot. I mean, you know, we'll get an idea overall cost-wise, but you've got a bunch of vendors dangling out there, and then we change the way we're going to do it and say, well, that's meaningless. MR. DORRILL: It wouldn't make any difference to a prospective bidder though. I mean, he's bidding a lump sum or aggregate amount. How you apportion the payment of that is of -- of absolutely no regard to him. He's -- He's going to get paid from us. How we get our money -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm sorry. I thought I heard Commissioner Hancock say a phase -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah. It would make a difference if the project, in essence, were phased. MR. DORRILL: Yes. COHHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's what I was -- MR. DORRILL: If you're going to phase construction, which was the fifth note that I had here, then -- and go something -- say, pay as you go, if there are 3,000 homes and you've got, let's say, $200 per year and we're only going to spend the cash that we can raise, at least for the residential equivalency, that would be $600,000 that you could spend on construction next year. You're going to increase your cost somewhat if a contractor knows that in 1996 he's only going to do $600,000 worth of work as opposed to $3 million worth of work. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It seems like we might want to define that before we spend $10,000 asking for bids. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: What this is doing is it's putting us back in this room -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- in about 90 days with the same people, having the same discussion. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Saying the same thing. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We may be doing it right. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Let me -- Commissioner Norris asked a question earlier, and I'm going to try and frame one a little bit closer. This is two questions, and just a raise of hands, please. No cheering -- or jeering. At the current -- At the cost of what you have received in assessment, how many of you are opposed to this project? Okay. How many of you that are opposed to the project are still opposed to it at 50 percent of that cost? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: So that's mostly cost. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. So just by what's here, what we're dealing with here for the most part is not that it's -- it's all a bad idea but the cost is excessive? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: That's where I started about four hours ago. Okay. So what we've got to do is we've got to set a target of bringing the sucker down somewhere around 50 percent of what -- what you received in the mail. UNKNOWN VOICE: Buy the battery. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: So -- COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Buy the battery? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Buy that battery at Chevron tOO . CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Sam's. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: The difference is that battery's got a two-year guarantee. We're looking for a ten-year transportation so -- Okay. I think we've got something on -- on the boards here. We're going to have to revise the methodology because currently the project can't go forward. Even if the -- if the cost is 2 1/2 million, that doesn't get us down to where we need to go. So I'm just going to go -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Close. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Let's just go ahead and put the first motion out. I'm going to make a motion we direct staff to work with the project consultant in revising the methodology to take into consideration a possibility of phasing the project to reduce the overall cost in addition to considering the contribution of outside stormwater to the Naples Park system and anything else that the consultant can throw in there to help bring down the cost on this project. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: The basin portion. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Oh. And -- I'm sorry. And to also consider the application of -- of charging or the assessments going by drainage basin within Naples Park. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That I can support, and I will second. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Just a question on the motion. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Discussion? Yes. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I -- I thought that when I asked Mr. Brundage this morning couldn't we divide -- shouldn't those white lots be divided into some subdistricts, you said that that was a bad idea. You said no to that, and I don't want to be going down that road again if the answer is no. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, I -- I know Mr. Brundage. I know his answer. You were talking about individually. One lot next to each other, let's -- what's different between the two -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No, I -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- wasn't but -- but if that's what he -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: There is, in fact, a -- it's not a very clear -- it's a very jagged line that runs down Naples Park, but there are three distinct basins. Some properties are going to fall right on the middle, and that's a judgment call, but by basin we can allocate cost at that basin that are attributed to the drainage just from that basin. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: See -- Mr. Brundage, just nod then if he's right because that is what I was trying to ask you this morning, and I thought you said that was a bad idea. MR. BRUNDAGE: (Nodded head) COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: He's nodding. Okay. MR. BRUNDAGE: Yes. We can -- We can do that. It's going to make it extremely complicated in that you may have a lot that has a basin boundary go through it. So, you know, it just increases the complexity of the whole situation, but it -- it can be done. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: You're going to have to call that one if the basin boundary goes through a particular lot. You -- MR. BRUNDAGE: Yeah. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: You're going to have to call it. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Engineer's seal on the deal, the big bucks. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second. I'm not going to attempt to repeat it. We've got this lady taking minutes. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Is there any further discussion? Commissioner MAc'Kie. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm sorry, but I -- I -- I do need to restate it. The motion was to direct staff to work with the consultant to redo the allocation methodology by whatever methods are appropriate, specifically phasing, outside properties and these basins within Naples Park. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Bingo. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Bingo. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: You've got it. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Obviously we're not moving forward with the bids until we know. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: I was going to make a second motion something along that line. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: You want to put a time frame anywhere in there? COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: I guess I'd have to look to Mr. Brundage and Mr. Boldt on what would be appropriate. Obviously, minimum time, the better but -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Let me interrupt. We've had a lot of discussion here, and before we take a vote, I've got to close the public hearing. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Whoops. Thank you, Mr. Weigel. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thirty days. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: So I'd like a time frame so it doesn't die. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thirty days. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thirty days? UNKNOWN VOICE: Ninety. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Ninety days? COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Ninety days? COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What's the difference? Sixty? COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Sixty days. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: What's reasonable, Mr. Brundage? COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: It's not supposed to rain for the next couple of weeks. MR. BRUNDAGE: I was checking with John and he -- we're thinking 90. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: know. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: John is very busy right now, I Up to 90. Ninety days. If that's our only choice, then we're going to have to put it at 90 days. I'll make that a part of the motion, request to report back within 90 days. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Weigel, do you need us to restate the motion with the public hearing closed? COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Just say it's hereby restated. MR. WEIGEL: No. Just you -- you make -- make a note for the record that the motion was stated prior to noting on the record that the hearing was closed. I think I'm doing it for you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: You are. MR. WEIGEL: The motion is part of the record subsequent to the -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you very much for doing that for me. MR. WEIGEL: -- public hearing being closed. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Consider my motion restated now. MR. DORRILL: Just one point of clarification. I understand the point of phasing. Phasing is not going to lower the cost. It's only going to lower the first year's cost. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Except for the million dollars being in there for bonding cost. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Bonding. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's why I asked was it -- HR. DORRILL: CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: MR. DORRILL: Correct. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: over time. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, phasing in lieu of borrowing money It's still time value of money. Construction costs will go up Well, again, you know -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The motion asks to explore that. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah. The suggestion was made. Let's get an answer to it. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. We have a motion and a second. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: By the way, I'll -- I'll accept the amendments that were made. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: There were amendments made? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: She's just merely restated it. Never mind. Second -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Ninety days. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Ninety days for the -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Second accepts. Okay. There's a motion and a second. All those in favor please say aye. Opposed? Motion passes five to zero. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: There is a follow-up on this so that we're all clear. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Let's take a break. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: It's very -- It should be very quick. We know that we're not going to go to bid immediately on this. There are two elements that could affect the bidding such as the use of FDOT-approved plastic pipe as opposed to metal or concrete. What does that do to the project cost, and could it be part of the project. So -- COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Phasing. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And -- And also the phasing aspect, what does it do to construction cost. I would like to direct staff, if it's the board's agreement, to include those two aspects in reviewing the -- the overall project cost. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll make a motion to that effect along with -- obviously we won't then ask for bids until we have answers to all -- the last motion and this motion's questions. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Correct. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Second. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Motion and a second. Any further discussion? All those in favor, please say aye. Opposed? There being none, motion passes five to zero. Let's take a ten-minute break. (A short break was held.) Item #882 FINAL SETTLEHENT AGREEHENT REGARDING PURCHASE OF THE BATHEY PROPERTY - CONSTRUCTION AGREEMENT AND CONTRACT APPROVED CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I want to reconvene the Board of County Commission meeting for October 24, 1995. Mr. Weigel, I understand we have an agreement on or -- on the Bathey property, and we're ready to do that one first -- MR. WEIGEL: I believe -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: -- is that correct? MR. WEIGEL: I believe we are. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Why don't we -- MR. WEIGEL: At last. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: -- get to it. MR. HCNEES: Thank you, Madam Chairman. I'll be happy to let Mr. Weigel go ahead with this if he wants to, but I think I'll probably go ahead myself. Mike HcNees from the county manager's office. As you know, a few weeks ago you approved a purchase of a piece of property in East Naples from the Hubschman family for the development of a community park and treated wastewater storage ponds, and we told you at that time that we had just received an updated draft of the actual settlement agreement and that the -- a few minor details would be yet to be resolved and that that -- we would then consummate that deal. Well, as it turns out, as always, the devil was in the details, and we've spent a good part of the last three or four weeks ironing out those few minor details, and we believe that we've reached a point today where we're here to recommend a final settlement agreement. I have a number of engineers and attorneys from both sides here to keep me honest. I'll give you the -- kind of the quick version of where we are today and -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Why don't you just give us what the differences are from what we thought we agreed to. MR. HCNEES: There may not be any at this point. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Good. MR. HCNEES: There's only one question that we have for you, and that is regarding the timing of the closing on what we call parcel two in the agreement which is the effluent pond storage site, and that is whether you intended closing on that property at the conclusion of construction or whether you intended closing on that property once the contractor, which it would be the Hubschmans in this case or Glades, Inc., has actually received the permits. They're asking that that property close once they receive permits. We have agreed to that as part of the agreement, and we just want to make sure that you -- you are on board with that and that we're not making some decision that was contrary to what you wanted. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I think that is different from what we thought we agreed to the other -- three weeks ago. I -- I believe we were talking about closing on a -- what was referred to as a turnkey which would be then at the completion -- MR. HCNEES: Frankly, that was -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: -- of the construction. MR. HCNEES: -- staff's recollection as well. The other parties did, on the record, indicate that they were talking about closing once they received permits. So there appeared to be a conflict which is why we brought that issue to you today. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I understand. MR. HCNEES: The record was clear, there was conflict. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. MR. HCNEES: With that, there's only one other issue, and Mr. Weigel may have a couple other things to add. Another issue that we want to have on the record today, there are some provisions that if certain things donwt happen, the second half of this transaction -- that being the effluent ponds -- would not take place. We would, however, continue to develop the park site. And Mr. Olliff has a concern because a part of the grease that makes the park site work is the relatively inexpensive fill that hews getting because of the other site, and one of the -- and -- and the Hubschmans have agreed that that fill they would still provide for the development of the park site should parcel two for some reason fail to develop, and we just need to have that on the record today for Mr. Olliffws protection. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: So youwre going to -- Mr. Hubschman, youwre -- MR. MCNEES: Have I stated that correctly, Harry? MR. HUBSCHMAN: Yes. That is correct. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: So, essentially, youlre willing to provide the fill at the same cost even if parcel two doesnlt move forward? MR. HUBSCHMAN: Thatls correct. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Mr. Weigel, you have a comment? MR. WEIGEL: I was just going to say, Mr. Hubschman may want to identify himself for the record because the record may be important. MR. HUBSCHMAN: Okay. Iim Harrison Hubschman. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. And so the only question then we have at the end is whether this board is in agreement on closing on parcel two at permitting as opposed to closing at completion. Is there any thought on that? (Commissioner Constantine and Commissioner Hancock entered the boardroom.) MR. WEIGEL: And while youlre thinking, Iill be happy to provide a little background to that -- that question. Obviously the distinctions are that payment obligations of the purchaser, the county, for parcel number two would occur upon closing or the conveyance of the -- of the title to the property which would be, you know, up to several months prior to the finish of the construction. If the board were to go that route and provide the payment for the underlying property prior to it being -- to the improvements being constructed, there would be in place then a construction -- There is and shall be in place, based upon todayls action and approving the settlement agreement, a construction agreement which provides and largely follows the standard county large-scale capital construction contract format whereupon we have progress payments, we have indemnification, we have many of the elements that we typically would have with any solicited and bid kind of contract that -- for work to be done, capital improvement contract. Again, while youlre -- Go ahead. MR. HUBSCHMAN: The bonding is included. MR. WEIGEL: Yeah. I was going to say, again, while youlre thinking of that question about the turnkey or not, Iill tell you a little bit more about the contract, the construction contract, and part of the consideration today is to accept the concept of the countyls form of construction agreement with some revisions. Itls important that these go on the record, and itls important that Mr. Hubschman or his agents on the record approve and agree to -- to what is stated here as deviations from the standard county construction agreement. These revisions are as follows: The design professional for the construction for parcel number two would be employed by Glades or Glades, Inc.; that is, the seller interest of the -- of parcel number one and two. MR. HUBSCHMAN: If I could interject, that design professional right now is Q. Grady Minor -- Q. Grady Minor. MR. WEIGEL: Okay. Second, a bond would be -- The -- The -- The construction contractor, which in this case is part of the seller's party, would, in fact, be bonded, and my understanding is that after negotiation here, the bond would be paid for by the county, the purchaser. And correct me, Mike or Tom. That previous language that we had in the settlement agreement and/or in the construction agreement providing for the Hubschman private interest to be personal guarantors will no longer be the case in these agreements; is that correct? MR. MCNEES: That would remain. MR. WEIGEL: That will remain. Okay. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It's correct that it will remain in or out? I mean, I -- I get -- Which is correct? MR. CONRECODE: For the record, Tom Conrecode from public works. The payment and performance bond at two fifty-five o five bond under Florida Statutes will be provided but paid for by the county because it wasn't contemplated in the original negotiations. The Hubschmans as guarantee -- or guarantors of the project would remain. MR. WEIGEL: Okay. I'll continue, and there may be further comment. The construction schedule -- Mike, the construction schedule within the construction agreement will follow what course? Construction schedule, how is it different from the construction schedule that we would typically have in our contract? MR. MCNEES: I don't think it is different. MR. WEIGEL: Okay. MR. MCNEES: It talks about the schedule being defined or the initiation date for the construction schedule being the actual permit received. MR. WEIGEL: Okay. In this contract, contrary to some of our contracts, do we not pay 10 percent immediately or very shortly thereafter the execution of the construction agreement? MR. MCNEES: The payment schedule is somewhat different. I think that's what you're getting at, and we would be paying 10 percent up front which is somewhat unusual, paying for engineering and design work that in this case is already completed and giving them essentially a reimbursement for that cost. On another type project, we would probably be -- that work would not have already been done. We would not be fronting 10 percent. MR. WEIGEL: Okay. You're right. This is actually more payment schedule than construction schedule. Additionally, for the record now and for hereafter, on -- on payment schedule, the county is -- does have a retention provision operative throughout the agreement. Okay. MR. MCNEES: (Nodded head.) MR. WEIGEL: On construction schedule, I think what we're looking for the board to -- to understand is that the construction of parcel number two would commence subsequent to the obtaining of the permits, just to make that clear at this point in time and -- Go ahead. MR. CONRECODE: That is correct. It would -- Construction would begin at the point where we obtain permits and be completed within 60, 80, 90 days. There's several tricks within the agreement. MR. WEIGEL: Okay. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: So within 90 days after the permitting is accomplished? MR. CONRECODE: I -- It's -- It's all provided for in detail in Exhibit D, Mr. Siesky, to your -- MR. SIESKY: Commissioner -- Jim Siesky, for the record. The construction schedule varies for the different ponds to be constructed, and your contract requires us to give you a construction schedule within ten days after the signing of the contract. Our problem is we can't tell you when the permits are going to be issued, but we have laid out a schedule that says within 60 days after all necessary permits, we'll complete the off-site piping; within 80 days after all necessary -- necessary permitting, we'll complete pond C; within 180 days after all necessary permitting, we'll complete lakes A and B. That all put together leads to a total completion of the project if it's to be completed within 18 months after the execution of this agreement which is what was discussed at the last board meeting. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. So you're anticipating, then, the permitting taking about 12 months? MR. SIESKY: We're hoping it will take one month, but our experience has been, we don't know when they're issued with the Corps of Engineers and other agencies. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. I'd like to know more about the payment schedule. The payment for parcel one is to be completed immediately like? MR. HCNEES: Yes, ma'am. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: And for parcel two, in -- in -- Is this payment for parcel two -- is that only for the land and not the improvements? MR. HCNEES: That's correct. The payment for the land would take place at closing which as we're identifying is once they've received the permits to proceed with the construction. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: And how much is that for parcel two? MR. HCNEES: 4 million -- I believe -- 200,000. I have to -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: And 1 million for parcel one? MR. HCNEES: Yes, ma'am. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: And then the last payment less retainage would be when it's completed? MR. WEIGEL: Yeah. The -- The -- The -- The retainage is a 10 percent factor based on construction cost. MR. HUBSCHHAN: I think the number -- The price on the -- on the closing on parcel two was incorrect. MR. HCNEES: I'm looking for it. MR. HUBSCHHAN: It's three million five ninety-two. The total price for the land is four million five ninety-two. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. MR. HCNEES: That was not an offer. That was a mistake. Three million five ninety-two. MR. HUBSCHHAN: I didn't want that to slip by. You don't want to pay me more than you have to. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. And the -- the construction would be paid when completed? There's no construction draws? MR. HUBSCHHAN: That -- That would be on a -- on the construction schedule -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. MR. HUBSCHHAN: -- which would start at that point in time. When the property closes and we have our permits to build, we would start the construction schedule and the construction payment schedule. Now, we have -- as I stated, we have already expended quite a bit of money to get the permit -- permitting started. We've got the plans done with the engineers, and we've done a lot of on-site work already, and the first payment in the schedule is to reimburse us for those, and we have agreed to the county's agreement in that 10 percent of all payments shall be withheld until the end of the project, and upon completion and acceptance by the county, we will receive that last 10 percent which is the normal -- which is in your contract. It's a normal occurrence. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Go on. Is that all we need to -- MR. WEIGEL: I have a couple of other minor items and just -- just for the information of the record really. This contract, construction contract, will have a commencement date. Again, it works with the permitting when it occurs. There is a provision for liquidated damages if construction is not completed within a time certain, and there is -- With our current form construction agreement, we do have the elimination of some in this case irrelevant exhibits that typically go, but we do have the incorporation of the relevant exhibits based on previous contract draft and understandings and specifications that were provided by the seller. These two -- The two agreements, their draft agreement and our standard form agreement, are going to be merged and melded rather quickly so that we will have an agreement for the board to sign. And ultimately if the board approves the settlement agreement today, the record should reflect that they are also approving the construction agreement. There will not -- be nothing further to be brought back to the board and that the chairman will be authorized to sign both of those -- of those documents. Another element that we were looking at very carefully was the title issues, the questions to make sure that with the rather quick conveyance after execution of agreement that's occurring, particularly for parcel one, but ultimately for parcel two, that we have addressed any title issues that we -- ahead of time or put the seller on notice of those things which we want to have taken care of, and one of those things that's going to be taken care of is the fact that there's a 30-foot easement running along -- I think it's the east side of the property which does not affect parcel one which is more toward -- a little bit toward the middle in -- in the park property, but there is a 30-foot ingress/egress easement which the seller will be using all reasonable efforts -- and the record should show Mr. Hubschman nodding -- MR. HUBSCHHAN: I agree. MR. WEIGEL: -- that -- efforts to remove that easement, and if they can't remove that easement within a time certain, then the purchase price on parcel two will be reduced by $32,000. That's applying a per-acreage value to the approximate two acres that this long easement comprises and I -- I expect that we'll have success and they will have success in ridding the property of that easement; although, conceivably, I don't -- I'm not the engineer. I'm not -- not the people on site, but I don't believe that if the easement were to exist, that it -- that it creates a problem with the proposed site use as -- as exists right now. Environmental assessment is ongoing right now by the county, and we want to make sure the property is environmentally usable in both flora and fauna. You know, water management is still out with the Corps, but we also need to know if there's any hazardous waste or other environmental problems, including gophers -- gopher tortoises or woodpeckers, and that's ongoing right now. We have 14 days from the execution of the agreement to complete our professional review and notify the seller of any problems or objections that we have based upon the environmental assessment. And the fruits of some of this afternoon's discussion is that there is a 14 -- additional 14-day delay factor built in. I think those are the -- Those are the essence of the more material and important changes and elements of the agreements, and the seller and his agents may have some additions to the record, but that's what you have for your consideration after you get past turnkey. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Thank you. I presume that's all that we need to get on the record. Is there discussion amongst the board members regarding these issues, especially the closing at completion versus closing at permitting? No discussion? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: No discussion. I'm glad to see that we finally got everything worked out on this piece of property. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah. I am too. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. McNees, you're clear, and you're happy? MR. MCNEES: We're ready. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Weigel -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Olliff, the same thing? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Olliff is nodding. Everybody seems to be. Okay. Let's have a motion. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I'll make a motion that -- that we enter into this contract and authorize the chairman to sign the contract and also the construction agreement. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second that we approve the contract and the construction agreement. If there's no further discussion, all in favor say aye. Does that motion cover everything you need? MR. MCNEES: Yes, ma'am. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: All in favor please say aye. Opposed? There being none, motion passes 5-0. MR. MCNEES: Thank you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We've got ourselves a park and some perc ponds. MR. HUBSCHHAN: Thank you, Commissioners. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. Next item on the agenda -- That concludes the morning agenda. I'm sorry for -- but we -- we are at the public comment portion of the agenda. Mr. Dotrill, is there anyone registered? MR. DORRILL: No, ma'am. Item #12B1 ORDINANCE 95-53 RE PETITION PUD-88-14(1) PURSE ASSOCIATES, INC., REPRESENTING GREYSTONE PARK MOBILE HOMES, INC., REQUESTING A REZONE FROM PUD TO PUD KNOWN AS PARADISE POINTE RV RESORT FOR THE PURPOSE OF AMEDING THE PUD DOCUMENT AND MASTER PLAN FOR PROPERTY ON EAST TAMIAMI TRIAL 2.6 MILES EAST OF U.S. 41 AND C.R. 951 - ADOPTED CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. Next item on the agenda is item 12B(1), petition PUD-88-14, first amendment. Chahran. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Good afternoon, Commissioners. PUD-88-14(1), this PUD was approved in 1988. It is known as Paradise Pointe R.V. Park -- R.V. Resort. It is located two and a half miles east of U.S. 41 -- east of 951 on U.S. 41. It contains 56 acres, and it was approved for 383 R.V. sites. This project is partially developed. At the time of approval, it wasn't known to its staff that this parcel was located within the Deltona settlement agreement; therefore, we have some stipulations regarding preserving wetlands. But according to the settlement agreement, they have mitigated for the wetlands outside somewhere else; therefore, the applicant is requesting removal of those stipulations -- regarding stipulations. The other changes are basically change of ownership and the zone changes initiated by staff in order to comply with the Land Development Code. Planning Commission heard this item on September 24 and unanimously recommended approval. There were several people from the neighboring park, Imperial Wilderness Park. They spoke against this petition; however, the problem was the drainage canal which separates those parks which is not part of this petition. As I said, the Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval of this petition. The drainage issue is not related to this amendment. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: What is the drainage issue? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Basically -- I think Mr. Purse is going to explain it to you. The county has acquired 65 feet of easement for drainage, and they are digging a canal there for drainage. The neighboring park, they don't like the fact that we are removing trees to dig the canal, and they are losing the -- the trees and the buffer, and I believe that's the major issue; however, I believe there are some people from Imperial Wilderness that want to talk about that issue. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Mr. Weigel, I have a question. We've -- We've been advised here that the amendment has nothing to do with this drainage issue, but we don't get many opportunities to relook at PUDs, but we do when they come back for amendments. MR. WEIGEL: Yes. Correct. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: If they bring back an amendment -- If they bring back a PUD for an amendment, is it possible that all sections of those PUDs may become available for revision? MR. WEIGEL: It is. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But is this property within the boundaries of the PUD? Is this drainage canal within the boundaries of the -- MR. BADAMTCHIAN: I believe it is deeded to the county. Mr. John Boldt is here from water management department and can speak to that fact. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Do you own it, or do we own it, sir? MR. PURSE: For the record, Jeff Purse with Purse Associates. Right now the county owns it. We were required in 1989 to dedicate it to the -- to the county. The original owners -- If I could just take a moment to give some history of this project because that's -- that is in where the confusion has come in this project. It was originally developed by Imperial Wilderness, Incorporated, or Imperial Wildwood, Incorporated, I believe, were the original developers of Paradise Pointe. They also were, either through that company or a different company, the owners of Imperial Wilderness that developed that. During their PUD process for Imperial Wilderness, the county commission required that a 65-foot drainage easement be provided by Imperial Wilderness and since that -- the owners of Imperial Wilderness at the time were also the developers of Paradise Pointe, they put a stipulation that when Paradise Pointe came in, they would have to put in a 65-foot drainage. This drainage easement and now this 130-foot-wide drainageway was for the relief of the drainage to the north, Westwinds Mobile Home Park, and lands to the north. The -- Paradise Pointe, upon its approval, was to be built as a condominium TTRV. The original developers got it permitted and in -- in getting it approved, it was discovered that the Corps and DNR had claimed 56 acres within it. We then went back; redesigned; came up with a site plan, almost what you see now; and phase one was built. The original developer, Imperial Wildwood or Wild -- whatever the company's name was -- sold the project to my client who is Greystone Park Mobile Homes, Incorporated. They are the developer now of Paradise Pointe. They have finished phase one of Paradise Pointe. That was an eyesore. They had weeds growing everywhere. They had homeless people in it. Shacks were on there. They did everything they did to clean up that land. They now have completed phase one. They have -- also are under construction of phase two. Now, what we're doing with this PUD amendment is coming before you because the original PUD was for 383 units. The design limitations brought on by the wetlands only allowed us to design in -- I believe it was 353 or 354, something like that. What the developer is doing now is revising the site plan to get the lots up to what he is due from the original PUD which was approved at 383 units, and that is why we are here today. The drainage issue has been a -- has been a problem, not in effect of drainage. Paradise Pointe did not go under during all the 22 or 24 inches of rain we had. It worked fine. We don't have a drainage problem. We just have a drainage ditch that no one likes. But the ditch -- The drainage facility needs to be there. And back in the late '80s, the commissioners saw that it needed to be there. I know the county has been working diligently for years to try to complete the connection of -- of the ditch. So -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Are there any items on today's agenda that have nothing to do with drainage? MR. PURSE: Really. We're only here -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah. I think we might have one coming up a little bit later. MR. PURSE: We're only here for a PUD master plan change and language amendment. All the permits have been received from South Florida Water Management, the county for -- for the excavation of the ditch, everything, all -- We have all the permits and -- and we are under construction. We are intending to -- once the site plan is approved, is to submit for phase three construction plans and to finish the park. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Mac'Kie. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: One of the things that I've been hearing a lot of in the -- you know, all the flooding talk is -- is, yes, that's South Florida Water Management's jurisdiction, and, yes, they permit that stuff, but you guys have the final say. You give them the permits for the building. And so I -- I find myself being less persuaded by the district's already given the permits. I mean, if the problem exists -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: They've done such a good job so far. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: They've done such a good job. Well, maybe we want to impose if -- if we legally can. Maybe we didn't have that moral responsibility, whether it's the -- our legal jurisdiction or not to try to do something about it. MR. PURSE: Well, there is no drainage problem in that area. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yet. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It's just a nasty ditch; right? I mean, that depends on the -- MR. PURSE: The county has been trying since 1988 or -- if Mr. Boldt is here, he can explain it more. He has been trying to get that canal built for at least seven years. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Why is that so hard to do, Mr. Boldt, seven years to build a canal? I know you're the height of efficiency. MR. PURSE: I don't mean to put him on the spot but -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: How's your day going, John? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I know you're tired of talking to us too but please. MR. BOLDT: When I first came here in 1983, that was one of my first real problem areas down here with severe flooding problems, and we came up with a concept of developing these U.S. 41 outfall swales, and as these projects came through the process -- Well, as Mr. Purse described them, we obtained the drainage easements from Imperial Wilderness and Paradise Pointe. We're close to getting it from the Deltona properties that are south of there. It's now known as Fiddler's Creek. When they plat that, they -- they promised us '- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We'll get it then? MR. BOLDT: We'll get it then. Our problem is the large farm, formerly the Duda farm, now owned by Naples Tomato Growers, have not granted us an easement and refuse to do it at this point. Once we get everything else resolved, I propose to come back to you with -- looking for some direction as to how we proceed for -- abandon the project, can we get it, or proceed with condemnation of the farm. But we do have a South Florida permit. We do have the DEP permits. We're just lacking the easements. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Can I -- Just -- I -- I almost said I hate to personalize this, but I guess I'm going to anyway. If -- If Naples Tomato Growers which is now, I believe, Andy Gargiulo, owns the property over which we need the easement, Valetie Boyd Gargiulo is in that family and is the queen of water management. Have you spoken to her -- MR. BOLDT: I've had personal meetings with them. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: She would -- I just can't believe they would be unresponsive. I'd like to participate in a discussion like that. I would. I'd like to participate -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I appoint Commissioner Mac'Kie as liaison to -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: The Gargiulo plan. I'd like to do that -- MR. BOLDT: It's been real frustrating for us because -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- because I'm -- I'm shocked. MR. BOLDT: -- You know, they -- they have a couple thousand acres there. There used to be about a dozen different points the water could get under U.S. 41, and when they put the farm in there 20, 30 years ago, they bermed the whole farm, and so now that water can't get through there. I think they have a moral obligation to wrap that water around them, and that's what we've been proposing to do, but they look at it more in dollars and cents. They're going to lose a strip of land. It's "X" number of dollars of tomato loss every year, and that's the impasse we're at. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We may have to pay them something for their property. MR. BOLDT: That's possible. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: They may not give it away. MR. BOLDT: Right. See, I can't subpoena to come to there until I make sure I have all the other easements I need, and we -- we hope to have that soon. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Thank you. MR. PURSE: I also would like to indicate to the board that the canal is being built at the owner's expense, so there is no tax -- tax dollars being spent for that. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Mr. Dorrill, do we have speakers? MR. DORRILL: Not on this. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Not on this. MR. MANGUM: Yes, we do. MR. DORRILL: I'm sorry. Yes, we do. We've got two. Mr. Portella. MR. MANGUM: That's the next item. MR. DORRILL: Okay. Go ahead. I don't see your slip. MR. MANGUM: I submitted your slip earlier. I couldn't find the agenda item. My name is Lewis Mangum. I own property abut the parcel in question here. I'd like to clear up a couple of things first. I think he made a couple of errors in his statements. Number one, I '- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Wait a minute. Who made errors? MR. MANGUM: Pardon? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Who made the errors you're about to refer to? MR. MANGUM: Mr. Purse. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. MR. MANGUM: One of the items, Imperial Wilderness is not a PUD. It's a condominium fee simple. The next thing is the county does not own the property in question. It has an easement -- a drainage easement in question. Now, I appeared before the county commissioners a couple of years ago when this first plat was -- phase one was applied for. At that time, the question of this drainage and the -- and the land in question was supposed to come up on the plat of phase two. Now, at that time, the commissioner -- commissioners directed staff to get with me or me get with the staff for consultation on this particular drainage ditch. Now, the problem in question is the fact that with an easement on each side of the property line, they obliterated the property line. Now -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Excuse me. They obliterated what? MR. MANGUM: The property line between the two properties. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, the property line doesn't exist as a physical item. I mean, it's just -- you measure it. MR. MANGUM: That's right. Now it's just water. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, there's still a property line there though. MR. MANGUM: Well, it's just -- There's no way to say who does what to whom there anymore, what side of the property line you're -- you're required to do. The only thing I know -- and water drainage on an easement, it's supposed to help the property owner, not penalize him. In this case, when they developed the property next door and they got on our property in your easement and my modifications to it at my expense. Now, I'm the only property owner on that whole line that has a problem. There's nobody else. The statement was made earlier today at an earlier hearing that they who gets flooded is going to squeal the loudest, and I'm the one who would get flooded first. The problem lies in the fact there's no berm on my property, so I'm below the berm elevation. If there's a great amount of water, I'll be the first to get it. Now, I commend Mr. Boldt and the drainage problems that he wants to prevent in this particular area. I commend the board, and he has high aspirations of getting it completed, but as it stands now, the only thing that will occur is I will have waterfront property. There's very little drainage there. So any water that comes down 41 comes down that ditch. Now, you have sheet flow and everything else. Now, I will agree so far the drainage problem -- there hasn't been any. But after the modifications are completed and until that whole drainage system is completed, I will have a problem. Now, I tried to get together with staff, but unfortunately my time constraints and theirs probably didn't meet. Now, when I first heard of it, the permits were issued for them to do their modifications. There was no effort to contact me. I never received any notification about it. I received no notification about the phase two part that was supposed to solve this problem or at least try to alleviate it in my situation, and that's why I'm here today because of the fact that I really am protesting. I think it's really terrible about what's going on in that area. That's my problem. Now, where this relates to the zoning, these people bought that property. They either knew about it or had a good idea that there was problems in this particular area. They already had permission and permits on units. Now they're coming in and say all of a sudden, hey, we resolved a lot of these things that we researched. Now we want more units. It's going to cause more -- possibly more water problems. I don't know. But at this stage of the game, as far as I know, I'm still open to flooding, period. I have no alternative. Either -- Either this commission either got to help me, or I've got to do something to my property to protect myself. That's my position. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Boldt, based on what Mr. Mangum has had to say in the projected development in that area and your experience, especially in Collier County and our water difficulties of late, what do you foresee is going to happen in this area with the 130-foot drainage ditch that is not completed with the construction going on around it? MR. BOLDT: First of all, the flow is limited by the size of the box culverts under U.S. 41. So we can only get so much water down through the area. When Paradise Pointe just recently -- In fact, they're still in the process of excavating the remainder of that 65-foot ditch. They're placing material over on the Imperial side on the berm and raising it up, and the county then is -- is obligated to go in and level the berm off and raise it up, and we're in the process. We've got equipment down there even today doing that as -- as we work our way south. So the berm is going to be re-established and should not be a problem. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Can we get -- Is there a commitment in this -- in this PUD amendment for Paradise Pointe or Greystone, whoever the property owner is, to complete that berm construction and for the county to level it off? MR. BOLDT: Whether it's in the document, I'm not sure. We've had a number of meetings. We had a -- like a letter of understanding by all the different parties, including Imperial Wilderness's attorney between staff, and we have that -- that word and documentation, what their part was, what they were going to do, and what the county is going to do. When it gets done in Imperial, property owners are going to go in and sod it after we level it off. So it's kind of a three-party situation. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: But the construction -- The placement of the dirt to form the berm is not in the PUD and it's not in the amendment. MR. BOLDT: I think it was in the letter of understanding we had with the parties involved after the fact. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: May I ask the petitioner if he's willing to put it in there? Behind you, Mr. Mangum. MR. PURSE: The -- I believe by the time we type up the amendment, the berm will be done. I mean, it is -- it is -- All the dirt has been placed on Imperial Wilderness's side right now. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: So why not put it in there then? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So say yes. MR. PURSE: If that's the pleasure of the board, that's fine. Also, I would like to clear up one point. Paradise Pointe is a rental park under one ownership. It is not a plat, and we were in before under an SDP that does not require public hearings. That's why when we started phase two, no one was notified. This -- This is a rental park. It is not a plat or a condo. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: It's still a PUD, isn't it? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: It is a PUD, yes. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Sure. MR. PURSE: The reason we're -- The reason we're here for a public hearing is for the master plan change. We -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Wait a minute. Mr. Weigel, did they have to notify people within 300 feet of them? MR. MULHERE: I -- I can answer that question. The confusion is I think Mr. Mangum is referring -- My name is Bob Mulhere, current planning section manager. I think Mr. Mangum is referring to when they initiated phase two development which only requires a site development plan, and nobody was notified. Mr. Mangum was notified of the PUD amendment. We have his name on the list of the property owners that were notified. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Mr. MAngum, you've got about 15 seconds to finish up. MR. MANGUM: Yeah. I know my time is limited. The only thing I want to say is, I live on the Imperial Wilderness side which is our property. There is no berm in front of my property for this particular swale, ditch, canal. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Are you right next to the ditch? MR. MANGUM: I'm right on it. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. MR. MANGUM: Now, there isn't any provisions made by our side for any berm by anybody, and that's part of the problem. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: The gentleman has just said he's willing to put a provision in his PUD that that berm be completed. MR. MANGUM: He's got a lot of work besides just putting a berm up to get a berm in there to begin with. That's the problem, and this has been the problem since day one. And I was notified of the planning hearing -- I'm going back to before when the phase two was being developed. That's when the county commissioners says this issue would come up, and that's what I was referring to. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. It's been explained that when phase -- when the site development plan for phase two was brought forward, there was no requirement to notify anybody and that -- so it was not done. MR. MANGUM: Except for me and that -- At that point in time, I was never notified. That's what I was getting at. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I -- MR. MANGUM: This wasn't a public hearing. It was for consideration of an adjacent property owner. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I -- I have no personal knowledge of that but -- Mr. Weigel, can -- can we include in this PUD a requirement for Greystone to complete this berm? MR. WEIGEL: And, Harjorie, help me. And this -- And this berm is on property outside of the PUD? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Apparently so. So I'm not sure we can do it. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I thought it was in the PUD, but it was -- MS. STUDENT: I thought it was in the PUD also. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- owned to the -- by the county. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: No. No. MR. PURSE: The -- The berm -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Norris, can you help us then? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Yes. MR. PURSE: The berm in question was the berm that is located on -- I'll say the -- the west side, and that is on Imperial Wilderness property. In an agreement that we have between the attorney with the Imperial Wilderness Homeowners Association, Paradise, as they dug the canal out, would place dirt over on their side, and the county would come in and grade it out and make the berm correct. So it is on Imperial Wilderness's property that we're placing it so -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: He's outside the PUD? MR. PURSE: Right. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I just need someone to answer the question. Mr. MAngum says he's not going to have a berm on his property. Everybody else says he is going to have a berm on his property. Who's right? MR. PURSE: He will have a berm on his property. MR. BOLDT: There's -- COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Today or tomorrow. MR. BOLDT: There's an existing berm that's being raised up or beefed up along the whole length of Imperial Wilderness. MR. PURSE: The original berm was -- was not put in correctly -- COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. MR. PURSE: -- and so herein lies the problem. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: But you are going to correct that, and he will have a nice -- MR. PURSE: Yeah. We have already been. Today if you drove out there right now -- COHMISSIONER NORRIS: He'll have the same -- MR. PURSE: -- you will see. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: -- berm as everybody else along that -- that nice -- MR. PURSE: Everybody else will be the same elevation. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: -- nice berm which is the responsibility of Imperial Wilderness property owners to sod? MR. PURSE: It is the responsibility of the county, I believe. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: No. I think it's -- MR. BOLDT: Paradise will provide the fill. The county is going to level it, and the Imperial Wilderness people were going to sod it. That was the deal we had. MR. PURSE: Okay. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: That's in the three-party agreement, and we've got that on the record, that all this is going to happen. Okay. MR. PURSE: That's correct. Yes. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Any other public speakers, Mr. Dotrill? MR. DORRILL: No, ma'am. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I'll close the public hearing. Is there a motion? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Motion to approve with stipulations as noted. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Second. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second to approve this item with stipulations as noted. Any further discussion? All in favor, please say aye. Opposed? Motion passes. MR. MANGUM: I wish to thank the commissioners for their time. Item #12B2 ORDINANCE 95-54 RE PETITION R-95-5, DENNIS H. PORTELLA OF PORTELLA-ROWE ASSOCIATES, INC., REPRESENTING IHMOKALEE HABITAT FOR HUMANITY, INC., REQUESTING A REZONE FROM A-HHO AND C-F TO RSF-5 FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT LAKE TRAFFORD ROAD AND LITTLE LEAGUE ROAD, IHMOKALEE - ADOPTED WITH DENSITY CAP OF 4 UNITS PER ACRE CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you, Hr. Hangum. Next item on the agenda is item 12B(2), petition -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Madam Chairman, is this pretty much ratifying the decision we made earlier regarding the tourist tax? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: No. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Habitat. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: This is Habitat. Petition R-95-5. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm sorry. I'm looking at the wrong one. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: You're on the wrong page. Back up. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Nice try to push things along there though. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah. Just wishful thinking. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I know. We'd like to too. Mr. Nino. MR. NINO: Ron Nino, for the record. Commissioners, this petition is located in Immokalee. The petitioner is Immokalee Habitat for Humanity. We have a land contract agreement with the Turner Corporation. This petition would have land zoned agricultural zoned COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Nino, what were the objections to this? Who objected to this? Did anybody? MR. NINO: There were some objections at the Planning Commission. Those have been resolved between -- and that was the reason for the continuance. Those have been resolved with the objector and that -- that -- that resolution had already been included in the conditions of approval by the Planning Commission that no lot would front directly on -- on Little League Road from Lake Trafford Road to the -- COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. MR. NINO: -- entry road to the park. The issues have all been resolved. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. MR. NINO: And that is evidenced by the fact that your attorney left. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I -- I just have one -- MR. NINO: Yes. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: -- comment. This is one of the roads that we have had people in this room in the last month complaining about the level of flooding, Little League Road and Trafford Farm Road which is where Habitat Homes are being built. Is there -- Is there any provision in this petition that's going to do anything about that? MR. NINO: Well, when they get to their PSP stage and final platting stage, our staff will ensure that their water management issues are addressed as a function of constructing the individual lots in the plats. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: The water management for these homes? MR. NINO: That's their water management issue, yes. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: For these particular homes? MR. NINO: For these particular homes. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: The others, we've got a problem. MR. NINO: The others, we -- It's a county -- county road and -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: No, it's not the county road. It's a private road. MR. NINO: Private road? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Uh-huh. MR. NINO: Little League Road? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Little League Road is public up to where -- MR. NINO: Up to the park which is all the way -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Right. Beyond that, it's private. MR. NINO: -- through this property. Yes. Yes. I'm aware of that, and it's paved and -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: And the Habitat homes with people of very low income -- MR. NINO: Yes. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Good luck fixing it. MR. NINO: This petition went to the Planning Commission, and it was unanimously recommended for approval. As I indicated to Commissioner Norris, there was some opposition. That opposition is identified in your agenda package; however, I believe that opposition has since faded away as a result of the condition that no lot will front on Little League Road or Lake Trafford Road. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hancock. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: A couple of questions. Mr. Nino, they're requesting RSF-5, but if I read it correctly, it's 8 acres, 32 units. So we really could be RSF-4? COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Hake-up score is -- MR. NINO: The Habitat for Humanity actually purchased 16.2 acres. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. MR. NINO: If you go into the history, nine point some acres is set aside as mitigation. They have entered into an arrangement with Fish and Game, and the net area of their project has 8.2 acres, thus the 32 lots and the less -- something less than four units per acre on the gross area of the land that's included in the rezoning petition. It didn't include the 16 acres and we -- we have agreed with them. There was no point in Habitat paying another $30 an acre for their rezoning petition to include land that was going to be set aside in perpetuity in any event. But if we really look at this realistically, we're really looking at two units per acre on the original 16 acres of land that they own. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: But with the fezone, if Habitat should not proceed and someone else can, the zoning on the property would be five units an acre. MR. NINO: It would be four units an acre under the Immokalee master plan. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, we're rezoning it today to five. MR. NINO: No. We're rezoning it to four. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. So my staff report says fezone to RSF-5. MR. NINO: There -- There -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Five. MR. NINO: Because there still is -- There's still-- The yield in the number of lots is four units per acre -- 3.9 units per acre and the lots are -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: This is a straight fezone. It's not a PUD. rezoning. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: saying the yield is. MR. NINO: Yes. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: That's all but -- MR. NINO: Correct. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: RSF-4 -- I mean, we're not fixing the dwelling units. We're Yeah. I understand what you're That's all they plan on doing. If all they plan on doing is MR. NINO: Is -- is -- is RSF-4. But they need the RSF-4 development standards, but what we don't appreciate is the RSF-4 development standards are 6,000-square-foot lots, 60 feet of frontage. The RS -- The RSF-5. I'm sorry. The RSF-4 lots are 10,000 square feet with 70 to -- COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: You just answered my question. MR. NINO: -- 80 feet of frontage. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: You just answered my question. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Got it. MR. NINO: I'm sorry. I'm slow on the take. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, we're probably -- MR. NINO: It's the development standards that we're after of the RSF-5 zoning district -- COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. MR. NINO: -- even though the yield will be consistent with the RSF-4. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: That being the case, can we fezone to RSF-5 with a cap of four units per acre? MR. NINO: Yes. That would be fine. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Commissioner -- COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: I had two more questions. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I'm sorry. Go ahead. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: We answered one on -- There are no direct impacts on Little League Road as a result of this development; is that correct? MR. NINO: Other than the fact that there are a number of lots that will still front on Little League Road. South of -- Let me go to the wall here. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: We've been to the wall and back today. MR. NINO: The -- The proposed PSP, which will come to the Planning Commission right after this meeting, would have direct fronting lots on Little League Road from -- Well, a point of -- This is lot -- COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: That was my problem, is the roads weren't labeled. So I was having a little tough time following that. MR. NINO: Well, if we looked at this map, it would be from -- from the beginning of the Memorial Gardens Cemetery to -- to the little league field. By virtue of that narrow strip there, there's no alternative but to have direct fronting lots. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. MR. NINO: So that's not terribly unusual because, after all, Little League Road is -- is really a local street. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. And I understand these are affordable houses, but are we requiring a sidewalk along that road to the little league fields? MR. NINO: Yes. The condition of the approval which is in the -- which is in the ordinance of adoption would require them to install a sidewalk on Little League Road and Lake Trafford Farms Road. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Those are my questions. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Any other questions? Petitioner need to have anything on the record? MR. DORRILL: Two -- Two registered speakers here to answer your questions. MR. NINO: Mr. Ed Sorenson is here representing the Immokalee Habitat. MR. SORENSON: Ed Sorenson with Habitat for Humanity. No. I -- We're just here to respond to questions. I might comment on your -- your comment earlier about Habitat houses and water. That road -- your Little -- Lake Trafford Farms Road is about a mile west of this tract and is not really connected to it or even close to it, and there are quite a number of other houses out there that's not particularly Habitat houses. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I know, but it's just all low income. We have two speakers, Mr. Dotrill? MR. DORRILL: Mr. Portella in the event that you have further questions. MR. PORTELLA: Good afternoon. Dennis Portella, for the record. I just wanted to make myself available for questions. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Are there any questions? I'll close the public hearing. Is there a motion? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Motion to approve. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll second. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. Third. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Hay I ask the motion maker to make that motion in the form of approving RSF-5 with the density cap of four units per acre? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I'll amend to that. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Second accept that? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Sure. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Sure. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yes. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Absolutely. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion to approve-- COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Both of us. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: -- to RSF-5 zoning with a density cap of four per acre, and the second accepts that. All those in favor, please say aye. Opposed? Motion passes five to zero. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: We are cooking now. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Next -- MR. SORENSON: Thank you. Item #12C1 ORDINANCE 95-55 RE PETITION LDC-95-3, COHMUNITY DEVELOPHENT SERVICES DIVISION, REPRESENTING THE BOARD OF COUNTY COHMISSIONERS, REQUESTING TO CORRECT EXISTING SCRIVENER'S ERROR FOR VARIOUS ZONING DISTRICTS FROM I-IND TO I, IND TO I, C-5 TO I, AND I TO C-5 THROUGHOUT COLLIER COUNTY - ADOPTED CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Oh, you're welcome. Next item on the agenda is 12C(1), LDC-95-3, which is essentially a scrivener's error. MR. BELLOWS: Yes. For the record, Ray Bellows. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Are they all scrivener's errors? MR. BELLOWS: Yes. There are maps -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Dorrill, are there speakers? MR. DORRILL: No, ma'am. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I'll close the public hearing. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Motion to approve the item. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second to approve item 12C(1), LDC-95-3. All those in favor, please say aye. Opposed? There being none, motion passes five to zero. Item #12C2 ORDINANCE 95-56 AMENDING ORDINANCE 92-60 BY PROVIDING FOR AN ADDITIONAL ONE PERCENT LEVY OF THE TOURIST DEVELOPMENT TAX THROUGHOUT COLLIER COUNTY BEGINNING JANUARY 1, 1996 AND TERMINATING ON DECEMBER 31, 1999; AMENDING SECTION THREE RELATING TO THE USE OF TAX REVENUES - ADOPTED Next item is an ordinance amending Ordinance 92-60. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Madam Chairman, this item is the one I was optimistically hoping we were on before. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah. Now we're there. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The TDC item that we had earlier in the year approved, this is just ratifying that. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Dorrill, are there public speakers? MR. DORRILL: No, ma'am. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Close the public hearing. MR. WEIGEL: Postal error. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Is there a motion? MR. WEIGEL: This was the postal error. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Motion to approve. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. This is the one putting the extra penny on beginning January. MR. WEIGEL: That's correct. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. We have a motion and a second to approve an ordinance amending 92-60. All in favor, please say aye. Opposed? Motion passes five to zero. Item #12C3 ORDINANCE 95-57 REPEALING IN ITS ENTIRETY COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE NO. 90-43 IMPOSING A THREE PERCENT TOURIST DEVELOPMENT TAX - ADOPTED Item 12C(3), an ordinance repealing in its entirety Ordinance 90-43. This is generally housekeeping; is that correct, Mr. Weigel? MR. WEIGEL: That's exactly right. This is the original ordinance that came under fire, was in the courts, and is of no longer use -- use to us. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: All right. Now it's all settled. Mr. Dotrill, are there public speakers? MR. DORRILL: No, ma'am. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I'll close the public hearing. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Motion to approve the item. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Second. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Motion and a second to re-- approve an ordinance repealing Ordinance 90-43. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. Sorry. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We got a third then. in favor, please say aye. Opposed? Motion passes five to zero. What? All those -- All those Item #12C4 RESOLUTION 95-610 RE PETITION AV-95-014, BUTLER ENGINEERING, INC., AS AGENT FOR OWNER, QUAIL WOODS ESTATES DEVELOPMENT, INC., REQUESTING VACATION OF A UTILITY EASEMENT LOCATED ON A PORTION OF EDGEWILD BLVD. - ADOPTED (COMPANION ITEM TO REPLAT ENTITLED COURTYARDS OF QUAIL WOODS) Next item, petition AV-95-014, Butler Engineering. MR. MULLER: Good afternoon, Commissioners. For the record, my name is Russ Mullet in transportation. Item 12C(4) is a public hearing to consider petition AV-95-014 for the vacation of a 60-foot utility easement platted at Edgewild Boulevard on the plat of Edgewild. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: So, in a nutshell, you recommend vacation? MR. MULLER: Yeah. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Are there public speakers? MR. DORRILL: No speakers. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: There are no public speakers. I'll close the public hearing. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Motion to approve. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Second. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second to approve petition AV-95-014. Further discussion? All in favor, please say aye. Opposed? Motion passes five to -- five to zero. Is that -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yes, ma'am. Item #12C5 RESOLUTION 95-611 RE PETITION AV-95-007, KAREN K. BISHOP AS AGENT FOR OWNERS, THE LONE OAK, LTD., REQUESTING VACATION OF A DRAINAGE EASEMENT LOCATED ON A PORTION OF LOTS 4 AND 5, BLOCK B, ON THE PLAT OF LEXINGTON AT LONE OAK, UNIT 1 - ADOPTED (COMPANION ITEM TO PLAT OF WALDEN SHORES) CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Next item is 12C(5), petition AV-95-007. Commissioner Hac'Kie is abstaining on this one. Mr. Mullet. MR. HULLER: Item 12C(5) is a public hearing to consider petition AV-007 for the vacation of a 15-foot drainage easement on a portion of lots five -- four and five, block B of the plat of Lexington at Lone Oak, unit one, plat book 22, pages 24 through 27. The companion item plat of Walden Shores, 16A(1), offers replacement easements. I've got letters of no objection from Collier County stormwater management, engineering review, Walden Oak of Naples Homeowners Association. Based on the letters of no objection and the replacement on the replat, staff recommends approval. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Question? Commissioner Hancock. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Did we experience any problems in this particular subdivision during the recent storms? MR. HULLER: It was wet there but it's unbuilt. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, who wasn't. MR. HULLER: It's unbuilt -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: But nothing outstanding? MR. HULLER: -- and they've -- No, nothing outstanding. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Thanks. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Any other questions? Are there speakers, Mr. Dotrill? MR. DORRILL: There are no speakers. I believe this is the one where Ms. Hac'Kie is abstaining. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: She's abstaining. Uh-huh. No speakers. I'll close the public hearing. Do we have a motion? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Motion to approve. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion to approve. Is there a second? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Second. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Motion and a second to approve petition AV-95-007. All in favor, please say aye. Opposed? There being none, motion passes four to zero. Item #12C6 RESOLUTION 95-612 RE PETITION AV-95-016 FOR VACATION OF A PORTION OF ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY KNOWN AS LAKELAND AVENUE EXTENSION - ADOPTED RESERVING A UTILITY ACCESS Next item is petition AV-95-016. This is vacating a portion of road right-of-way known as Lakeland Avenue Extension. Mr. Mullet. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Before Mr. Mullet does his thing, I think all of us got a letter from a Ken Waltson. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Waltson. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And I don't know if staff had a chance to see this. MR. HULLER: Yes. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And -- If you could address the pertinent issues as part of your presentation, that would make me feel much better. MR. HULLER: Item 12C(6) is a public hearing to consider vacation of a portion of a road right-of-way known as Lakeland Avenue Extension. Per board direction, staff has processed the petition, requested letters of no objection, prepared appropriate replacement easements, advertised the public hearing. A brief recap of -- of the issues is there was -- Four property owners of a six-member assessment district petitioned the board to pave an extension to Lakeland Avenue. They quitclaimed their property to the county to allow construction. Two property owners refused to join, and the cost of their property for right-of-way prohibited the road from being built. The four owners pulled their money together and built a driveway, slash, road below county road standards. These four property owners want the right-of-way vacated and returned unencumbered. Letters of no objection -- eight of nine of the letters responded and requested that they had stipulations or objections. These are in the agenda packet, pages 18 through 26. I also received two letters since the advertisement of public hearing, and those are provided in this handout -- two letters of objection from property owners Tim Haloney, parcel 107 on the map on page four, and Kazimier Dabrowski, parcel 109. Mr. Dabrowski included a copy of the 1967 dedication from the Arnn Corporation to Collier County stating that all roads in land section 24, township 48, 25 south are to the perpetual use of the public. He has relied on this easement since he purchased the property. Both letters object to the possibility of denied access. We were also supplied a letter from Mr. Waltson. I believe Mr. Waltson is -- is here and registered to speak. Based on the objections and stipulations of the letters of no objection, staff recommends vacation subject to conveyance of right-of-way easements prepared as exhibits to the resolution. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Say that again, please, Mr. Mullet. MR. HULLER: We want to vacate and get a replacement easement back. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Over the same property? MR. HULLER: Over the same property. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: What's the point of it? MR. HULLER: We don't want the fee. We want to return the fee simple property to the property owners, but we want to retain the right of public easement. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. All right. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I -- I believe the question here is that the -- the property owners quitclaimed the land to the county for the purpose of building a road which the county failed to build. And as far as my understanding is, they -- the property owners have no objection to a standard easement for acce -- standard access easement over this property. There is a road there privately built. MR. MULLER: Right. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: And that's my understanding, that they -- they are willing to provide the proper easements for in -- ingress access to the properties to the north but not to be a, quote, unquote, "public thoroughfare." Is that my -- Have I said that -- MR. MULLER: We have -- Mr. Waltson and myself have went back and forth with several different options on easements. Since these letters of no objection from -- An example would be -- The sheriff's office says they need an easement to be able to patrol the -- the improved property. There's one improved property in a fenced-in area that was broken into, and homeless were living there for a while, and there was parties and painted walls and all kinds of stuff. The sheriff's office wants in there. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: But -- But -- Excuse me, Mr. Mullet, but isn't the property directly to the north of Lakeland Avenue a private access easement, and then this public access easement are the next properties up? So if the sheriff's going to have a problem, he should already have a problem just by traversing the portion that's private. MR. MULLER: Yes. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. So what are we talking about? MR. MULLER: Well, we're talking about county ownership. If we give -- give it away unencumbered back to the property owners, they could build a fence across it, they could charge a toll. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: It's my understanding that they -- that they are willing to give an easement back. They just don't want it to be a public road. Have I missed something here? MR. ARCHIBALD: If I could step back a couple of steps. For the record, George Archibald. In regards to the vacation of a right-of-way, what we're concerned about are the rights that have been created for those property owners to the north. And, in fact, there's been many indications that if we vacate this right-of-way, the property owners will, in fact, prohibit access and will, in fact, put the county at risk for the cost of having a public roadway, having access, and then taking it away through a vacation process. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Archibald, so there are two issues here. One is that these folks deeded the property over to the county and they want that property back. That's one issue. The second issue is, if we vacate the right-of-way, now there's no right of access for anyone else. So what you're saying is we have no problem with giving the property back. We just need to maintain a form of easement that -- that can be used for access. Is there -- Is there a way to do those two things? MR. ARCHIBALD: Yes, there is, and that's the recommendation of the staff, in fact, to preserve that easement as part of the vacation process, because, in fact, we've created the potential for all those property owners to the north being cut off from access. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: But if we get this easement that is little more than whatever easement existed prior to the quitclaiming, there is access to the property to the north in their legal easements that gave them access 20 years ago or 15 -- MR. ARCHIBALD: No. They -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: -- years ago. MR. ARCHIBALD: They have a right of access, but they have to create that. If we take it away from them, then all those property owners to the north have to recreate that, and they may have to recreate that through a process very similar to our eminent domain process. If we, in fact, reserve that easement in behalf of the public, then those property owners, in fact, will maintain access to the land. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: How come we didn't just build the road? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Because we didn't get the two southern property owners to give the -- to give the land. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: That's why we didn't build it. So is there a private easement along the road to the two parcels to the south of this public property? MR. MULLER: One of them there is. MR. ARCHIBALD: Yes. There's -- There continues to be lack of a county right-of-way or lack of a public dedicated right-of-way between the parcels that have been dedicated to the county and those parcels that are part of the Willoughby Acres plat. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. I'm more confused now than ever. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Can we hear from the property owners on this? I'm just -- Do we have registered speakers? MR. DORRILL: We have five. I don't -- I don't know who are the actual individuals. I can call them in order or you can ask. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Because maybe if the property owners can tell us what they're willing to do and Mr. Archibald has the other microphone, we can figure out which way to go on this. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: It's my understanding from meeting with Mr. Waltson a couple of times now that the property owners are willing to give back whatever easement existed prior to the quitclaim, whatever that was. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Archibald, would that be sufficient for access? MR. ARCHIBALD: No, I don't believe it will be, and that's the problem. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: That's what we need to do. MS. GLOECKNER: I'm here to represent one of the properties north -- COMHISSIONER NORRIS: You need to come up to the microphone. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Have you registered to speak, ma'am? Okay. MR. MULLER: The easement you're talking about, Commissioner Matthews, may be the one that -- that Mr. Dabrowski supplied which -- which states that it's a -- a county right-of-way -- for the purpose of dedication to dedicate all streets, right-of-way, and roads to the perpetual use of the public all of land section 24 which is what we would like. What we're proposing is to get an easement over the property to the public. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: How is that different from what existed prior to the quitclaim? MR. HULLER: I think that's maybe what existed prior to the quitclaim. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Hiss Ashton. MS. ASHTON: If -- If you'd like me to comment, I did review the Arnn Corporation deed that was conveyed to the public in 1967. The problem with that deed is that it conveyed all streets and roads in section 24, and we've been unable to determine what streets were in existence in 1967 to determine whether or not this is, you know, existing. So I don't think it's been recognized by the title companies, and so that's -- we haven't been able to rely on that easement as a public easement. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I see. MS. ASHTON: That sheds some light on that. And if I could comment, it was my understanding that Mr. Mullet had exchanged easement documents with Mr. Waltson and his agent on behalf of the property owners, and the problem with the county's proposed easement was it's just a general easement, and Mr. Waltson had recommended or had requested that there be language in the easement document that would restrict any additional subdivision -- subdividing or buildout to the north of his property so it would limit the easement, and that's why we're -- we had never reached the agreement on the easement for it to be used. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: So you're saying Mr. Waltson wanted to limit the use of the easement by -- MS. ASHTON: Yeah. I gave him -- I gave Mr. Mullet a copy of the language if you would like me to read it in. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- The development to the north that. HS. ASHTON: Right. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- off of their property which is CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I don't know that we could do COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: -- something I don't think we can do. MR. MULLER: Yeah. There's language in this easement that -- that reads, this easement is not intended for subdivision development and should not be construed in any way as road right-of-way access for subdivision development. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Is that the easement that existed prior to the quitclaim, the wording on it? MR. MULLER: No, ma'am. This is the access easement that -- that -- an access easement that Ken Waltson drafted and proposed as a replacement easement. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Weigel, do you have a suggestion of how we might be able to solve this? MR. WEIGEL: Well, yeah. I think -- I think that we have an interest of record not to continue to hold the land in fee to start with. And, secondly, if George and Russ can assist me here, if the county's easement interests -- As I see the letters of objection, we have a drainage easement request from stormwater management, and we've got emergency access, and I need to know for sure if the kind of access that the county wants by an easement is not a public road right-of-way access but limited to emergency vehicle access, things of that nature which arguably we have over private roads if you've got to get through anyway, but the fact is that this road isn't built to county standards nor is it proposed to be. So what is the county's actual vehicular access need might -- might assist us in tailoring the easement. MR. HULLER: Emergency access easement would handle the letter of no objection from -- from the sheriff's office. The other easements that we are -- The reason we're wanting a public right-of-way easement is to handle the stipulations on the other letters of no objection, say, from engineering review for drainage concerns, from stormwater management for drainage concerns and -- and the other letters from private utility companies are asking for private utilities to be granted back. Our -- Our utility -- Collier County utilities have a water line that extends through that property, so there would be a utility easement. Now, that option could be that we get an easement for this, an easement for that, an easement for this and the other thing until we have all of those satisfied, but they would all be satisfied by a public right-of-way easement. MR. WEIGEL: Well, what I'm thinking is that by tailoring the language, we can have one easement. It doesn't take several easements for each of these things but one easement, but it's tailored for the specific needs which doesn't go quite so far as to say public -- public road access because each of these things are either service or utility related. Utility -- we're talking about utilities, drainage, emergency vehicular, but we're not talking about the public going up and down the road as the public chooses. It's service and government related, and we could have an easement that does those things and perhaps reach the county objective of fulfilling these letters of objection but also may work with the -- with the landowner. I don't know. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Why don't we -- Why don't we hear from the property owners and see what they're willing to do. Mr. Dotrill. MR. DORRILL: Mr. Murphy. UNKNOWN VOICE: Mr. Murphy had to leave. MR. DORRILL: Excellent. Ms. Gloeckner. Okay. Mr. Waltson, you'll follow Ms. Gloeckner. MS. GLOECKNER: My name is Florence Gloeckner. I represent the partners of Caxambas Equity Company Limited. They are the owners of the parcel of approximately five acres on the north side of Lakeland Avenue Extension. We are interested in whatever will promote the improvement of the area. Paving the street which the property owners themselves did was undeniably promoting this goal. However -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Miss, can you pull the mike down, ma'am. Right. MS. GLOECKNER: Okay. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. MS. GLOECKNER: However, this proposal to vacate right-of-way will deny us the right access to our property. This is a constitutional right. We cannot be denied access to our property. Surely this proposal also would make access difficult for others. Probably current property owners' houses would find resale difficult in a climate such as this. These same houses might not properly appreciate in the future either. How much will the county plan for an uncooperative area? Will they maintain roads and bridges to an area intent on keeping people out? Progress needs a little help, not hindrance. One abandoned house is there already. That's enough. Let's think positively. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. MR. DORRILL: Mr. Waltson. And then, Ms. Nelson, you will follow Mr. Waltson. MR. WALTSON: Good afternoon, Commissioners. For the record, my name is Ken Waltson, and I live at 710 Lakeland Avenue, tax parcel 59. I represent the homeowners along Lakeland Avenue Extension located within a small community known as Armadillo Estates. On November 18, 1980, the Collier County commissioners accepted a petition signed by five homeowners requesting the establishment of a road improvement district. The commissioners also authorized the engineering department to obtain the needed right-of-way and prepare a preliminary report and cost estimate for the district. It wasn't until Hay 1984 that we received the quitclaim deeds in a letter from Mr. Kuck, the county engineering director, asking for our roadway land. The quitclaim deeds clearly noted the intent was to create a Lakeland Avenue paving assessment district and the -- and the land was specifically meant for the road construction project. Four of us signed the deeds making our land available, and two did not, ending the road project at that point. On June 4, 1985, Mr. Hubert, the engineering director for Collier County, sent a letter to the property owners. Title, status, Lakeland Avenue Extension. In closing, his letter stated, if the road right-of-way is not provided, the extension of Lakeland Avenue cannot be considered for improvement. Also, on October 2, 1985, Mr. Cuyler, the county attorney, sent a letter to one of the hold-out property owners saying, your 30 foot is an absolute necessity in order for the staff to proceed with the improvement district. If for some reason you do not wish to convey your property with the clear understanding that the improvement district will not be initiated without the conveyance, please inform this office. Mr. Hubert and Mr. Cuyler's letter clearly indicated if all roadway lands along -- along the 660-foot improvement district was not acquired, the extension of Lakeland Avenue would not be considered for improvement, and the improvement would not be initiated. And that's exactly what happened. When we deeded our land to the county on the utility easements on the land existed, our reasons for entrusting our land to the county were simple. We wanted a new road. We did not give the county a gift of our land nor did we agree to have the land held in a land bank so the road could be constructed sometime in the distant future. On November 21, 1985, we hired our own contractor and built a 660-foot road ourselves. On October 3, 1994, I sent a written request to Mr. Archibald asking for the return of our roadway land. Following my request was a series of meetings and written communications with Mr. Archibald and Mr. Mullet which proved fruitless. Florida Statute two five five two two titled,"Reconveyance of Lands Not Used for the Purpose Specified," says, in the event of any party owning adjacent land conveys real property without receipt, valuable consideration to any municipality or county for a specific purpose or use and if such county or municipality fails to use such property for such purpose for a period of 60 consecutive months, then upon written demand of the grantor, the municipality or county may execute quitclaim deeds returning the property. In the event the purpose for which the property was conveyed requires physical improvement or construction on such property or maintenance thereof, any such municipality or county that fails to construct, improve, or maintain such property for a period of 60 months shall be conclusively deemed to have abandoned the property for the purpose for which it was conveyed. I believe the issue here before the board today has two main components. Number one, the transfer of the roadway land for -- from the homeowners to the county establishes our intent. Number two, the retention of the roadway land by the county after the road improvement district ended -- ended necessitates the board's action here today. If the board recognizes the roadway land was made available to the county for the sole purpose of building a road, then the board should rule to return our land. To rule in favor of the petitioners return the land with the same rights that -- that existed before the deed -- deeds -- before we deeded the land to the county. We will not relinquish our rights to the land by granting a public easement for the return of our land. If the board moves to deny our request for the return of our land with the same rights, I feel the county has, in effect, reduced our property values which clearly makes this a private property rights issue for Collier County. Our property values would further depreciate as future development occurs on smaller lots causing flooding to encroach our homes. There are seven homes within Armadillo Estates, most situated on two-plus acres providing ag -- adequate pervious -- pervious -- pervious soil to prevent flooding. The character of our neighborhood would change as acquisition of public right-of-way would lead to county maintained road encouraging future subdivisions on smaller land parcels replacing the estates setting we now enjoy. Since the community beginning -- Since the communities beginning more than 30 years ago, the homeowners have -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Waltson. MR. WALTSON: Just another minute, please. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Well, try to do it in less than a minute because you've been well over five minutes now -- MR. WALTSON: Okay. Okay. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: -- even though -- MR. WALTSON: Since the communities beginning 30 years ago, the homeowners have built and maintained a road access along Lakeland Avenue Extension. The ingress and egress along Lakeland Avenue Extension has provided unobstructed access more than 25 years. We have no intention of changing that nor would we be permitted to do so by law. I feel -- I feel we've made a mistake by -- by entrusting our roadway land to -- to Collier -- to the county and have concluded the county unworthy stewards of our land. The county pro-developmental history furthers my concern should our land remain in the county's hands. I believe the character of our older community will be negatively affected, and we want a say in the future of Armadillo Estates. In 1984 we asked the county for help so we could make our neighborhood better. Now we want -- Now we want what's rightfully ours, and that's all. We want a la -- We want our land back with the same rights we had on the land before we got involved with the county in 1984. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Waltson. MR. DORRILL: Ms. Nelson. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Ms. Nelson. MR. DORRILL: And then Mrs. Waltson. MS. NELSON: My name is Beth Nelson, and I live at 615 Lakeland Avenue, and, once again, the storm drainage issue is going to come up. There are several issues involved with our request here, and we were hoping to keep it to the request. We deeded the land to the county for a road. The county did not build a road. We wanted the land back. But since these other issues have been brought up, they do need to be addressed. One is public easement. We do have a problem with that. And the other is Caxambas calling development an improvement. In a large area where your home is situated on a large lot, you know, small parcels is not an improvement to the area. But, anyway, the project never got started as the land could not be acquired for the road. At that point, the county should have returned it, and instead of returning it, the county recorded it as right-of-way land, and herein lies part of the problem, that it was recorded. And I'm sure you're aware of the situation and a lot of the details, as Mr. Waltson has kept you appraised. But the county recorded the undeveloped or assessed the undeveloped properties. When we paid for our storm drainage, we paid for the storm drainage that went into Willoughby Acres. Our water does not impact Willoughby. And then -- then the storm drainage department wants access to our land for storm drainage? Is that -- We just went through that. But undeveloped parcels north of -- north of us were assessed for the storm drainage when, in fact, they should not have been because they don't have legal access to a county road and there's -- there's another issue that's being brought up here. These are all peripheral issues. Our main thing is that the developer's interest in the land -- This is our home. This is where we live. That's our interest. It's a special area. It's a nice neighborhood. I don't know if you're familiar with it, but it's different. It has a lot of character. We're not asking that they don't have access. We'll give them access. We're asking -- and since this has come up, we want the land back -- that it doesn't be turned into another little subdivision in the midst of all this, destroying our property values. Okay. That would -- That would -- That's a property value issue -- private property issue right there. Another issue is the flooding. There's a flood plain to the north of us, and it has been. It's not just because of the recent rain. I realize that's a problem. We've got pictures going back to the no name storm, all these other little -- We have water running through our yard. Should developments happen to the back of us -- They had the Army Corps of Engineers down a few years ago. They cannot legally obstruct the flow of water. So what happens when the new standards come in, and the new standards with it has to be so high above the road -- the crown of the road, the fill. All that water backs up into our yards, and that is another problem. But the main thing is that we would like back what was ours, the land that we gave to the county for the purpose that wasn't fulfilled. And we're not trying to deny anybody -- emergency vehicles, utility vehicles access. We're just trying to prevent the destruction of our neighborhood. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. MR. DORRILL: Ms. Waltson. She is your final speaker. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: She's the final speaker. Thank you. MS. WALTSON: Good afternoon, Commissioners. My name is Ruth Waltson, and I'm here today to ask that our 30-foot roadway land be returned to us with the same rights that we quitclaimed the land to the county in May of 1984. The only reason that I signed the quitclaim deed was to have the county build a 660-foot road for the use of six residents. The county did not pursue the project because two property owners would not sign their quitclaim deed, and we built a private road soon after. We maintain the road and mow the grass on the right-of-way. The county abandoned the project more than 11 years ago and has no legal right to our quitclaim deed, and I want my 30-foot roadway returned. And I'd like to ask Mr. Archibald a question about lot number 107. Mr. Maloney -- his rights to Lakeland Avenue, when Mr. Maloney paid no assessment for the storm drainage project on 20 acres of land. MR. ARCHIBALD: I believe that all those parcels to the north paid some order of assessment. MS. WALTSON: I said lot -- parcel 107 gave an objection. MR. ARCHIBALD: Well, there are a quite a lot of objections to the assessments, including yours, and, as I recall, we reduced those to the number of units that were plausible on the parcels. MS. WALTSON: Well, Mr. Maloney paid zero. He did not pay for the use of Lakeland Avenue Extension. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mrs. Waltson, I'm going to ask you to take that up outside of this. Our discussion today is -- deals with vacating -- MS. WALTSON: Well, I would like the board to address that. MR. ARCHIBALD: Well, the only -- MS. WALTSON: You know. MR. ARCHIBALD: The only parcel that would not have been assessed would be those parcels that we had acquired as part of Livingston Road, but all the other parcels, to my knowledge, had some assessment. Like yourselves, they may have had the ability to put more than one unit on their land, but they were only assessed approximately a unit. MS. WALTSON: Well, I won't talk with Mr. Archibald, but I'll put it in my five minutes that I don't believe Mr. Maloney has any access whatsoever to Lakeland Avenue to give a -- give an objection for us to get our roadway land back, and he's parcel number 107 if you have a map, and he did send in an objection. I have a map here. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: We have it. MS. WALTSON: You have a map? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: We have it. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: We have it in our package. MS. WALTSON: Oh, okay. But that was one of the letters of objection from Mr. Mullet about Mr. Maloney being able to use Lakeland Avenue, and they had another objection from one of the other property owners. I didn't get their name. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: 109. MS. WALTSON: Okay. And I believe that Mr. Dabrowski paid for one unit for the storm drainage project the same as we did and -- and I believe that he can build one house on that property, you know, the same as us. There would be no objection to something like that because most of that land is flood plain land all in there, and that's why they were assessed at such a low assessment. My neighbor across the street who did not sign the quitclaim deed and she can no -- she can't subdivide her property. It was assessed for four units and paid over $3,500, and she has one house with no way to subdivide. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: That's all very interesting, but we're talking about the vacation of the right-of-way today. We're not talking about assessments for some prior storm drainage project. MS. WALTSON: Okay. But I think Mr. Archibald brought up the rights of the property owners to the north and that's why I -- COHMISSIONER NORRIS: He was referring to the rights of access, and we don't have on our agenda publicly '- MS. WALTSON: Okay. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: -- advertised anything about '- MS. WALTSON: All right. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: -- an assessment district. MS. WALTSON: All right. Well, then I'll say that Mr. Haloney, lot number 107, has no access to Lakeland Avenue for his objection. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. That was our last speaker? MR. HCNEES: Yes. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I'm going to -- I'm going to close the public hearing. And discussion from board members or a motion? Commissioner Hancock. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Weigel, what is the minimum requirement that the county has to ensure access and keep parcels from being landlocked? Just as simple as possible, what's the minimum we have to do to make sure a parcel is not landlocked and has access? MR. WEIGEL: Well, the distinction is private property rights and -- and -- and the responsibilities of public government. Property can't be divided where it doesn't have access. I mean, it's -- it's illegal and -- It's -- It's not legal to do so. It's an improper transaction that occurs. And if we have properties that would ostensibly not have access, if the county didn't have its strip of -- of deed that it's got in there, those private properties would have to show an easement or ingress/egress by necessity, and that could be done through private property actions in court. One thing I note is that we have the deed recorded for the -- for this roadway from this particular owner, but we haven't built the road. It's just a paper right one might say that we have. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Let me ask this question. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Could -- COHMISSIONER NORRIS: How -- How -- How did these northern properties have access before 19807 MR. ARCHIBALD: In some cases there were easements that pre-existed, but they were not clear, and I believe that some of them would have had to create access through the original seller or sellers. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: So -- All right. We -- We have this piece -- section of roadway to the south of the properties that we're talking about that is -- is still in private hands. How does Mr. Haloney get to his property traversing their private property as well as the private property north of -- of these? MR. ARCHIBALD: In the case of -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: How do the Waltsons? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Well, that's public -- Yeah, or how does he get over it? MR. ARCHIBALD: In the case of 107, that parcel that's owned by Haloney, that has access to Livingston Road or will be acquired as part of the Livingston Road project. So that's one reason why that's separate. Now, the other parcels that Haloney may own that have frontage again would be dependent upon access. If I may, very quickly, you know, the county isn't looking for deeds. And, again, recognize that there's probably thousands of cases like this where people come in and record their easements to the county or the public or some entity, and what we're doing, in fact, as you take a look on page four on that map or page three, as the case may be, all the county is doing is, in fact, holding it for the benefit of all of those property owners. At some point in time, all of those property owners are going to want and need access. And the method that was used back at the time of the acceptance and recording of these documents was, in fact, to record and hold. But, in fact, we're doing it in behalf of all the owners that have frontage for their future needs, and those future needs may be tomorrow. They may be in the very distant future. But, in fact, if we take that away from them, then they have to recreate the steps that have been outlined by Mr. Weigel, and that may involve them going through a court procedure which, in fact, we may become a party to because, in fact, we're giving away part of what they would have to acquire in the future. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Let me ask Mr. Weigel a question about this Florida Statute -- what is it -- 255, that Mr. Waltson was quoting from? How does that impact us? They gave it for a specific right, and we failed to do what they gave it for. MR. WEIGEL: The gentleman did his homework. It -- It means something if it's placed of record. How does it -- How does it get placed of record? Well, conceivably a quiet title action unless this board acts and creates something of record recognizing that. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Recognizing what? MR. WEIGEL: Recognizing the -- that statute and what it -- what it purports to do. There's -- It would appear that there's nothing of record in the chain of title for this property that -- that relates that statute to the property, but the statute exists, and it says what it says. So it's a player here. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: So this is -- MR. WEIGEL: It may be a player here. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: So this is similar to Mr. Cuyler having said a while back, we are where we are. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: And that's where we are. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: And that's where we are. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Maybe I'm oversimplifying this, but there are apparently five parcels that have deeded land that want the land back. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And when they get it back, it will be no different than the section line access to the south and the section line access to the north. So correct me if I'm wrong, but the owners of parcels 56 and 57 which are down right next to the north end of the -- the -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Lakeland. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- Willoughby area -- can they prevent Mr. Waltson and the Nippers and the Corles from getting to their home? Can they block off that because the county doesn't own it or we don't have easements? Can they keep the Waltsons from getting home along that section line? MR. ARCHIBALD: They could. At this point in time, I don't believe the legal parameters have been established for either a -- a dedicated access nor a prescriptive access. I'm not privy to that. But to date, I haven't seen any document that would create that access other than their use, and that hasn't been established in the courts. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: But basically all this access is operating because everyone's friends? There's no real legal basis? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: We're talking about an easement of necessity, by necessity, or by prescription. I mean, there's a lot of other legal -- MS. ASHTON: Commissioner, if I could comment, I might be able to shed some light on this. It's my understanding that there is a revocable license over -- I think it's lot 56 or 57. So they do have permission to go over the property. But where the access issue is going to come up is when somebody north tries to subdivide because although they have access because they've been doing it for so long, they don't have legal access. In order to establish legal access, they'll need to go into court for declaratory action to declare an easement by necessity. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Hiss Ashton, let me ask -- Let me see if I can understand it from layman's terms here. You're saying -- Well, let me ask the question this way. Before 1980 nobody had a legal access here, but then this land was deeded over to the county, and access was partially provided. Now, is the county going to be construed as legally liable at some point in time if we just reverse our deeds and turn the land back to the property owners, and at some future point in time will some property owner to the north want to take action against the county because of that? MS. ASHTON: I think that's a difficult question to answer because you never know what sort of clever argument a smart attorney is going to come up with. But with respect to section 255.22, which is the section Mr. Waltson quoted, you're looking at two things. Number one is the county may quitclaim the property back. The second issue is that under one of the sections -- under the section 255.22, it talks of the county constructively abandoning the property. So irrespective of what you do today, if they went into court tomorrow, based upon the facts we have today, it's likely that a court would say the county doesn't have an interest. So in light of that, maybe, you know, that helps you with your decision today. But I -- You know, I think -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: So -- So why '- MS. ASHTON: You know, we've all been trying to work with everybody involved, including the northerly property owners, to come up with something that, you know, everyone would be happy with. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: So why should we cause these five property owners to spend money to pay attorneys and the county spends money or spends time to pay our attorneys to defend an essentially indefensible position. MS. ASHTON: Well, the flip side of this -- COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: There are always defenses but '- MS. ASHTON: The flip side of this is when the northerly property owners decide to subdivide and they go into court to establish their easement by necessity, all the property owners that haven't granted easements will be named in a lawsuit and will have to either, you know, default or defend their position so -- you know. COHHISSIONER HAC'KIE: This one's going to court. MR. ASHTON: But that's -- That's sort of just a FYI, you know -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: This one is going to court no matter what we do. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Isn't that the way you see it, Hiss Ashton? This one is going to court one way or another, either by them to vacate -- to get -- to enforce the statute that they cited to us or by the -- the -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Northern property owners. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah. To establish an easement by necessity. MS. ASHTON: Uh-huh. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So I don't see a way to avoid court in here if people don't grant easements. We could -- We can, however, not participate in a lawsuit by giving these people back their property, and then they can all go sue each other. The other people can sue them -- MR. WEIGEL: Yeah. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- but we could be out of it. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: But we're out of it. MR. WEIGEL: Yeah. That's -- That's exactly right. And another thing is, as I mentioned, our interest exists on paper. We didn't build the road that's out there. But I will say from a liability standpoint that as a record owner out there, if something should happen -- COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Right. MR. WEIGEL: -- we'd be named in the lawsuit, whatever -- whatever might occur out there. So to that extent, we maybe don't have an incentive to keep this interest as it is right now. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: It seems to me if -- if they gave the land to the county for the purpose of building a road which the county didn't build and even sent them a letter saying that we had abandoned it, we -- COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It's theirs. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: -- we don't have much to say that we have an interest in it. MR. WEIGEL: No. What the board could do today just so there's something recordable would -- conceivably would be a quitclaim deed which merely says, whatever interest we have, which may be nothing, we convey back to you. And, incidentally, Mr. Waltson, I think is his name, had indicated that there was some easements on the property in the first place, and it's very possible that those easements are some of the same interests that are addressing themselves in the letters of objection today, and they may survive our quitclaiming whatever interest we have anyway. I don't think there's been -- I wouldn't expect that there's been a merger so -- because typically easements exist separate from fee. So we may not have quite the problem that we thought we did at first anyhow. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: So those easements you say continue to run with this land regardless? MR. WEIGEL: If they existed -- If they existed separately and -- and prior to his quitclaim to the county for the -- for the road HSTU purposes, they would continue to exist. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: If we quitclaim back to them their property, whatever its condition was on the date of their quitclaim -- their deed to us, it reverts to that condition. If there were -- If there were easements at that point in time, then they will continue. If there weren't, they won't. MR. WEIGEL: And if new interests occurred in the meantime, we're not touching those either. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Exactly. MR. WEIGEL: We're just giving what we have, what little there may be. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Which one Florida Statute says we ought to do. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah. MR. WEIGEL: Well, yeah. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah. MR. WEIGEL: That's a great incentive. To -- To clear the record, that's all we would be doing based on that statute. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Close the public hearing? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: The public hearing is closed. Is there a motion? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Yes. I'll make a motion that we quitclaim our fee simple interest in these road right-of-ways. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Very lawyerly. Second. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Wow. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: That's an insult if ever I've heard one. I have a point of information. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: You're going to wind up with a law degree, Commissioner Norris. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Oh, no. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Oh, no? Commissioner Hancock, you have a quick comment? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I did notice in the staff report that utilities has issued an objection because of a water line extending across the property. By taking this action, are we still going to have access to maintenance of that water line? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: There's a utility easement that was originally on it. What kind of easement is that? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: And was that water line contained within that utility easement? If not, we're going to have to come back and provide some type of easement to a water line that's under -- COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Mr. Norris -- MR. HULLER: Right. I'm not privy to that -- that utility easement that existed prior to. The only easement that I've seen prior to is that easement provided, the 1967 one. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So, Mr. Norris, in our quitclaim of the fee back to these people, we could reserve any necessary easement for access to the existing utility line. Would you agree to that? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I would amend my motion to include that, actually. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And so would the second. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Does that solve our problem, Mr. Mullet? MR. HULLER: Drainage concerns that they've indicated -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Drainage. MR. HULLER: They have drainage concerns, the property owners? COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No, they don't. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: No, they don't. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: They don't -- MR. HULLER: They don't? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: -- want it. No. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: No. No, they don't. So -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: You're confusing them with the rest of the county. MR. HULLER: The rest of the day. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That will take care of this one. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second to quitclaim the county's fee simple interest in these right-of-ways back to the original property owners, reserving -- Help me. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: existing drainage. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: COHMISSIONER NORRIS: CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Drainage. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Access -- An easement for access to the Nope. Existing water line. Water line. Pardon me. Utility. Utilities. God. I said the "D" word again. If there's no further discussion, I'll call the question. All in favor, please say aye. Opposed? There being none, motion passes five to zero. MS. WALTSON: The private road now. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm -- I'm sorry, ma'am. The -- The public hearing is no longer open. So you're going to have to take that up with our staff, and Mr. Weigel's office will do his best to answer your questions. Item #12C7 TENTATIVE RATE INCREASE, PUBLIC COMMENT AND REVISED RATES FOR THE MARCO WATER AND SEWER DISTRICT - CONTINUED TO 11/14/95 COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Madam Chairman, on this next item, I've had a request from some citizens to delay this for two weeks -- I guess it would be three weeks probably. If -- If this is not a time-critical item, I wonder if we could do that for the citizens. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Conrecode, is it time critical? MR. CONRECODE: No. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: No. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: If that's a motion, I'll second it. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second to continue item 12C(7) for -- Did you say three weeks, Mr. -- Mr. Norris? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, wouldn't that be the next public hearing date? MR. CONRECODE: November 14 is the next public hearing date. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Three weeks. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Three weeks. Okay we have a motion to continue 12C(7) for three weeks. I have a second. I guess I need to close the public hearing, or we never opened the hearing. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: please say aye. Opposed? We never opened it. Okay. It's long. We're tired. It's long. All those in favor, There being none, motion passes five to zero. Next item is 12C(8), reconsideration -- That was withdrawn. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: 12C(9) has already been handled. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: 12C(9) is done. (10) is continued. Next item is 13A(1). That's continued. Item #13A2 RESOLUTION 95-613 RE PETITION CU-95-12, JOHN J. DALY REPRESENTING THE COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS REQUESTING A CONDITIONAL USE 2.6.35.5.1.3 IN THE ESTATES ZONING DISTRICT FOR THE REPLACEMENT OF AN EXISTING 280 FOOT GUYED COMMUNICATION TOWER FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST INTERSECTION OF COUNTY BARN ROAD AND CREWS ROAD - ADOPTED 13A(2), petition CU-95-12, Mr. Daly representing the Collier County Board of Commissioners. MR. MILK: Good afternoon, Commissioners. For the record -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: You're not -- MR. MILK: -- my name is Bryan Milk. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I didn't think you were Mr. Daly. MR. MILK: I am presenting petition CU-95-12. Mr. John Daly, communications manager of Collier County, is requesting conditional use two six three five one three for the replacement of an existing 280-foot guyed communication tower located on property commonly referred as the County Barn located at the northeast intersection of County Barn Road and Crews Road. The existing 280-foot guyed communication tower is a legal nonconforming tower requiring replacement due to its age and due to the -- COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Excuse me, Mr. Milk. We're -- We're -- We're replacing an old tower with an identical new one? MR. MILK: That's correct. Identical new tower. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Are there speakers, Mr. HcNees? MR. HCNEES: No, Madam Chairman. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I'll close the public hearing. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Motion to approve the item. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second to approve the item. All those in favor please say aye. Opposed? There being none, motion passes 5-0. Item #13A3 PETITION V-95-14, EDWALD RAUSCHHAIR AND DIETER HOLE REQUESTING A 1.15 FOOT AFTER-THE-FACT VARIANCE FROM THE REQUIRED 10 FOOT REAR YARD ACCESSORY STRUCTURE SETBACK TO 8.85 FEET; A 3.7 FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE REQUIRED SIDE YARD SETBACK OF 7.5 FEET TO 3.8 FEET; AND A .70 FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE REQUIRED SIDE YARD SETBACK OF 7.5 FEET TO 6.8 FEET FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 630 103RD AVENUE NORTH, LOT 33, BLOCK 25, NAPLES PARK, UNIT 3 - DENIED Next item is -- Where the devil are we? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: 13A(3). CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: -- 13A(3), petition V-95-14. MR. BELLOWS: Ray Bellows, for the record -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Bellows. MR. BELLOWS: -- planning services staff presenting petition V-95-14. Challenger Pools requesting an after-the-fact variance of 1.15 feet from the required 10-yard [sic] Rear yard accessory structure setback, and they're also requesting a 3.7-foot and a .70-foot variance from the required 7 1/2-foot side yard setback. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Bellows, what is the accessory structure here? COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: A Fool. MR. BELLOWS: A Fool cage. The Fool cage encroaches 1.15 feet. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: How long has it been constructed and completed? MR. BELLOWS: Let's see. The spot survey was done on Hay of '95. It was completed around that time. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: The spot survey -- MR. BELLOWS: April. This pool was completed in April. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: It looks to me like the Fool does not extend beyond a line consistent with the edge of the home; is that correct? MR. BELLOWS: That's correct. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. The rear yard setback being -- MR. BELLOWS: So we're not encroaching more on the sides than the existing house. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: You're not going any closer to the property line with the structure than the home originally did? MR. BELLOWS: That is correct. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: The only difference is the rear yard which is going within -- what -- a foot? MR. BELLOWS: That's -- Yeah. 1.15. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: As much as I'm not a fan of variances, it doesn't appear that the pool deck itself encroaches any further from the existing home, and it's -- it's fairly consistent with what's already there. MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. The planning commission recommended approval. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Norris, I know from time to time you've been Mr. Heany-pants on these after-the-fact variances. I'd just be looking there's some guidance -- COHMISSIONER NORRIS: We did make them saw one off here recently. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: COHHISSIONER MAC'KIE: CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: land-related -- COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We did. We sure as heck did. We sure did make them saw it off. That's consistency. Where -- Where's the -- Where's the -- hardship? -- hardship other than they built too big a house on a small lot? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, then we're not -- We're not cutting the house into pieces. We're just talking the pool here; is that correct? MR. BELLOWS: That's correct. On our staff report, our staff's recommendation was approval of the side yard encroachments but denial of the rear. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And that's what I was about to get to. Is -- Is someone here that can answer, can we shave the foot -- 1.15 feet off the rear without getting into the wall of the pool? MR. ESQUINALDO: For the record, I'm Bruce Esquinaldo from Challenger Pools, contractor. It's got a retaining wall in the back, so there's a lot more to it. There's the footer, cutting the retaining wall down, and the pool cage. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I understand that, but it was the construction that encroached into a 10-foot yard, and we've traditionally -- or at least in the last year, have taken a pretty hard line on after-the-fact variances. I can understand the mistake on the side since you didn't go beyond the house, but encroaching into a rear yard setback like that, if that 1.15 feet can be shaved off the rear without affecting the inner wall of the pool, I need to know that. MR. ESQUINALDO: We have a 10-inch bond beam on these pools, so you have 2 feet on the back. You take off the foot and a half, and you're cutting into the shell of the pool, the bond beam. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: You were the contractor on this? MR. ESQUINALDO: Yes, sir. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: How did you make this mistake in the first place, or was this a mistake? MR. ESQUINALDO: It -- It was. The original survey that I was supplied by the homeowner showed that we had enough room to work. And then when we did the tie-in at the end, we had -- we were out all over the place. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: What's the date on that survey? MR. ESQUINALDO: The original? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yes. MR. ESQUINALDO: It was December of 1991. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Who was it prepared by? MR. ESQUINALDO: It was prepared by -- COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Because that's who -- MR. ESQUINALDO: It's certified by Elliot Construction. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Who? MR. ESQUINALDO: Elliot Construction. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Elliot? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: But -- Now, you -- off of that survey -- MR. ESQUINALDO: I'm sorry. It's certified to Elliot Construction. COHHISSIONER HAC'KIE: By. COHHISSIONER HANCOCK: Off that survey, did your company then stake out the ten feet from the known corner points of the lot and claim that as the edge of the pool? MR. ESQUINALDO: We built off the house. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. So you measured off of the house based on that survey and found yourself a foot into the rear yard? MR. ESQUINALDO: Yes. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Why wouldn't you measure off the property lines? MR. ESQUINALDO: The -- They have two picket fences up in the back there along with landscaping. I -- Believing that the survey was true and correct, we wanted to keep a true five-foot measurement off the house, the size of the pool, and then the true two feet of deck in the back, and then when they had the surveyor go out in Hay, that's when we found out that the house was off from the original one. The house actually encroached before we got there and COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: So you have another survey that actually shows that the survey you were provided is incorrect? MR. ESQUINALDO: I have the original survey here. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. But you said you went out and surveyed, and you found the house is not in the position that that survey indicates? HR. ESQUINALDO: Yes. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That had been resolved before. Action Surveys, I think is it. That's who did ours. Oh. That's who did ours. That's who did the one we have. I can't read the other one. MR. ESQUINALDO: found out everything else. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: MR. ESQUINALDO: Yeah. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: anybody inappropriately. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: speakers? Action Surveys is the one who -- who That's the good guy. I didn't want to disparage Again. Again? Mr. HcNees, are there any HR. HCNEES: Yes, ma'am. We have one, Vera Fitz-Gerald. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Hiss Fitz-Gerald. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: You want me to give your statement for you, Vera? MS. FITZ-GERALD: I just really want to go home. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Where is the pool going to drain to? MS. FITZ-GERALD: I'm Vera Fitz-Gerald, and I live in Naples Park. Doug HcGilvra was going to speak also, but Doug had to go home. If you believe this was an accident, you've got to believe in the tooth fairy too. I'm looking at this survey, and it says at the back where it shows this line -- in the front -- sorry. The front of the home is 5.6. The back line is 4.3, but that's only concrete slab. They aren't part of the wall of the structures, and they're allowed to build those closer. Now, there was a while there in Naples Park when some developers had the setbacks moved to 5 feet instead of 7 1/2 feet, and not long -- oh, maybe last year -- we had that changed back to 7 1/2 feet. It might have been two years ago. I don't know. But -- So this house is probably built at the point where it was 5 feet, so the house is fine. But I see that they have got their -- what do you call that -- pool enclosure -- they want to build it 3.7 or 3.8 feet from the lot line? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It is built. MS. FITZ-GERALD: Yes, it is. Sorry. That's after the fact. Well, I want to bring this to your attention, that two years ago a young couple came here for a variance, and they had built an enclosure, a lanai, about the same distance, around three feet, and, of course, we read this and marshalled our forces and came down, and the commission said no. They had to take it down. This is the same sort of thing. They want to put this pool enclosure -- If you don't have enough room, you don't build it. Either Challenger Pools are totally incompetent or they decided that this was a way to get around it. What you do is you build it first. Then you come down to the county and say, oh, gee, I've already built it, and it's going to cost me so much money to tear it down. Hardship. Oh, please let me leave it up. Well, I'm telling you, I've got a patio on the east side of my home, and it's about three feet from the lot line. Now, if you let them keep this enclosure, I want one. Okay? And so -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: You have to go build it first, Vera. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: You have to go build it first, Vera. MS. FITZ-GERALD: And then come down and whine about how poor I am. So I'm sorry. We are absolutely adamantly opposed to any variations after the fact. If you know you don't have enough room, come down and ask for a variation before you do it. Don't come down here and pull this line that we made a mistake. Even I can read a tape measure and -- and that -- that's absurd, and our position -- The property owners -- I don't know if I can speak for them. No, I can't. Sorry. I'm speaking for myself. I'm opposed. Okay? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you, Miss Fitz-Gerald. Is that our last speaker, Mr. McNees? MR. MCNEES: Yes, it is. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: There's nobody else in the room. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I -- I find it -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I just have to make it formal. I'm going to close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I find that more times than not we end up in this position, and we feel like we're hurting, in fact, the homeowner when it was not the homeowner's responsibility to stake the legal boundaries in which this pool and cage could have been built. It was the responsibility of the contractor to verify that information. I know from being in the building industry that a survey that is over 12 months old is not considered valid. As someone who builds pools on a daily basis, you see a survey more than 12 months old, I would think it would be worth the $120 to have it staked by a surveyor as to where your -- your perimeter boundaries are, and you there have a check-and-balance system, and you're not caught. I guess -- Mr. Weigel, in a situation like this, if we deny the variance and the pool has to be sucked into conforming with the side yard setbacks and the rear yard setback, do we know who is going to bear that cost, or is that between the homeowner and the -- the contractor? MR. WEIGEL: Yeah. That's -- That's a private property interest between the homeowner and the contractor and anyone else involved. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Has the homeowner paid you for the completion of the pool yet? MR. ESQUINALDO: Yes. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, I -- I don't think we need to get into that. I mean, either it's right or wrong -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: It's either right or wrong. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- and there is a hardship or there isn't and -- COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: I just hate putting these people in court because the contractor messed up and that -- you know, that's where we end up. I'm not disagreeing with you. I'm just -- That -- That's ludicrous. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The last thing I want to do is play attorney, but I suspect they probably can blame the contractor in court if they need to do that, but hopefully they'll all work together and make this work out beautifully. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: The public hearing is closed. Is there a motion? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Let's see. Mr. Bellows on the two -- COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Motion to deny. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Are we -- Are we going to deny all the side yard and so forth? Because we have -- On the front of the house, we have a 5 1/2-yard setback on the -- as we're looking on the right-hand side. The requirement of 7 1/2 was encroached upon when that was built. Well, it says 5 1/2 here. MS. FITZ-GERALD: I know, but that was changed. It used to be 5, but then they moved it to 7 1/2. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Right. I know. That has come in after -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Miss -- Miss Fitz-Gerald -- MS. FITZ-GERALD: I know. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: -- You know, you -- MS. FITZ-GERALD: Shut up. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: -- we already cleared this. Yeah. When the house was built, it was a 5 -- 5-foot setback. It is now 7 1/2 foot. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Bellows, you had recommended -- Okay. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We're only dealing with the pool. MR. BELLOWS: On the side setback because it's in conformance with the existing structure. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll make a motion to deny on the rear setback. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: I'll second. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. We have a motion to deny on the rear setback. So the side setback you're -- you're accepting? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Sure. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. So that is staff's recommendation? Is that where we're at? MR. BELLOWS: Staff's original recommendation was approval of the side setbacks and denial of the rear. The Planning Commission approved all set -- encroachments, all variances, and they -- Hearing that you want to deny the rear but approve the sides. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Constantine, would you be willing to amend to also require a side yard setback of 5 1/2 feet on the west side, I guess it is, where the -- currently the garage is built 5 1/2 feet from the property line? I just want those to be consistent because currently it's only 3.8 feet from the property line. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yes, I would. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: second. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: one of the sides? COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. I'll -- I'll amend the So we are denying the variance on Denying -- Is that what we're doing? If I understand the motion, we're denying the rear yard setback, and that needs to conform to 10 feet. And the -- Help me out here. I think it's the west. Yeah. The west side of the pool, which is at 3.8 feet, needs to conform to a minimum of 5 1/2 feet. MR. BELLOWS: We can also improve the side yard encroachments administratively since they don't exceed the current encroachment of the building, depending on how you want to -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: So we can deny the rear yard and administratively require that the side yard encroachments not exceed what's currently in place? MR. BELLOWS: That's correct. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Does that make it easier? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll withdraw my motion. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Is there a motion? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Make a motion to deny petition V-95-14 with the requirement that the rear yard setback be conformed to and the side yard setbacks not exceed what currently exists on site. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Is there a second? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Second. Second. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second to deny petition V-95-14 with stipulations. I'm going to call the question. All those in favor, please say aye. Opposed? There being none, motion passes five to zero. Item #13A4 RESOLUTION 95-614 RE PETITION CUP-94-11, HOYT HOLEBROOKS REPRESENTING LAKE TRAFFORD BAPTIST CHURCH, REQUESTING AN EXTENSION OF A CONDITIONAL USE "7" IN THE "A" AGRICULTURAL ZONING DISTRICT TO ALLOW FOR A CHURCH EXPANSION THAT HAS PREVIOUSLY RECEIVED CONDITIONAL USE APPROVAL FOR PROPERTY ON THE WEST SIDE OF CARSON ROAD NORTH OF LAKE TRAFFORD ROAD IN IHMOKALEE - ADOPTED These are getting tough. Next item is 12 -- 13A(4), petition CU-94-11, which is an extension of conditional use 7. MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. Ray Bellows, again, for the record. The petitioner is requesting his first of a one-year extension. COHHISSIONER HAC'KIE: May I interrupt to ask -- This seems to me to be imminently approvable, and I'd like to make a motion to do that unless -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I've got to close the public hearing first. Are there public speakers? There are none. I'll close the public hearing. Is there a motion? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: approve petition CU-94-11. Opposed? Move approval. Second. We have a motion and a second to All in favor, please say aye. Hotion passes five to zero. HR. BELLOWS: Thank you. Item #14 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' COMMUNICATIONS CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: That concludes our agenda. We're at communications. Commissioner Norris. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Nothing. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hancock. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: No way. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hac'Kie. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No, ma'am. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Constantine. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I have four items, but I'll eliminate one of them. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: How gracious of you. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Only one? You've only had three the whole time. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: A couple of things. I think you're all aware of this, but I heard this morning, and I understand it was on yesterday afternoon's radio news as well -- I heard Mr. Conrecode quoted as saying he was looking into a revised version of the $80 million stormwater utility that we turned down a couple of years ago. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: He didn't say that. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: He did say that. It was his voice saying it. It wasn't just a misquote. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Not the $80 million part. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Anyway -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I just said a revised version of the $80 million one. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm not sure that the board directed him to do that. I also might suggest -- I know the water district -- water management district is currently in the middle year of a three-year study -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Five-year study. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- that -- They're in the middle of a study -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- that perhaps we want to participate in rather than trying to re-invent the wheel. They're already halfway through that and maybe for -- it's not an expensive thing. Haybe for a minimal participation, $20,000 $25,000, we may be able to share in that and work hand in hand with them to come up with something long term, but I think rather than trying to pick and choose some parts from a failed policy of two years ago, that might be a better direction. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. I'm glad you brought that subject up because I think now our water is receding, and we can get back to a little more -- to an ability to have a calm conversation about drainage issues. I think that's exactly what we should do, and rather than have some real elaborate program that's been proposed in the past, I think we should sit down, take a look at our priorities of what we need to do to help our drainage situation in the county and then address those things on a priority list. I mean, obviously you've got to look at something like the Lely outfall canal which is a problem, and it drains a major portion of our square miles urban area, and with the road improvements that are coming, that situation is going to be exacerbated. So, you know, that -- that certainly has got to be in the top one of the priority list. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Absolutely. COMHISSIONER NORRIS: And that's what I think we should do, and I think we should do it fairly quickly while -- because I know there's going to be a lot of lead time in getting into any of these big drainage issues. I think we should -- We should have our staff bring forward something, you know, reasonably soon, and let's start prioritizing. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: My suggestion was going to be that, that we ask them to come forward, maybe sometime in November, and we can begin that process. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: The Big Cypress Basin Board meeting is this Friday, and if this board wants, I'll certainly be glad to ask them what their study plans are for their primary and secondary works of the basin, and I am aware at this point that they have applied for FEMA funds to deepen the 951 canal and to try to get that flowing south from Immokalee Road instead of the portion that's supposed to flow north but somehow never does and -- But I'll be glad to get information from them Friday on what their proposed works of the basin are. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Two other items, both very, very brief. One, good news. Within probably two or three weeks, we should have -- knock on wood -- our foreign trade zone agreement back CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Oh, good. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- and for some sort of final vote. I -- I think we are where we need to be on that through a great deal of work and compromise on a whole lot of people's part. So that's good news, and hopefully early in November we'll see a final format on that. And, finally, there's an item that will -- I guess we may have to look at November 7 because the -- She isn't here today, but I just need staff to be aware. Special Olympics has an event coming up in November. They have some minimal signage requirements, and there's four signs at 42 bucks a pop or something. It's some minimal cost, but they're looking for a waiver on that, and I don't know how we go about that, if we can go about that, or where else the money comes if we go about that, but we can look at that. Their event is in mid November, so we need to do that, I think, at the next meeting, and I'll get with you on the details. MR. MCNEES: If you'll let me know who the contact person is, we'll get in touch with the appropriate people. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thanks. MR. MCNEES: Madam Chairman, I have one item under communications -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. I -- MR. MCNEES: -- as much as I hate to. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I have one item myself, and that is, probably all of you have been hearing a good bit about a juvenile detention center with assessment center, and it's my anticipation that this board will be discussing that on November the 7th, and as soon as additional information comes in, I'll make it available to you, but it's going to be an interesting project. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah, because we need more law enforcement projects. We don't have enough cost problems. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Isn't it going to be nice, though, to have something that assesses our juveniles before they get into the court system? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I don't know. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yes, it is. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: You want to get them into the court system? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No. It just sounds like a wish. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. HcNees. MR. HCNEES: I'll put this in the late-breaking news category. FEMA contacted our community development folks this afternoon, and they're interested in putting some of their travel trailers -- I believe it's at the Harmony Shores Park right up the street here which is largely vacant at this time. They're asking about waiver of impact fees, given that this is going to be a temporary use and that those travel trailers will be removed. Staff obviously feels like that's a great idea but doesn't want administratively to even say waiver of impact fees. They are bringing that, and I suggested maybe I could bring it up to you this afternoon. You won't be meeting next week, so we can't really put it on the agenda. And just for your affirmation that you don't have any problem with the concept of allowing FEMA to install those purely temporary travel trailers without assessing them impact fees. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Go. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: But isn't that an existing permitted park anyway? Why would there be impact fees? MR. HCNEES: It would depend on whether -- if there are vacant slots for which fees had not ever been paid, fees would be due. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: But the facilities are in place? MR. HCNEES: Yes, as I understand it. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah. The facilities are already there. So why -- COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Probably -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: If they've already tapped, I don't know -- MR. HCNEES: There may be -- There may not be fees due for all of them. There may be a case where they're going to exceed the existing fee to capacity so to speak -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. I understand. MR. HCNEES: -- and I just want to cover that base. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: If the need comes to this board to waive that for a temporary nature for these trailers, I'm supportive of that. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Weigel, there's no problem with our waiving those fees -- MR. WEIGEL: No. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: -- after the fact? MR. WEIGEL: No. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Good. MR. HCNEES: Even before the fact. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I guess you've got your direction. MR. HCNEES: Thank you very much. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Weigel, is there anything? MR. WEIGEL: I've said quite enough today. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Miss Filson. MS. FILSON: We're adjourned. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We're adjourned. ***** Commissioner Constantine moved, seconded by Commissioner Hancock, and carried unanimously, that the following items under the consent agenda be approved and/or adopted with the stipulation that Item #16A1 and Item #16A10 be approved as long as the companion item is approved on the regular agenda (Commissioner Hac'Kie abstained on Item #16A1 for a vote of 4/0) ***** Item #16A1 FINAL PLAT OF "WALDEN SHORES" (COMPANION TO ITEM #12C5) - WITH STIPULATIONS, CASH BOND AND CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT See Pages Item #16A2 WATER FACILITIES ACCEPTANCE FOR LA PENINSULA BUILDING 400 - WITH STIPULATIONS AND CASH BOND O.R. Book Pages Item #16A3 WATER FACILITIES ACCEPTANCE FOR RUBY TUESDAY AT NORTH BAY - WITH STIPULATIONS AND CASH BOND O.R. Book Pages Item #16A4 FINAL PLAT OF "KENSINGTON PARK, PHASE TWO" - WITH STIPULATIONS; CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT AND LETTER OF CREDIT See Pages Item #16A5 RESOLUTION 95-602 GRANTING FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF ROADWAY, DRAINAGE, WATER AND SEWER IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE FINAL PLAT OF "HORR'S ISLAND A/K/A KEY MARCO" AND RELEASE OF SECURITY See Pages Item #16A6 FINAL PLAT OF "MARNICK CORNER" - WITH STIPULATION Item #16A7 RESOLUTION 95-603 GRANTING FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF ROADWAY, DRAINAGE, WATER AND SEWER IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE FINAL PLAT OF "PARKWAY PLAZA REPLAT" AND RELEASE OF SECURITY See Pages Item #16A8 APPROVAL OF ADDITIONAL CONTRACTORS TO THE LIST OF PRE-QUALIFIED CONTRACTORS PERMITTED TO WORK ON PROJECTS FUNDED BY THE COLLIER COUNTY RESIDENTIAL REHABILITATION PROGRAM (RFP #94-2280) Item #16A9 RESOLUTION 95-604 PRO-RATING AND CENCELLING CURRENT TAXES AND RESOLUTION 95-605 APPROVING SATISFACTION OF LIEN FOR ACCOUNT NO. 5322 FOR THE SOLID WASTE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL SERVICES SPECIAL ASSESSMENT; AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF QUIT CLAIM DEED AND SATISFACTION OF LIENS RE THE CONVEYANCE OF REAL PROPERTY LOCATED IN CRAIGIS SUBDIVISION, T50S, R5E, SECTION 14 See Pages Item #16A10 FINAL PLAT OF "QUAIL WOODS COURTYARDS" (COMPANION TO ITEM #12C4) - WITH STIPULATIONS AND CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT See Pages Item #16B1 CHANGE ORDER NO. 2 IN THE AMOUNT OF $82,535.00 FOR COUNTY-WIDE DITCH BANK CLEARING PROJECT - PHASE IV CONTRACTED TO MONROE TREE SERVICE See Pages Item #16B2 SELECTION COMMITTEE TO BEGIN NEGOTIATIONS WITH INTENT TO ENTER INTO AN ENGINEERING SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH KISSINGER, CAMP AND ASSOCIATES RE RFP #95-2430, BRIDGE AND STRUCTURE REPAIRS Item #16B3 - This item has been deleted Item #16B4 AGREEMENT FOR THE ACQUISITION OF A TEMPORARY BEACH RESTORATION EASEMENT AND AN ACCESS EASEMENT ACROSS THE LAST REMAINING VACANT LOT ON VANDERBILT BEACH - WITH STIPULATIONS See Pages Item #16B5 AWARD CONTRACT FOR BID NO. 95-2427, TO FLORIDA DREDGE & DOCK, INC., IN THE AMOUNT OF $215,891.12 FOR WIGGING PASS MAINTENANCE DREDGING Item #16B6 CHANGE ORDER NO. 2 TO CONTRACT NO. 94-2253, BEACH CLEANING OPERATIONS ON MARCO ISLAND See Pages Item #16C1 RESOLUTION 95-606 RE THE EXPENDITURE OF COUNTY FUNDS NOT TO EXCEED ONE HUNDRED DOLLARS TO PURCHASE A PLAQUE TO RECOGNIZE OUTSTANDING VOLUNTEER SERVICES OF THE CALUSA GARDEN CIVIC GROUP See Pages Item #16C2 - This item has been deleted Item #16C3 - This item moved to Item #8C3 Item #16D1 BUDGET AMENDMENT REQUEST TRANSFERRING $103,000 FROM GAC LAND TRUST (FUND 605) RESERVES TO THE APPROPRIATE OPERATING EXPENSE ACCOUNT IN ORDER TO PROVIDE FUNDS TO COMPLETE THE SHERIFFS' OFFICE MULTIPURPOSE TRAINING FACILITY Item #16D2 AWARD BID #95-2433 - REBID, AVIATION FUEL, TO BELL FUELS, INC. Item #16D3 LEASE AGREEMENT BETWEEN GTE MOBILNET OF TAMPA, INC. AND COLLIER COUNTY FOR THE USE OF COUNTY-OWNED VACANT LAND IN IMHOKALEE TO ACCOMMODATE A RADIO TOWER AS PART OF THE 800 MHZ RADIO SYSTEM See Pages Item #16D4 RESOLUTION 95-607 RE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS AND COLLIER COUNTY RE MONIES AVAILABLE IN THE EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT PREPAREDNESS AND ASSISTANCE FUND See Pages Item #16El BUDGET AMENDMENT RECOGNIZING CARRY FORWARD REVENUE FOR BOTH AIRPORT AUTHORITY SHERIFF DWELLINGS E-AIP-94-7 AND I-AIP-94-9 Item #16E2 INTERLOCAL GOVERNMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN EVERGLADES CITY, COLLIER COUNTY AIRPORT AUTHORITY AND BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS See Pages Item #16E3 BUDGET AMENDMENT 95-588 AND 96-23 Item #16G1 SATISFACTIONS OF LIEN FOR SERVICES OF THE PUBLIC DEFENDER See Pages Item #1662 MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE - FILED AND/OR REFERRED The following miscellaneous correspondence as presented by the Board of County Commissioners has been directed to the various departments as indicated: Item #1611 - Continued to 11/7/95 There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 5:49 p.m. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS CONTROL BETTYE J. MATTHEWS, CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK These minutes approved by the Board on as presented or as corrected TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF DONOVAN COURT REPORTING BY: Barbara A. Donovan and Christine E. Whitfield