BCC Minutes 06/04/1996 R REGULAR MEETING OF JUNE 4, 1996,
OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COHMISSIONERS
LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Board of County Commissioners in and
for the County of Collier, and also acting as the Board of Zoning
Appeals and as the governing board(s) of such special districts as
have been created according to law and having conducted business
herein, met on this date at 9:06 a.m. in REGULAR SESSION in Building
"F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the
following members present:
CHAIRPERSON: John C. Norris
Timothy J. Constantine
Timothy L. Hancock
Pamela S. Hac'Kie
Bettye J. Matthews
ALSO PRESENT: W. Neil Dorrill, County Manager
Mike HcNees, Assistant County Manager
David Weigel, County Attorney
Item #3
AGENDA AND CONSENT AGENDA - APPROVED WITH CHANGES
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Call the county commission meeting to
order on this 4th day of June, 1996. Mr. Dotrill, could you lead us
in an invocation, please, and a pledge to the flag.
MR. DORRILL: Heavenly Father, we thank you this
morning, as always, for your wonder and your grace. We thank you for
the power and wonder that you have bestowed on this community and its
people. Father, it's our prayer this morning that you would bless our
business meeting here today and that your hand might guide the
deliberations of this county commission as they work in concert to
make this a better place to live. We'd ask that you bless our people,
our young people, our senior citizens. We thank you and ask that you
bless our staff and the many citizens who do choose to participate in
this process, and we ask that you bless our time here together. And
we pray these things in your son's holy name. Amen.
(The pledge of allegiance was recited in unison.)
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I guess we have a couple of changes
today, Mr. Dotrill.
MR. DORRILL: Yes, sir. Mr. Chairman, Commissioners,
good morning. We have only two changes today. The first is an add-on
item under public works. It will be item 8(B)(3), which is a request
to seek some specific direction as we proceed with the implementation
of the landscaping and median beautification project for Davis
Boulevard, both phases, one and phase two.
I can elaborate on that briefly. We had asked the board
recently to authorize an agreement between yourselves and Collier
NapleScape. There is a sort of Catch-22 issue that we have been
confronted with in that we have as part of your annual contracts for
privatized work, we have an annual agreement already with a landscape
architect or other architects and engineers. And we need some
clarification so that we don't cause a procurement CCNA problem with
the county commission. We'll explain that at -- at length as part of
the presentation.
Now, the only other change that I have, Mr. Chairman, is
a request to withdraw and remove item 16(D)(13), which was a request
to add an additional mechanics classification as part of your pay
plan. That will only come back if it's deemed necessary at this
point, but that's withdrawn, 16(D)(13), and I have no other changes.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. Weigel?
MR. WEIGEL: I note that with 16(D)(ll) the executive
summary talks about an attached resolution which isn't in the package,
so would the record reflect that there is a resolution for
satisfaction of lien, and a resolution number will be reserved for
that, 16(D)(11).
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Commissioner Matthews?
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: No, I have nothing. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Do you have anything?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: No changes.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Changes?
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: None.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No. Two items under
communication, but no changes.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We need a motion on the agenda.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Motion to move the agenda and
consent agenda.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Second.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second for
approval. All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
Item #4
MINUTES OF THE HAY 14, 1996 REGULAR HEETING - APPROVED AS PRESENTED
We have minutes.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to
make a motion we approve the minutes of the Hay 14, 1996, regular
meeting of this commission.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second. All
those in favor, signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
Item #5A1
PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING THE WEEK OF JUNE 2 - 8, 1996 AS AFFORDABLE
HOUSING WEEK - ADOPTED
We have a proclamation, affordable housing.
Commissioner Matthews.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Is
Fred Thomas in the audience -- do you want to come forward -- and
Hartha Lemus? Hartha Lemus
is the vice-chairman of the Collier County Housing Authority, and
Mr. Thomas is the executive director. And we're pleased to have them
here today to accept this proclamation. Do you want to turn around so
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Face the camera, Fred.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: -- you can face the music, so to
speak.
A proclamation: Whereas, the Board of Commissioners of
Collier County, Florida, on June 6, 1966, by resolution authorized the
establishment of the Collier County Housing Authority; and
Whereas, the Collier County Housing Authority has
developed and is maintaining in excellent condition 571 units of farm
labor housing in the community of Immokalee; and
Whereas, the Authority in 1992, working with the county,
had undertaken the administration of the Section 8 rental assistant
program almost doubling its capacity to assist families throughout
Collier County; and
Whereas, the Rural Economic and Community Development
Administration, the funding agency for the farm labor housing program,
has identified the farm labor housing administered by the authority as
a national model for outstanding housing.
Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that the week of June 2
through 8, 1996, be designated as Affordable Housing Week and hereby
reaffirm its decision to establish the Collier County Housing
Authority and proclaim that the commissioners of the Collier County
Housing Authority, both past and present, be recognized as outstanding
leaders in the affordable housing arena.
Present housing authority commissioners are: Lois
Stubbs, chairman; Hartha Lemus, vice-chairman; Dorcas Howard, Chuck
St. John, and Lea S. Cardona.
Done and ordered this 4th day of June, 1996, Board of
Collier County Commissioners, Collier County, Florida.
Mr. Chairman, I move that we accept this proclamation
and wish the housing authority a happy birthday. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second for
acceptance of this proclamation. All those in favor, signify by
saying aye.
Fred, congratulations.
(Applause)
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Happy 30 years.
MR. THOMAS: Thank you.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: You don't look a day over 30,
though, Fred.
MR. THOMAS: On Thursday, the actual day, at eleven
o'clock we will begin a birthday celebration. The public is invited
to come out and share in our open house and the warm libations we'll
have. Thank you.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Thursday at eleven o'clock.
Item #5A2
PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING JUNE, 1996, AS ADOPT-A-CAT HONTH
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Next proclamation is Adopt-A-Cat
Month. Commissioner Constantine.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, we have three
recipients here for this proclamation: Our own Jody Morelock from
Animal Control and a couple of friends. Jerry, you might want to get
a close-up of the friends.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: You won't give the parchment to
those, will you?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Not right away, although I
understand they're well into their training process.
Whereas, felines have been faithful friends of man
throughout the ages; and
Whereas, felines rely on human kindness for their
nourishment, health, and happiness; and
Whereas, more than 15 million abandoned and homeless
felines must be cared for by animal shelters every year; and
Whereas, animal shelters are limited, and most of these
felines are not adopted, so they must be humanely destroyed; and
Whereas, the public is responsive to the welfare of
animals and will react positively if we make them aware of the
situation.
Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that the month of June 1996
be designated as Adopt-A-Cat Month and encourage the citizens of
Collier County to consider adopting a cat from a local animal shelter
this June. Two of them right here. I suspect we have a couple of
dozen more that are ready to go for anybody that's interested.
Done and ordered this 4th day of June, 1996, Board of
County Commissioners, Collier County, Florida, John C. Norris,
chairman.
Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a motion we adopt this
proclamation and these cats. All right. I'll withdraw that.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second for
adoption. All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
(Applause)
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Okay. I've already adopted two.
How many --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I've got two at home. It's --
it's kind of sad. I did a workday at animal control as one of my
first days. And actually the number of animals euthanized is
dependent on cage space. You have to euthanize because you run out of
space, and if we can increase the adoptions, we can decrease the
number of euthanized animals. So I hope someone's heart gets pulled
and they go down and grab a couple of these.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: You know, I think I like that
word euthanize better than destroyed. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Killed.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I think I like that better.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: It's a euphemism.
MS. MORELOCK: I would like to remind the public that
our animals are for adoption. The cats are $30. That includes their
spaying and/or their neutering. It also includes a free checkup with
a Collier County veterinarian. So it's actually cheaper to adopt one
of our animals than to take in a stray off the street.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you, Jody.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Thanks, Jody.
Item #SB1
PRESENTATION OF BID TABULATION FOR THE NAPLES PARK DRAINAGE
IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT - STAFF RECOHMENDATIONS 1-7; STAFF TO INVESTIGATE
PAVILION TERRACES MODIFICATION; MAINTENANCE PLAN FOR NAPLES PARK
SECONDARY SYSTEM TO BE DEVELOPED; ISSUE RE PERMIT MODIFICATION TO
PAVILION CLUB AND METHODOLOGY ADJUSTMENTS TO BE MADE; AND STAFF TO
INVESTIGATE MORATORIUM WITH DEP
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Our next item is item 8(B)(1),
presentation of bid tabulation for the Naples Park drainage
improvement project.
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Chairman, I just want to let you know
you have quite a number of speakers on this as well. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I'm not surprised.
MR. BOLDT: Good morning. For the record I'm John
Boldt, your storm water management director. Back in February you
directed staff to proceed into the bidding phase of the Naples Park
drainage project, and we come to you this morning with good news in
that the bids are in. They are approximately 30 percent under the
previous estimate we had of three point million -- 3.9 million
dollars. We have five contractors that bid on the project, and our
apparent low bidder is Mitchell and Stark Company. They're a local
firm with a good reputation, and their low bid for option B -- option
A, by the way, was a combination of aluminum pipe and concrete pipe,
and we gave them the option of supplying all concrete pipe, which we
thought was going to be considerably more expensive. It turns out in
this particular option to be less expensive than option A. So the
option B came in at 2.9 million dollars for all concrete pipe. We're
very pleased with that.
We had one real minor problem in the bidding in that we
had set up a bid item for a geotechnical test allowance that the
contractors were supposed to fill in. There was confusion on Mitchell
and Stark's part based on other precedent they had understood, and
they thought the county was going to fill in that item, and they
neglected to do so. And they have since requested they be allowed to
add this line item in the amount of five hundred dollars, and that's
well within the scope of the range of the other estimates, what staff
feels it is. It's a very minor discrepancy, and it would not change
the low-bid situation at all. So we're going to ask you to waive that
particular item.
Now, the impact of this bid on the -- on the project in
as far as the total cost and what it boils down to, first of all, is
dependent upon a couple of different things that we talked about
before, and really no final board action has been raised on it. The
table number 7, which we'll get to here in a minute, still assumes
that the county is going to fund the project at the rate of 16 and a
half percent. And also this particular table also reflects the
assessment allocation for the Pavilion -- Pavilion Club and the
shopping center area to be at the higher runoff factor rate based upon
the structure configuration as it exists today. There have been some
earlier confusion about the structure and what had been permitted by
South Florida Water Management structure. We had thought it had a
narrow opening and it would have less discharge, and we put that
factor into our earlier tables. And then had to change that to the
higher factor now based on the fact that the actual as-built structure
out there does have a wired throat and can discharge more water than
we previously had estimated. So those -- that particular thing also
needs some final action and firming up.
The other item of -- that's going to take some board
action in the future to firm up this thing and make it official is in
regard to the bond reserve fund, which is a set-aside of 10 percent
that would be available to pay off if the bond holders in any given
year, the principal and interest. Should any particular property
owner be default in their payments on that annual basis, the county
then would -- in the unlikely event of that happening, would have to
buy back that bond reserve fund. And recommendation of staff and also
your financial consultant is that you assume that and -- which would
lower the cost of the project a fair amount.
Another item that has been added to the project -- in
order to deal with some of the water quality concerns we have of
Vanderbilt Lagoon, your natural resource management department is
proposing to implement a Florida Yards and Neighborhoods Program.
This is an effort to get individual property owners that live around
Vanderbilt Lagoon, both in Naples Park and on the western side of the
lagoon, to deal with their individual lawns and property, such issues
as water conservation, wise use of the irrigation and the use of the
fertilizers, weed killers, and pesticides in a proper way that would
reduce the amount of nonpotable pollution that could be contributed to
the storm water that gets into the Vanderbilt Lagoon.
This is a -- mostly an educational-type program. It
would cost in the neighborhood of about $11,500, and there's a
reimbursement of if somebody who gets certified of about $20 per
applicant, and we're expecting about 200 participants with a revenue
income then of $4,000, which means the net cost of the project could
be about seventy-five hundred dollars.
So based on the assumption that the table 7 includes the
16 and a half percent county contribution, the county backing the
reserve fund, that the increasing runoff intensity factor of the
Pavilion is at a higher rate, boils down to a projected cost for a
typical Naples lot, of the 50-foot lot in the bulk of the park, at
around six -- or around seven hundred dollars total, and that would
boil down, if you were to bond it over a 15-year period, about $80 per
year for the 15 years.
The fiscal impact of that decision on the county would
be if the county were to back the 16 and a half percent, that's around
$616,000. You've already contributed something in the neighborhood of
$407,000 previously, so -- which means with a balance of about
$146,000, we already have included in our proposal for next year's
budget, so it would be rather minimum. You've put up most of the
money you would have to do previously for previous studies and staff
time and such charges as that.
So our recommendations this morning boil down to this:
We're asking you to tentatively award the bid for construction of the
Naples Park drainage improvement project, including that waiver of
that minor deviation in the amount of eighty-five hundred dollars to
Mitchell and Stark Company of Naples, Florida; that you also direct
staff to proceed with the preparation of contract documents for your
final approval at a later date. We still have a number of steps we
need to go through before we can get to that point, which includes the
successful implementation of the special assessment district. We have
some modifications and extensions of our environmental permits that
have to be taken care of over the summer, and the arrangements for the
short-term construction loan.
Once those are all in place, we would come back to you
for the final award of the contract to Mitchell and Stark with our
anticipated construction being after the rainy season ends this
summer, perhaps in November, December, somewhere in that range, with a
construction period going through about April or maybe as late as
May. We want to make sure we get it done, the construction, during
the dry season. Also, in order to get the assessments on the 97th --
fall '97 bills, we'd have to wrap that up by about May so we can
finalize the cost and have our final hearing on the final assessment
cost.
So we need to firm up that table, table number 7. You
need to direct your natural resource management staff to coordinate
the yards and the neighborhood program for all those properties
surrounding Vanderbilt Lagoon. You need to direct staff to proceed
with the establishment of that Naples Park improvement assessment
district for the purposes of financing a bonding program. This is
going to amount to dropping back in the process a little bit in that
we'd already gone through the mailing of the tentative assessment
rolls, and you had your tentative assessment hearing. We need to go
back now with these new costs and go through that process again,
preparing the tentative assessment roll, the first-class mailing, and
also the hearing on those tentative assessment rolls. That could be
done either at a -- a Tuesday morning meeting, or it could be done
perhaps at an evening meeting, a public hearing on -- one of your five
o'clock Wednesday night meetings to allow more public participation.
We need to make arrangements for the short-term
construction loan to pay for the construction cost until the bonds are
sold, and then also you need to authorize staff to proceed with the
next budget amendments to undertake the completion of the project.
And with that I'll entertain any questions on those issues that have
come up.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Boldt, assuming -- and I've
had some discussions with legal counsel for the Pavilion. Assuming
they modify their South Florida Water Management permit and change
their structure to reduce the inflow into Naples Park, how does that
affect the typical lot in the Naples Park dollar-wise?
MR. BOLDT: If we were to increase that, we'd have to
revise that table 7. Dan Brundage is here, consulting engineer with
the firm of Agnoli, Barber, and Brundage, and I think he came up with
a different scenario of that table.
MR. BRUNDAGE: Yes. If -- if that weir structure were
to be reduced in size, that in effect would then drop the contribution
required of the Pavilion Shopping Center because their -- their runoff
intensity would be reduced, and that would result in -- for the
average lot size, is that what you're interested in? COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Correct.
MR. BRUNDAGE: That would go to $728 roughly versus 680
with a larger weir size.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Yeah, $50 difference.
COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: Fifty dollars more.
MR. BOLDT: The actual reflection of the runoff that
contributes to the project, if they can effectively narrow their
structure and store the water on -- on site in their lake --
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Which they have capacity to do,
as I understand it? In other words, the probability of getting that
permit, if they applied for it, is fairly high in your opinion,
Mr. Brundage?
MR. BRUNDAGE: I would have to just base this on opinion
right now. My opinion would be that they probably do have the
capacity, but that would be up to their engineer to confirm. And I'm
sure that as they approach the South Florida Water Management
District, that element of it, I would be looking at fairly closely.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: All right. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Let's go to the public speakers.
MR. DORRILL: Thirteen.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thirteen speakers. Just to remind the
-- the speakers, we limit to five minutes each. We ask -- we know
we've heard this item many times before and ask you to please be
cognizant of the time required to -- to run 13 speakers through the
system. So if you can shorten it up a little bit and not be redundant
of what someone else has already said, we'd certainly appreciate it.
Mr. Dotrill, if you would start calling --
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Cary, if you would, sir. Then,
Mr. Krupa, you'll follow Mr. Cary, if I could have you stand by up
there also. Mr. Cary, good morning.
MR. CARY: Good morning, Commissioners, Bill Cary,
Pavilion Club.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Could you pull that -- okay.
MR. CARY: I'll keep this short because I was awake half
the night pulling the worms out of this can, and there's a lot of
inequities here, and I'm sure you folks have gone over them many
times. But the main thing I have in mind this morning is to point out
that at the previous meeting the consulting engineer unfortunately
said that the Pavilion weir was not in compliance with the permit, and
that got into the letters to the editor. And I just want to have the
people of Naples Park know that the Pavilion Club has not been guilty
in any way of playing games with that weir. I -- I just don't
understand how the consulting engineer couldn't have even walked and
looked at it, you know. He didn't even look at it.
The other thing is our -- our nice manager, really great
guy, pointed out something -- something the other day that I thought
was really interesting. Now, if you take the flow from the Pavilion
mall and take that out of the -- of the -- of the flow, out of that
weir, take out the flow from the other side of Route 41, U.S. 41, and
then we found out that the Pavilion Terraces have played a little
game. They have taken the liberty to put a gap in their -- in their
-- in their dike, so we got their water coming in. Take all that
water out of the flow, our lake could handle a good storm, probably a
hundred-year storm. Do you understand? Our lake could handle our
runoff. That's all I have to say.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you, sir.
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Krupa, then Mr. -- Ms. (sic) Sherman,
if I could have you stand by, please.
MR. KRUPA: My name is A1 Krupa, and I'm also from the
Pavilion Club. I'm sort of confused from all the things that I've
heard at these meetings and also what I've read in the paper. At the
beginning of these talks, I've read in the paper and also heard here
where Mr. Hancock had mentioned that if this project is approved, all
of Naples Park will benefit from it from the flooding. And then six
or eight months later I read an article in the paper, and it said that
after this is completed, the people of Naples Park along 91st and 92nd
Avenue and 8th Avenue will have no more problems, but I can't say that
this will stop the flooding throughout the Naples Park area. And then
the last article I read, it said that after this is completed, I don't
know if it will improve the flooding problem, but it sure will improve
the appearance of Naples Park.
Now, after hearing all these different things, I would
like to know what this is going to do after it is completed.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: The -- either the project
engineer can tell you or I can tell you from my meetings with them.
Every single outfall in Naples Park -- every point at which water
exits Naples Park is being improved, not just two ditches, every
single outfall. So everyone in Naples Park when the water leaves
their property and goes somewhere has to leave the Park somehow. And
every one of those outfalls is being improved.
The second part is that if the secondary system is not
addressed and a schedule of improvements is not set forth, then this
work is about half of the nut, and the other half is still to go.
It's not going to happen overnight. But the secondary system does
need to be scheduled and does need to be rechecked. Pipes need to be
-- be checked, and that's a schedule that I'm -- I would -- would
require if this project moves ahead, that that be developed in road
and bridge.
So those two things together will benefit all of Naples
Park at the single cost of this project. Does that answer your
question?
MR. KRUPA: I can't see how it's going to drain in those
low areas up around 105th, 107th within the six and seven hundred
blocks there. There's no way that that water is going to run into
that main line.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: No, sir, it doesn't. It moves
west.
MR. KRUPA: In other words, they're going to flood as
they do now?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: No, sir, that's not what I said.
The water moves west in the western basin. There are now what; five
outfalls or five openings underneath Vanderbilt Drive. That's being
improved, I believe, to nine; is that correct? Eight? They're being
upsized and some are being inserted where there should have been some
and are not. So all that water in the western basin and drains west
will exit through improved outfalls. So the ability for that water to
exit more quickly and to exit when there are heavier rainfalls is
increased. So is there a benefit to the western basin? There
certainly is.
MR. KRUPA: And also from reading in the paper, this
improvement is only going to cover what they call a ten-year
rainfall. I don't think that a ten-year rainfall is a problem to
Naples Park as it is. If this was a hundred-year rainfall and nobody
had claimed any kind of property damage to the insurance companies, I
can't see where we're spending all this money for a ten-year rainfall,
which Naples Park takes care of right now without any improvement.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: No, sir, it doesn't.
MR. KRUPA: While I'm talking here, I would like to
bring up a part about the Pavilion Club. If the Pavilion Club -- as
it is now, we flow into the drain ditch freely, and we have no
problems flooding whatsoever. But if we tap onto this six- or eight-
or ten-foot pipe that we're talking about putting in there and the
flow of water is going east and west, and if we tap onto that from the
south, very little of our water is going to flow into this pipe that's
already full of water, and I think that that is going to create
flooding, which we never had before. Thank you.
MR. DORRILL: Mr. -- Ms. (sic) Sherman. Miss Sourbeer,
you'll be next. Good morning. Go right ahead.
MR. SHERMAN: What did you say?
MR. DORRILL: I said good morning. Go right ahead.
MR. SHERMAN: I'm Bill Sherman, and I'm sure that all of
you remember me. But if you don't, why, I'm a full-time resident of
Naples Park for the last 20 years. I have written to all of you.
I've spoken to you on the phone about the fact that I think this plan
is flawed, and I think it's flawed for two reasons.
First of all, it's supposed to control the flooding down
in the low lying of Naples Park and also to relieve the situation
along 8th Street. We've had the big rains of '95 which dumped 90
inches of rain on Naples Park, and one who has been observing that
more than anybody else that I know is Commissioner Hancock. He has
gone through the area when the rains have been coming down, and there
has been no flooding. In fact, there's a letter written by a resident
of -- down in the low-lying area wrote to the paper and also sent it
to each of you commissioners saying that they couldn't understand why
this project is going through for the simple fact that there has been
no flooding in the low-lying areas. The ditches along 8th Street had
a little problem, and according to Commissioner Hancock, there was one
or two homes in the -- in the worst part of the flooding that had one
or two home invaded and nothing else.
I also think that it is wrong, because it is too costly
for us people. I live up there where we have put in my own culverts.
I have put those things in at my own expense, and they work real well
except that the ditches have not been cleared out. And Mr. Hancock
can tell you personally that he has gone through there with his
vehicle and had to close off the roads because there -- the roads were
flooding because the ditches would not flow evenly. You have a
responsibility of cleaning out those ditches, and you have neglected
to do it for the last two years, and I think that is a problem. I
cannot afford to pay $700 a lot. I have two lots. That's fourteen
hundred dollars for this project, and I hope that you will take that
into consideration, and I hope that you will shelve this problem --
this project altogether. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I think it's important to know,
Mr. Sherman, that you've grossly misquoted me, but we'll leave that as
it is.
MR. DORRILL: Miss Sourbeer and then Mr. McGilvra.
MS. SOURBEER: Good morning, Commissioners. My name is
Marie Sourbeer. I usually come here as a representative of Naples
Park. Today I'm speaking for myself only. There's been enough
publicity about the drainage in Naples Park for those people in Naples
Park who are interested in either going ahead with this project or
stopping it to be here this morning, and I don't see that crowd here.
The consensus is that they can't afford it, but everybody wants it
done, and you can't have it both ways. I would suggest that we go
ahead with this.
Right now 8th Street looks like a third-world country
sewer. It's getting worse by the day, and I have to pass it every day
on the way to the store, to the church, wherever I go. It's
detrimental, and you people with your quick fixes have gone out there
with a scoop and taken out water from one place -- taking out dirt so
the water will run someplace so it's not on the roadway has created a
lot of low-lying areas within the Park itself.
Now the water's not running the way you think it is
anymore. We've got low spots. I have one across the street. A new
home was just built. Between the two driveways, one house to the
next, there's a pond in there. If they would have put a fountain in
the middle of it, it would be beautiful. But right now all the water
in that general area runs to that nice, beautiful, new low-lying ditch
that's been created by new construction. The more we build out there,
the more flooding we get.
So I would like to recommend that something be done.
We're talking about NapleScape and making it pretty every place else,
and we're being surrounded by expensive developments that are
beautiful. So why should we have to sit there and look like, you
know, something that the cat drug in? So in my respect to cats,
please, get on with this because I made up my mind; today is the last
day I'm coming down here to this commission and talking about Naples
drainage. Help us do something out there, please.
(Applause)
MR. DORRILL: Mr. McGilvra. Mr. Newman, you'll follow
Mr. McGilvra.
MR. McGILVRA: My name is Doug McGilvra. I'm the past
president of the Property Owners of Naples Park, and I'm also the
drainage chairman for Naples Park -- Property Owners of Naples Park.
On May 23rd John Boldt gave a proposal which you just heard to the
Naples Park Property Owners' Association. Basically he was talking
about a 35 overall percent reduction in the figure we had heard the
previous September, which I thought was pretty good. A lot of people
in the paper obviously didn't agree with it. So be it.
I thought it was pretty good, and a lot of people in the
audience obviously thought it was good, too. The members that were
there at the meeting -- and remember, it was this time of year when a
lot of people aren't there; they're gone up north -- voted three to
one in favor of his proposal. Okay.
This problem is ten years old. It's so old now that I
hope a lot of us live to see it done one way or the other. Well, the
county has agreed to work on the secondary system, which is good, as
Mr. Hancock just represented, and working also on the widening use of
the swales or the infiltrators in -- and the possible removal of the
swale moratorium, which is very helpful.
I'd like to thank John Boldt for his proposal. I think
that he's done an awful lot of work on this item, and I think it's a
very good proposal. I'd like to also thank Agnoli, Barber, and
Brundage, particularly Laurie Swanson and Dan Brundage, for their work
on this over and above what they've normally been expected to. I'd
like to thank all the commissioners for taking their time and
listening to this nonsense ad nauseam. I'd like to thank in
particular Tim Hancock who has taken it on himself to be a champion of
this project, who has taken more flack than a fighter pilot going over
an extremely hot war zone, believe me.
Let's hope that you all go ahead on the basis of
Mr. Boldt's proposal. The Naples Park drainage system, we'd like to
bring it hopefully from the dark ages back into the 21st century.
Thank you.
(Applause)
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Newman and then Miss Lucci, Pat
Lucci.
MR. NEWMAN: Good morning, Commissioners, A1 Newman from
94th Avenue, Naples Park, high country. My -- my lot don't flood. I
will not benefit from this. Baloney. I feel for the people that have
the problem. Where somebody says we don't have any flooding, I don't
know where they live, but they're not living in Naples Park. I travel
up 94th. Last year with the storms they had to close 94th. We had
eight to ten houses on the 700 block of 94th that had wet carpeting
outside for the garbage truck, furniture outside for the garbage
truck. I feel for those people. I'm lucky. I don't -- I don't
flood. I feel real lucky. I can't afford $700 but, by God, I'll find
it.
I want this project to go through, and like Mr. HcGilvra
said, ten years is long enough to be fighting for this. Let's get it
done. Thank you.
(Applause)
MR. DORRILL: Pat Lucci, then Hiss Hortensen.
MS. LUCCI: Good morning, Commissioners. My name is Pat
Lucci, and I'm just more or less reiterating what A1 had said. I,
too, don't have any problem. I have a fairly new home, but my feeling
is that there but for the grace of God go I because even as you ladies
and gentlemen sit there, you could have problems in your own homes.
And I just can't think of anything more devastating than to see water
coming into your home and not being able to do anything about it.
as many people as you hear here today that may be against it, I think
many of these people own properties as far as lots and also other
properties which would be an expensive item for them. But then, on
the other hand, if they own rental properties, they're getting an
income where the regular homeowner isn't. But as I said, I'm also in
favor of having you go along with this. So thank you very much.
(Applause).
MR. DORRILL: Hiss Hortensen and then Mr. Wood.
MS. HORTENSEN: Good morning, Commissioners. My name is
Flo Hortensen, a homeowner in Naples Park for 20 years. I will not
reiterate my passionate pleas to improve the drainage system in Naples
Park. You have heard them before. I will, however, ask you to accept
Mr. Boldt's recommendation to permit the project, to go forward
immediately without further delay. Heavy rains are again predicted
for the summer of '96, which are bound to cause further destruction
and flooding in the Park. We can't afford another postponement.
Please vote unanimously to move this drainage project forward now.
Thank you.
(Applause)
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Wood, then Hiss Pistori. Mr. Wood?
(No response).
Hiss Pistori, then Mr. Coleman.
MR. PISTORI: Good morning. My name is Gene Pistori,
and I live in Naples Park. You have heard it all. We have said it
all. The Park floods. We need something done. Please accept
Mr. Boldt's proposal and set this thing in motion. It's very
important for Naples Park. Thank you.
(Applause)
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Coleman, then Ms. Bowein.
MR. COLEMAN: Good morning. For the record my name is
Kevin Coleman of the firm of Goodlette, Coleman, and Johnson
representing the Pavilion Shopping Center. I, too, would like to
compliment Mr. Boldt and in particular Mr. Brundage. The last few
days they've been extremely patient and diligent in informing us of
what's going on and really trying to explain a rather complicated
matter.
Brief -- brief history, although I know you don't need
it. In February my client's assessment in this project was $148,000.
Today, despite the lower bid, it's $257,000. And it can be explained
simply in the fact of this runoff intensity factor, which is basically
how much water flows from the site and how quickly does it.
In your executive summary table 7, you'll see that in
January -- you won't see this -- but in January it was a .28. Today
it's being proposed at a .71, which is a nearly 2.5-fold increase. We
have the highest runoff ratio of anyone in the Naples Park improvement
district, yet we're part of a water management system that contains
nearly two and a half acres of lakes.
So what's the difference, in that Mr. Boldt has done a
good job of telling you that it lies primarily with the weir system.
The Pavilion's large increase was based upon a recent site analysis by
staff which showed that the weir system was much larger than
originally anticipated -- originally thought. And as permitted, the
South Florida Water Management District actually allowed the larger
weir system, but it's important to note that it was because the
Beachwalk, a development located to the west, was part of this overall
system. Originally the system governed the Beachwalk, the Pavilion
Shopping Center, the Pavilion Club.
The Beachwalk was sold several years ago, and as part of
that sale they developed their own water management system and
basically removed their drainage from the site. Mr. Boldt will tell
you they have a great drainage system. It's self-sufficient. And as
a result, what's left is the Pavilion Club and the Pavilion Shopping
Center with a larger water management system and one less drainer.
So what's -- what's the big deal? Why is it -- why is
the rainoff -- runoff intensity factor so high? The answer is no one
has gone through the South Florida Water Management District to get a
permit modification. Our client believes -- and it's in the process
of doing that and that it can do that. And when that happens, the
weir will be entitled to be reduced. When that reduction occurs, we
think the .71 runoff factor will be decreased back to the .26, which
is where it should be. So we believe that the assumptions, in all due
respect to Mr. Boldt that you're relying upon in table 7, aren't
necessarily accurate given the facts that my client is -- is providing
for and pursuing the permit modification.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Can I ask you a question?
MR. COLEMAN: Sure.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: They're accurate today, but they
might not be accurate if you're successful in getting the permit
modified? I mean, that's what I'm hearing you say.
MR. COLEMAN: That's exactly right.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Okay.
MR. COLEMAN: However, as Mr. Brundage indicated, we
feel extremely confident that we will be successful in getting the
district to modify that and allowing the weir to be shortened, if you
will. Once that occurs we think the runoff factor should likewise be
decreased and the assessment should be reconsidered. So based upon
that I guess we'd ask the board to allow us some time to follow that
through, if you will, perhaps 30 days. I know we've got to do some
lake surveying. As to how long that's going to take, I'm not sure,
but a reasonable period of time to file a permit mod. to let the
runoff intensity be reexamined. Thank you.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I have a question for Mr. Boldt.
If -- if we -- I -- I don't want to do anything to slow the process
down. I want to go forward today. Can we -- however, I want the
assessments to be based on actual impact on the system. Is it
possible to -- is there a point in the process where that impact can
be reevaluated if, in fact, they change the structure in their
system?
MR. BOLDT: Yes, ma'am. It would delay us only
slightly, but we've anticipated that and kind of built it into our
schedule. We're going to have a team meeting in the morning and lay
out our schedule what we're going to have to do to meet this thing in
a timely manner, and we can accommodate this request.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It seems fair to me if that's
what they are actually doing.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Let me ask Mr. Weigel a question,
if I may. If we went ahead with what is proposed today and the
Pavilion Shopping Center and -- and, thus, the Pavilion Club, since
they both drain through the same outfall, received a permit
modification prior to commencement of construction, they would then be
legally entitled, I assume, to request a modification of their
assessment. Is that a fair statement?
MR. WEIGEL: That's a fair statement, and I think that
the record that's been created by -- particularly by Mr. Boldt's
presentation is showing that -- and Mr. Brundage -- that they have
anticipated this. There is some flexibility there, and I really see
no problem in going forward taking into account that the assessment
methodology is taking into place actual impacts prior to the actual
assessment being developed by you.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: And it seems the key for us would
be to make sure that we get that result prior to the noticing of the
property owners of Naples Park, because once you notice them, you
cannot increase their assessments. You can only decrease it, and that
seems to be the timing catch.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No. That was my question, is
what that timing is and, secondarily, that's the item you were
referring to that would be an additional $48 if that were to occur?
MR. BOLDT: That's true. In the next couple of months
we'll be coming back to you with the revised tentative assessments and
the first-class mailing. That will all be resolved before then.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Let me also just point out --
Mr. Coleman, I'm sure, doesn't profess to be a mathematician. He said
going from a .26 to a .71 is a 2.8 increase. That's not -- it's a 1.8
increase.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I think he said two-and-a-half
fold.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: No, he didn't.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yes, he did.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: He said an increase. It's not that
much of an increase.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll be checking these
minutes carefully.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Yeah. I think Mr. Boldt
answered the question I was interested in, and that is at what point
do we fix the final assessment. We're not doing that today? Is that
MR. WEIGEL: No.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: So we've got the flexibility to
find out what the Pavilion's going to do.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: And let the record reflect that
Mr. Coleman shall no longer teach algebra in Collier County public
schools.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Next speaker.
MR. DORRILL: He went to the same school I did, but we
had a pretty good basketball team. Ms. Bowein, then Miss --
Mr. Richardson.
MS. BOWEIN: Good morning. I'm Lee Bowein. The
engineering plans for the storm drainage of Naples Park in its present
state will only accomplish two things, covering the two large ditches
of Naples Park, draining the Pavilion complex and the ditches, plus
aesthetically improving the immediate vicinity of the ditches. It
will not drain Naples Park or the commercial strip on 41. It won't
touch it. If the system that exists now in Naples Park was properly
maintained, the large ditches cleaned and kept open and the swales in
front of the avenues and streets cleaned so water could run to the
ditches, all of the flooding could be handled in Naples Park. These
ditches and swales have never been cleaned or maintained. I as
property owner would much rather see this system instigated, and I
will gladly pay my share of any project. The ditches could be
beautified with grass and shrubs. The open swales and ditches will
handle much more water than pipes and have the advantage of seeping
into the ground.
The Pavilion complex drainage should be a separate
project and piped directly into the lagoon. It is not Naples Park's
problem. We should not have to pay for the project.
Please scrap this enormous white elephant before it's
too late and try cleaning up our system and draining Naples Park and
engineering a separate plan to drain the Pavilion complex. It would
save money now and enormous maintenance problems in the future. Thank
you very much for the time.
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Richardson and then Mr. Lugara.
MR. RICHARDSON: Good morning, Commissioners. I am
Dwight Richardson. Greetings from the heart of Naples Park on 101st
Street. Today is a day of celebration and a very happy time for all
of us in Naples Park. It's been a long road. John Boldt's done his
job. Agnoli, Barber has done their job. And you folks have
positioned this well to do your job. I'm very encouraged and very
happy, and I join Marie in saying we really don't want to come back
here anymore on this subject. We have other subjects that I'm sure
will be of mutual interest as time goes forward, but let's go ahead
and get it done. So I encourage you to do that. Thank you very
much.
(Applause)
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Lugara.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: While Mr. -- Mr. Wood, who was a
registered speaker, he called. He had to leave, but he stated he's in
favor of Mr. Boldt's proposal, but he had to leave. His wife had
called. He had to take care of something, but he heard his name on
TV, I guess.
MR. LUGARA: Yes, hi. I just -- this is going to be
very short. I studied Mr. Boldt's proposal. He gave a presentation
to one of the community meetings, and it's a very good proposal. I
support it, and I think the time for discussion is over. I think we
should go ahead and move on with this project. It's a very good one.
Thank you.
(Applause)
HR. DORRILL: Hs. Hauby (phonetic), Bettye Halby or
Halty, 94th.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Hathis by chance? Not now,
eventually.
MR. DORRILL: She was in a hurry. She's your final
speaker, Mr. Chairman.
MS. HATHIS: We have been going at this for quite some
time. On October the 24th you stated you -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Name, please.
MS. HATHIS: My name is Bettye Hathis. I live in Naples
Park. We have been at this quite some time. You did say you would
get the cost down to 50 percent and have not. You are being guided by
a small group of people. I understand that at the PONP meeting they
voted 17 to 4 to back the drainage committee and this project. When I
was doing the request to the commissioners not to go forward with this
door to door, I met many people who had dropped their PONP membership
because they cannot approve of the project going forward. This would
account for the vote that says yes, go forward. I can't understand
why you have chose to ignore a request by more than twelve hundred
people, yet you are guided by the vote of seventeen. Your math is
better than that.
There are many people who the price alone will
influence, and they will be in favor of this now. However, there are
many things that have not been addressed and revealed to the residents
of Naples Park. The main one is that one-half of 8th Street is
enclosed. This is not brought out anymore than it can help to be
mentioned. It seems to be something that people care to ignore.
many people object to the ugliness of 8th Street. The county sprays
defoliant, and it's an ugly sight. It's an ugly, eroding, barren
ditch. As of yesterday the grass needed cutting. I hope that you
would have the respect for our subdivision to cut the grass, not spray
defoliant and turn it into an ugly, brown mess again.
Another reason many people object to this is not on
price. It's the fact that they are having to pay for a project they
feel enhances other people's property while there's a moratorium in
effect that will not let them improve their own property at their own
expense.
Also, Dr. Gore has appeared before this commission. I
have sat and listened to him. Time and time again he has said this is
going to have a negative environmental impact on Vanderbilt Lagoon.
You have one study. He says the study does not concern the type of
ecosystem we have and that he has many studies. Until the cost of
filtering, monitoring the water on a long-term basis, if this could be
added to our utility bills lately as a storm sewage tax as it is in
many communities, should be brought forth to the public. You cannot
make an intelligent decision when part of the facts simply are
ignored. I thank you gentlemen for your time.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Was that our final speaker?
MR. DORRILL: Yes, sir, it was.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Well, as one of the speakers said,
we've heard this item ad nauseum. I think we're finally down to the
point where we can have a motion if someone would make one, please.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Chairman, I'm going to make a
motion to approve staff recommendations, which contain both numerals
-- or all numerals 1 through 7. In addition, there are three items
discussed today I would like to make a part of the motion. The first
is to investigate the Pavilion Terraces modification. Someone had
mentioned a modification may have been made to their system. I think
that needs to be looked at.
The second is that the secondary system within Naples
Park, a maintenance plan for that entire secondary system, needs to be
developed. Without it this work is only a -- a slight majority of
what has to be done. That secondary system is the responsibility of
Collier County with the exception of the pipes under people's
driveways. A noticing -- you know, to notice people who have those
clogged, that needs to occur, and the secondary system needs to be
addressed. When this comes back to us, I would like to see that
maintenance schedule as a part of the presentation.
The final element is that prior to noticing we resolved
the issue regarding the permit modification for the Pavilion Club and
make the necessary adjustment on the methodology table before notices
go out to Naples Park. Those are the three recommended additions I
have to staff's recommendations.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Commissioner Hancock, you're not in
any way suggesting that we delay this project with the anticipation of
having a resolution of that item?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: No, sir. According to Mr. Boldt,
it's going to be how long before that is brought back to the board?
MR. BOLDT: I expect in the next couple of months to be
back to you with those tentative assessment hearings.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Because that should be
sufficient time in which the communication with South Florida Water
Management District can occur and a decision can be made.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: If that -- if a decision is not made,
though, are you anticipating or are you suggesting that we delay our
proceeding at all?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: At this point I'm not.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: No. I'm not suggesting that it
hinge solely on that. Obviously we'll cross that bridge if we have
to, but at this point I'm not suggesting that, no.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I have a question, too, about the
secondary system maintenance schedule. Is -- is that something we
don't have at all right now? Is it something that we're going to see
in your budget this year? Is that a radical request, I guess, is what
I'm asking you.
MR. BOLDT: That will be the responsibility of the
transportation department. They had initiated some work on it that
needs to be reinitiated.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And I -- you know, it's a request
I made of transportation in the past. The reason I'm including it in
this motion is I'm not satisfied from what I have received in response
to those requests. So I'm making it a part of this motion that it be
prepared and brought back to this board as a companion item to this,
and -- you know, you look at Naples Park and the number of ditches.
It's not going to happen overnight. It's not going to happen in a
year or two. It's going to take time to get through the Park. I
understand that. It needs to be done within existing budget
constraints, but it still needs to be done.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I agree it needs to be done, and
I want to second your motion. That's why I'm trying to be careful to
understand it, that we won't be binding ourselves to adopting a
secondary system maintenance program until we see it.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Correct. I'm asking that it come
back, and at that time we can discuss the nuances of what's being
proposed.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And how to fund it.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: But the people of Naples Park --
again, we're responsible for doing that work right now. And the
people in Naples Park will tell you that the ditches that need to be
dug aren't dug and the ones that don't are. You know, we've got some
yards that have 3 1/2-foot ditches in the front yard.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I want to see a maintenance
schedule. I just want to go on record as letting you know that I'm
not necessarily going to say, yeah, let's put this at the top of the
drainage budget.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: It's got to be folded into our
normal course of work, but I think the schedule must be developed.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Is that a second?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's a second.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Commissioner Matthews, have you got a
question?
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Yeah, I've got a question. Mr.
Boldt, on the moratorium, I -- I know we discussed that a couple weeks
ago, and I think Commissioner Hancock asked someone to come back with
some justification as to why the moratorium even exists. And that's
one of my questions now, too. I read a letter recently of someone
who's done some research that indicates that moratorium may have been
a request by the county.
MR. BOLDT: That's not true.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I'm just telling you what I've
read. And I certainly want to know more about that, because I've been
under the impression for four years that if we go forward with this
project, then we preclude other property owners from enclosing their
swales and piping them in. And if that's not so, I want to know about
it before we go a whole lot further because apparently -- and I
haven't done anything but read this letter -- the moratorium was not
DEP imposed, and I -- I certainly want to know a lot more about it.
COHHISSIONER MAC'KIE: What letter is this you're
referring to?
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: It's a letter I received from
Vera Fitz-Gerald who can't be here today, but it's got enough
information in it that piqued my interest that I want to know more
about it.
MR. BOLDT: Miss Swanson can fill you in on more
details, but basically the South Florida Water Management District,
they looked at the volume of storage that were available in these
existing ditches we proposed to enclose and said it ought to be offset
by something in order to compensate. So they said all the swales in
Naples Park in the 20 miles of roads, 40 miles of swales, is where
we're going to get our water quality treatment and storage. They
didn't put a requirement in the South Florida permit, but when the DEP
permit was issued, there was a very special condition in there, and it
wasn't our suggestion, that there be a permanent prohibition against
the practice of property owners enclosing their swales with metal
pipes. We've had a moratorium in effect for the last few years,
moratorium being a temporary measure.
At the same time our OCPH staff, Robert Wiley, has been
attempting to work a compromise in some of the areas with the use of a
infiltrator and I think in the next couple of weeks to have a
demonstration of that. We've made arrangements to get the materials
provided by the manufacturer. We're working trying to get the
contractors. We've also had a permit modification issued by South
Florida -- by DEP -- excuse me -- to allow this pilot program on the
infiltrator. And if it's successful, we hope to be able to modify the
permit for some widespread use of the infiltrator on those ditches,
the deeper ditches in the Park. But very clearly DEP meant to put a
permanent prohibition on the practice of enclosing those swales on the
project, and it was not our idea.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: My request a week ago was to
attempt to justify with DEP the lifting of that moratorium. I have a
pipe in my front yard, but I also have a swale. The water is treated
to some extent in that swale before entering the pipe system. Now,
you know, again, we're talking shades of gray, whether you pipe or
not, because some of the swales in Naples Park, if you get a heavy
rain, they don't treat it. You get a slug of water across the top,
and the only thing that gets treated is the very bottom scrubbing
area, similar to if you have a one- or two-inch rain. So what I've
requested is that we go after that particular element of the permit.
To my knowledge, it is the only one in the state of its kind, and we
try and get it lifted to the relief of the people in Naples Park. And
if --
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Yeah, it's just that this letter
just came to me a couple days ago, so I mean -- and I've recently read
it. It's got enough information in it that I certainly want some
answers to these questions, and the questions that were raised were
that the DEP said they didn't do it. They didn't originate it. It's
in the permit, but they said they didn't originate it, and the water
management district says they didn't either. So I want to know how it
got there, and in the next 30 days or so before this comes back maybe
we can find that out.
MR. BOLDT: We'll try to develop a chronological history
of that, how it all happened and from our point of view, you know, how
that came to be.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Okay.
MR. BOLDT: We can make a formal request of DEP to have
it removed.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Thank you.
MR. BOLDT: My guess at this point is that they would
turn you down, but it's worth a try.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Let's justify it and try that,
please.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I'd like the motion maker and
the second to incorporate this resolution of the moratorium into a
formal motion. I think two weeks ago or last week it was merely a
direction. I'd like to have it included.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: So included.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just a comment before we
vote, and that is I've consistently opposed this throughout. And I'm
not blind to the fact that there is a problem with the drainage in the
area and that there are valid concerns. I think Marie said we need to
do something here. I just don't happen to believe this is the
something. I think it's a flawed plan. I think it's too expensive.
I think the fact that twelve hundred people signed something in
opposition to it really does say something. And I realize we may or
may not have been able to communicate the clarity of every portion of
this to all twelve hundred of those, but I'm going to vote against it
again. I just don't want you to think that I don't think we need to
do anything. I just don't happen to agree this is the plan we should
be doing.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second. All
those in favor signify by saying aye.
All those opposed?
Opposed.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: That measure passes 4 to 1.
(Applause)
Item #882
PRESENTATION OF PRELIMINARY PROPOSALS FOR LELY/LELY-HANOR BASIN
STORMWATER IMPROVEMENTS - STAFF DIRECTED TO MOVE FORWARD AS QUICKLY AS
POSSIBLE AND STRAW BALLOT FOR MEASURE OF SUPPORT TO BE ON NOVEMBER
BALLOT; STAFF TO EXPLORE SHARING OF ENGINEERING COSTS WITH STATE AND
SITRICT AGENCIES
Our next item is 8(B)(2), presentation of preliminary
proposals for the Lely -- Lely Manor basin storm water improvements.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's easy for you to say.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Huh?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's easy for you to say.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Ladies and gentlemen, we're in
session. If we could hold it down, please. Mr. Boldt needs to tell
us something.
MR. BOLDT: Good morning. Again, for the record this is
John Boldt, your storm water management director. The object of this
presentation this morning is just to give you a brief history on the
proposals to make improvements in the Lely or Lely Manor basin or
so-called District No. 6. We'd like to spend a few minutes giving you
some of the history, the scope, and the status of the project and also
some of the financing options that are available to you.
In your propos -- in your package I gave you is an
outline of a presentation I've used a couple different times in public
groups. I'd just like to go over it real briefly with you and then
answer questions you might have about the project. Some of this
information was presented to you earlier in the year during our growth
management EAR process when I presented some of this information.
We'd just like to fill in a little of the gaps and also talk about
some of the ramifications of it.
This, again, has been a long-term problem. It's been
here since the '70s. The old history on this is that there's been
flooding, general nature, in this Lely basin area for a number of
years, and we've been moving to implement a project since about 1985
when the South Florida Water Management District's basin board did an
update to the District No. 6 plan. And we've taken a number of
actions over the years that have moved towards that. I was delayed
temporarily -- when the Villages of Sabal Bay project was a very
active project, we thought it was going to happen within months or
years, which would have taken care of a good deal of the outlet
problems we have in the lower end of the project. But since that has
been further delayed, staff has moved ahead at your encouragement on
pursuing a number of things to make this project happen.
Just real briefly let me just go over the map real
quickly and give you an idea of the scope of the project. This is a
map of the overall area. The orange line on the outside is the
drainage boundary or the watershed boundary. It's bounded on the
north by Radio Road, on the east by 951, and the boundaries of the
Lely Resort community. On the west it goes over as far as Kings Lake
and over towards the Lakewood system. It does not include either one
of those projects. Those are in the Haldeman Creek area. It includes
the areas south of Thomasson and east of Fern and then all the areas
of the Lely and the Naples Manor general area.
It's broken down into three components. The Lely main
is initiated with a rather elaborate spreader facility on the lower
end down in the Villages of Sabal Bay project that is meant to restore
the historical flow and provide environmental enhancements to those
wetlands down there. It has three water level control structures on
the lower end to step the water up for wetland improvements, the main
that comes across 41 and then turns east south of Rattlesnake Hammock
through the Hibiscus Golf Course and Royal Palm Golf Course. The
water is flowing, of course, from the northeast to the southwest. It
comes also through the Royal Wood project and initiates up near the
Naples Heritage project. Their water discharges down and comes
through the main.
The Lely branch initiates east of Santa Barbara on the
north side of Davis Boulevard and flows westerly in front of
Countryside and Embassy Woods and then goes through the Crown Pointe
project, the Crown Pointe Lake, and then south along the power line
crossing Rattlesnake Hammock just east of St. Peters' Catholic
Church. So that's the main and the branch. There's a small branch
shown on here that needs some discussion which would be the ditch
disclosure project along the Riviera Golf Estates sections along the
north and east side of that project.
The other component of this overall basin is the -- the
Naples Manor system, which takes water from portions of the Lely
project, Lely Resort, and also internal water, and it's directed to
several crossings under U.S. 41, flows in a southwesterly direction
and through a project that's called Lely Lakes, another very large
project that's anticipated to happen in the future. And we've had a
lot of conversations and coordination with them to incorporate this
project into theirs, and in the outlet of that again is a spreader
facility that reestablishes historical flow.
That's the basic scope of the project itself. And the
map that's included in your package and also the one that's colored
up, the one I gave you, shows the different components of the project,
some approximate costs, and also some early suggestions on how the
project might be phased.
Our initial recommendations, we might make this a
pay-as-you-go, five-year plan, spread it out over a five-year period
with a construction phasing as we showed it on the plan itself.
There's a number of things that have to happen before
that takes place, however, in that we still need to obtain several key
easements, although we really haven't seriously tried to get the
easements from the Villages of Sabal Bay project because we're always
anticipating the construction down there. We don't have what we need
there yet. That needs to be taken care of. There are a few missing
components particularly on the upper end of the main, and also there's
one property, the Cohen (phonetic) property, on the north side of
Davis Boulevard just west of Embassy Woods that needs to be secured
before we can put this all together. We need to firm up and obtain
our permit from the Florida Department of Environmental Protection,
and we hope to obtain that yet this summer at which time then we need
to obtain our Army Corps of Engineer permit which more or less goes
hand in hand with that. We do have in place our South Florida Water
Management District permit and anticipate the other ones can be had
perhaps with some complication, with some mitigation requirements from
DEP that have not yet been resolved.
So once we have the easements, once we have the permits,
the next step would be this procurement of detailed construction
drawings that could be used for the bidding purposes on this project.
And we're anticipating that could happen as early as next year
provided you provide us the money in next year's budget for those
up-front engineering costs.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Can I ask you a question
right there?
MR. BOLDT: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We're looking at creating a
special taxing district or assessment district via ballot. We're
going to let the people decide if they want to do this. It concerns
me a little. We're looking at what's estimated here at $318,000, fund
325, which is ad valorem tax. And so I have a concern that we're
going to spend $318,000 of ad valorem countywide tax money, and the
possibility could be shortly thereafter that this portion of the
county that is looking to be created into an MSTU could say no. So
then we've spent $318,000 ad valorem tax dollars with nowhere to go.
It becomes useless information. So I'm a little concerned. I'm
wondering if we don't have something out of order there. I know there
is certain information you need to get before you can ask the public,
but is there a way to do that?
MR. BOLDT: Well, I guess the first step the board needs
to get is do you want a pay-as-you-go five year, or do you want to go
to a special assessment district or a taxing district. Special
assessment district, much like the Naples Park, does not require a new
referendum. You can establish that assessment district on your own
initiative, and it can go through the process, including bonding,
without a referendum. If you, however, create a special taxing
district --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Not an option I'd recommend
but --
MR. BOLDT: Okay. If you can create a taxing district,
you still don't need a referendum to do that, but if you should decide
to bond and use the taxing district monies to repay the bond, then you
do need a referendum. So those decisions need to be made in a timely
manner. We need to firm up the costs of the project, which is going
to take some more engineering. We need to do more permit, mitigation,
easement costs, those things, before we can come up with a better
handle on what percentages we're talking about.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We don't have any in-house
engineering that can do any of that kind of work?
MR. BOLDT: Very limited. This takes a lot of
expertise. We're talking about, you know, sophisticated designs of
control structures and spreader facilities.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Three hundred and eighteen
thousand dollars worth of expertise. You understand my concern
there. I hate to have -- spend that kind of money, particularly
ad valorem tax dollars, and then have the voters turn around and say
we don't want to do it, poof, we're out -- out that big chunk of
change.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: I think that we've got to take
the responsibility of deciding whether or not it gets done, and then
the question for the voters is do they want to bond it, they want to
finance it or, you know, how do they want to pay for it. So I think I
need the answers to some of these questions that we would get with the
$318,000 to make a final decision on my vote of whether or not we
should go forward, and I can't make that decision without the
information. I understand your -- the conundrum, but for me it's not
a question that the voters will decide whether or not the project goes
forward. It's the voters will decide how to fund it, and we have to
decide whether or not it goes forward.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Chairman Norris, you had kind
of championed this project. Is that how you envisioned it?
COMHISSIONER NORRIS: That's -- at this early stage of
the -- the program we are in a position of having a number of options
of way to go. As you point out, there -- there may be a timing
problem if you decided to go one way, but as Commissioner Mac'Kie
points out, we could -- we could start the ball rolling unilaterally
as the commission and anticipate some sort of referendum down the line
somewhere or perhaps not a referendum at all depending on what sort of
show of public support we could get for the project.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You didn't have any
particular predisposed --
COMHISSIONER NORRIS: No, not at this point. I think we
should just take a look at all the evidence and make a decision here
which way we want to at least start the ball rolling today. Mr. Boldt, continue, please.
MR. BOLDT: Well, the big issue then is what the
project's going to cost. You alluded to that. The other table I have
in here is a very first rough draft copy of what a possible cost
allocation could be for this project based on the 15 1/2 million
dollars for the various components. And our recommendation, just for
initial reaction, would be that the county at large will pay 15
percent of which the table shows to be about 2.3 million dollars of
which you've already expended about $500,000 over the years in the
acquisition of easements, of engineering and obtaining permits and
other activities, including like the installation of the triple box
culverts under Davis Boulevard, which is already in place, totals
around $500,000 of that figure.
Depending on the timing, the developer contributions
could be something in the magnitude of the 1.2 million dollars. We've
had preliminary conversations with a previous Big Cypress Basin
administrator about the possible participation of the water management
district and the Basin in the cost of this project, particularly in
those items that involve the environmental enhancements, the spreader
facility, the water control structures. They have shown an interest
in helping us fund those. We're also encouraged by FDEP and by NOAH
that because of its impact to the project on Rookery Bay that there
are possibilities of getting some dollars from the former grants for
the spreader waters in particular on the project. If you add all
those up, it leaves a balance of about 7 1\2 million dollars, or say
about 50 percent of this project would go on to the prop -- would go
on the property owners either by a special taxing district or special
assessment district.
The unknowns at this point in time are some additional
easement costs, some environmental mitigation, and also you need to
know that the financing cost has not been included in this table at
this point, because it's just an early draft based on up-front cost,
pay as you go. Those decisions have to also be made at a different
time. And also the table notes that there are other factors
involved. For instance, the County Barn diversion ditch along the
east side of the road, which is about a 1.2 million dollar project, is
anticipated to be funded by separate -- by, in fact, three separate
special HSTUs that you've already established or on the books and
would pay for those things, for that diversion ditch, as a separate
project. That's not included in here.
And also there's been discussion, feedback, for
including the Riviera Golf Estates ditch enclosure project in the
overall project, whether that's appropriate or not. At some point in
the future you need to make a decision on whether that's appropriate,
put that in.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Let me make a comment here on
this, Mr. Boldt. Both of those two items that you just mentioned, the
County Barn Road diversion ditch, that ditch would appear to be an
integral part of the drainage system in that area; is that correct?
MR. BOLDT: That's correct.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: And it's also part of a road
expansion program?
MR. BOLDT: It's an integral part of the four-laning
that we requested in order to solve the drainage problem.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Right, I understand. But my point
is that that seems to be a quite necessary component of this overall
program while, on the other hand, the Riviera Golf Estates ditch
enclosure project is simply an aesthetics option that the residents or
property owners there have already declined to fund on their own.
it seems to me that those two priorities are sort of reversed on your
chart.
MR. BOLDT: The County Barn diversion ditch was a matter
of timing. We thought originally that that project was going to
happen even this year or '97, and we wanted to make sure the diversion
ditch was included as part of that project. You established these
districts to pay for it. If the timing is such that it comes along at
the same time as this project, there's great logic, as you say, to
fold it in, make it part of the overall project because it is an
integral part of it.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Yeah, that's my point. I would
consider removing the -- making the swap by removing the Riviera ditch
because that's an optional project. That has nothing really to do
with the improvement of the drainage, merely the improvement of the
aesthetics --
MR. BOLDT: That's correct.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: -- which were in place at the time
that the people bought their property.
MR. BOLDT: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay.
MR. BOLDT: You'll get a lot of discussion on that item
from the public.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Commissioner Hancock has a question.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Commissioner, I want to clarify
that you're saying --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Go ahead then.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: But on the same tune,
Commissioner Norris, you're saying that the Riviera Golf Estates ditch
number --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Uh-huh.
COHHISSIONER MATTHEWS: -- unit number 4 ditch which is
included in this proposal is an aesthetic correction as opposed to a
drainage correction. But yet we have eliminated the County Barn Road
diversion ditch from this project which is a drainage, and you want to
reverse it.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I think, in my opinion, it should be
reversed, yes.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Okay. I just want to clarify
that. Makes sense, yeah.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Boldt, I have two questions.
The first is a little more general in nature. I performed a lot of
the damage assessment surveys after the floods we had last year for
the Red Cross, and off of Davis Boulevard we had Coconut Circle. We
had several mobile home parks that were experiencing, you know,
extremely high water in areas. Kind of that triangle between Airport,
Davis, and east Tamiami closer up to Davis had a lot of flooding. Is
there an outfall, a portion of what is proposed for improvement here,
because there's a pocket in here that was hit fairly hard? And I'm
just curious if their potential outfall is covered in this plan.
MR. BOLDT: No, sir, this is strictly the Lely area.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay.
MR. BOLDT: You're talking about the Haldeman Creek and
Rock Creek areas. They are separate basins. They need to be
addressed. This is part of District No. 6, but we've separated this
out. Those two basins need to be addressed in the future.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: You find the priorities in the
Lely basin to be far greater than that in the Haldeman Creek basin?
MR. BOLDT: Yes, sir. From the very beginning our
master plan that we developed identified this area as our number-one
priority.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. My second and last
question, the -- the county share, we went to great lengths in the
Naples Park project to -- to assign a percentage share that could be
justified if -- if a legal challenge were to occur, and it was
justified on impervious surface and so forth, and you were all a part
of that. The danger of assigning an arbitrary percentage is that
anyone who doesn't want to pay can attack that and hold the project up
for a significant period of time and attack it successfully. How did
we get to 15 percent? What's the justification for that?
MR. BOLDT: At this point it's my -- just my best
estimate of what it would be. It would take some another analysis
like you said of evaluating the whole area, the contribution to runoff
from the road systems, and the county benefit. This is my first
attempt to see how this thing would unfold.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: In a similar fashion to the way
in which the county share was determined in the Naples Park drainage
system would be the same approach we would take here?
MR. BOLDT: That would be logical to do that.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Makes sense.
MR. BOLDT: The only other thing --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Boldt, one question. One
question, back to my comment earlier on the $318,000 you're estimating
for preliminary engineering costs. Do we -- I'm sure we do to some
extent, but do we share resources with our water district or with the
corps or with any of the other agencies that deal with these various
issues, and is that a responsibility to explore to bring some of that
cost down?
MR. BOLDT: It's possible. South Florida Water
Management, the Big Cypress basin has expressed an interest in
participating in the cost sharing of this with the anticipation,
again, that upon completion of this project they might want to declare
it a works basin and even assume the operation and maintenance
responsibility for this thing long term in a cooperative agreement
with you. There's been no thought up front that they would
participate in the engineering cost. That would be -- there's no
precedent for that or from other agencies, only in the actual cost
sharing of the construction cost itself.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, I realize you're not
asking us for the funding today. That will come up in the budgeting
process in the next couple of weeks.
Mr. Dotrill, that may be something we want to
aggressively pursue in the next couple of weeks because if we can get
them to participate in that, that eases the burden obviously on the
ad valorem tax payment.
MR. BOLDT: The financing impact on this -- on the last
sheet I gave you, just to give you a rough idea, that this was a
taxing district established. Working down the sheet, we're talking
about the estimated cost of being about 7 1/2 million dollars. We've
approximated the property values within these two basins in the entire
area, and it's about 757 million dollars. So if you were to have a
five-year pay as you go, it boils down to if you had a $125,000 home
and you leased out the homestead and said a hundred thousand dollar
value, it would have been 2 mills per year or $200 per year is what
the fiscal impact would be for in five years, a thousand dollars
total. If you use multiple-year bonding -- and these are very rough
figures -- working it also down from the 7 1/2 million, adding in some
cost of financing, it works down to about 1 mill. So on a hundred
thousand dollar taxable value, you're talking about a hundred dollars
a year; but for, say, 20 years you're talking $2,000 total. So it
would cut the cost per year down in half but double the total. And
those are just rough figures for you to get kind of an idea whether
we're talking ten dollars a hundred or ten thousand dollars in this
range.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Mr. Boldt -- I'm sorry.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: How long would it take to develop an
assessment estimate on the -- based on the same amount of money,
because the -- the cost per property owner for specific property could
certainly vary a lot. So how long would it take to develop the
assessment figures to do the same job?
MR. BOLDT: In a methodology similar to what we used in
Naples Park?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Ten years.
MR. BOLDT: Or are you talking about a taxing district?
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: No, I'm talking about assessment.
You've got the taxing figures down here. MR. BOLDT: Okay.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: What we need to know at some point
fairly shortly is how do we compare the figures for an assessment
district with the figure for this taxing district.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Just so I can understand,
assessment district is the pay as you go five years?
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: No, this taxing district is based
on the value of your property. The assessment would be based on your
percentage of the benefit of the project. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Thank you.
MR. BOLDT: Which in this case could be a factor of
runoff, size of the property, location, direct, indirect, and some of
the other factors we can introduce, make it a much more fair method of
doing it, but it's going to be extremely complicated as opposed to a
taxing district which is already based on value of property. But we
can make a first attempt at that.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: How long would that take to develop a
figure on that, though?
MR. BOLDT: Well, I would say the next couple months,
because we're going to have to spend a lot of energy now on Naples
Park getting that up and going, and we're going into the rainy
season. Hopefully it's not going to be the impact we had last year,
but this is our busy season. In the next two or three months, I
think, we can come back to you with something on that.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Well, we're not going to be able to
make an informed decision on this project until we have that
information, so we're going to need to do that as rapidly as
possible.
MR. BOLDT: Okay.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And one other question just on
the -- on the property value methodology. And when we had this huge
Villages of Sabal Bay potential project there, is the -- is the
valuation based on the, you know, current tax assessment, or does it
anticipate development?
MR. BOLDT: No. It's strictly on current, which means
if that project unfolds and the value of that property were to go up,
it would drive everybody else's assessments or their taxing down.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Or it -- or am I getting this
right? But does that also mean that if the project were to go forward
and the assessments are made before the Villages of Sabal Bay is
built, then those people who eventually live in the Villages of Sabal
Bay will have gotten sort of a free ride off of the backs of the
people who are currently in the basin?
MR. BOLDT: Well, I think through the assessment method
I think you can anticipate a benefit factor that would -- you know,
look forward to the future growth of that area. I'm not sure how we
would handle that, but --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I mean, the vacant lots in Naples
Park didn't get a break versus those that had homes.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I think our discussion --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: You're saying the whole section
is not.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: -- undeveloped property rather than
developed property.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: That's what worries me. That's
why what Commissioner Norris is asking for is so important, among
other reasons.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: The question --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Yeah, let me make sure I understand,
Mr. Boldt, if you have, which we do in that area, have large tracts of
undeveloped land, how would they fit into the assessment district?
MR. BOLDT: We would assign a benefit to be received. I
can get into some areas where the county attorney would want to
address, but land size, land use and a benefit factor, whether they're
getting a direct or indirect benefit. I think you can incorporate
some of those things in to anticipate the --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: To anticipate the future
development of the property? MR. BOLDT: Right.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: That's -- that's what my question
is.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Because you're designing the
system for the potential -- you know, to fill the gap of the potential
runoff. So you should --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. Weigel, could you jump in and --
and kind of steer us on that one a little bit?
MR. WEIGEL: Yeah, briefly. You're steering in the
right direction anyway. Typically there has not been the dynamic of
significant development within assessment districts, but in this case
there would be. And the methodology that would be developed would
bring into play the property as it exists at the present time but also
take into context projected uses. It's been a while since I've looked
at this project since it's been on hold for about ten years, but it
had county approvals ten years ago, and to the extent that it's
platted, I can't recall. But it may already have been platted. It
certainly had significant other county approvals for development.
I think there's a lot in the -- a lot on the table already that would
assist the development of the applicable methodology to this
particular property that's undeveloped. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: One last comment. The
preliminary engineering that's $318,000, if you draw a parallel to the
smaller assessment of Naples Park, didn't they pay for all the front
engineering costs first as an assessment district, as a taxing unit?
MR. BOLDT: No, sir, that was two-step. There was a
preliminary report that was done the original taxing district paid for
that was like $66,000. But all the other engineering has come out of
fund 325, which will be reimbursed to the project in your 16 1/2
percent.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: That's my question. They did pay
for the preliminary engineering themselves? MR. BOLDT: Correct.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Public speakers?
MR. DORRILL: Yes, sir, you have about a half a dozen.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. Why don't we do that.
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Riner, if you would, please, then
Mr. Erlichman.
MR. RINER: Good morning. I'm Randy Riner. I've been
around here for all my life so far, 48 years. I'd like to talk -- I
live on County Barn Road, 2101. I'd like to talk a little bit about
the drainage of the portion of the diversion ditch, I guess, on County
Barn Road. It seems to be -- in fact, it would or should be a part of
this master drainage, the -- I think it should be put in with or even
the funds that have been collected so far maybe could be used for your
engineering fees that you're -- you know, you're trying to find the
funding for. We've already dented our tax base for a few years on
there.
I would like to say that I'm quite opposed to that --
the Riviera Golf Estates for a ditch, that $608,000 for aesthetic
value. It has nothing to do with drainage. I'd have to fight kicking
and screaming to even consider paying a tax on that if I had to.
The downfall fact, I guess, is that the DEP will not let
any of this be hooked up until the spreader swales and all the control
structures are in place. The Rattlesnake Hammock four-laning right
now, as big as the ditches are and the undercrossings, they're going
to be reduced to the size of the existing ditch until the downstream's
stuff in place. So it's going to take a number of years, I would
think three at least, maybe four, to get the permits. I think we
should pay as we go, because we're going to be quite a few years into
actually having all the permits in hand.
I know everybody, and me as much as anybody else, would
love to have them start digging ditches tomorrow and get rid of the
drainage problem. I had an otter swimming up and down my driveway
this last rainy season. It was quite friendly. He would chirp at you
when you waded by, but I didn't have any water in the house. Like I
say, there's more to it and time than you believe, especially on
acquiring the land.
Perhaps the Colliers will kick in on that Sabal Bay
project because -- something there, or maybe it would be tomato
fields. You can't tell, but that's about all I have to say. Thank
you.
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Erlichman.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I believe Commissioner Norris's
comments addressed exactly what you were asking for.
MR. RINER: Right. That was at $491,000, and it was
proposed to the neighbors. They turned it down. That's a lot of
money to have a backyard. The current estimate, $608,000, for that
same project. The water was blocked off from County Barn Road, so
they take no through drainage. That was blocked off from Wendy and
Cynthia, too. So it won't help with the drainage system. It's an
aesthetic. They need a yard. I mean, they've got a very small
backyard. That's a lot of money. You know, if we're going to spend
money like that, I'd like to have an Olympic pool and my pasture full
and all that. I'll take all the treated effluent that you could
supply me. It's aesthetic; it's not part of the drainage.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Thanks, Mr. Riner.
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Erlichman and then Mr. Carpenter.
MR. ERLICHMAN: Good morning, Gil Erlichman, East Naples
and a resident of Royal Wood. I experienced over two weeks of living
in a flooded area right in the middle of this district that you're
talking about, and believe me, it was -- it was like being trapped on
an island with no way to get out. I used my car to the extent of over
$1,500 worth of damage, and I will never do that again. We had over a
foot of water in the -- in various places in the road -- in the
roadways in Royal Wood there before you could get out to the
Rattlesnake Hammock Road, and that was the first time I experienced
anything like that.
I think that the condition -- that the rain plus the
developments that have been going up all around us, Falling Waters and
now Heritage, which is a large -- I think it's seven -- over seven
hundred acres between David Boulevard and 951. It's -- it's -- it's
in an arc. It leaves out the corner of the intersection of 951 and
Davis, and I think when that -- when that's fully developed, going to
have more problems if nothing is done.
I favor this whole project, and I would like to see it
done as soon as possible, because I think -- I know that standing
waters, floodwaters, are a threat to the health and safety of people
living in the area. You've got a lot of water-borne diseases that can
happen -- that can occur, people can get. You've got damage that can
occur to our sewage treatment plants. You've got -- and you might
have damage to our water distribution services and -- let alone the
inconvenience. But to have water standing for two weeks, over two
weeks, I mean, this -- it's not flooding. I don't know what you --
flooding to me is, okay, it floods, and then the waters recede in
about two or three days. That's fine. But that was unbearable, and
it will be unbearable, too, in the future. I cannot -- I cannot go
along with the idea of a hundred-year storm. You know, statistics are
one thing, but I -- I feel that we're -- we're projecting another
rainy -- another heavy rainy season this year, and I hope we don't
have the same situation. We could have it if -- if the -- if the
rains fall within that 16-, 18-inch volume that we have.
I don't want to wait ten years like Naples Park. I
mean, that to me was a complete hardship on those people up there to
wait ten years for something to happen. So I'd like to see you people
proceed as quickly as possible. And I don't care whether it's bonded
or whether it's pay as you go. I want it done as quickly as
possible. Thank you.
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Carpenter and then Ms. Leinweber.
MR. CARPENTER: Hi. I'm Dave Carpenter, president of
East Naples Civic Association. Well, it's a strange day when I agree
with Gil on something, but I do. This problem goes back a long time,
as you know, and East Naples Civic has been involved in talking on
storm water management in East Naples for probably as long as the
problem's been here. And it's simple, as Gil said. As the area has
developed, as you add more concrete, more asphalt, more roofs, what
was an old -- and probably when built probably state-of-the-art
drainage system involving Lely and what not is simply overcapacity,
and it's going to need to be changed, and I think that's a realization
that all of the residents in the area would probably agree with.
We'd like to see the ball get rolling on this. We have
a couple of concerns, one being -- and I think John Boldt and John
Norris -- and I'd like to thank both of the Johns today for getting
this started, because they've done a great job, and they're willing to
talk with everybody. John Boldt has done a number of presentations
around the area that have been well-attended.
It's been our position that as far as flooding relief
for neighborhoods go, that basically the cost of that should be borne
by those neighborhoods. When you get into water quality issues,
though, basically environmental issues, though, we felt that there
should be a participation from the county at large in those. And I
think John kind of addresses that through partial funding from the
county and partial funding from Big Cypress Basin or South Florida
Water Management District. So this seems to be in line with what our
principles have been on this.
As far as the financing on it, I have one basic concern,
and that is particularly -- and let's say particularly, the Manor
portion of the project. Although a lot of this project deals with
John's, you know, $125,000 home, there are also portions of this
project, though, that deal with property and homes at a much less
level on it. And my concern is -- is that through the financing that
we don't put an undue burden on residents of the Manor. And there is
a lot of first-time homeowners down there, and there are some people
marginally getting by. And it isn't just the Manor. There are other
areas of the project that are struggling trying to make ends meet.
And I know this county has adopted a pay-as-you-go philosophy, but
let's kind of take a look at these people, because I'd hate to see
them be -- suffer from the financial end of a system that's designed
to keep their homes from flooding on it. So if some balance can be
struck on that, we'd appreciate it. But we'd like to see the
commission go ahead and take the steps to get this project underway.
We think it would be great for the community, and I thank you.
(Applause)
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: While -- while Hiss Leinweber's
coming up, Mr. Boldt, Mr. Carpenter's made an excellent point. Is it
possible that we can work with Mr. Hihalic and the SHIP funds for
people who just flat out cannot pay this fee to -- to have portions of
their assessment funded through the SHIP program?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We don't even know if we're
doing an assessment, a taxing district --
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I know.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We don't know --
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Let me just throw out here, too,
I was at a seminar lately where the secretary of DCA was there who was
-- and he said something that he cares a lot about is trying to
adjust the SHIP program so that it can be used for improvements such
as these but that probably right now it's not possible. But there's a
lot of attention being given to -- to readjusting the SHIP program.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: That's a good question. I'm sure we
can come up with an answer. Go ahead.
MS. LEINWEBER: I am Judy Leinweber, and I am
representing Bay West Nursery. As we all know, we had water, water
everywhere during Hurricane Opal and Jerry and the flooding.
Taxpayers, beware. You are paying for the restoration of the
Everglades. Water management is coming up with their share of the
money. That's a bad sign. You folks want to tax yourselves to flood
and your loved ones out? I am a flood victim. We almost lost two
lives when our dike broke. One of them was mine.
This state is one big puzzle. It all fits together.
Just remember, when we get flooded, you all get flooded, and it starts
with Lee County.
When our water management, our county commissioners,
approve of another weir, which is a damn that holds back water, our
flooding gets worse. Are we going to sit back as taxpayers and let
our state and water management and county commissioners do us dirty?
We may want to say no and remember election day. This is what
happened when Hitler -- when Hitler people didn't want to get
involved. This is what happened when Martin Luther King and people
turned the other cheek and didn't want to get involved. Are we going
to stand up and be counted, or are we going to turn our cheek? Get
involved. Make your voice count. Hake your vote count. The time is
now. When Glen Simpson from the water basin board personally told me,
when Treeline Drive goes in, Bay West better build their dikes real
high because our flooding is going to get worse.
Who am I, the taxpayer, a citizen? I am a survivor. I
am a soldier. I'm fighting in the trenches with real people, with
veterans, concentration camp survivors. My husband is a concentration
camp survivor. I don't know if my opinion is going to be counted. I
have been living this water problem for 18 years. I have been taxed
time and time again. Yes, we can do this restoration or this -- these
weirs, whatever.
This is in the middle of the real problem which goes
back to Lee County where the flooding started when two flood zones
combined with Hurricane Opal, Hurricane Jerry. That's where the
problem needs to be worked at, started at, the beginning, not the
middle of the road. The beginning starts over in Lee County on
Immokalee Road on the Cocohatchee canal. You know, since when are you
going to put the cart before the horse? You need to start at the
beginning of the problem. You know, like I said, we've been fighting
this for 18 years, but nothing gets done where it's really important.
The only thing I can say is I'm making my voice heard, and at election
day I'm going to make my vote count. Thank you.
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Perkins and then, Mr. Roop, you'll
follow this gentleman here.
MR. PERKINS: Good morning, Commissioners. A1 Perkins,
Belle Meade Group, citizens for constitutional property rights. Your
handout is a little information pertaining to what takes place if
you're in the -- if you're connected politically in this state.
You've heard of flooding here this morning in two areas,
and there's a lot of other areas that have not been addressed: The
farmers, Immokalee, Bonita, all the land along --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. Perkins, are you going to tie this
into the Lely basin project somehow?
MR. PERKINS: Yes, I am, because it's all part of the --
the water runs downhill, and the Lely basin is in the lower part.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: None of that water runs into this
basin.
MR. PERKINS: As long as there's canals and as long as
there's lakes, we have subsurface water.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. Boldt, could you explain to him
that none of this water -- none of the water he's referring to comes
into here?
MR. BOLDT: Lely basin has a defined boundary, and the
areas he's talking about drain in another direction altogether.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Now, could you tie it into our project
that we're discussing here today, please, Ai?
MR. PERKINS: Well, the water factor along with this --
what I'm trying to make -- the point is that the Lely basin is just
one of many issues that the South Florida Water Management and the Big
Cypress Basin Board seems to have control of. Now, they do it in a
lot of different ways. The whole problem is not just isolated in
Lely, and it's not just isolated in North Naples. The whole county as
a whole has to be looked at because all of the water throughout this
county affects every place, even at Kings Lake right behind us. Point
being, you need to take and look at it closely, because the South
Florida Water or South Florida Water Mis-Management District is not
doing a job on behalf of the citizens who they tax repeatedly every
year up and up and up.
Now, the whole bottom line to this thing is it's our
money, and it should be our control. These people out here are
telling you point blank when are you going to take control of this
situation. We could just as well do away with the South Florida Water
Management District in its entirety and take control back so that we
have control over what gets flooded, what doesn't get flooded, and
what gets drained and what doesn't get drained because if you're going
to tell me that the South Florida Water Management, who wants to fill
in canals in southern Golden Gate Estates, is not going to affect our
water over here in Lely, then you haven't been here long enough to see
this place underwater. You better take a real good look at what we're
spending, where we're spending, and who is it affecting and why.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you.
MR. ROOP: Good morning. My name is Harold Roop, and I
live in Riviera Golf Estates on Charlemagne Boulevard, which abuts the
ditch, the aesthetic ditch behind a number of houses there. I'd just
like to point out that that ditch was generated by the county after
people initially bought the land so that the -- when we talk about the
aesthetics of the -- of the land, and this just being an aesthetic
project, actually it would be a restoration of the aesthetics.
The ditch does provide the drainage. There's no
question about that. But the town has -- I'm sorry. The county has,
in fact, taken away the use of a portion of our property by the
exercise of this right-of-way and the putting in of the ditch along
the back property line there. We'd just like to have this property or
this lien taken away and the land restored to us by being piped over
or covered over in a more proper and aesthetically pleasing manner,
and we're willing to pay for it. We will, of course, have to pay for
a portion of the assessment on the rest of the project of which we're
not going to get any benefit because those houses up there didn't
flood. None of those houses along that ditch flooded. But we will,
in fact, have to pay our share, rightfully so, of the rest of the
project. We'd just like to see our portion of the project included in
this, aesthetics or not. Thanks very much.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Sir, did you experience flooding
prior to that ditch being there?
MR. ROOP: I wasn't there then. I don't know.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I was just curious.
MR. ROOP: I don't know if there was flooding then.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. Weigel, could you help us with the
next speaker there?
MR. WEIGEL: Let's see, looks like that's it.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: That's it? Is there anyone else
registered on this item to speak? Okay.
MR. BOLDT: So what we're looking for today is just some
general direction and encouragement on this project. I'll be talking
to you more later in the month about funding some engineering cost,
picking up on your idea about a referendum or straw vote or getting
some indication of the support on this project. Is there any other
possible way we can do that early on in the project that would get you
some major comfort and support you're going to have? I guess that's
my other question.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: What would be the possibility of, for
example, on the -- as early as the September 3rd primary having a
straw ballot to this district that -- the boundary district asking for
straw support on -- on the whole question, would they be willing to
fund it? Of course, we don't know what the number would be.
MR. BOLDT: That is a problem. We don't know exactly
what the cost would be. We need to firm that up more.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We couldn't -- because we don't know
what the final number would be, we certainly couldn't have a firm
ballot, but I don't see any reason why we couldn't at least try to get
support for having --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: A straw vote with some
estimate.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: What about taking one step with
the preliminary engineering estimate, and that gets you where the cost
is? If you had a straw ballot just on that item, it would be similar
to what occurred in Naples Park where they stepped up and approved
designing the fix, and then the process of -- of funding that fix came
later, just as a suggestion. You may be looking for more than that.
I don't know.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Well, that's certainly a possibility.
September 1st -- or 3rd would be the -- the earliest date. Of course,
there's a runoff primary in October. It would be unclear if there
would be a runoff in certain -- that actually encompasses portions of
two commission districts, so there's a question of whether there would
be a runoff in either one of those two.
The next date would be the November general election.
Perhaps a straw -- a straw ballot for a measure of support would give
us at least the comfort level to go forward with this, and assuming
that we don't bond, we would not need to go to a further referendum
which would have to be a mailout at that time.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just a thought on timing
there, too. I'm reasonably sure we could get that on the September
ballot still, although I think we've only got a week and a half before
the deadline.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Not much time.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: But one of the possibilities
there is if we had, and I suspect we will have some measure of support
on an estimate, as you've said, then that also creates a very high
comfort level as we go into our final approval of the budget which is
a couple of weeks later. If for some reason you had 75 percent of the
people say, gosh, we hate the idea, then we could adjust accordingly
on the final budget. I don't think that's going to happen, but I
think what it's going to do is ratify the process for us.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Commissioner Mac'Kie.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Couple questions. One is is
there -- well, my concern about the idea would be that we don't have
enough information. If we asked a question that isn't intelligently
asked, people might have fear and not answer the question. There's a
big danger there in asking a question without enough information. So
my question for the board is is there genuinely -- do -- do we have a
question about whether or not this portion of the community wants this
program? I don't. I mean, we hear from East Naples Civic. We hear
from people who represent this area of the community, please go
forward, please go forward. We're all willing to pay. I think
there's been enough publicity that if there are naysayers, they would
know to participate in the discussion. I just don't want to take the
risk of asking an unintelligent question if we already know that this
community is supportive of the undertaking. I think that they are and
that --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: That's a very good point, Commissioner
Hac'Kie. I held a meeting with Mr. Boldt -- COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Right.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: -- an evening meeting right here in
this room. The room was full, and everyone in the room at the end of
the meeting when asked to raise their hand in support did so, and when
asked to raise their hand in opposition, there were none. MR. BOLDT: Right.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Absolutely zero. By that time some of
the people had left, however; but there was probably still --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Stormed out.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Yeah, they stormed out of the room.
There were -- probably three-quarters of the room was full at that
time, so that's a good indication, but this is only the second time
there's been a public meeting on this subject. A lot of the people
have not had an opportunity to speak their voice on it.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: As I said, I really think you
will get the support. I think we'll ratify what it is we want to do,
but it just creates a comfort level. And because it's a straw vote,
then you can go back and rework it and come back with something more
palatable if for some reason it didn't. From your considerations from
the newspaper, from the conversations I've had in my portion of this,
I think it will strongly pass. But I think that puts us in a much
stronger position to go ahead with the project.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And I don't want to be -- I don't
want to cause any trouble. I want this to go forward.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You troublemaker.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: But I do think that we already
know that and that there's a danger in asking a question without
enough information. So I would ask, and I would frankly challenge
you, to -- you know, you already know, and get out of your districts
and find out if -- and I think that you already do that. I think you
already know.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I have had very little, if any,
negative opposition expressed to me so far but, once again, it's
early. What if we shot for the November election date for a straw
ballot, Mr. Boldt? Do you think in the next 60 days we would have
enough answers to our questions to intelligently draft a ballot
question that would be fairly representative of what we could expect
the people to vote on?
MR. BOLDT: I think we can pull some information
together, pull off some figures, get advice from a financial
consultant, people like that. We can have some better results.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Why don't we do this then. Why don't
we try to -- why don't we try to give Mr. Boldt today the approval and
direction to go forward at the maximum possible speed on this project
for the moment.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Can I ask a question?
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Sure.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Is it possible or is -- and
if it's not, by all means, say so. But is it possible to do that in
time for the September ballot?
MR. BOLDT: I'm not familiar enough with election laws
to know what it's going to take. My guess is it's probably past
deadlines to do that.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: You've got ten days.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah. We've got a couple
weeks.
MR. BOLDT: To try to pull all the information together,
I think it's pretty difficult to do.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah. Bigger turnout in
November anyway.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Mr. Boldt, a couple of years ago
we had some questions put before the board regarding a storm water
utility and -- and this board was having some difficulty with
automatically putting that in place. And I know the DCA and the
county is, you know, negotiating back and forth on what to do that --
what to do with that. But it was my understanding that this board had
asked for storm water utility question to be on the November ballot
for 1996. Is -- is that going to happen?
MR. BOLDT: No, ma'am. That was an early offer upon the
part of the county to settle the agreement with the DCA, and at this
point there was no action taken to make that happen.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: And then the DCA came back and
said, well, but if it -- if it fails at the ballot, we want the county
to pay for it with ad valorem taxes, and we kind of went back and said
no and so forth. But I really thought I remembered -- and I'll --
I'll go pull the minutes if that's necessary, that this board, not
with the two -- two newest members, but gave direction that a storm
water utility question be on the ballot for November of '96, which I
believe would handle not only the Lely basin, but all the basins.
MR. BOLDT: No, ma'am. Unfortunately, the way the storm
water utility unfolded through the consultant, the financial
consultant we had at the time, was only to address the operations and
the administration and the operation and maintenance of the system.
It would not handle the capital improvement program such as we're
talking here, you know, still had to pay for that additionally. We're
only talking like 2 or 3 dollars per month per home, $36 a year. That
was to fund the ongoing maintenance program. It would not have been
for the capital improvement projects. That still would have been
special districts or taxing districts.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman -- I'm sorry.
Go ahead.
COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: I'm just going to have to go
back and pull the information on that, because I really thought there
was an 80 million dollar capital component.
MR. BOLDT: Initially that's what we thought. The
further we got into it, your -- your financial consultant, neighbors
involved in that ended up actually the storm water utility wasn't even
a utility in a sense. It was going to be like four or five special
taxing districts that would be used. They'd have different budgets.
They'd have different rates. We'd have to keep track of all our
bills.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I've never seen a bigger mess
than that was that was proposed. The last thing I want to do is dig
-- I want to see a broad-brush approach, and I want us to address the
whole county, but the last thing I want to do is dig back up that mess
because that thing was a disaster. It set us back to where we are
DOW.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Well said.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, on this item
I'd like to make a motion we give Mr. Boldt direction to go ahead and
we try to get that, as you've suggested, at all possible speed, try to
get that on the November ballot. Also, that we explore very
aggressively in the next couple of weeks before we get into our budget
season the sharing of some of those initial engineering costs with the
state and -- and district agencies and that -- I won't ask for
approval of that until our budget session. I think we'll end up
working with those anyway. Perhaps by then we'll know what portion
they may share.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: If -- I'd like to second it.
Here I go again, but are we deciding today that we're not going to go
forward unless we have a successful November referendum or successful
November straw ballot, because I don't want to decide that?
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No. I think the suggestion
is if we follow here -- if we follow the recommendations here, it's a
stepped process anyway. We're asking them to go ahead with the step
process, and we need to do some of the engineering work up front
anyway. And with that information, then we pursue the public
support.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And we can --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: If the public doesn't support
the idea, it's kind of hard to go ahead either way. I'm reasonably
confident we're going to have a successful referendum in the fall
anyway, because the public support from what I've heard and obviously
from what you've heard is extremely strong.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: But is the motion that we don't
-- that one of the required steps is a straw ballot in November?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Did you second the motion?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: No.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm going to second the motion,
because we -- when we did the Naples Park system, we were dealing with
a neighborhood, and we had an evening meeting and had a straw ballot.
And if that straw ballot had been 70 percent, say don't touch
anything, we don't want to pay a dime, it probably wouldn't have moved
ahead. I'm sure it wouldn't have. So this is just -- it's just a
formal balloting process. And I, like you, agree that we need to
pursue this. But if we have an overwhelming number against it, then I
think we have to -- to listen to that to some extent. So I'm going to
second the motion. We're not bound by a straw ballot, but I believe
it would be a fair indication of a fairly large number of people on
what this board may wish to expend its funds on.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Frankly, I think it's going
to be beneficial in the whole process to include the public as a part
of it instead of just moving ahead regardless of what they want.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: If we have another wet summer, I can
predict --
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: That's absolutely --
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I find myself praying for rain
now.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Did we get that one, Mike?
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second. If
there's no further comment, all those in favor signify by saying aye.
Those opposed?
We'll take a short --
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Real quickly, I just want to ask
one question. We've had a couple of comments on mostly the north end
of the Cocohatchee canal and so forth. If you remember, this board
asked Representative Saunders before the legislative session to help
us track and reign in some of what south Florida was doing. The third
year Cocohatchee has planned an elevation 13 1/2 with natural ground
elevations at 12 1/2 adjacent to it, so we've heard nothing back on
that. So the state representatives and the state senators need to be
hounded to begin pursuing south Florida -- (Applause)
COHHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Maybe a letter from this board?
Maybe we'll talk about that in communications.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Certainly.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: One other thing, too --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I started something, too.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Same issue, south -- south
Florida Water Management District applied for 8 million dollars worth
of grants in FEHA mitigation money. They got $200,000. So, again,
this board and the basin board and the district, we need to find a way
to work together to solve these drainage basin problems. It's more
than Lely. Lely is the worst of the group, but it's throughout the
county. We need to find a way to do it.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Five-minute break.
(A short break was held.)
Item #883
DIRECTION FOR IMPLEMENTATION AND FUNDING OF THE LANDSCAPE
BEAUTIFICATION PROJECT ON DAVIS BLVD. BETWEEN U.S. 41 AND COUNTY BARN
ROAD AND NAPLESCAPE 90'S PROPOSED STREETSCAPE MASTER PLAN FOR THE
COUNTY - OPTION #1 APPROVED SUBJECT TO LEGAL REVIEW RE INDEMNIFICATION
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We'll reconvene the meeting. We're
ready at this time for item 8(B)(3), NapleScape proposal.
Mr. Perkins, if you could, please, we're -- we're going.
MR. CONRECODE: For the record, Tom Conrecode from
public works. And I'll start by apologizing that this item is back
before the board again today, but we need a little clarification and
direction from you. When we previously brought these items to the
board and asked for your direction with regard to how to proceed with
the master plan effort and the beautification effort on Davis
Boulevard between U.S. 41 and County Barn Road, failed to address the
consultant's competitive negotiation act, which we're required to
operate under in order to procure professional services in the State
of Florida. And we'd ask the board to consider a couple of options
that we've identified in terms of how to accomplish the work of
landscape design for the Davis Boulevard project as well as the
streetscape master plan for the balance of the county.
Staff's identified a number of options. I know that
several of you commissioners have heard from other landscape design
professionals in the county, and they voiced their concerns to you in
terms of the competitive selection process. And staff is simply
asking you today to allow us to voice our cautious voice in terms of
abiding by the law and that you have an opportunity to hear from your
attorney with regard to that and direct staff to either take option
one or option two. Option two is the one that we happen to recommend,
but you may hear differently from some of your speakers today.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. Conrecode, this project has been
delayed unnecessarily in the past. I'm really concerned that we go
forward as rapidly as possible. Is there any difference in option one
or option two as far as timing would go?
MR. CONRECODE: Arguably there's some difference. It's
hard for me to quantify exactly what that difference is.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We don't want to -- specifically we
don't want to miss another year in the grant cycle. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Just can't hack it.
MR. CONRECODE: We do not either. We do not either.
MR. DORRILL: I think in fairness, our biggest concern
is the time concern and not us being good little bureaucrats and --
but we need you to make a finding if we're to proceed under option one
because this project is not going to be done without us receiving the
FDOT grant money. It won't be in the county manager's tentative
budget, because that money's not there under 301, and so that's why it
is important. That's why Mr. Conrecode was smart enough to bring it
back today and ask for some confirming intent as to how the board
wants to proceed.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'd like to ask a question if
I can. I don't mind waiving a policy but -- we don't want to delay,
miss another grant cycle, and I think those are both valid arguments
for why we waived standard policy.
But the one concern -- I've talked to Mr. Weigel about
this. I need him to help me with this, and I need NapleScape to help
me with this, is a liability issue. We get sued every now and again
when somebody drives into a median or something happens. They claim
the design was out of whack, and the county usually has a stepback to
whoever -- whomever engineered the project. I want to make sure we
have that same liability coverage here.
MR. WEIGEL: Okay. I take that as the question.
Typically when the county hires a design engineer, landscape architect
for median work, we enter into a formal contract with them so that we
have the standard board policy indemnification and insurance
protection. And an example of how that can be important is that the
county has had notice of intention for a lawsuit in regard to a median
near Pelican Bay -- excuse me, near Vineyards where a car left the
roadway, went into the median, hit a tree. The person was killed.
And although the argument that they make may seem strange, we still
have the full responsibility to respond to the lawsuit. And the
argument that was made is that a median is designed and is supposed to
be designed to provide an area for regaining control of a vehicle
that's lost control of the roadway. That may or may not be a legally
sufficient argument, but it's an argument that has validity until
proven otherwise in court, and it's going to be our responsibility to
defend on behalf of the board and the county.
From that standpoint then we have looked to -- and in
that case we'll be looking to assistance from the design professional
that designed and ultimately the contractor that constructed that
median to assist us in the defense of the lawsuit and to show that we
have -- we will have the indemnification protections. That may be one
distinction that may distinguish itself from the NapleScape
relationship as previously proposed, and perhaps the NapleScape
representatives can respond and help us somewhat in that regard.
That's one, I think, key difference in a professional relationship
that may show itself with this project.
Secondly -- and Mr. Pettit of our office has some
further information that he can provide you, but in regard to the
Competitive Negotiations Act, as Mr. Conrecode mentioned, it applies
-- it's state law. It applies to landscape architecture and
architects as well as other professionals. And we are faced with a
situation that that law applies and requires a competitive selection
process in the selection of a design professional in -- for projects
of this magnitude or the board, the local governing agency, must
determine on the record that there is a valid public emergency, and
that is the language of the statute, not merely for convenience, but
that there is an emergency. And so the board would need to make some
findings. And if there are some elements of a critical nature in
regard to grants -- success in grant applications and things of those
nature, those certainly are important.
I will say I have been reviewing the record very
comprehensively with staff and assistant county attorneys. There is
some uniqueness in the NapleScape '90s in that a master street plan is
two-thirds completed. And it is my understanding that that plan would
not be complete -- would not be made available if, in fact, a
different design professional were utilized.
Mr. Conrecode mentioned that the county does have on
retention agreement a landscape architect that has been selected
through the CCNA process. So that is where option number two on the
executive summary would come into play if there were to be a breakout
of some of the responsibilities that the -- that the board would be
determining today.
MR. CONRECODE: If I could add one thing, please,
Commissioner. Option number two does address the liability issue.
With option number one it's a question. It remains a question.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Hopefully that question can be
answered by NapleScape today, and my -- I have a question for Mr.
Weigel quickly, is public funds were not used to fund the two-thirds
of work that NapleScape has done so far; is that correct? MR. WEIGEL: That's my understanding.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: So they have the same rights that
any landscape architect would have, and it's their sole possession
until it's either paid for or accepted under agreement?
MR. WEIGEL: I expect that to be the case, yes.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Shall we go to the public speakers?
MR. DORRILL: Yes, sir. Ms. Sproul, then, Miss Fiala,
you'll follow Miss Sproul.
MS. SPROUL: I'm Judy Sproul, and I'm chairman of
NapleScape. And I just wanted to touch base on -- on both option one
and option two. I sent you a letter this morning. Our board met this
morning. We discussed both options. We've been involved in the
master plan for three years. As is mentioned, we've already done
two-thirds of it funded in house. We have George on staff. He's an
architect with a great deal of experience. We have done public
hearings for the first two phases of the master plan. If we are able
to continue to do and finish it up, we will also have public gain. We
will include other landscape architects. We will include county
officials. We will input from everybody that we can, but we need
someone who is knowledgeable to pull all these facts together and to
make this possible.
We also feel that it's very important to do the master
plan for the grant. The grant is -- they're not going to give us
monies if we just say, no, we would like some monies to do Davis
Boulevard. They would say what is your overall plan. And, again,
George did the preliminary drawings for Davis Boulevard, the first
phase, and you gave us some money for that. He's knowledgeable with
this project. We've been working on this project for two years, and
we feel that if we're going to do the grant, we have to do it
ourselves. If we have to depend on someone else's drawings and
someone else's input and we go up to Tallahassee and we don't get the
grant and we come back with egg on our face, it's only ourselves to
deal with. But if we have to work with someone we don't know and is
not up to speed, it's not an option for us. We voted this morning at
NapleScape that only option one is -- is viable for us. Thank you.
Any questions?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Has anyone discussed this with
McGee and Associates to determine whether they would contest?
MS. SPROUL: Frankly, I just got this yesterday
afternoon. I don't know Mr. McGee, and I have not had a chance to
discuss it with him. No, I have --
MR. CARNELL: For the record, Steve Camell, forestry
director. I did talk to Mr. McGee yesterday. He was called out of
town today on a family emergency, but we discussed this issue at some
length, and Mr. McGee understands the rationale of alternative two and
the logic of recommending that NapleScape do the master planning work,
and he did not have an objection to that at this point in the
process.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: You said the logic of number
two. What about the logic of number one?
MR. CARNELL: Well, I don't know that he would
necessarily concur on number one. I can't tell you that we've gotten
to the point of saying what's he going to do -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Right.
MR. CARNELL: -- if the board adopts one, but I will
tell you he questioned it early on as to the legality of this.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Miss Sproul, can you answer
the liability question? Obviously that's a concern. If we can save a
buck and get into the cycle -- the cycle and all now, I think that's
to our benefit and move forward.
MS. SPROUL: I'm going to let George address that.
MR. BOTNER: George Botner, executive director of
NapleScape, for the record. I think the issue of liability is
something that we can help you with in that the professional services
that we bring on board to -- to put this whole grant package together
will be covered with each of our consultants as we retain them. The
issue of who you contract with is something that we were discussing in
earnest with staff as to whether or not you physically contract with
NapleScape to provide a service versus providing a grant to an ongoing
process that we are responsible for and that we then give you as a
result of your -- your assistance is something technically I think we
wanted to take a look at. But in the worst-case scenario, all of our
professionals that work on any of our projects will be covered by
professional liability insurance.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So through all parts of the
project including -- I mean, you've done drawings already. Any work
that is done --
MR. BOTNER: All work is covered. Now, I will tell you
also that the work that we are asking to perform and to provide to you
as a part of completion of the master plan and the grantsmanship
associated with Davis Boulevard does not carry us through a
construction project per se where you're actually building public
facilities that could come under a liability situation. We're not to
that point with what we've asked.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But, George, what we're talking
about is similar to this Vineyards situation where if the county's
going to get sued for a design flaw in a landscaped median -- if we're
going to get sued for a design flaw, we have to -- you know, we as
county government taxpayers didn't design it. If we have to pay, then
the designer has to pay. It's just like my law practice.
MR. BOTNER: That's right. And so what we're saying is
that we would have the correct professional liability insurances as a
part of our work to prepare both the master plan and the grantsmanship
for Davis Boulevard in place --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So -- so that --
MR. BOTNER: -- at the time that those works were done.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So that six years from now
when someone has an accident on Davis -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: God forbid.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- and they come to the
county and pursue litigation, the county can turn around and turn that
liability on the design to NapleScape.
MR. BOTNER: We're getting beyond my legal capability --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I don't want to get too
weighed down on this, but it's an important issue. And I suspect it's
a pretty good piece of change they're looking for out on Vineyards,
and as it should be, if we're dealing with somebody's life. And so
it's a -- we're talking long term, a very valid financial concern.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: I think the question, though, is
for -- and a critical one, and it's for David Weigel, and that is --
don't -- I mean, no offense to NapleScape, but I won't mind, and I
hope you guys understand in a friendly lawsuit, if we contract with
you, we have to sue you so that you can then sue the people with whom
you've contracted. But my question is for David. Do you have any
concern that we will have a privity problem, or can we get there to
get the liability coverage we're going to need?
MR. WEIGEL: Well, it's always more difficult to get
there if you don't have a contractual relationship providing for
indemnification. And there is a distinction between indemnification
where someone holds us harmless for their error, negligence, or act of
omission as opposed to a mere insurance policy which is what --
malpractice insurance. It's in addition to insurance. And, in fact,
indemnification is beyond insurance which we run into quite frequently
where a contractor or a consultant will say why should I indemnify you
for more than our insurance. And our response always is, well, hey,
your insurance may only go so far, but the liability may go
significantly further than that.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: If we do this with McGee, for
example, would we have that indemnification?
MR. WEIGEL: We've got it with our contract with them.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So we have to have it. I mean,
this is a big --
MR. BOTNER: Well, I guess what we are saying is that if
you need a contract per se rather than just making a grant to a public
interest project, which you've done in the past for our group, if --
if that's the route that we need to go, then that's what we will do,
and we will require all of our consultants through our group to
provide that insurance.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Not just insurance, but
you'll indemnify the county?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: See, you '-
MR. BOTNER: As far as legally any consultant can
indemnify any other municipality. Six years down the road if you
contracted with anybody and they went out of business, you know, then
who is left holding the bag? I don't know. That's a legal issue.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I don't know.
MR. BOTNER: But we will do what we can do as a result
of a normal performance of professional services to provide you those
securities that you need.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And you will get your own legal
advice. But what -- just for for-what-it's-worth purposes, what --
the chain here would have to be we need a contract from you from
NapleScape indemnifying the county. You're really dumb if you give it
to us without likewise getting that indemnification from your
contracting companies, so you do that.
MR. BOTNER: That's right. And we do that as a matter
of course --
COHHISSIONER HAC'KIE: There we go.
MR. BOTNER: -- in terms of our normal professional
practice.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So you will indemnify the
county.
MS. SPROUL: Excuse me. I don't mean to interrupt, but
I think it's difficult right now to say yes or no to anything without
having legal advice, and I don't think there's any problem. We are
using Don Pickworth -- you all know him -- and your legal counsel. I
think we can sit down and work this out to everyone's satisfaction,
but I am not comfortable saying, yes, we'll do whatever you want
without legal advisement.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. Pickworth is right there. Ask
him.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Help us out, Don.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Legal advice on call.
MR. PICKWORTH: No, Mr. Chairman. I think what we
simply mean to say is I just -- I just told --
MR. WEIGEL: What's his name.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Yeah, that guy.
MR. PICKWORTH: -- Mr. Weigel we will work with you
through the contract, and what we would all expect it to be, the
functional equivalency of what you would have if you were to directly
contract with Mr. McGee or whoever. Now, we may have to do a bunch of
-- you know, some different paperwork things to -- to arrive at that
point, but I --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Pickworth, are you
willing to indemnify the county? Not you, I mean, the -- it's a
yes-or-no question. I don't want functional equivalent. I remember
when I worked for the airlines --
MR. PICKWORTH: Because I think the -- the
indemnification may have to run directly from the design professional,
Mr. Botner, to the county is what I'm saying. This is what we want to
look at.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I think we can place a condition
that if the county attorney upon review is not satisfied that the
proper indemnification is existing, that we scrap it and go with Mr.
-- with Mr. McGee.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What kind of time frame do we
need to accomplish that, though, because, again, I don't want to get
us into the situation where we miss the cycle --
MR. PICKWORTH: Within the next week I think we should
be able to do this.
MR. WEIGEL: Fairly quickly.
MR. PICKWORTH: This should not take very long.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And if we lose the Vineyards,
we'll be removing all the trees in the county anyway.
MR. BOTNER: The only proviso to this is we have to be
real about what we're expecting from any consultants that we retain.
I think the deal between the private sector and yourselves is that
over the long term these medians that are ultimately enhanced will be
maintained by yourselves or your contractor, and so there's -- there's
all kinds of provisos that need to work into this that we two or three
or six years down the road may not even be in control of.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Well, Mr. Botner, we're not going to
ask you to do anything that we wouldn't ask any other contractor. On
the other hand, we're not going to ask any less.
MR. BOTNER: I understand.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. Dorrill, who is the next speaker?
MR. DORRILL: Hiss Fiala.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: While she's coming up, Mr.
Conrecode, if we were to take a week to sort all this stuff out and
further discuss it next week, are we interfering with the grant cycle
or anything like that?
MR. CONRECODE: No, ma'am. We could still make that
deadline.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: We can still make the grant
cycle?
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We could make it a condition,
too, without delaying is what I'm going to want to do. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Hiss Fiala, please.
MS. FIALA: I'm Donna Fiala, and I'm chairman of the
beautification -- median beautification committee and a board member
for NapleScape. Everybody's about said everything. I just wanted to
say that we've been working diligently on this for about 2 1/2 years
to get Davis Boulevard landscaped and a master plan in place. The
state has said that when we apply for a grant, if we include a master
plan, we will probably get the grant. Without a master plan we won't,
which means that that has to be in place, a lot of work involved to
it. And if they have to start all over again, say, for instance, and
have somebody else do it, we'll just be putting this thing off for
another couple of years and -- or at least for a year. I shouldn't
exaggerate. So what I'm asking you, please, is to -- to please vote
for the first item. Thank you.
MR. DORRILL: Ms. Krier, she's your final speaker.
MS. KRIER: Good morning, Commissioners. For the record
I'm Ellie Krier representing the Chamber EDC Coalition for Government
and Community Affairs. I'm here this morning merely to offer comments
of general support for the NapleScape efforts. It's a project of
public interest of which many years have already been in. We would
urge you to consider appropriate measures this morning that would
accommodate a timely grant cycle so that we don't lose any more
momentum in this area. Thank you. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, I'll make a
motion we go ahead with option one conditioned upon legal
sufficiency. As long as we can get that indemnification language, I
think that's our preference. We need to include findings as part of
that to waive the regular purchasing policy and I think taking into
consideration the grant cycle and the option to or the -- the
opportunity to save some local taxpayer dollars in the long run. With
that then it certainly gives us reason to declare that emergency and
go ahead. I'm also going to include as part of that that if for some
reason we cannot come to agreement on indemnification, that it goes
directly to option two so that at least we can still pursue the grant
cycle rather than having it come back here and go on.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: The only difficulty with the
latter part of that motion is I believe NapleScape would not want to
be involved under step two, so we would probably have to bring it back
to the board and restructure the question in some way and -- if Hiss
Sproul's comments are still valid. MS. SPROUL: That's correct.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We're the gold, but we probably
don't have control over that.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: So if it goes to option two,
we're still missing half of option two, which is the grant aspect that
NapleScape would have been doing. That may cause you to reshape the
motion, or it may not.
MR. CONRECODE: If that happens, staff can bring back a
complete proposal to achieve the objectives whether or not NapleScape
participates or not.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: In that case I'll subtract
the part two of the --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You don't mind if I finish,
do you? I'll subtract part two of that and say in reference to the
legal sufficiency, give it 14 days, and in two weeks we ought to be
able to come up with the language. And if we can't, then we'll have
it back here and decide how we can move forward because the main
objective obviously is to get Davis completed in this grant cycle.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second. All
those who --
COHHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Weigel wants to --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. Weigel, before I call the
question, do you have something to say?
MR. WEIGEL: Yes, I do. Thanks. For clarification on
the resolution -- and I think, Mr. Motionmaker, you can just respond
affirmative or negative, but do I understand then in the resolution
that the valid public emergency is to waive the CCNA application and,
further, that the master plan is a necessary component of the grant
application and that the time constraints are such that it's upon that
finding that we find it necessary to go forward?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's affirmative.
MR. WEIGEL: Okay. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: All those in favor signify by saying
aye.
Opposed?
MR. CONRECODE: Thank you.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: That's another easy one down.
Item #8C1
APPLICATION FOR A DEVELOPER CONTRIBUTION CREDIT FOR THE RETROFITTING OF
ATHLETIC FIELD LIGHTS AT THE VETERANS COHMUNITY PARK - DEVELOPER
CONTRIBUTION CREDIT DENIED
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Next item, 8(C)(1).
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Some are easier than others.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Retrofitting the athletic light fields
at Veteran's Community Park.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm going to tell you my
predisposed notion is to support staff recommendation to deny the
application mainly because the sole purpose for retrofitting was to
benefit the developer. So perhaps it's fair that they pay for it
rather than getting credits and the taxpayer ultimately paying for it.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Sounds good to me.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Boy, you --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll put that in the form of
a motion.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I have some input on the matter.
But -- there are some things that the petitioner has discussed with me
that I think are valid elements of this, such as the fact that the
ball fields were supposed to be shielded on the initial outset due to
the existence of Victoria Park, not Stonebridge. You know, the
existing residences were to be protected and shielded. That was
removed by a previous board. I don't believe anyone here was sitting
on the board at that time, and the lights that were originally spec'd
were not installed.
My basis for supporting this has less to do with the new
development than it does with the -- the existing development of
Victoria Park. And, again, I -- I think there is some flexibility
here to do something that we can either fund with ad valorem taxes at
some point in the future or with impact fees now. And, you know, if
no one else wants to hear that case, I guess I'm obviously in the
minority, but --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I don't recall anybody from
Victoria Park coming and soliciting us to change those at any point in
time. And I'm reasonably sure the park was there for quite a while.
Maybe they've rounded someone up today to speak on behalf of Victoria
Park. But I also remember there was a petition before us once before
in regards to this trying to get us to do it ourselves, and we didn't,
and they went ahead and retrofitted it and now want credits on that.
So I don't see a whole lot of different picture then we had before.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Nothing has been retrofitted.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Perhaps we should let the petitioner
at least tell us why he wants to do this.
MR. PATE: Thank you for the opportunity. My name for
the record is Steve Pate. I'm the project manager with Stonebridge,
Taylor Woodrow. We're at 9809 North Airport Road. And as I said, I'm
representing Taylor Woodrow. I'm also here with Dwight Thomas, who's
a representative of WCI who's the co-applicant. Additionally we have
Kim Kobza who is here who is our legal representative along with Tom
Hollis and A1 Reynolds from Wilson, Miller.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Heck, the fees there alone would
probably get you a lot of lights. I'm sorry, guys. I just had to say
it.
MR. PATE: With all due respect to the board, if I may
be heard. We bought this project in October of 1994. We began
developing in December of 1994. We've got some photographs here if
you care to take a look at the proximity of the park. We noticed the
problem with the lights shortly after we began development, and WCI
started working with staff on the lighting problem as early as April
of 1995. We had Pelican Engineering take some lighting studies on our
project in July of 1995. And, in fact, they did determine that there
were impacts from spill lighting and glare lighting on Stonebridge.
And I don't think that anybody is arguing that that is, in fact, the
case.
The issue is who came first: The cart or the horse.
Was development there first, or was the park there first? And the
issue, which I'm going to let Kim Kobza address directly, is the
residences and the zoning were there before the park was there. The
original ball fields were designed and implemented in 1987. The
residential zoning districts for Victoria Park were there prior to
1987. In 1990 the park was again redeveloped. There were new lights
installed, and the zoning for South Hampton was in place prior to
1990.
In 1993 the final ball field was installed and, of
course, South Hampton was there clearly before then and, in fact, in
1993 the county parks department had designed four lights with spill
and glare control but through Value Engineering took them out.
Now the county is compelled through its own ordinances
to reduce impacts on adjacent properties from public facilities, and
in this case they clearly didn't meet that criteria. Taylor Woodrow
and WCI initiated a problem -- deciding this was a problem, we
initiated a solution -- we tried to find a solution to solve this
problem. And we're trying to become or be responsible developers, and
we've been working with staff for quite awhile. This impact fee
credit issue was the only available avenue left to us to try to get it
addressed.
I mean, it should be a cost sharing. The county -- it's
a county park. The county created the problem. They created the
violation. We were here proffering to spend some money to help get it
done quicker, so it's clearly a timing issue for us. The -- you know,
again to me it's a public-private issue, and that's why we're here.
There's a difference in interpretation as to whether the county has
discretion with use of impact fees for this particular project.
For example, right now the north county wastewater
treatment plant has a 95 percent odor-free criteria. Because of
growth the county has chosen to implement a 99 percent odor-free
program up there and, in fact, are going to use impact fees. It's an
existing process. It's already in place, and the county is going to
spend impact fee money to implement what is a growth-mandated
improvement, okay.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Is there any -- excuse me
just a minute there. Mr. Dotrill, is there any construction going on
at that facility right now?
MR. DORRILL: At the north county plant?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah.
MR. DORRILL: We just completed the construction. We
don't have any construction.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: How recently did we complete
that? My point is that that was implemented as part of the new
construction, I believe.
MR. DORRILL: And an expansion in the capacity that was
-- contract was issued, I'll say, a year and a half ago. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you.
MR. PATE: But I think if you check with your own public
utilities folks, they will also concur that they are going to be
implementing this 99 percent odor-control system as a result of
growth. The timing of it, I think -- whether it is an issue or not, I
don't know, but it is going to be done. And the fact is impact fee
monies are going to be used for that.
And additionally --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just to -- it's important.
The fact was -- I mean, the fact that you stated a minute ago is
different than what you said, the fact is, you said that this was not
an existing plant. And it's not as simple as an existing plant. It
was implemented at the time of the expansion of a plant which was
specifically for growth, but the expansion of a existing facility, not
simply putting a new criteria on an existing facility.
MR. PATE: That's incorrect. What is taking place there
is a process with dealing with sludge, and the sludge handling is
being done in a building that's covered but not enclosed. What the
county utility department is going to do is enclose that process.
it's an activity that's already there but because of growth is going
to be changed or enhanced or improved. And they're going to use
impact fee monies for that process -- or for that construction.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Right. And I suspect that
was part of -- that was the catalyst for that. Maybe someone from our
sewers department was here, but you and I obviously disagree. I
suspect that the catalyst for that was the expansion of that
facility. It didn't happen in its own little world.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Commissioner Constantine, on that
line, when we built the new ball fields, those were expansions.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: How many homes were in South
Hampton then?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I assume none.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Zero.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Oh, I'm not discounting the
people who live in Victoria Park, and you say you haven't heard from
them. Well, that's understandable. They probably didn't call you.
They did call me. I have talked to them. The second district
association have presented the issue to me. So it's not -- it's not
that no one in Victoria Park cares. The point I'm making is that when
we expanded ball fields, the shields were not placed on them, so that
would have been the time to do it most appropriately, and it was not
done. So really --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It would have been hard for
you to get those phone calls since that was in 1990 when that was
expanded.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: The point is if you're making the
point on expansion, it exists there and was not done.
MR. PATE: Again, in this situation, whether -- you
know, the growth -- growth is impacting the park. The lights that are
there now were designed to be glare and shield controlled. They
weren't installed. The irony is that if nothing is done over a period
of whatever, two, three, four, or five years, potential Winterberry
Park issue where the homeowners in that area who have moved in over
that period of time complain about the lights, the lights are shut
down, you can't use them, it creates a capacity problem. This board
can then go and spend impact fee money to improve the lights to the
spill and glare control, but you can't do it today. Again, I'm
talking about a narrow interpretation about what the board has
discretion to spend impact fee money for.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Hay I ask, too, I had a different
question from what Commissioner Hancock asked our county attorney's
office, because we have a memo from Heidi Ashton saying the answer to
the question is no. Is it a different question?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I -- I don't disagree with --
with a portion of what I discussed with Mr. Kobza yesterday. And the
example is the East Naples sewer facility. It was there first. The
home cames later -- homes came later. Yes, expansions were necessary,
but extra measures were taken during those expansions to reduce the
noise due to resident complaints. And a portion of impact fees were
used in that process, not just the funds out of utility that they had
put into reserves. So we have a history of whether it be at expansion
or whether it be at applying sound-reducing measures when the plant
was there before the neighborhood, before the homes. We have a
history of using impact fees in part to do that.
So, you know, we have two points: One, is this a valid
discretionary item to discuss, and if it is, then, of course, do you
want to do it. I think the second one's already been answered by most
of you.
But, you know, I think -- I don't think ball parks are
as bad as a sewer plant, by any means but, you know, granted, you guys
won't get hounded. I will. But, again, you know, I just -- I think
the -- is the discretion there? And I respectfully disagree with
Hiss Ashton because of the history of the county using impact fees on
utility sites. I think that it -- we are talking apples and apples.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: You guys disagree with my legal
opinions, and I got a J. D. If I give advice you tell me to jump in
the lake.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll listen to two J. D.s
before I listen to the engineers.
MR. PATE: If I can sum up real quick and then --
whether -- in this situation whether it's -- whether it's a
corporation or an individual standing here, the county has created a
problem that needs to be resolved, and I think the county has got a
moral obligation to take care of the problem. We're here in good
faith to try to get it done a little bit quicker. I think you're
going to have to deal with it sooner or later, and we were just hoping
to try to make it a little bit sooner, so appreciate your
consideration.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: To be quite honest with you, my
-- the only attractive feature of this to me is that at some point --
maybe none of us will be here, but at some point, in all likelihood,
when those lights are replaced, they're going to be replaced with
shielded ones. That will come out of our capital improvement budget.
There will not be any developer contribution at that time and no legal
way to secure a contribution from adjacent property owners. Here in
front of us we have a vehicle to fund 50 percent of something I think
we can anticipate. Now, maybe those lights don't need to be replaced
for ten years, but we have a way of financing half of it through a
public-private partnership here ten years in advance of maybe the
replacement needs for those lights. But when they are replaced, my
guess is the board at that time will receive enough input that they
will be shielded, and at that time that cost will come 100 percent out
of ad valorem tax funds. So that's the attractive nature of this, and
the nuances and points we can argue could go ad infinitum. We could
argue them all day. But I just felt in a nutshell I could see saving
$75,000 that we may have to spend down the road by pursuing this if we
have that discretion, and that really is my request of -- of -- of why
to even pursue this.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Or if it's that important to
the developer, perhaps they would participate in it more fully. I
guess I disagree that there is a moral obligation on the part of the
county to credit a developer contribution. But staff has recommended
denying this. We've got our county attorney who says -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Great.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- the answer is no, that is
-- is it eligible. We've got one of our other legal experts here who
is one of our colleagues who says -- who agrees with that opinion. I
mean, it all kind of stacks up at one point where it doesn't work.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, do I get carte blanche on
planning issues from now on?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Same respect as I get.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No, but I will give you an
edge over our attorney.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I think the critical paragraph is on
page 2, the second paragraph. There are five fields in question at
the Veterans' Community Park; three softball/little league, one
soccer/football, one baseball. The majority of the older community
parks, including East Naples, Immokalee, and the original fields of
the Golden Gate Community Park, do not have this glare and spill light
package. In some of these other cases the proximity of homes is
significantly closer to the fields and lights than are the residences
surrounding Veterans' Park. That's a critical statement. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: And, yes, it is.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I realize we got a room full
of high-priced folks that all want to get on the record probably so
they can justify their bills, but let's go ahead and go through that.
I don't support the item now. It's going to take an amazing amount of
difference to change my mind, but you're more than welcome to --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We're going to switch court reporters
here for a second, so give us about 60 seconds.
(A short break was held.)
MR. KOBZA: Mr. Chairman, members of the board, for
purposes of the record, Kim Patrick Kobza representing Taylor Woodrow
Communities. I think I'd like to cast this in a little different
light. We've done a substantial amount of research on the history of
how those ball fields went in, what regulations were in place at the
time. The ball fields were built, 1987, the softball fields; 1990,
the regulation field; and 1993, the last major field there, all having
lighting, none of them having spill-glare control. At all times that
property was designated residential. At all times the county had on
its books standards for review of the impacts of the lighting on
adjacent properties. Specifically, in 1990 your LDC had a provision
prohibiting glare spillover from adjacent properties. Nineteen --
under the 82-2 ordinance there was a -- there was a standard in your
code at that time providing for the protection against spill lighting
on the adjacent properties. So all was zoned residential. All this
new development was going to take place. All these county standards
are on the books designed to protect against this kind of outcome.
Now, this developer's merely before you today offering a
solution to that issue. It is an issue. If you go out there and you
stand on the pods, the residential pods next to this lighting, I think
you'll -- it'll be very apparent to you what -- what the issue --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: -- Existing houses not
residential pods in other parts of the community.
MR. KOBZA: I would -- I'm not in any way minimizing the
issue that exists in other parts of the community. The distinguishing
factor in this case is that you have potential available to you to
solve this kind of problem: A developer coming forth and acting
responsibly and offering to make a contribution towards solving the
problem, not required to, but the developer is doing that, and it's a
resource that you can work with.
That's what distinguishes this from other cases, and we
aren't in any way minimizing problems that may exist in other parts of
the county, but we're putting on the table to you or offering a
resource to help solve a problem and one which you're probably legally
required to solve in terms of the zoning standard, whether it's an
impact fee credit or the board is -- would look at some other manner
of dealing with this issue. You know, the financing mechanism is
completely at your discretion, and we understand that, but I think the
developer was merely trying to act responsibly and come before you and
say, look, here's a resource that you can work with, and that's -- I
think we've kind of gone away from that here a little bit in terms of
the thinking, and it is a serious issue, and it is one that you have
standards on your books to prevent from happening, and so I think we
need to look at it in that light.
MS. STUDENT: For the record, Harjorie Student,
assistant county attorney. I do not agree with Mr. Kobza. Pre-1991
there were no standards that dealt in any manner whatsoever with
lighting. There were some standards in our then zoning ordinance that
talk in very general terms about privacy for adjacent properties to
recreational facilities. I think that would be a big stretch to say
that means lighting and, in fact, I've talked to our representatives
from planning, and it is our opinion that that talks in terms more of
location of the facility to ensure privacy in the sense from people
walking close by to go to the sports facility or whatever and
otherwise. Also in the Land Development Code in the P. District the
standard speaks in terms of direct glare and not indirect glare.
MR. KOBZA: That -- you know, those standards do exist,
and we do have an honest difference of opinion as to whether they
apply, and I -- I think they were in place precisely to prevent the
kind of thing that has happened here, exactly. That's why the
standards were there in 1987. That's why they were amended in 1990.
That's why they're there today.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Just to, I guess, lend a very
brief background, initially you're right, Commissioner Constantine,
the request was the full impact fees. And in a meeting with Mr.
Olliff and the applicants, there was no way I could support that. And
what resulted from that was them coming back and saying, look, we
realize that we have a benefit here, and they put an amount on it.
There was a 15 percent participation and, again, my support was
contingent upon a high level of participation that may save us from
spending the money 10 years from now, in greater amounts anyway. It's
not the desire of the board to go that way. I understand that, but I
thought I need to at least qualify what my support of it is so that it
can now be properly mischaracterized in letters to the editor.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Dorrill, are there other
public speakers?
MR. DORRILL: There's one.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Or maybe mischaracterized sooner
than that.
MR. ERLICHHAN: Gil Erlichman, East Naples, speaking for
myself. I was amazed just to hear a lawyer stand up and say that the
county has a moral -- there's a moral issue involved here and preach
to the commissioners about moral issues. I think any attorney should
think about moral issues themselves.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Now, Gil.
MR. ERLICHHAN: In respect -- in respect to lawyers and
attorneys, I think we have too many in the Congress, too many in state
-- state government, and I may say we may have too many here in
Collier County.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: But just the right number on the
County Commission?
MR. ERLICHHAN: Maybe.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Just checking.
MR. ERLICHHAN: But I support -- I support the agenda
item, the County's position in this, and I think that the county
attorney, Miss Student, stated it -- stated the facts correctly. I
don't know too much about it, but I think that Miss Student has an
excellent source of knowledge on the -- on the subject. So I support
the County in this and ask you to vote yes on this. Thank you.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to
make a motion that we approve staff recommendation to deny the
request.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second. All
those in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Aye.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Four to one on that one.
Item #BE1
DISCUSSION OF CONVERSION OF A PORTION OF THE COUNTY'S VARIABLE RATE TAX
EXEMPT COHMERCIAL PAPER TO A FIXED RATE BOND ISSUE - APPROVED
Our next item is 8(E)(1). Hr. Ziev, you've been waiting
patiently. It's your turn.
MR. HcNEES: Good morning, Mr. Chairman. Mike HcNees
from the county manager's office. I'll apologize. There's a sheet
that I've handed you that details the tax-exempt commercial paper
draws that we're going to talk about today that I've handed to you. I
meant for that to be a part of your agenda packets, and it was
inadvertently left out.
Your finance committee, as part of its ongoing review of
the county's financial position, has studied the variable rate
tax-exempt commercial paper loans that you currently have outstanding
and has concerns about the nature of them for three reasons, or at
least we wanted to ask some questions about them. One is, is the
County suffering from some interest rate risk by nature of the fact
that these are variable rate debt instruments, and is there any
exposure to the County as a result of the variable rate. One of the
concerns was these -- many of these have a balloon payment in an out
year as far as '98 or '99, and is there a risk associated with either
not being able to finance the balloons or getting an unfavorable rate
at that time and, thirdly, there was concern that these are unsecured
debt and that there's no specific repayment source identified in the
future to pay them back. So we had a general discussion in finance
committee form regarding what would be the appropriate way to deal
with these, and I'll boil it down to a couple of relatively simple
issues for you and then tell you what we're recommending.
Generally, in terms of the interest rate risk, it was
the committee's feeling that given the market today and given the
rates that we do have currently in the variable rate program, that the
county is not suffering a substantial interest rate risk based on
historical interest rates and where they are today and that there
isn't an immediate need to fix interest rates because we don't feel
like the variable rate that we have is causing us a problem.
In terms of balloon risk, what we call balloon risk,
which is inability to finance the balloons when they come due, again
the committee didn't feel that that was a significant problem that we
needed to go out and fix these issues to resolve that. What we did
come around to was, and what your executive summary is recommending
is, that if the fixed rate interest environment were to reach a
certain threshold, which I believe we defined as a 4.6 percent
interest rate, and that based on historical trends, if we were to get
to that point, it would behoove the county to fix the variable rate
portions, that is, the three issues that you see on your sheet that
are not proposed to be paid back in fiscal '96, that being the
remaining road bonds, what you know as the 13-million-dollar road
loan; the 800-megahertz loan; and some park financing that we did that
if the fixed rate interest environment gets to that target rate, that
the county be prepared to take advantage of that and fix these so that
we don't have a problem in financing the balloons in the out years,
'98 and '99, when the interest rates are almost certain to be higher
than that target.
With that, that's our recommendation, and we're
recommending that you authorize us to select an underwriter for a
negotiated sale if the target were to be reached, because the nature
of this would be we couldn't go on a preset day with the financing,
which we would do with a competitive sale but, rather, we would need
to be able to go to the market when it's appropriate which would lend
-- this would then lend itself to a negotiated sale. We would be
asking your permission to actually be ready to do that if we reach the
target interest rate. That's kind of the staff's point of view. Mr.
Ziev is here if you have further technical questions or if you want
him to illuminate more what I -- what I've explained.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: The benefit to our -- our debt
structure would be that we have more certainty and we eliminate the
interest rate risk and the repayment risk. MR. HcNEES: Yes.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Is that correct?
MR. HcNEES: Yes. We're not representing this as a --
as a major debt service savings or a major present value savings, but
exactly that. We would -- that if we can get the rate low enough that
it would be worth it to us to mitigate. Who knows in December of 1999
when the parks issue comes due what the interest rate environment will
be when we need to roll that over, and if we can get a low enough
fixed rate today, we would recommend locking it in.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. Questions? Motion?
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I've got a couple questions if
you don't mind. On these loans for the library and the airport, the
maturity date on those is later this year. Mr. McNees, are they
already in our planned budget to pay those off? MR. McNEES: Yes.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: And if we include them in this
proposal, we would then stretch them out to whatever the bond maturity
would be?
MR. McNEES: That would be an option, yes.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I'm sorry.
MR. HcNEES: That be an option. Now, again, that
presumes that we would actually reach our threshold and actual issue
bonds, which is certainly not a certainty. That's an iffy
proposition. You could, I suppose, roll those over and extend the
length of the payback to some degree if you're -- if what you're
talking about is taking the money that we've budgeted to pay back
those two issues and leveraging it further, that is an option you'd
have.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Well, I thought that was part of
what we were discussing today, to take the short term.
MR. HcNEES: It was the finance committee's
recommendation that that money being budgeted -- that debt -- go ahead
and that we pay that off.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: That we pay that off?
MR. HcNEES: Yes.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Okay.
MR. HcNEES: That that -- that those not be a part of a
draw or a fixed rate issue. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Okay.
MR. HcNEES: I'm sorry if I didn't make that clear.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Motion to approve staff
recommendation.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll second that.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second. All
those in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
Item #10A
RESOLUTION 96-265, APPOINTING BRYAN L.S. PEASE AND THOMAS W. LUGRIN TO
THE PUBLIC VEHICLE ADVISORY COHMITTEE - ADOPTED
Appointment of two members to the Public Vehicle
Advisory Committee.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'll make a motion to approve
Bryan Pease and Thomas Lugtin.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll second that.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second. All
those in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Telephone, someone.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's three times.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Out of here.
PUBLIC COMMENT
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Do we have any public comments today?
MR. DORRILL: Yes, sir, you have two. Mr. Erlichman
will be first and then Mr. Perkins.
MR. ERLICHMAN: Good afternoon. Gilbert Erlichman, East
Naples. I think this -- my public comment is quite timely now because
you just approved an appointment for two people to an advisory board.
This morning -- and of course this is still out on the table. There's
a press release here dated June 3, 1996. It says the Board of County
-- Collier County Board of Commissioners is seeking applications for
positions on several advisory committees, and you've got this whole
list here, and at the bottom it says members of the advisory
committees must be residents and electors of Collier County.
Residents interested in applying for the advisory committee positions
are requested to submit a letter, et cetera, et cetera. So in other
words, to be on an advisory committee in Collier County you must be a
resident and an elector. Well, I have information to question the
position of Mr. Stallings, Fran Stallings, on the Landfill Ad Hoc
Advisory Committee. The address here is listed Florida Wildlife
Federation, Southwest Florida Office, 5051 Costello Drive, Naples,
Florida. Mr. Stallings does not live in Collier County, and he's not
an elector.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: It's also not a Collier County
official board.
MR. ERLICHMAN: Well, I was given this this morning,
this list. I asked for the Landfill Advisory Board, and that's what I
was given. This is not an official --
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Gil, the difference that I've
realized is the term "ad hoc." Ad hoc is not formed by ordinance
under the Board of County Commissioners; therefore, the requirements
that you read do not apply.
MR. ERLICHMAN: Well, this advisory board -- because I
was at their last meeting up in Immokalee, they are giving advice and
-- to you commissioners as to where the landfill should be or
shouldn't be, et cetera, et cetera. So in other words, I really don't
understand the term whether it's a legal advisory board or not. I
don't -- the ad hoc doesn't --
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let me give it a try, Gil.
The --
MR. ERLICHMAN: You're on the board.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah. The ordinance as you
read it is accurate with the restrictions that are on there, but those
are for permanent-type advisory boards, be it Code Enforcement Board
or whatever. Ad hoc means it has some sort of sunset to it, and so
while we may choose to apply the same rules, from a legal standpoint
they're not required to have the same rules or obligations there. I
don't disagree that maybe we need to explore that, but under current
ordinance they're not required.
MR. ERLICHMAN: Okay. All right. So, therefore, that
negates my question as to Mr. Stallings sitting on that -- on this
advisory committee. But the thing is, what's gotten my ire up here is
that I resent people coming in from places other than Collier County,
speaking here at the podium, advising the commissioners to -- on
various -- various taxes, sales tax, property tax, whatever it is,
under the guise of either the environment or from green space, east
coast to west coast, and Mr. Stallings is the chairman of that
committee, and he does not live here, and I -- I -- I sincerely and I
strongly question the idea of someone living outside of Collier County
telling the taxpayers and advising the commissioners as to a sales tax
or whatever.
The same thing as bringing in people from -- other than
say Lee County or even Daytona, Volusia County at that particular
time. I -- I strongly object to people coming in here and telling us
how we should tax ourselves. Any other issue, well, I don't mind.
But I really think that there are enough people here in Collier County
that have the experience and the know-how both legally and politically
that they can give us advice and give us their opinions and live here
in Collier County and pay the taxes. Thank you.
(Applause)
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Excuse me, Commissioner
Constantine, can I ask, wasn't -- isn't Dr. Stallings serving as a
representative of the Florida Wildlife, and Florida Wildlife has a
position?
MR. ERLICHMAN: He resigned, MA'am.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Would you let me finish? And I
would assume that since he's serving as the representative of Florida
Wildlife and he has resigned, that he probably will leave the board
now.
CONNISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah. We're going to need to
see how that all unfolds. We have included representatives of the
various environmental groups for the obvious reason that permitting
any site, regardless of where we pick, has so many environmental parts
to it, and we had asked him as Florida Wildlife Federation and others
specifically to assist in the process so, yeah, we're going to have to
look at that because I -- in the paper a week or so ago he did resign
from that. While I hate to lose that expertise, Gil raises a good
point. If he's no longer affiliated with a group here nor lives here,
there's a question that we need to answer.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I guess my point is the seat on
that board is Florida Wildlife's, not necessarily Dr. Stallings'
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, we'll go back -- that
was my assumption.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: That was mine, too.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We'll go back and verify
that, but I think you're right. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. Perkins.
MR. PERKINS: A1 Perkins, Belle Meade Groups, Citizens
for Constitutional Property Rights. Constitution. I yell it all the
time. He did good. He nailed it down big time. I'll tell you.
Well,
fellas, girls, women, everybody, the first of the month was hurricane
season. Now, we had it last year and we got away and we got lucky.
And what I would like -- you people at home, pay attention. The 20th
Annual Hurricane Seminar will be held at MArco MArriott Hotel tomorrow
night at seven o'clock. Needless to say, an invitation has been given
to all the commissioners and
to everybody in this community and to Lee County and especially Bonita
to participate. Everybody, that is black, white, yellow, green, blue,
purple, and orange need to be there, because when we get a hurricane,
it's going to be everybody's problem. Please attend. It starts at
seven o'clock tomorrow night, MArriott MArco Island Resort. That
takes care of that part.
But the hurricanes also involve the evacuation routes.
Our evacuation policy is not in place. We're not -- we're going to
end up -- if we don't take and do something about it, we're going to
kill a lot of people around here. We need to take a good, long look
at this thing from a county-wide and a bicounty-wide vision. Immokalee
is going to end up with all of our problems all the way up the line.
They need a good looking at, and they're going to need some help.
Next item. Did you pass this out, Neil?
MR. DORRILL: Yes, sir.
MR. PERKINS: This is a statement from the -- the
minutes from the Big Cypress Basin Board, and it refers to the TV
system that I've been harping about getting installed and the
franchise money that we're losing to the State of Florida where we
could use it here, three additional channels and our own system and
our own studio and our own personnel who would be bipartisan or
nonprejudiced to get the message out of what this community and its
elected officials are doing with their money.
Now, this is not just limited to the Collier County
Commissioners. It also can involve the city. It can involve the
school board if need be, evening meetings, different functions around
the community; and one of the things I've noticed here -- and I'm
going to have to put this in perspective -- Carl Loveday has not been
on TV for the last two or three days running, but he's been on the
radio program. Now, Carl and I go head to head on things, but he
performs a service to this community by getting the message out on an
hourly basis and having call-in from people who can try to pinpoint
the problem and elaborate on it. In other words, getting the message
out is the important part, a very important part. We can do that.
With that -- and I don't know whether any of you took
and paid any attention to CNCB on the 30th of Hay. They had a special
on about the panther and your panther tags and the money. Now, they
have -- the Fish and Game collected up the panthers in the Big Cypress
in the lower part of the state, and they sold them to a panther hunter
in Texas, and the proposal is they're going to have canned hunts in
Texas for a fee.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Do you have a -- is a copy of
that tape available at the A1 Perkins' video library? I know you have
tapes of everything.
MR. PERKINS: You shouldn't have asked that.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: You've got about 30 seconds.
MR. PERKINS: That tape is available from CNCB,
1-800-777-8398.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: All right. So the topic we'd
ask for is the Florida panther?
MR. PERKINS: Oh, they already know about it. The calls
were going in out there like you wouldn't believe after I got off the
Rich King Show, okay, because you're being duped. You're paying for a
tag that is supposed to be out there to preserve this animal when your
agency -- and by the way, Lawton Chiles was not available for comment,
and the Fish and Game took off like a big bunny for the wild. Point
being, they're misusing the funds, and they're distorting the doggone
information pertaining to that panther. I have nothing against the
panther, but I sure as heck do have something against the people who
are spending the money and not doing right by it. I have -- I heard
you the first time.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Stop it. Come on.
MR. PERKINS: Tim, if you prefer to go any further --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. Perkins, your time has expired.
MR. PERKINS: -- it's Steve -- Steve Daniels.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Sir? Mr. Perkins?
MR. PERKINS: Yes.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Your time has expired. That's what
that noise was.
MR. PERKINS: Yeah, I know that. Let me just finish
with the information for Mr. Constantine. Steve Daniels, WTVJ, Hiami,
(305) 379-4444. I'm trying to get them to take and rerun the tape,
especially in Collier County, with prior notice. Thank you for your
tolerance, John.
(Applause)
Item #12C1
RESOLUTION 96-266, RE PETITION AV-96-033, CHARLES J. BASINAIT AS AGENT
FOR OWNER, DOANE-KEHPFER JOINT VENTURE AND COLLIER COUNTY
TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT, REQUESTING VACATION OF ALL PUBLIC INTEREST
AND RIGHTS IN THE EASTERLY SIXTY FOOT (60') PORTION OF AN EIGHTY FOOT
(80') ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY KNOWN AS TRAIL BOULEVARD, - ADOPTED WITH
STIPULATIONS
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: You're welcome. That concludes our
morning agenda to a rousing round of applause, and our next item is
12(C)(1).
MR. ARCHIBALD: Board members, for the record, George
Archibald. I represent the transportation department of the county.
Board members, if I can provide just a little background, because
we're going to be looking at two public hearings to handle vacations,
12(C)(1) and 12(C)(2), and to some degree they're interrelated. The
location of both vacations is on Trail Boulevard in the northeast
corner of the intersection of U.S. 41 and the new Vanderbilt Beach
Road that's being built, and part of the concern here is that the
county disconnected Trail Boulevard as a result of that four-lane
design and that construction for safety reasons. And we've entered
into a stipulated final judgment for right-of-way with the parcel on
the very south side of that corner that fronts both U.S. 41 and
Vanderbilt Beach Road, and as a result, this item does deal with a
number of different issues, and I'm happy to say they've been
addressed by the attorneys as a result of the board allowing the
hearings to be continued from Hay the 14th and Hay 28th.
Just for the record, the two petitions -- AV-96-003 is
the Doane-Kempfer parcel that's represented by Mr. Charles Basinait.
Petition AV-96-010 is the S.T.S. property parcel which is represented
by Mr. John Passidomo. I believe they're both here and can answer any
questions.
In regards to the first public hearing, 12(C)(1),
petition AV-96-003, the Doane-Kempfer parcel, the resolution that's
been changed a number of times and is part of your current agenda
package is again being recommended by the staff as part of the
vacation process, and we wanted very quickly to bring to the board's
attention some of the special conditions that are part of that
resolution. They include that the property owners -- the adjacent
property owner who's going to benefit from the vacation in fact
provide permissive right and agreements to the utilities to address
the letters of objection from utilities. And those include FPL, UTS,
Collier Water and Sewer -- Collier County Water and Sewer. That's
been worked out as far as the form of that agreement. A copy is
provided in the agenda package.
Also of the vacation we're leasing out approximately 20
feet that will be used for water management for the benefits of the
six laning of U.S. 41. And the item that is being added today and the
stipulation that's being worked out between the parties is, in fact,
an added phrase to the effect that the receipt of cross easement
between adjacent property owners be provided within 20 days of
adoption of the resolution if, in fact, the board follows through with
the approval of the resolution and the authorization of the chairman
to execute the same.
Again, those items all relate to some degree to cost,
and in this particular vacation we're not only dealing with the
resolution to vacate, which at this point the staff is in full support
of, but we also need to recognize that we will also have to amend a
final stipulated judgment that involves a change in what will be paid
to the property owner of the parent parcel of the Doane-Kempfer
parcel. They were under the impression that all 80 feet would be
vacated. What's happened, of course, is we're leasing out 20 feet for
right-of-way, we're also encumbering the remainder to some degree.
There's a 35-foot easement for water and sewer alone in addition to
easements for FP and L. The result of that is a need to go back to
that stipulated final judgment and revise that to be consistent with
the resolution that we're asking the board to consider today, and that
includes recognizing the reduction of price from $7.55 a square foot
to $2 a square foot because of all of the encumbrances. It also needs
to reflect the change in the area being vacated. Roughly 60 of the 80
feet will be vacated instead of the entire 80 feet.
So to make a long story short, the staff is recommending
approval of the resolution as part of your package with the addendum
that will be reviewed by the attorneys' offices. We're also
recommending that the board approve amending the stipulated final
judgment, that the board authorize the chairman to execute both upon
those two documents being reviewed and finalized by the county
attorney's office.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, I'm not sure if
petitioner wants to get on the record, but I'm pretty comfortable with
that particular with Mr. Archibald's one addition.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Other than not having a single
drawing that shows me what we're looking at, I was trying to piece
this together looking at the legal description to know just what it is
we're talking about, and it looks like two different segments of Trail
Boulevard.
MR. ARCHIBALD: We have a color-coded exhibit to provide
to the board members.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Oh, good.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: These are handy at the front end
of the hearing. So this -- okay.
MR. ARCHIBALD: What we're showing is the Trail
Boulevard right-of-way, what's being leased out and what's being
encumbered, and the problem we have and we've had, of course, the
property appraised, and the appraiser has indicated that as a result
of the encumbrances, that property is reduced in value to roughly 25
percent or roughly the $2 that staff is recommending be approved. The
parcel that's colored is the parcel that involves petition AV-96-003.
The parcel just to the north of that, very similar, the conditions
will be the same, in essence, and that will be the next petition that
the board will consider.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: With this drawing in front of me,
I'll --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I'll close the public hearing.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It wasn't a public hearing,
was it? Well, anyway, I'll make a motion we approve the items subject
to the items underlined by Mr. Archibald and particularly obviously
including those --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- in the resolution.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second. All
those in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
Next item.
Item #12C2
RESOLUTION 96-267, RE PETITION AV-96-010, JOHN M. PASSIDOMO AS AGENT
FOR OWNER, STS PROPERTIES, REQUESTING VACATION OF ALL PUBLIC INTEREST
AND RIGHTS IN THE EASTERLY SIXTY FOOT (60') PORTION OF AN EIGHTY FOOT
(80') ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY KNOWN AS TRAIL BOULEVARD - ADOPTED WITH
STIPULATIONS
MR. ARCHIBALD: 12(C)(2). Board members, agenda item
12(C)(2) is, again, petition AV-96-010, the parcel immediately to the
north; and, again, we're recommending that that resolution be approved
with those special conditions and that the county attorney's office be
given the latitude to finalize those documents to assure that that
language in regards to the receipt of easements and receipt of
cross-access agreements are included in that particular document along
with the provision that they be provided within 20 days.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Before I close the public hearing, Mr.
Passidomo, do you want to come up here and talk us out of this? MR. PASSIDOHO: No, sir.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I just have a question about this
one, just that the -- just on the executive summary that there's a
section called management impact, none, and there's not anything about
fiscal impact. I mean, on the one preceding it told us, you know, a
hundred and forty thousand and eighty thousand and fifty-seven
thousand, and this one just says something about management impact.
MR. ARCHIBALD: Okay. The reason for that is that
originally before the resolution of this issue and the cross-access
agreement, the staff was recommending denial. In this particular
case, because of the agreement between the two parties and both
parties agreeing to the additional language to include that provision
for receipt of cross-access agreement, staff is in accord with what's
being proposed. We should recognize that there is not a judgment
issue relative to the northern parcel, so that's why there's no
financial impact.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Close the public hearing.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Motion to approve petition
AV-96-010.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I've got one question before you
-- Mr. Archibald, right now this Trail Boulevard is accessing U.S. 41
just north of the Plum's Cafe, Villa Pescatore. MR. ARCHIBALD: Yes.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: And I presume that we're
vacating this to the property owners' benefit.
MR. ARCHIBALD: We're not vacating that access point.
We want to reserve that. The reason being is that that segment of
Trail Boulevard may be extended to the north and interconnected with a
shopping center that's proposed in the distant future. So we're only
vacating the two segments that are immediately north of where the road
is under construction at this time. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Okay.
MR. ARCHIBALD: So we're still leaving the access open
and the ability of that roadway to function as a frontage road in the
future.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Okay. So we're not doing
something that's going to deny access to the businesses there.
MR. ARCHIBALD: That's the reason for the agreement that
addresses the cross-access agreement. If, in fact, they're not
provided within 20 days as set forth, then the staff is not going to
proceed with the recording, and then the vacation will become null and
void.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: So this motion, Commissioner
Constantine, is contingent on something else happening?
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Those same conditions as the
prior motion.
MR. ARCHIBALD: Yeah, both parties are in agreement with
those conditions being part of the resolution, and they have to meet
those commitments. If they don't, then in both cases, depending upon
what conditions are met --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Matthews, that's
correct.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: All those in favor signify by saying
aye.
Opposed?
Item #14A
EMINENT DOMAIN ISSUE - DISCUSSED
That brings us down to commissioner communication.
Commissioner Matthews.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I have one thing that I'm
really, really happy to talk about. And that is the eminent domain
issue that we discussed last Tuesday, and I want to applaud Mr. Weigel
for the excellent letter that he wrote to the Governor and noting that
much of the wording that was in that letter was wording used in the
Governor's letter of veto.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: That's Governor Weigel.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: So I really want to apploid his
-- applaud his letter-writing technique, and it seems to have worked
and that along with the telephone call, I believe, that Commissioner
Norris said he made at 4:41 just one minute prior to the veto itself,
but I'm sure he's joshing about that.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Was that on the red phone?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Oh, the Governor called.
Governor Norris is on the phone.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Yeah, on the red phone, but I do
want to say that the board was successful in getting that bill vetoed,
and we're not going to have to challenge it constitutionally now.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. Hancock.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Nothing. I've said enough for
one day.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Miss Hac'Kie.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I have nothing to add.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. Constantine.
Item #14B
DISCUSSION RE THE NOISE ORDINANCE
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Two items. One, just to let
you know that next week we will be -- next week we'll be considering a
change to the -- I think it's next week, isn't it, Mr. Weigel -- to
the noise ordinance. A couple of years ago we changed the noise
ordinance dealing with music and entertainment. This will not deal
with that. We seem to have solved the problem on the vast majority of
those. This will deal with noise other than musical-type things, and
we'll have a full explanation on that obviously in your packets and so
on. But it's a minor change that I think will solve the remaining
problems in the county on that.
Item #14C
DISCUSSION RE TDC/HUSEUH FUNDING
The other item -- I'm going to have one item coming up
as part of our -- or in preparation for our budget, and that is
allowable by law at the state level for TDC funding is museum funding,
and I've had conversations both with the museum and with our legal
staff. Particularly with what they did with the Marco Cat and then
with some other things that they have planned, they've actually seen
an influx of visitors coming, and that is an attraction, so it may be
an appropriate thing for us to look at as part of this budget cycle is
including museums as part of our TDC funding.
Item #14D
OPENING AND CLOSING OF WEIRS - SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT
REPRESENTATIVE TO BE CONTACTED FOR A RESPONSE
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Commissioner Norris.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Commissioner Hac'Kie, you do have one,
I think.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Thank you. I did and I --
actually, it was just -- the reason I didn't have a note is that this
is something that just came up in today's discussion, this business
about the weirs and the -- yeah, South Florida Water Management, and
so I'd just like an update, and I don't know who can provide that.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. Boldt just conveniently happens to
be standing here in the room.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Why, thank you, Mr. Boldt.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: This is the same item that I have.
We've been -- we've been told unofficially that the water district
has, on two occasions at least, raised the height of the weirs in the
south box without proper authority to do so in violation of permit,
and what I would like to do is to schedule a meeting or schedule on
the agenda and have someone from the district or the basin board or
whoever is responsible to come over and explain these allegations that
we've heard.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Yeah, Commissioner Norris, I've
been following this also very closely, and while it's true, but we all
received a memo a little over a year ago from the basin administrator
that the weirs had been raised and that they had been lowered again,
and then it's my understanding that the most recent administrator
found that they had been raised again but had also taken action to
have them lowered. And I have been in contact with the vice-chairman
for the basin looking for an explanation of what's going on, why this
is happening, and what the basin board would -- intends to do about
it, and hopefully I'll have that explanation in the -- in the next few
days, but certainly if this board wants to have that explanation
public --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: It certainly is curious, and one of
the questions --
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: -- it's fine with me.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: -- I want to ask is why two
administrators -- executive directors, I guess, is what they're called
-- of the basin board were given the hook subsequent to being
involved with this particular issue. I'd like to have an answer to
that question. Mr. Dotrill, can we get someone over here to --
MR. DORRILL: For the purposes of --
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I know we don't have a subpoena, but
do we have some mechanism to have someone come over and answer these
questions for us?
MR. DORRILL: Yes, sir, and I would expect that they'd
be cooperative. We'll contact either Miss Boyd or Mr. Simpson and/or
Mr. Slayton at the Water Management District.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Well, I'm not really interested in
talking to any board members. I'm not sure that's where this
direction has come from.
MR. DORRILL: I don't know if they've appointed an
interim executive director to the --
MR. BOLDT: The interim executive director is Clarence
Tears. He was a superintendent here, and he's also -- was involved in
the original -- putting those plates in, so he knows the history, so I
think he'd be the one to talk to.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: He may not want to come since the
last two executive directors when they seem to be effective somehow
get the hook. It's a little ironic, but we may need someone. If West
Palm is calling the shots, maybe somebody like Mr. Slayton needs to
get over here and tell us why apparently a permit has been violated
more than once by their staff, and I say apparently because I haven't
read the permit, but it seems to be consistently what I've heard from
two executive directors, neither of which is working for them anymore.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Very good. So will you set that up
for us then?
MR. DORRILL: Item 10, BCC.
Item #14E
ADVISORY BOARD VACANCIES - TO BE ANNOUNCED ON NAPLES FREENET
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I have one final item brought forth by
our most efficient Miss Filson who says that from now on our advisory
board vacancies and openings are on the Freenet. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: On the net.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: On the Naples Freenet, that is, so
thank you very much. Miss Filson, do you have anything else? MS. FILSON: No.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. Dotrill, do you have anything
else?
MR. DORRILL: Nothing.
Item #15A
NAPLES BATH AND TENNIS TRANSIENT ISSUE - DISCUSSED
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. Weigel has something else.
MR. WEIGEL: Yes, briefly. Sorry. Commissioner Hancock
and the board had asked for a report on the Naples Bath and Tennis,
and this is not anticipated to be an actual board agenda item, and so
Marjorie Student will give a very brief statement in that respect and,
secondly, in regard to today's agenda item, the Lely/Lely-Manor basin
storm water improvements. Based on the board's direction and vote
today, the county attorney office will prepare a resolution ballot
question back for you so -- and I've already discussed this a bit with
Miss Morgan, the supervisor of elections, so we'll bring that back to
you in the next week or two.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you. We're done.
MR. WEIGEL: No, Marjorie has to tell you something.
MS. STUDENT: For the record, Marjorie Student,
assistant county attorney.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I'll reopen the meeting very briefly.
MS. STUDENT: Okay. We did look at the PUD for Naples
Bath and Tennis. PUD transient lodging facilities are referenced in
there twice as permitted accessory uses and found by a previous board
to be compatible and just go to the Planning Commission for certain
approval as to parking, landscaping, and density; and there's another
provision in there that says that our codes and the local laws and so
forth in effect govern, so there are standards, and I just wanted to
report back on that.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: So the board has no authority to
bring that before us?
MS. STUDENT: No. And because it's a PUD -- just real
quickly, because it's a PUD it's hard for us to amend the PUD because
of the case law.
CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you, Miss Student. We're
adjourned.
***** Commissioner Hancock moved, seconded by Commissioner Constantine
and carried unanimously, that the following items under the
consent agenda be approved and/or adopted: *****
Item #16A1
AMENDED RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS FOR RIDGEPORT PLAZA AND EXECUTION OF DEED
RELEASING THE COUNTY'S INTEREST IN A FORMER STORMWATER MANAGEMENT
PARCEL WITHIN RIDGEPORT PLAZA
See Pages
Item #16A2
APPROVAL TO RECORD THE FINAL PLAT OF "RAVENNA AT PELICAN HARSH"
Item #16A3
ACCEPTANCE OF WATER FACILITIES FOR QUAIL WEST, PHASE III, BLOCK K, LOT
97 - WITH STIPULATIONS
O. R. Book Pages
Item #16A4
RECORDING OF FINAL PLAT OF "QUAIL WEST UNIT ONE, REPLAT BLOCK A" - WITH
STIPULATIONS & CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT
Item #16A5
BUDGET AMENDMENT RECOGNIZING COHMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM
INCOME IN THE AMOUNT OF $7,600
Item #16A6
ACCEPTANCE OF WATER AND SEWER FACILITIES FOR BRIARWOOD, UNIT THREE -
WITH STIPULATIONS
O.R. Book Pages
Item #16B1
COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE TO PREPARE LEGAL DOCUMENTS AMENDING ORDINANCE
NO. 83-55 AND ORDINANCE NO. 87-78, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE REQUEST OF
THE GOLDEN GATE BEAUTIFICATION ADVISORY COHMITTEE
Item #1682
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH MCGEE & ASSOCIATES FOR MAINTENANCE
AND DEVELOPMENT OF ARTERIAL ROADWAY MEDIANS AND ADJACENT RIGHT-OF-WAY
See Pages
Item #1683
BID 96-2517 FOR RIVIERA COLONY WATER AND SEWER PHASE II IMPROVEMENTS
AWARDED TO GUYMANN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY OF FLORIDA, INC., IN THE AMOUNT
OF $1,197,433.91
Item #1684
STIPULATED ORDER FOR DEFENDANT'S ATTORNEY FEES AND COSTS FOR EASEMENT
ACQUISITION ON PARCEL NUMBERS 46.5/407 AND 250.0/405 IN THE NAPLES
PRODUCTION PART H.S.T.U - $1,800.00 TO BE DEPOSITED IN COURT REGISTRY
Item #1685
CHANGE ORDER #2 FOR THE MAX A. HASSE, JR. COHMUNITY PARK WITH P & H
CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION IN THE AMOUNT OF $17,749.00
See Pages
Item #16C1
AGREEMENT BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY AND STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION FOR AN EXOTIC REMOVAL PROGRAM RELATIVE TO
BAREFOOT BEACH COUNTY PARK
See Pages
Item #16C2
CONTRACT AMENDMENTS BETWEEN SERVICES FOR SENIORS, THE AREA AGENCY ON
AGING AND CARE CLUB, INC. WHICH WILL INCREASE CLIENTS' ALZHEIHER'S
DISEASE INITIATIVE GROUP RESPITE GRANT FUNDING BY $2,436.00
See Pages
Item #16D1
BID NO. 96-2526 AWARDED TO VARIOUS VENDORS FOR THE PURCHASE OF
EXPENDABLE MEDICAL SUPPLIES FOR THE EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES
DEPARTMENT - IN THE APPROXIMATE AMOUNT OF $58,000.00
Item #16D2
PROPOSALS RECEIVED UNDER RFP-96-2500 (COHPUTERIZED INVENTORY
CONTROL/WORK ORDER SYSTEM - REJECTED
Item #16D3
RESOLUTION 96-255 APPROVING SATISFACTION OF LIENS FOR CERTAIN
RESIDENTIAL ACCOUNTS WHEREIN THE COUNTY HAS RECEIVED PAYHENT AND SAID
LIENS ARE SATISFIED IN FULL FOR THE 1993 SOLID WASTE COLLECTION AND
DISPOSAL SERVICES SPECIAL ASSESSMENT
See Pages
Item #16D4
RESOLUTION 96-256 APPROVING SATISFACTION OF LIENS FOR CERTAIN
RESIDENTIAL ACCOUNTS WHEREIN THE COUNTY HAS RECEIVED PAYMENT AND SAID
LIENS ARE SATISFIED IN FULL FOR THE 1993 SOLID WASTE COLLECTION AND
DISPOSAL SERVICES SPECIAL ASSESSMENT
See Pages
Item #16D5
RESOLUTION 96-257 APPROVING SATISFACTION OF LIENS FOR CERTAIN
RESIDENTIAL ACCOUNTS WHEREIN THE COUNTY HAS RECEIVED PAYMENT AND SAID
LIENS ARE SATISFIED IN FULL FOR THE 1993 SOLID WASTE COLLECTION AND
DISPOSAL SERVICES SPECIAL ASSESSMENT
See Pages
Item #16D6
RESOLUTION 96-258 APPROVING SATISFACTION OF LIENS FOR CERTAIN
RESIDENTIAL ACCOUNTS WHEREIN THE COUNTY HAS RECEIVED PAYMENT AND SAID
LIENS ARE SATISFIED IN FULL FOR THE 1993 SOLID WASTE COLLECTION AND
DISPOSAL SERVICES SPECIAL ASSESSMENT
See Pages
Item #16D7
RESOLUTION 96-259 APPROVING SATISFACTION OF LIENS FOR CERTAIN
RESIDENTIAL ACCOUNTS WHEREIN THE COUNTY HAS RECEIVED PAYMENT AND SAID
LIENS ARE SATISFIED IN FULL FOR THE 1994 SOLID WASTE COLLECTION AND
DISPOSAL SERVICES SPECIAL ASSESSMENT
See Pages
Item #16D8
RESOLUTION 96-260 APPROVING SATISFACTION OF LIENS FOR CERTAIN
RESIDENTIAL ACCOUNTS WHEREIN THE COUNTY HAS RECEIVED PAYMENT AND SAID
LIENS ARE SATISFIED IN FULL FOR THE 1992 SOLID WASTE COLLECTION AND
DISPOSAL SERVICES SPECIAL ASSESSMENT
See Pages
Item #16D9
RESOLUTION 96-261 APPROVING SATISFACTION OF LIENS FOR CERTAIN
RESIDENTIAL ACCOUNTS WHEREIN THE COUNTY HAS RECEIVED PAYMENT AND SAID
LIENS ARE SATISFIED IN FULL FOR THE 1994 SOLID WASTE COLLECTION AND
DISPOSAL SERVICES SPECIAL ASSESSMENT
See Pages
Item #16D10
RESOLUTION 96-262 APPROVING SATISFACTION OF LIENS FOR CERTAIN
RESIDENTIAL ACCOUNTS WHEREIN THE COUNTY HAS RECEIVED PAYMENT AND SAID
LIENS ARE SATISFIED IN FULL FOR THE 1992 SOLID WASTE COLLECTION AND
DISPOSAL SERVICES SPECIAL ASSESSMENT
See Pages
Item #16Dll
RESOLUTION 96-263 APPROVING SATISFACTION OF LIENS FOR CERTAIN
RESIDENTIAL ACCOUNTS WHEREIN THE COUNTY HAS RECEIVED PAYMENT AND SAID
LIENS ARE SATISFIED IN FULL FOR THE 1991 SOLID WASTE COLLECTION AND
DISPOSAL SERVICES SPECIAL ASSESSMENT
See Pages
Item #16D12
RESOLUTION 96-264 APPROVING SATISFACTION OF LIENS FOR CERTAIN
RESIDENTIAL ACCOUNTS WHEREIN THE COUNTY HAS RECEIVED PAYMENT AND SAID
LIENS ARE SATISFIED IN FULL FOR THE 1994 SOLID WASTE COLLECTION AND
DISPOSAL SERVICES SPECIAL ASSESSMENT
See Pages
Item #16D13 - Withdrawn
Item #16El
BUDGET AMENDMENT 96-406, 96-407, 96-408 AND 96-423
Item #16G1
SATISFACTION OF LIEN FOR SERVICES OF THE PUBLIC DEFENDER
See Pages
Item #16G2
MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE - FILED AND/OR REFERRED
The following miscellaneous correspondence as presented by the
Board of County Commissioners has been filed and/or referred to the
various departments as indicated:
Item #16H1
ENDORSEMENT OF THE COLLIER COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE GRANT APPLICATION
FOR FUNDING FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF COHMUNITY AFFAIRS'
ANTI-DRUG ABUSE ACT FORMULA GRANT PROGRAM FOR THE SERIOUS HABITUAL
OFFENDER COMPREHENSIVE ACTION PLAN (SHOCAP) PROGRAM
See Pages
There being no further business for the good of the County,
the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 12:51 p.m.
BOARD OF COUNTY COHMISSIONERS
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: Barbara A. Donovan and Barbara Drescher