Loading...
BCC Minutes 12/07/1994 S (Naples Park Drainage)SPECIAL MEETING OF DECEMBER 7, 1994, OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COHMISSIONERS LET IT BE REHEHBERED, that the Board of County Commissioners in and for the County of Collier, and also acting as the Board of Zoning Appeals and as the governing board(s) of such special districts as have been created according to law and having conducted business herein, met on this date at 5:05 p.m. in SPECIAL SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: VICE-CHAIRPERSON: CHAIRMAN: Bettye J. Hatthews John C. Norris Timothy Hancock Pam Hac'Kie Timothy J. Constantine (Absent) ALSO PRESENT: Ken Cuyler, County Attorney David Weigel, Assistant County Attorney Item #3A RECOHMENDATION TO CONSIDER THE ADOPTION OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDING COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE NO. 91-24 BY EXTENDING THE MORATORIUM PROHIBITING THE INSTALLATION OF DRAINAGE CULVERTS INCLUDING PIPES OR OTHER APPURTENANCES WITHIN THE SWALES IN THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY OF THE AREA GENERALLY KNOWN AS NAPLES PARK UNTIL DECEMBER 31, 1995 - SECOND PUBLIC HEARING TO BE HELD DECEMBER 21, 1994 COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I'll call the Wednesday, December 7th, 1994, meeting of the County Commission to order. This is the first of two public hearings. We're going to need the sound. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: We're on. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: We're there. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: This is the first of two public hearings, the recommendation to consider the adoption of an ordinance amending Collier County Ordinance Number 91-24 for extending the moratorium prohibiting the installation of drainage culverts including pipes or other appurtenances within the swales in the public right of way of the area generally known as Naples Park until December 31st, 1995. Mr. Boldt, if you would, please. MR. BOLDT: I'm John Boldt, your county storm water management director. I guess for the benefit of our two new commissioners, I'd like to give just you a brief background of this project going back to about the middle '80s. There was a group of interested property owners interested in closing the ditches, the large outfall ditches along 91st and 92nd Avenue and along 8th Street. The one between 91st and 92nd runs down between their backyards up along 8th Street. About that 100 Street it splits, goes south above the east side, and on the northern portion is basically on the west side and goes north across lllth in the Cocohatchee. Those are the two canals that are proposed to be enclosed. And what -- this kind of precipitated this whole thing. There was a preliminary study done back at that time at the direction of the commissioners by the firm of Agnoli, Barber & Brundage. And as a result of that we moved forward and did an environmental assessment of the area. And then there was a series of public hearings held back in the late '80s involving civic groups and just general public information meetings trying to inform the public of what was involved. And as a result of that commissioners authorized us to prepare the detailed construction plans for this project. And we have those construction plans prepared. They're on the shelf. We have the bidding documents to actually construct this. We do have all the easements we need to construct these two outfall systems. And we have the two agency permits we need. The one from South Florida Water Management District has been extended recently. It now expires August 10th of '95. And the one that was issued by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection was issued back in 1990 and expires next August 30th of '95. So those two permits are coming up for expiration next August. The deed permit when it was issued had a special requirement, special condition in it that required that we place a moratorium on the practice of installing culverts as lawn enclosures in Naples Park in the roadside ditches. And I think their thinking at the point in time was this is an older project, dates back in the 1950s. There really is no water management system as we understand today. There are no series of lakes and culverts and retention areas, control structures. That just wasn't done back in those days. Although, really, the retention we get and water quality improvement we get is in the roadside ditches, the swales. There are some -- approximately 20 miles of avenues and streets in Naples Park with one on each side, swales on either side. We have about 40 miles of swales. And included in those are all the retention and water quality treatment, the ground water percolation, the scrubbing of the water. And I think that was the thinking behind DEP's requirement. In order to enclose these two large ditches, which are the outfall, and give up the volume of storage we had and what little water quality treatment we were getting, they required that we prohibit any more enclosures of those roadside swales. So that ordinance was put into effect back in 1991. It's Ordinance 91-24. And this will be, I think, the third time now we've asked you to extend it for at least one additional year. At this point in time, the project supporters are prepared to start circulating a petition that they would submit to you to create either a special assessment district or special taxing district to pay for this proposed enclosure. It's about a $3.8 million project to enclose the primary system. The pipes range from anywhere from like 36 inches up to 84 inches in diameter. So it's a pretty significant improvement. They've been hesitant about circulating these petitions because they didn't know about what it was gonna cost for each individual property owner out there. I'm planning to present to you a preliminary cost allocation methodology on your regular meeting on Tuesday, December 20th. That will be a daytime meeting, your normal agenda. That will be one day before we have a second of these evening public meetings. At that meeting I'll be outlining to you at least my proposed methodology how we might asses the cost there based on the size of property, the amount of runoff, and allocation of benefits according to who's receiving what. Extending the moratorium then for one more year would give the project supporters time to gather the petition. And we'll also keep the DEP permit intact. This moratorium's about to expire at the end of this month. If it expires, in reality, the DEP permit would be in violation then and would be null and void. So extending would keep the permit open at least till August, at which time I'm sure we'll be back to you with petitions if they can gather them. And we'll have a better -- clear idea of how the project's going to go. So that's a brief background of where we've been and where we're at today. And I'm open for any questions at this point. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Boldt, if the two permits expire in August '95 and the project is not ready to go forward at that time but the residents feel that they will go forward with it, what would be the possibility of extending those permits past August '95? MR. BOLDT: I think it would be a very good possibility we could do it if we can show these agencies why we've been delayed and, well, we've got these things under motion and things are going to start happening. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: In any case the -- between now and August is certainly more than ample time for the citizens to get their petitions together. MR. BOLDT: Right. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: If their petitions were together and the taxing assessment district was set up, then in all likelihood the permitting agencies would take that into account and hold those permits open. MR. BOLDT: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: The other thing is you mentioned you would have that methodology on payment and the costs to present to us on the 20th? MR. BOLDT: Correct. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: So we won't discuss that part tonight at all. MR. BOLDT: I prefer not. I think it's subject to public notice. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Hancock. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Boldt, as I see the problem -- and understandably I've talked about this and heard about this over the last few months. There are two elements to this problem, and I have a different question on each. The first is concerning the main drainage system which is along 8th and then again between 91st and 92nd. As I understand it we're looking at two key elements. We're concerned about the sufficient conveyance of storm water between 91st and 92nd while eliminating the existing erosion problem, okay? And my question on that is, do you feel that the system set forth by Agnoli, Barber & Brundage to do that, the design of that is the most inexpensive way to accomplish those two objectives? I know there are -- there's more than one way to skin a cat. And before we get to talking about dollar amounts and looking at doing an assessment in Naples Park, I want to make sure we're getting the biggest bank for the buck and we're not over-designing a system -- in other words, buying a Cadillac when a Yugo will get us there. MR. BOLDT: To accomplish the two goals, to provide flood control and drainage we need for the area and also to prevent the erosion, a closed pipe would be the best alternative, I feel. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. So there's no -- to your knowledge there's no way to do an open conveyance system that's been stabilized without a concrete or other products that is going to keep these folks backyards from finding their way to Vanderbilt Lagoon? MR. BOLDT: That's possible. You could use a concrete-lined canal. But you can get to looking at the cost and maintenance involved and the fact you still have a large open drain with water flowing through it. It's still rather unsightly. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. MR. BOLDT: I still think a closed pipe is the best alternative. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. The second question I have is regarding the covering of the residential swales. I understand DEP is concerned that these swales are used for percolation and probably about the only way that we can perk water in Naples Park without conveying it down to 91st and 92nd. Have we addressed the property owners being able to install a half-pipe system instead of a fully enclosed pipe where the percolation still continues but they're allowed to have some simulant of a lawn in their front yard? MR. BOLDT: Well, that's one element of what, I think, DEP would be concerned about. They're also concerned about the volume of storage we're losing, just plain detention/retention. When you take a large ditch or swale and put a small diameter of pipe in it and fill the rest, you're using that volume of storage. Plus the fact that if you have a large grassy swale, when you run water through it there's a certain scrubbing action. And then the third element is what you addressed is the percolation. It's hard to accomplish that through one pipe. If you were to put a diameter pipe in there with an open bottom, you could accomplish the percolation portion, but you've lost the storage and you've lost that scrubbing action. I really can't speak for DEP. And the individual that wrote this permit, I think, is no longer even with the agency. And so -- and we've asked those questions. It's hard to get an answer from them without formally, I guess, approaching them to see what other alternatives they would consider. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. At this point I'm just really asking for your professional opinion on those things because I'm not a water management engineer. But I'm familiar with the terminology and a lot of the systems. And I just want to make sure that we're looking at every avenue to make sure we aren't going to look at assessment district for Naples Park that is far above and beyond what it needs to be. That's my only concern. I'll have the opportunity to address those with you individually as we do a little more research. MR. BOLDT: Okay. COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Weigel, do we have any public speakers? MR. WEIGEL: Yes. We have two this evening, Mr. Doug McGilvra and Ms. Vera Fitz-Gerald. MR. McGILVRA: Good afternoon, Commissioners. My name is Doug McGilvra. I'm the president of the property owners of Naples Park. And tonight I'd like to tell you that I've also called Bernice Sauer, who is the president of the Naples Park area association. And she agrees that we would like to request -- they would like to request that we maintain the moratorium for at least one more year here to see if we can get something accomplished on the project concerning the storm water retention in Naples Park. We'd all like to have our front ditches -- or our front swales filled. There's no two ways about that. But I think we're all willing to wait awhile and see if we can't get the main problem cured, which is the main ditches and horrendous sights that we get from the -- they look like actually running sewers. They're very -- COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Excuse me. Doug, would you like to pull that mike closer to you. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: It's very hard to here you. MR. HcGILVRA: Sure. Sorry about that. And so we would like to both state that we would like to have the extension on the -- on the thing for at least the 31st of December so he can get a chance to put forth his methodology, which he has had ready in hand since very early last year when he was requested to by the very board that sits up there now -- the members, I should say. So that's all I have to say. Thank you very much. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Thank you, Mr. HcGilvra. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Thank you. (Commissioner Hatthews joined the public hearing.) MS. FITZ-GERALD: First of all, I want to pass these photographs to you. These are my front yard. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: We need you on the microphone. Thank you. MS. FITZ-GERALD: I'm Vera Fitz-Gerald, and I live in Naples Park. Those photographs that I have passed to you, they were taken of the swales in front of my -- well, not swales, they're foul ditches in front of my house. I didn't always have a swale like that until this spring when the Transportation Department decided to dig it out. I asked Mr. Archibald if they were getting even with me and he said he would hope not, but I still say there was something to it. I want you to note the contrast between the south side and the north side on 107th. On my side they have dug, and on the other side they didn't do anything. So the north side is very nice looking, which is what our side used to look like. But we flooded a lot. We've been flooding for years. And the flood waters have gone around our house. Parts of our yard have sunk. And I have been complaining about this. And so as I said I've got a ditch now. And we're still flooding. It didn't do anything. The pipes are plugged down in the 500 block. They're plugged under the 6th Street. The water flows down to my house and it backs up to my house. And I'm the only one in the whole block that gets any water. There is no water laying down on 5th Street. You go down there after a storm, there's no water in the swales down there. So we -- we know that there's a problem. I'm at 17 feet, which is one of the highest points. And therefore, the water should flow away from my house. And instead, my house -- my whole property is a big retention pond for the entire block and for the 500 block. And so I'd really appreciate it if you would direct Mr. Archibald to fix it, because that is really a horrible mess. I've got my own personal mosquito breeding farm right in my front yard now, complete with slime. When we were complaining about it, what we really had in mind was for them to unplug the pipes going down to the 500 block so that ours could drain. And at this time it was the past several years the -- well, I think I just told you that. I've been speaking off the cuff. Because of this problem with our pipe, our own personal swale, I'm having a very difficult time supporting this moratorium. I'd like very much to pipe our ugly mess. But I'm really hopeful that eventually we can do something with my slimy ditch or pipe it -- as Mr. Archibald has suggested, pipe it with a slight swale on top which would still meet the conditions of the permit. And so based on what Mr. Archibald is telling me, I'll reluctantly go along with the moratorium for this one last time. I'll never support it again. This is it. Now, not everyone is going to want to pipe their swales, especially if we can get Mr. Archibald's department to stop this digging of ditches instead of swales. And some people actually have very nice gentle swales that will never need to be piped because they look nice, and why waste money? And many would never pipe because of the cost. And many will never pipe because they're absentee landlords who couldn't care less about a swale or ditch or anything else. this could be part of our argument later on to lessen this moratorium, but after we get the primary piping done. And I hope that we can do this with the commissioners' help and that of Mr. Archibald and Mr. Boldt. So I'm supporting this moratorium, as I said, for one last time and only on one condition, and that is that this commission passes the necessary resolution to get the primary system done once and for all and to establish the necessary taxing district. And I mean by fiat, which really is -- the other way to go is not gonna work. We also need the secondary system considered at the same time. And at this time there are no funds allocated for this purpose. We need some funding so that Mr. Archibald can repair the secondary system where it needs it and get it flowing into the primary system to alleviate the flooding, such as taken place on my lot and other places on the avenues. You know, we've been paying taxes in Naples Park to this county for over 40 years. Naples Park was platted back in the early '50s. We don't get much money back from this county. We're not getting anything back for the tax dollars, the millions and millions and millions we've paid in taxes. We haven't -- we haven't even got a drop in the bucket back in our community. It's always being the poor stepchild, and it gets nothing back from this county. It all seems to be diverted into building new roads for new developments, bigger and better. But the old communities, we need money to upgrade our system and we need a little bit of return on that tax money. They talk about extending the permits. I don't want to hear about extending the permits. I want to hear about going ahead on it. And we've been extending the permits -- now I-- we got the permits in 1989. And we can just keep on doing it, but we don't want to do that. Now, Dick Wood's been working on this problem since 1986, I think. It's insane. Now -- and the one last thing I want to bring up is that we're a community of 3,000 homes. And we aren't the only ones, there are others. Beachwalk impacts our system. The Pavilion impacts our system big time. The Pavilion Lakes impacts our system. The commercial district on 41 impacts our system, and on lllth. And if you are saying -- and I heard you say this, now we have to get a petition together. We're -- we're defeated before we even start. How many communities -- if we're just one single community like Willoughby Acres who did this, then I'd say of course we should go and get a petition. But we aren't an individual community that has -- only impacts our drainage system. How many in Beachwalk do you think is going to sign our petition? We've got to get 51 percent. Beachwalk won't even want to listen to us. First of all, we wouldn't be able to find most of the owners because it's a big rental area. Then we have to get Pavilion Lakes. They don't care about our problem. They've got a nice place. And certainly the Pavilion shopping center, I really don't think they could care less. So then we've got Naples Park. Even if we could get 51 percent of Naples Park, I want to know how we can do that. If you insist that we have to do that, tell us how. At least a third of the homes in Naples Park are rentals. And then we'll never find those people and we'll never get them to agree. And then a third of them are sort of -- COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Can you wrap this up fairly soon? You've been significantly more than five minutes. MS. FITZ-GERALD: Oh, I have? COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Yeah. We don't have a time limit on '- MS. FITZ-GERALD: I'm only the second -- I'm the last speaker, so -- COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Time flies when you're having fun. MS. FITZ-GERALD: Yeah. Time flies when you -- when you're wound up. But anyway, to wind it up -- and it is to wind it up, you're asking us to do something impossible right from the start. either you're gonna pass this and help us get our drainage fixed or you're not. And if you don't intend to, please never mind. The moratorium is a moot point. It's irrelevant. So we're asking you to consider this very seriously, because either you're gonna do it or you're not. Thank you. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Okay. Commissioner Hancock. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Ms. Fitz-Gerald, you brought up a lot of things that -- my understanding of the history of this situation, if this were totally in our control tonight to decide whether or not to move ahead with the improvements on 8th and between 91st and 92nd, your comments would be extremely appropriate. However, our hands are somewhat tied by DEP due to the requirement, as I understand it, of a county-wide storm water utility department or storm water utility management plant, one of those two or both. The moratorium is not what we want. It's not our intention to keep residents from having the -- the option of enclosing the swales. But unfortunately, it's tied with what DEP has dictated to us. As you know -- you think Beachwalk doesn't care about Naples Park. Well, imagine Tallahassee starting to care about Naples or Naples Park and the problem gets even worse. So it's not solely in our hands right now. When we have satisfied the state requirement and this moratorium is lifted, it then will be this board's decision as how to proceed with the funding of the improvements in Naples Park. And at that point most of your comments are, like I said, extremely appropriate. Some of what you talked about, such as the swale in front of your house, it's ironic that I had a phone call yesterday and I was gonna be out at 100th Avenue North. I went out there, stopped by this gentleman's home, and in the front of his yard was exactly what you have. And I had not seen these in all of my walking in Naples Park in the last few months. I had not seen a 14-foot-wide ditch. And I can't call it a swale either. I know what a swale is. I know what the term is, but that's not a swale. That's basically something a little greater than that. I believe what has happened is Mr. Archibald has done his best to try and answer a concern that there's water in the street, that there's standing water. He's trying to give it a place to go. But what has happened, in my estimation, is a structure that far exceeds what is acceptable in a residential neighborhood. Now, I just started with a memo to Mr. Archibald today to begin the dialogue on what we can do for the folks that have that magnitude of a swale in their front yard so that it's -- you do have something that looks close to a front lawn some day. So I'm very sympathetic to that concern. And I promise you that I'm working on it as we speak. I began the process this morning, and I'll keep plugging away at it. You have my phone number. And at any time, you know, I will do what I can to answer your questions. But we are -- we are giving a shot at trying to at least revise that problem. I have a feeling Mr. Archibald is going to add to my comments at this point. MR. ARCHIBALD: I'll attempt to be very brief. Mrs. Fitz-Gerald has brought up a very good point. As we re-excavate the drainage system in Naples Park, what we're running up against is having to leave behind some ditches that are, in fact, what we consider too deep. And because the permit has that moratorium tied to it, your transportation staff concurs with your water management staff that we should go ahead and proceed with keeping those permits alive and by reinstituting that moratorium for the upcoming year. But there is a concern from a safety standpoint. And in talking with John Boldt, one option that we could consider is after our permit is, in fact, renewed in 1995, we may be able to amend that and amend that to have an exception when it comes to certain locations. And again, right now we've identified six limited locations within Naples Park where the swales, in fact, are deeper than we feel they should be, from a safety standpoint not from a drainage standpoint. And as a result I think it may be worth our while after the permits are renewed to see whether we can amend the permits with DEP and amendment -- and amend those permits in such a fashion that would allow us to install pipes in a few isolated locations where, in fact, the safety of the residents or the safety of the drivers dictates that action. And I would expect that that would be the exception to the rule and that from a percentage standpoint it may be less than five percent of the areas that we're addressing right now. So we're not looking at asking the DEP to make a drastic change but provide some exception to that rule that would be considered minor and maybe acceptable at the state level. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Thank you, Mr. Archibald. And again, we'll be talking on these particular issues. And I'm just concerned that Ms. Fitz-Gerald will come back and ask for a dock permit for her front yard. And there have been some cars that have tried to pull off the road and found themselves in a ditch they couldn't get out of, and those types of things, on these deeper and larger ditches. So you and I will have plenty of time to get together and see what we can do to help each other out and help Naples Park out in that respect. And I thank you for your efforts. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Mr. Weigel, did I see one other person registered to speak? MR. WEIGEL: You did. One last speaker, Mr. Fred Augusto. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: What is the last name? MR. WEIGEL: Augusto? MR. AUGUSTO: Augusto, the month of August with an "o". My name is Fred Augusto. And I live in Naples Park, retired here. I came here 18 years ago and fell in love with the place. And frankly, I think our drainage problem -- putting pipes in is not gonna do it. I feel that we don't need pipes, because some builders put in the pipes. Some are low. Some are high. You're never gonna have a nice even terrain. You fill all the pipes in. Put a gentle swale that, you know, you can build -- do it where it will go one way and go the other way. Pipes you can't do anything with when they're underground. So I would feel that would be a way to get that scrubbing action that you need, the filtration, and you wouldn't have to have any pipes. And the primary system should go in. Our area, we have beautiful homes there. We've got all kinds of people living in there, working people and a lot of retired. And we're very proud of our area there. We're in a prime area of Naples and people are envious of us. So I'm with Vera as far as the moratorium is concerned. And I don't think we need pipes. I think Mr. Archibald and Mr. Boldt should look at this area of not having to put pipes in, because we really don't need them. But this other thing of the 50 plus one percent, like Vera says, we're not gonna get it. I think on the other -- Mr. Archibald just mentioned is the way to go. And tax the community. And I think it won't be that hard of a hit for all of us. Thank you. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Thank you. MR. AUGUSTO: And another problem, like old people -- I still can cut my grass. They did my swale, and I had a nice gentle swale. They went in six inches and now I have to really mow. And old people can't mow into a big ditch like that. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Thank you. Do we have any other questions or discussion from the County Commission? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Just so that I understand it and we're all on the same page, this evening's purpose was soley to get public input, to be updated by Mr. Boldt and Mr. Archibald as to where we are. And the decision of the moratorium will be made on the 26th of this month at an evening workshop; is that correct? COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Uh-huh. Forgive me, please, for being late. But I believe I did here some suggestion that one of the answers to this question is the storm water utility. Is that correct? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, that's -- COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: County-wide, county-wide. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, that's what's holding us up from pursuing the construction between 91st and 92nd and on 8th. Is that correct, Mr. Boldt? Is that why this moratorium is in place is because the county-wide storm water utility issue has got DEP's feathers ruffled? MR. BOLDT: I don't think those are really related. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Okay. MR. BOLDT: The issue of the permit back in '89 was independent of the storm water utility. We weren't even that far advanced in our master plan at that point. So DEP looked at this separately. This moratorium's recommendation was tied to this specific project. As a matter of fact, the storm water utility was never really intended to pay for the massive capital improvements in the neighborhood situations like this. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: So the only reason these folks can't cover their ditches or pipe their ditches is because we haven't moved ahead with this project? MR. BOLDT: Yes. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: And the only thing holding us back from doing that is us? MR. BOLDT: Correct. Funding, funding mechanism, how to pay for it. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: That's what I thought I heard last year. I think our attorney has just gotten nervous. MR. CUYLER: No, no, not quite nervous yet. But that decision will be coming to you. Obviously you've heard that there may be some serious discussion on what the funding issue is. And you may realize on the 20th why the Board's had some difficulty. And there's also been some involvement with some other legal issues that have played a part in this for six months or something like that. But the funding issue is coming to you, and you are going to be able to make some sort of decision on that. If I'm not mistaken, it's this month. MR. BOLDT: The 20th. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. I just wanted to make sure I understood all the elements. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: One of my thoughts was, as I was hearing people speak, is that if we're going to have, which we committed to yesterday, the possibility of a special election in September that's a mail-out ballot, two questions instead of one, if that needs be, if that's what's holding this project up. Of course, you're asking people to tax themselves on two separate questions. But that could get real dangerous. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I think our staff has answered that that's not what's holding this up. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: That's not what's holding us up? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: This is a matter of we're trying to give the residents an opportunity to make the decision for themselves rather than us impose it upon -- COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Yeah. I'm aware of that. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: That's the issue. COHHISSIONER MATTHEWS: Last year some of our questions dealt around -- or some of the problem dealt around not being able to determine what the cost was going to be? MR. BOLDT: Yes. I'm going to be prepared on the 20th to share my proposal on that, based on a methodology -- COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Taken a whole year. MR. BOLDT: -- figures. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: It's taken a whole year to do that. HR. CUYLER: Six months. HR. BOLDT: I had my answers ready earlier in the year. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Okay. MR. CUYLER: I will accept responsibility for part of the delay. And part of it has been, as you know, we're in noncompliance on some issues that relate to drainage. And DCA -- as a matter of fact, a couple of commissioners have asked for an update on that. And we've had some concerns about it, but at this point we're not seeing the movement that we want to see. We understand things have got to go forward. We've talked to John. We understand he's going to move forward this month. We're gonna have some reviews of the materials. Obviously there may be some caveats we give to you during the process to make sure we don't make anything worse than it is. But it's John's -- not John's responsibility for the last five or six months. We asked him to hold off on that. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I would like that update, too, when you have it ready, okay? MR. CUYLER: Yes, ma'am. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Okay. There being no further conversation or questions, this meeting is adjourned. MR. WEIGEL: For the record you may wish to close the public hearing prior to adjournment and then announce publicly for the record for the next meeting. MR. CUYLER: The only statutory requirements if you close the public hearing is to announce -- and Commissioner Norris already did, but again for the record why don't you announce when your second hearing's going to be. I believe it's the -- Wednesday -- COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: 21st. MR. CUYLER: Wednesday the 21st at 5:05. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: All right. Wednesday the 21st at 5:05 will be the second and final hearing on this, right in this room. Thank you. There being no further business for the Good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by Order of the Chair at 5:38 p.m. BOARD OF COUNTY COHMISSIONERS BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS CONTROL ATTEST: DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK TIMOTHY J. CONSTANTINE, CHAIRMAN These minutes approved by the Board on as presented or as corrected TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF DONOVAN COURT REPORTING BY: Anjonette K. Baum, CSR