Loading...
BCC Minutes 08/14/1996 B (Pelican Bay Services Division Budget) SPECIAL MEETING OF AUGUST 14, 1996 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 6:04 p.m. in SPECIAL SESSION in the Foundation Center, 8962 Hammock Oak Drive, Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: John C. Norris Timothy L. Hancock Timothy J. Constantine Pamela S. Hac'Kie Bettye J. Matthews ALSO PRESENT: Mike HcNees, Assistant County Manager David Weigel, County Attorney Michael Smykowski, Budget Director James P. Ward, Pelican Bay Services Division Director Item #3A PRESENTATION OF FISCAL YEAR 1997 PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION BUDGET CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I'll call this county commission meeting to order on this 14th day of August, 1996. Mr. HcNees, would you lead us in an invocation and a pledge to the flag, please? MR. HCNEES: Yes, sir. Our Heavenly Father, we ask your blessings this evening as we gather to conduct the business of this county government. We ask you to be with us and -- and guide us, and we thank you for the opportunity to participate in a free and open manner and to live in a country in which we're able to do so. We ask these things in the name of Your Son, Jesus. Amen. (The pledge of allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. Mr. Ward, our first item of business tonight is the presentation of fiscal year 1997 Pelican Bay Services Division budget. MR. WARD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman and commissioners. Pelican Bay Services Division budget that you have before you for fiscal year 1997 is comprised essentially of two components. First is the operating component which includes the landscaping programs that we have here in Pelican Bay along with the maintenance of our water management system and ancillary facilities that go along with the both of those. And then secondarily and first for this year will be our capital program in which we are recommending that we begin to allocate certain capital monies for beginning fiscal year 1997 for the next five years to maintain existing or replace existing facilities that are becoming worn or in need of replacement and most importantly for 1997 to allocate certain monies for the restoration of the Clam Bay system. The Clam Bay monies are being allocated under an agreement that we have with WCI Communities that the board approved yesterday where the developer will contribute up to one million dollars towards the cost of Clam Bay restoration over the next three years along with a commitment from the Pelican Bay community to contribute a like amount for the restoration of Clam Bay. For fiscal year 1997 our proposed assessment rate for operations is $176.94. It is $18.40 more than it was in the prior year primarily related to increases in levels of service that we are contemplating for 1997 which include such items as repairs and replacements to the tram pass which is the berm that abuts the Clam Bay system, significant changes to our irrigation system to separate our annual beds from the rest of the system, to replace the fence along the U.S. 41 buffer berm, to significantly increase the repairs that we have to our street signs here in Pelican Bay, and to include a significant amount of money for the aquascaping program which we started a few years ago. And aquascaping is nothing more than the replacement or installation in this case of plant materials in the water management system or the waterways within the community in order to try and reduce or take up the nutrients that are going into our system which we hope will eventually help the Clam Bay system and is one of the significant issues that has -- that we recognize during the year in terms of what may be somewhat of the cause of the degradation of the Clam Bay system. As far as our capital program is concerned, it is composed of a number of elements. First and foremost is to set up a reserve for repairs and replacement of certain equipment that we have in the community, to set up a reserve for uninsured assets in Pelican Bay. And as I'm sure you all know, a landscaping system is an uninsured asset in any governmental agency or in any environment. And we have a significant investment in our complete landscaping program here in Pelican Bay. And over the past few years we have certainly realized with the various hurricanes and no name storms that have Come through that it's important to begin to start accruing certain monies in the event that those types of storm events seriously degrade that system. So we're setting up a reserve to deal with those problems. The street signs that we've taken over in Pelican Bay a couple of years ago are essentially comprised of wood. They're now 15 years old and in serious need of repair. And, quite frankly, at this point we're going to suggest in the next few years that they essentially be replaced with a material that is of less maintenance than we currently have; and then our irrigation system which is also nearing 15 years of age, to set a certain reserve up for the maintenance of that irrigation system; and then finally along the U.S. 41 entrance to Pelican Bay, upon the completion of the four laning of U.S. 41, we set up a reserve to improve the looks of the Pelican Bay side of the U.S. 41 buffer berm more in the form as you might see in Pelican Landing or Pelican Marsh or the Bonita Bay berm for this community; and then finally to replace the wood entrance markers that we have in four locations at -- excuse me, in six locations at the three entrances within Pelican Bay; and, as I mentioned earlier, a reserve for the restoration of the Clam Bay system. The proposed assessment amount for 1997 for the capital program is $85.76 per equivalent residential unit. That number will change I'm sure through the years as the number of equivalent residential units change within the community. They do tend to decrease somewhat, so we have taken that into consideration in our cost estimates. But I'm sure that number will change as time goes on. With that, the proposed budgets for Pelican Bay have been discussed at length by your advisory committee at a number of public meetings held here in this Hammock Oak facility. And this is the budget that I am recommending to you this evening and the advisory committee is also recommending to you. And with that, that's all the presentation I have for you. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. Questions for Mr. Ward? COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Huh-uh. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. Ward, I had one. You're setting up a replacement fund for the uninsured asset restoration. That's what I see here, number 509, fund 509? MR. WARD: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: You don't have anything in that fund to begin with; this is a brand new fund? Is that what I understood? MR. WARD: That's correct. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. All right. Do we have public speakers today? MR. HCNEES: Jim, do you want to call the names? MR. WARD: Sure. First is Harilyn Cullinane. MS. CULLINANE: I haven't decided if I was going to participate or not yet. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. MR. WARD: Okay. The second one is Harry Coburn. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. While our speakers are coming up, I might remind them for those that have not done this before that our general policy is to allow speakers five minutes each, and try to keep your remarks not repetitive of the prior speakers. I don't know how many we have today. MR. WARD: Just three. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Just three so it's not a problem. MR. WARD: And we're on number two so -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. Please go ahead. MR. COBURN: Mine is in the form of a clarification. In reading the documentation -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Could we have your name for the record, please? MR. COBURN: He gave it. Harry Coburn. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Yeah, but I need you to give it. MR. COBURN: I've done so. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you. MR. COBURN: My information is what I had from the newspaper before I came here and then what I read and was able to understand from our discussion today. And my question has to do with the allocation of funds for the restoration of the -- MALE VOICE: We can't hear him. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. We'll take care of it. MR. COBURN: My question has to do with the method in which the funds for the restoration of the mangrove swamp area is being developed. As I understand it from what I've seen and read, every unit in Pelican Bay is being assessed the exact same amount of money? MR. WARD: Yes, sir, that's true. MR. COBURN: In essence a flat tax. MR. WARD: Well, it's considered a special assessment, so it is assessment across the board for all the property within Pelican Bay. MR. COBURN: Was any consideration given for graduated assessment? MR. WARD: The advisory board actually had some lengthy discussions as to the propriety of the utilization of what we call an ad valorem tax versus a non-ad valorem assessment. You have been provided an operating -- our operating requirements on a yearly basis through an equal assessment for some odd 15 years now. We adjusted that maybe four or five years ago to make it a little more equal than what it had been in the past. And I think most residents within the community felt and the advisory board certainly felt that everyone benefits relatively equally from all of the capital items that are going to be provided within the community. MR. COBURN: I'm not asking about the capital items. I'm just asking about the restoration of the mangrove area. MR. WARD: That is part of the capital items, and everyone felt that would be most beneficially assessed across the board to all residents within Pelican Bay. MR. COBURN: It was my understanding that the experts developed a theory that the problem with the area was caused by the development along the strand and the Bay Colony. Is that the facts? MR. WARD: Well, that's what the newspaper has indicated on a number of occasions. I think the facts don't necessarily support that conclusion that we've seen in the newspapers. MR. COBURN: Because the thought I had was if, in fact, the problem is caused by that development and those developments are very expensive and some of the houses that are on the beach are immense, it would seem to be more in keeping with justice and fair play that there be a special tax graduated on the cost of the buildings because the people that have caused the problem should be paying more than just the people who happen to be living here. I don't have any problem with the rest of what you said on Pelican Bay because we all do take advantage of all the amenities. But if a problem is caused by a development aspect of Pelican Bay, I think it's something that should be considered that the people that are in that area should pay more than the rest of us. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: The difficulty, sir, is that that has not been determined to be the sole and specific source of the mangrove die-off in the Clam Bay system. If it were that easy, I think the solution to the die-off would be much simpler than what we're faced with. That has been theorized. There has been a comprehensive report by one person put together on it. That report conflicts with other information that other experts have presented also. If, in fact, it is the case that the construction of the strand road had a negative impact on the system, that will have to be mitigated in some form by those who are responsible. I think WCI Communities is aware of that. We have to get to that point before we can make that conclusion, and we don't have the information to do that as of yet. MR. COBURN: When do you anticipate we would have information on that? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: It's ongoing currently. MR. WARD: I think the final reports, as I indicated to the commission yesterday, will be ready sometime the early part of September, and staff will be making a presentation to the commission in the latter part of September on our complete short-term program that we -- the mangrove action or the task force undertook a couple of months ago. So those reports will be available shortly. MR. COBURN: What I also understood is that this is a project that's going to go on for three years, is it? MR. WARD: Yes, I would think so. MR. COBURN: So by -- presumably if the agreement is to go ahead this year with the ad valorem on the residents, between this year and next year, you'd have more information. And should that information come forward to show that there is a cause-effect for that development, it would be considered how you allocate -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Absolutely. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Absolutely. MR. COBURN: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you, sir. MR. WARD: And your final speaker is Mr. John McCue. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: While Mr. McCue's approaching the podium, Mr. Weigel, did you receive a complete copy of Mr. McCue's correspondence to the commission, what I would call his -- his -- it's not a brief brief. MR. WEIGEL: I have it, yes. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Thank you. MR. MCCUE: My name is John McCue from San Marino. And, Mr. Chair, I'm following up on the memorandum that Mr. Hancock referred to. And basically it concerns three areas: The bay -- Clam Bay remediation, the Pelican Bay MSTBU, and the 1997 special assessments. On the Clam Bay remediation, I -- I think it's -- it appears to be clear that the responsibility for the damage to the mangroves is not clear who is responsible, who caused the damage. And my position is until that is clarified, it's very difficult and I think unfair to assess or charge anyone for the repair of that. Unfortunately, the -- getting a decision on this may require the dreaded word, a lawsuit, but I think we need somebody who determines who actually is responsible. If it's the developers and the agencies that gave permits for the blocking of the roads, et catera, then they ought to be charged. If Pelican Bay property owners did something to cause the die-off, then yes, we should be assessed for it. If it's a~ act of God, then it's really the responsibility of the -- of the county as any damage to county property would be, and I think it's clear that the Clam Bay is the property of the -- of Collier County. My second issue is on the MSTBU advisory board, and I want to teenforce that it is just that. It's an advisory board. It is not an elected board. It is not a represented -- a representative board of Pelican Bay. It does not necessarily speak for us. I'm not putting down the work that they do. I think it's very generous and wonderful that these people do give their time to giving opinions to the commission. But they are not representatives of the community elected representatives, and for them to recommend or -- or obligate the rest of us to paying assessments that we may not all agree with I think is just advice. It is not necessarily representative of the community. My third point on the Pelican Bay assessments themselves, I question the need for a capital projects budget. Most of the items mentioned are maintenance items which I think should be ob -- combined or contained in the operating budget. Something for quasi insurance for future hurricanes I think is out of place because a hurricane may occur this year or it may occur never. And people living in Pelican Bay now should not be responsible for paying for potential future damage. Insurance expenditures like that are really the responsibility of the people who live here at the time that Some unfortunate situation occurs. Pelican Bay is not a condominium, and I question the wisdom of having too many reserve accounts that may be used for other purposes as need arise. And -- and often in government circles needs arise very easily. Capital expenditures -- expenditures themself if they become necessary I think should be submitted to the approval of the community. And finally, I think that the assessments really need to be explained more fully. Assessments have tripled from approximately $85 per ERU for the 1993 year to $262 proposed for 1997. And I also question and would like a better explanation for the equivalent residential unit basis as against ad valorem. Do not or does not an ERU basis favor the high property appraisals rather than the lower appraisals? Thank you. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: You're welcome, sir. Mr. Ward, would you like to respond to -- MR. WARD: Sure. I'll start with the -- the beginning one relative to the -- the Clam Bay situation. You know, this community and certainly the board has, I think, had a lot of deliberations as to how we're going to restore the Clam Bay system and, quite frankly, whether we should restore the Clam Bay system or not. The bottom line, quite frankly, is that there's 576 acres of dying mangroves out there currently that need to be replaced. We have in my opinion a unique opportunity with a developer who is about 90 percent built out in this community currently who is willing to contribute one million dollars today towards the restoration of that system versus utilizing the million dollars to pay lawyers and whatever else to litigate the matter for the next ten years. This community I think correctly and the advisory board I think correctly took that into consideration when it was looking at whether or not it wanted to proceed with the restoration of this program. It benefits I think uniquely the Pelican Bay community. There's not a lot of significant access to the Clam Bay system by general county residents. We have two major boardwalks that go into that system, restaurants and beach pavilions at two different locations that are going into that particular Clam Bay system. And we have millions and millions and millions or I should say hundreds of millions of dollars worth of real estate that overlook that system and whose property values will in all probability be adversely affected if something is not undertaken currently to start the restoration of that program. So I think the advisory board took the position that it desired to take a more proactive and positive approach to the restoration of Clam Bay and put up the money with Westinghouse or with WCI Communities to begin that restoration process versus waiting the time to try and figure out what happened and who it happened to. As Commissioner Hancock indicated earlier, there are a multitude of reports that have been done on the Clam Bay system for a number of years now that stand piles high that I've seen and read, some of which are indicative that it was the developer's fault and he should pay the restoration and he should pay and take out the strand road. There's other reports that say that's not true. There's other reports out there that say we've had mangroves die from as north of here as Tampa, south into Puerto Rico. There is just no clearcut reason what is -- as to what's going on within the Clam Bay situation right now. And I'm not particularly convinced that you're going to find out that any one firm or the county or the Pelican Bay community is at fault. We have an obligation I think to try and restore a very, very important asset to the county and, quite frankly, more importantly to this community. And this community through the advisory board I think has taken the positive steps to try and do that through this program. And we, quite frankly, feel that a per-unit assessment for the Clam Bay restoration which works out to be about $40 per resident per year for the next 5 years is a reasonable amount of money which to pay in order to restore that system along with the million dollar contribution from WCI Communities. As to the gentleman's second -- second remarks relative to the advisory committee, he is absolutely correct that the advisory committee is just that. It's an advisory committee composed of residents and business interests within the Pelican Bay community that are appointed by the Board of County Commissioners. There is no question in my mind, however, that the divergent ideas that exist on that advisory board about a myriad of issues I think are just truly incredible when you look at that board trying to represent this community. We've had board members who've said no, let's not do anything in Clam Bay. Let's let the developer do it. We've had resident board members who have said the Pelican Bay community shouldn't do anything in Clam Bay. The county owns it. Let the county's general fund take care of those problems. But by and large out of the 15-member advisory committee which I think is probably the largest advisory committee in the county, they come together in the end for the benefit of this community to try and provide the correct levels of services that this community needs in order to move forward and to make the correct recommendations to this advisory board in the best interests of both the county and the residents of Pelican Bay. And I can clearly tell you that I don't think that there's any member of that board that doesn't think in the best interests of this community when making their decisions on how to proceed with any issue because I think they all clearly in their own way make the correct decisions as to how they think we should proceed. And then finally as to the issues of tax and ad valorem taxation or a special assessment, I think it's an improper analysis to say that an ad valorem tax or a special assessment adversely affects the lower priced units. It's not a fair comparison. Ad valorem tax is designed to do something totally different than a special assessment. A special assessment is designed to ensure that the benefits that are being conferred upon the property to which these assessments are being placed receives the improvements that are being put in place and the test and the key as to whether or not the values of the homes and the properties that are being assessed will increase, and time will tell us the answer to that question. But I think if you just look at this situation, it is clear to me the test of time will prove itself out that the assessed valuations in Pelican Bay will be positively affected by the use of a~ ad valorem -- by the use of a special assessment for the restoration of Clam Bay including the other capital elements that we have here in this community. And I, quite frankly, think that is a fair and appropriate way in which to assess this community for those services. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. Commissioner Hancock, do you have a comment? Then we have a gentleman here whose arm is going to go numb if he doesn't get a chance -- if you'll hold on just a second, Commissioner Hancock -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Actually I'll let Mr. McCue go ahead. MR. MCCUE: I just wanted an opportunity to rebut -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. Can you identify yourself again, please? MR. MCCUE: Yes. John McCue. And I just wanted to rebut a few of the -- the points here. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We're not -- Mr. HcCue, this is -- the purpose of this meeting is not to have a public debate. MR. HCCUE: All right. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I mean, the time to do that was at those advisory meetings. MR. HCCUE: All right. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: You've said your peace. He's said his peace. MR. HCCUE: Very good. Thank you. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: What I want to do first and foremost is to thank A1 Varley who has probably had the most difficult tenure as chairman over the past year with everything that has occurred and has done an outstanding job. And all the members of the Pelican Bay HSTBU advisory board have been -- been tugged and drawn and torn this year with a lot of issues that are important. And as you can see by the documents in front of you and the papers in front of you, these issues are controversial even within the community of Pelican Bay, not just throughout the county. And the members of that board have -- have performed admirably, and I want to thank each and every one of them and encourage those of you that are interested in serving on that board to express that interest by form of resumes when vacancies become available because it is the goal of that board to be a cross- section of this community. I attend as many of those meetings as I can. I'm probably just less than 50 percent, but it's enough to know how much work goes into that board, and I think those people deserve a pat on the back and a thank you. It seems the one issue that we're hearing today that I've heard more than I did 12 months ago is the ERU versus ad valorem. Although this forum is not going to be one to decide that at this point, I think there is some confusion as to why ERU was the vehicle and the method for this from the start of Pelican Bay, and it may well serve the individuals who live here, particularly since a lot of them may have moved in the last couple of years, to be informed of what the purpose is -- as you have stated here tonight, what the purpose is of ERU versus ad valorem and why that is the method being proposed and being used. Obviously if at some point the majority of the community finds difficulty with that, it's not to say that it can't be changed, but I don't think it's something that's going to happen here tonight. But there is more concern this year than I saw last year, and I think that concern needs to be addressed hopefully through the Pelican Bay Services Division with some information. MR. WARD: I'll respond and at least give you some history relative to the use of a special assessment. Many, many years ago circa 1980 when we began this process not as PBSD but as Pelican Bay Improvement District, we were essentially providing only what I call basic water management services to this community back then. And the assessments were essentially levied on a per-acre basis. So theoretically you had relatively different -- very, very different house assessment rates for this community. As time moved on, we began to get into the landscaping business. And, as you know, now we're into beach cleaning and street sweeping and many, many other things that are totally unrelated to the water management assessment. And I'd say circa four or five years ago now the advisory committee undertook a rather lengthy study to determine how this community should be assessed in the future. And there are pros and cons to the use of an ad valorem assessment versus a special assessment. And they even looked at whether or not within a special assessment to utilize different categories such that if you lived in a multi-family unit you paid a different rate than if you lived in a single-family unit versus a commercial property. But by and large in Pelican Bay you have an homogeneous group of residents within here. You have basically either single-family or multi-family units and which you benefit basically the same from the facilities that we are providing to them. A majority of our budget really is the maintenance of the landscaping program within this community for the major arterial roads. Everybody generally uses the arterial road system and the secondary road system here in Pelican Bay. Whether you live in a condominium or live in a single-family home doesn't make a lot of difference in terms of the use of those facilities. And there are a wide disparity between the prices of units within Pelican Bay. As I'm sure most people know, you can move into a condominium that's priced in the low hundred thousand dollars, or you can live in a condominium that's priced in the five million dollar range or a single-family home priced in the five million dollar range. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Ward, although I think I and members of the board appreciate the explanation, my purpose for stating that was it appears that the community itself needs to review this again. MR. WARD: Okay. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: So I think that communication from the Pelican Bay Services Division to the members of the community needs to occur. And if there needs to be a general town hall meeting to discuss it, then -- then that should be organized also. I just have heard a lot more about it this year than last, and I think it's indicative of a lot of questions that need to be answered. And I would ask for your assistance in getting that information out to the people in Pelican Bay. MR. WARD: Sure. We have one more speaker who has given me a card. Mrs. Christi Uchtoff. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: While Hiss Uchtoff is coming up, is there anyone else in the audience that wants to take their opportunity to speak? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Everyone apparently has dinner reservations. MS. UCHTOFF: I'm Christi Uchtoff of the Clairidge. I have a question. We are gonna pay taxes on this now. Why was this not put to a vote and everybody can vote on this if they want it or if they don't want it because if -- if the mangroves are coming slow back, why are we gonna hurry and pay this money and we don't even know what it's gonna be? MR. WARD: Well, in terms of the mangrove question, although I read in the paper that there are green propagules growing in Clam Bay right now, that happened last year also. Then the rains came, and that was the end of that situation. So there's no question that the problems that exist in Clam Bay still exist today, and the little mangroves or whatever they're called that are growing out there currently probably are not going to live very long at all in any kind of a significant rain event. In terms of the ability to tax, that rests with the decision making authority of the government which is the Collier County Board of County Commissioners. And generally in government they don't send a ballot out to everyone to ask them if they want to be taxed. I mean, these are your elected representatives. And along with the advisory committee, they're here to look out for your interests, and I think they do that quite well for you. MS. UCHTOFF: Well, I feel most people are gone at this time and there are a lot of people maybe would have other questions about it too. There's only a few people that stay year-round here, and I don't think it's fair to do it at this time. I think it should be done when all the people are down here so they can voice their opinions too. MR. WARD: In terms of your -- the reason this public hearing is done this time of year is really decided by the statute. I mean, we are required to hold our budget hearings in the summer months because your year begins on October 1 of 1996, and it is required to happen between June -- I think it's June 1 and September 15 is the actual date by law that we're required to hold these hearings and levy these assessments. So that's the reason it is done in the summer. As the commission has indicated to you and as I said, you have a 15-member advisory committee who meets on a monthly basis here in this room. It's the first Wednesday of every month at 3 p.m. And the community is always welcome to attend those meetings during the season which is where all of these issues are really discussed. It's advertised on your local cable TV. It appears in the communique on a monthly -- whenever it comes out, on a monthly basis at least in the winter months. So we try to give you as much public notification as we possibly can of the meetings where all of these issues are discussed. This just happens to be the very last step in a very long process in terms of your budget and your assessments. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Does that answer your question for you? MS. UCHTOFF: Well, it answers my question. Yes, it does, but I still don't see it I guess. MR. WARD: We've had two more speakers sign up. This is Claire DeSilver. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: These will be the final two speakers then, Mr. Ward? MR. WARD: Yes. I hope so. MS. DESILVER: Claire DeSilver, Mangrove Action Group. I wasn't going to say anything because I know that this is -- this is not the forum. And one of the things I want to say is that two of the previous speakers if not three have not, as many of us have, been attending all the meetings and understanding the process. And I think that this is not the right forum to debate the issue. I think we have spent hundreds of hours debating this not only here but in amongst the members of the Mangrove Action Group and at our meetings, and I havenwt seen these people there, and I think itws an educational process that is needed before you can form conclusions. However, I would like to say a couple of quick things about -- about the -- the responsibility for the mangrove die-off. Iwm not sure I absolutely go down the line with -- with Jim. I think that there has been ample proof that itws a myriad collection of things like eventually the straw that breaks the camelws back. And have tried our very best to communicate our feelings to the county and hope for county support. But since that was not forthcoming, we wanted to get something done before we had no more mangroves to worry about because theywd be all gone. And so we were very pleased when WCI came forth with their proposal to give us a million dollars and delighted when the MSTBU felt that we could assess ourselves and together put this process on the road of -- of remedying the situation. Now, you know, at the most 70 or $80 a year is hardly worth even talking about. Litigation would swallow up tons of dollars more than that and go on forever, and then we wouldnwt have -- if won ten years down the line, wewd be -- wewd be looking at a dead swamp. So I think that sometimes discretion is the better part of valor. Iwm delighted that wewve come to this point. I think Jim Ward and the commissioners and WCI and Susan Watts and everyone who has worked to this end should -- should get a big round of applause because if wewre gonna fix the mangroves, thatws the bottom line, and I think this is a -- this is the step to do it. And all the arguments about legal and responsibility and so on donwt matter if donlt have anything to talk about. So I thank you very much. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you. MR. WARD: And the final speaker is Carl Bontemps. MR. BONTEMPS: My name is Carl Bontemps. Mr. Chairman, commissioners, I would like to double or triple what Mrs. DeSilver just said. I think an outstanding job has been done. We had a difficult problem. I think we had compromises to make. I think we had to step up with WCIis offer in order to come around and make this thing happen. We could have fought in the courts. We could have spent a million dollars in the courts for the next year or two and never gotten a darn thing done. And I want to congratulate Dr. Varley for putting out the most comprehensive thing Iive seen on Pelican Bay on how it works, whols responsible, how much money it takes, where it is, and how it works. And I just -- I canlt say enough for whatls been done by the MSTBU in this past year. Whatever happened to get them going happened, and thatls good, and I think it will continue. I think Tim Hancock has done an outstanding job in pulling together the task force, the mangrove task force, that made this thing happen. And I gotta take -- give a little credit to Claire DeSilver and myself and a whole bunch of others that were in the Mangrove Action Group that helped get this thing started. And it all turned out to be a big team working in the same direction. I think this is an example of what government and community can make things happen if they want it to happen. I guess lastly as I look at this situation, I'd like to ask a question. This probably doesn't apply to this meeting, but what we're really doing here, we've got a million dollar offer, and so we've all agreed to be -- well, I think we're gonna -- we've agreed to be taxed, so they're going to tax and take the money away from us and then are going to give it back to us in order to match up with the million bucks in order to take care of the problems we got. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: We're only going to charge you 7 percent to do that too. MR. BONTEMPS: Oh, is that right? So I guess my question is just a general follow-up question. Is this a precedent setting thing where things like this will be done all over Collier County where if you want things done you're going to have to pay your own half yourself and maybe or maybe not the county will chip in? Thank you very much. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Actually Pelican Bay is kind of on the -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Cutting edge, cutting edge. That was a rhetorical question, by the way. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Actually I was going to say people throughout the county have been doing it for street lighting and road improvements and all other kinds of things. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Any further questions for Mr. Ward? MR. WARD: I just have one for -- one final comment for the record. We have received 18 letters from various residents without -- throughout the community, most of which were not in support of the use of a special assessment but were in support of the use of an ad valorem tax. There were four or five of those letters that were in full support of the program and the use of a special assessment, and they've been provided to your clerk for your records. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you. Do we have a motion? COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: With that I'll move approval of the fiscal year 1997 Pelican Bay Services Division budget. COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: Second. I'll second. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second by Commissioner Matthews. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? Item #3B RESOLUTION 96-378 CONFIRMING THE PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT ROLL AS THE FINAL ASSESSMENT ROLL AND ADOPTING SAME AS THE NON-AD VALOREH ASSESSMENT ROLL FOR PURPOSES OF UTILIZING THE UNIFORM METHOD OF COLLECTION - ADOPTED The resolution. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second item on our agenda, I'll move approval of a resolution confirming the preliminary assessment roll as the final assessment roll for adoption of the -- well, we'll just say item 3(B) and save some time. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Second. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second to adopt the resolution as well. And all those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? This concludes our business, and we stand adjourned. There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 6:50 p.m. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS CONTROL JOHN C. NORRIS, CHAIRMAN 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: Shelly Semmler