BCC Minutes 08/27/1990 S~aples, Florida, August 27, 1990
LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Board of County Commissioners in
and for the County of Collier, and also acting as the Beard of Zoning
Appeals and as the governing board(s) of such special districts as
have been created according to /aw and having conducted bus,ness
herein, met on this date at 9:00 A.M. tn SPECIAL SESSIOn' in Building
"F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the
following members present:
CHAIRMAN:
VIGE-CHAIRMAN:
Max A. Hasse, Jr.
Michael J. Volpe
Richard S. Shanahan
Burr L. Saunders
Anne Goodn~ght
ALSO PRESENT: Susan D. Klark and Wanda Arrtght, Deputy Clerks;
Nell Dorrill, County Manager; David Weigel, Assistant County Attorney;
William Lorenz, Environmental Services Administrator; George
Archibald, Transportation Services Administrator; Mike A~nold,
Utilities Administrator; and Walter. Carter, Transportation Director.
Page
August: 27, 1990
AGENDA
SPECIAL MEETING REGARDING STORMWATER MASTER ~'LAN
'O~ITTEE TO RETURN BY SEPTEMBER 15, 1990 REGARDING FINDINGS FOR
iMPLEMENTING PROGRAM
Legal notice having been published in the Naples Daily News on
August 19, 1990, as evidenced by Affidavit of Publication filed with
the Clerk, a special meeting was held to discuss the County's proposed
stormwater management master plan.
Mr. William Loreuz, Environmental Services Administrator, stated
that staff has returned at the Board's direction to furtker discuss
'the Stormwater Management Program for the County. He noted that
today's meeting is a result of the June meeting on agende, items that
needs more discussion, but ultimately this meeting is the result of
the Growth Management Plan which commits the County to prepare the
County-wide Stormwater Master Program which requires a stormwater uti-
lity concept that provides for user fees or service charges to be used
to f~nance facility improvements which are outlined In tke capital
improvement element. Mr. Lorenz stated that whether the staff gets
direction for a stormwater utility and includes It In the Growth
:{anagement Plan or direction to consider something else is the
crossroad at this time.
Mr. Lorenz summarized the four ma~or issues that are to be pre-
.~ented: the extent of the problem and ~ts cost at least i~ the ranges
that can be forecast by using the overall Master Plan planning study;
~he concept of what the stormwater utility ~s regarding s~rvice
charges and concepts of equity regardfng whether this is a more
e~itable funding source than ad valorem property taxes; the first
steps of implementation for the Stormwater Utilfty ~egarding Board
d~ection to come back with an ordinance fna public hearing forum;
and the roles and relationships between the County and the Big Cypress
3~in Board.
Mr. Lorenz stated that part of the ma~or findings of ~he study is
Page 2
a total of 1,022 structures and channel segments were inventoried
August 27, 1990
and 38% were found to be inadequate under current conditions for the
recommended level of service standards desired by the Co~.nty. He
confirmed that the structures were reviewed with regard to the sub-
basins as depicted on the display map and after examining the analysis
within a subbasin it was found that 27% were substandard and 74% were
determined unacceptable based upon the weak link theory. Mr. Lorenz
said he feels it is very important that the Board underslands that the
channel segments and structures through the planning level study have
been found to be inadequate and, therefore, the map displayed is the
basis of the cost estimates of $57,000,000 to $78,000,000. He noted
that 253 remedial projects are required to address these deficiencies.
Mr. Lorenz added that another major finding of the study is that
the cost of the service for the total program in five ye~trs will be
$8.2 million per year.
In answer to Commissioner Volpe's question, Mr. Lorenz stated that
the cost of $78 mill/on would be over a 15 to 20 year period.
In answer to Coml.%issioner Hasse's question, Mr. Lore2~z stated that
this is a total assessment of need at the planning level study for
Collier County, and as to what organization ]s responsible for these
needs, it will be split between the County and the Big Cypress Basin
Board.
Mr. Lorenz replied to Gommissioner Volpe's remark re!]arding not
having considered any approach other than the weak link concept by
stating that when averaging out the total magnitude of the problem the
s~aff looked at it with the idea that If there is an inadequacy in a
basin then it makes the basin inadequate to that degree ~nd this is
how the percent figures are derived; however, the total :lcope of the
program is dictated on a facility-by-facility evaluation to arrive at
the cost estimates and inadequacies which are shown on the d~splayed
map. Mr. Lorenz said that the total program ts based upon what is
.... seen on the displayed map which shows the percent of inadequacies of
i%~?i~ the basins using the weak link theory to characterize th,, number of
basins' adequacies/tnadequacies, and the point being that the total
03
Page 3
August 27, 1990
program is still based upon an assessment on a facility-by-facility
basis.
Mr. Lorenz stated that another ma~or finding that the consultant
is recommending is that the County rely upon user service charges
collected by the stormwater utility which will be a funding source
that is based upon the amount of run-off that is contributed by a pro-
perty with the assumption being that this run-off will di;3ectly
influence the importance of the County's Stormwater Program that it
has to implement.
Mr. Lorenz added that this concept is a more equitable? basis in
which to collect the revenues to fund the Stormwater Prog,'am as
opposed to ~00% reliance on property taxes and clarified Commissioner
Hasse's concern that this concept would be for any improw~d property.
Commissioner Volpe asked if there was thought given re, assessing
the stormwater utility on acreage rather than rul)-off and Mr. Lorenz
responded that the concept of run-off is based on the acreage. Mr.
Lorenz emphasized that ~f the Board decides to go with a ~.tormwater
utility concept, then a rate assessment will have to be done to
establish a rate structure. In answering Commissioner Vo]pe, Mr.
Lorenz stated that a general analysis has been made regarding
establishing a rate structure, but specific parameters will have to be
set.
Mr. Steve Lienhart of Post, Buckley, Schuh & Jernigan, Inc. began
his presentation by recalling previous discussions on the details of
the basis of the study, the inventory, the assessment, the evaluation
potential remedial solutions, and the fact that the entire focus of
this program is a combtna~ion of flood control, water quality, and
water supply. Mr. Lienhart stated that the map which is displayed for
the Commissioners has been prepared to clarify the questions of where
the problem exist and the extent of their severity. He explained that
.the map was prepared to simplify these problems by showing the western
half of Collier county which is exclusive of the large wetter areas to
the east. He pointed out that the map shows all the drainage systems
Page 4
August 27, 1990
program is still based upon an assessment on a facility-by-facility
basis.
Mr. Lorenz stated that another ma~or finding that the consultant
is recommending is that the County rely upon user service charges
collected by the stormwater utility which will be a funding source
that is based upon the amount of run-off that is contribu~ed by a pro-
perky with the assumption being %hat this run-off will di;~ectly
influence the importance of the County's Stormwater Progr;%m that it
has ko implement.
Mr. Lorenz added that this concept is a more equitabl~ basis in
which to collect the revenues to fund the Stormwater Prog~.am as
opposed to lO0~ reliance on property taxes and clarified [:ommissioner
Hasse's concern that this concept would be for any improv~d property.
Commissioner Volpe asked if there was thought given to assessing
the stormwater utility on acreage rather than run-off and Mr. Lorenz
responded that the concept of run-off is based on the acrE.age. Mr.
Lorenz emphasized that if the Board decides to go with a ~.tormwater
utility concept, then a rate assessment will have to be dcne to
establish a rate structure. In answering Commissioner Vo]pe, Mr.
Lorenz stated that a general analysis has been made regarding
establishing a rate structure, but specific parameters will have to be
set.
Mr. Steve btenhart of Post, Buckley, Schuh & Jernigan, Inc. began
his presentation by recalling previous discussions on the details of
the basis of the study, the inventory, the assessment, the evaluation
potential remedial solutions, and the fact that the entire focus of
this program is a combination of flood control, water quality, and
water supply. Mr. Lienhart stated that the map which is displayed for
the Commissioners has been prepared to clarify the questions of where
the problem exist and the extent of their severity. He explained that
the map was prepared to simplify these problems by showinG the western
half of Collier County which is exclusive of the large wetter areas to
the east. He pointed out that the map shows all the drainage systems
ffi 04
Page 4
August 27, 1990
in either green or red, explaining that the systems shown in green
were determined at a planning level to have adequate capac:ity for the
anticipated design storm for the level of service that thE~ Board has
designated in the Growth Management Plan. He explained that the
systems in red are areas in which the channel segments are incapable
of passing the design flows under their current condition~. He cited
two types of solutions for these problem areas, one being the improve-
ment of the maintenance system by expanding the ex~sttng system over
the next three to four years, and the second being a remedial struc-
tural type of solution which will require, in the case of channel
segments, either widening or deepening them or both to meet the capa-
city needed to move the water through the systems to prevent flooding
and in the case of a structure, a parallel pipe if feasibl~ or repla-
cement with one that has adequate capacity to move the flow.
Mr. Lienhart stated that the map clarifies the analysi~ that went
into the discussion on "weak link" which means that ~n assessing a
level of service in a basin, the lowest level of service w.~s reviewed.
He used Golden Gate's main basin as an example, pointing out that none
of the structures are adequate and the channel segments appear to be
undersized which will cause problems, therefore, the entir~ basin and
any of its subbas~ns based on its lowest level of service ~ould have
to be evaluated.
Mr. Lienhart remarked that even though the overall ass{~ssment
indicates that 73% of the total subbasfns in the County ar~ at level D
and 2S% are at level C, what needs to be looked at is of the 1000 +
structures that are in the system, 328 have problems. He commented
that the issue of the number of structures and channel segnents which
are inadequate is approximately 1/3 and these are the "weak links" in
every basin and subbasin. He stated that the map shows theft about 1/3
-of the channel segments and structures in the County that ~{ere ana-
lyzed are inadequate to meet the current and future flows. He
explained that if a water flow of 200 s is tn a channel ':hat has the
capacity of only 175 cfs and further comes to a structure %~hich has
Page 5
August 27, 1990
the capacity of passing only 50 cfs, the water will back up the chan-
nel and the water level will rise and flood an area. Mr. Lienhart
reiterated that the "weak l~nk" theory is simply a way to express the
County's 1/3 inadequacy rate of its channels and structure~ in a
planning type of assessment by using one number characterizing an
entire basin based on poor service.
Commissioner Volpe asked if the assumption is that right now there
are 320 structures out of 1,022 that are currently tnadequ.lte7 Mr.
Lienhart answered that the 1,022 structures were reviewed ~lnder both
conditions of existing structures and anticipated tncrease:l of the
Growth Management Plan and assuming that the County regula'[es future
development and controls what it has at present there will only be a
3% difference in inadequacies, concluding that most of the problems
that exist are already there. He explained that the reason these
problems exist today is because over the years with the ~nflux of
people from the North, the feeling of flood waters is no longer
thought of as Just "mother nature" taking its course and t¢,lerance for
the situation has dropped considerably; therefore, the standards that
have been applied at the local, County, State, DER, water ~lanagement
districts, and regional levels have developed into having ilo provide a
higher measure of servlce for flood control of severe stor~ls which
results in less flooding and also provides water supply and quality
aspects. Mr. Lienhart stated that since the Growth Managenent Plan
has adopted a service level of a 25 years design storm for urban
areas, a 10 year for suburban, and a lesser design storm in lesser
developed land use areas, future growth will have to meet ~hls service
level and the problems will be solved on site. He added tkat future
growth will benefit from the water supply and quality aspects of the
anticipated improvements and that future growth is not the problem,
the problem is in the present needs. He stated that the e~isting ina-
dequacies are found in all the developed areas of the County which is
due primarily because many of the developments were not built out and
are now being finished and causing additional flow into a system that
Pa ]e 6
August 27, 1990
was already undersized; however, future developments will not create
any additional problem since the improved regulations wll2. have been
established.
Mr. Lienhart stated that the findings of the study focuses on
several items starting with the need to conduct detailed basin stu-
dies. He said the detailed basin studies will supplement the mapping
which is already completed showing the facilities within ~t given basin
and will explain specifically what the least expensive, environmen-
tally acceptable solution should be which will provide fl¢,od control
benefits, water supply considerations, and water quality benefits for
that particular basin. He added that this detailed lnforr~ation on the
basin will supplement the Master Plan.
Mr. Lienhart stated that the second recommendation from the study
is an improvement in the operation and maintenance program which is
required because the existing program which is a combination of effort
of County forces and Big Cyprus Basin forces is not adequate for the
channels to operate properly, plus the increased maintenance will
improve the ability of the existing facilities to carry fSow so reme-
dial construction type improvements will not be necessary.
The third recommendation, Mr. Lienhart identified, is the need for
a long term repair/replacement activity for existing facilities that
over time will become structurally deficient.
The last recommendation, Mr. Lienhart said, is a program of reme-
dial improvements which include environmental benefit facilities,
retention areas, water supply and quality issues, along with flood
control features.
Mr. Lienhart stated that there are approximately 329 different
activities which have been identified as proposed capital improvement
projects and this is where the $78,000,000 is derived. He added that
these pro3ects will be required over the next 10 to 20 years depending
on the rate at which the County undertakes the program. Mr. Lienhart
pointed out that at a planning level the program is fortunate if it is
at plus or minus 10% meaning that the number could be $78,000,000 less
Page 7
August 27, 1990
20~ explaining the range given of $55,000,000 which is t~e least and
$78,000,000 the highest.
Commissioner Volpe asked if these costs are all capita] costs or
perhaps some "soft costs" such as engineering costs? Mr. Lienhart
answered that of the total cost about 25~ would be "soft costs". He
explained that the basic cost of construction which includes all the
facilities and contractors along with the cost of engineering, sur-
veying, permitting, contract administration by the County which inclu-
des the bidding of services, supervision and acceptance of work, and
inspection adds approximately 20-35~ to the cost dependin} on the com-
munity and the level of construction. He said that for planning level
purposes 25~ was added for all "soft costs".
Mr. Lienhart clarified for Commissioner Hasse that th~ study is
recommending managing the existing facilities and improving them to
meet the design criteria which has been adopted in the Growth
Management Plan at the 10 or 25 year level service. Mr. I.ienhart said
this will stop flooding in some of the bas]ns which has b~en a problem
over the past 20 years and still exists. He said that in other areas
the study recommends the acquisition of lands because while elimi-
nating the stormwater which causes flooding, the natural tasin no
longer has the ability to recharge water back into the grcund for
water supply, but with the help of channel structures water can be
held back in the dry seasons and drained in the case of a hurricane.
Mr. Lienhart stated that along with the flood protection measures
the study is recommending some environmental mitigation measures such
as instal]fng spreader swales and retention facilities in the
miscellaneous coastal basins areas where the flows from th.~ interior
portion of the County drain out and by doing this the wate.~ will be
treated taking out the oils, greases, metals, sediments, and other
items that development has caused to flow into the water which will
~educe the impact to the Bay. He explained that in some c~ses these
facilities will be reducing the impact beyond where it is now and in
other cases it will balance out the additional sediments c~used by
P.~ge 8
..l:i~ Augus': 27, 1990
more water being allowed to flow into the system.
In response to Commissioner Hasse's question, Mr. Lft~nhart
answered that most of the agricultural areas today balant:e out their
own water unless it is an extremely wet season and in those cases, the
recommended facilities would balance out the flows.
Mr. Lienhart responded to Commissioner Volpe's question on what
assumptions have been made regarding Henderson Creek's drainage basin
as it relates to Sable Bay project by stating that at the lower end
where Sable Bay drains and the system goes through, some improvements
could be made through cooperation between the County and the deve-
loper, whether it should be done in the form of construction in lieu
of fee, contribution to a Joint factor, or contribution Jn lieu of
construction for a regional facility is not clear at this time.
Mr. John Boldt, Water Management Director, clarified that
Commissioner Volpe is referring to the Lely canal system.
Mr. Lienhart explained that in the Lely system there are two large
channels that come out of the Lely project under Rt. 41 and the deve-
loper has proposed spreader swales.
. < Commissioner Volpe questioned if the cost assumptions made
regarding the Lely system are that the developer will finance the pro-
Ject or the County will finance the project through utilities?
Mr. Lienhart spec~fied that for the purpose of this study it was
classified as a cost per~od and the assumption is that it is in the
County's total package of the $78,000,000. Mr. Ltenhart clarified
~ that the $78,000,O00 could be derived partially from a funding source
from utilities, from developer contributions, from special assessment
districts, or from special contribution in lieu of constr~ction, but
no specific basis for distr~bution of costs have been mad~ at this
' time.
Regarding the Gordon River extension and the City of ~aples, Mr.
Llenhart replied to Commissioner Volpe's question by explaining that
the County and City staff have discussed Joint funding of a study
since part of the extension is ~n the City of Naples and ~oth County
000.;,..- 09
?age 9
August 27, 1990
and City will benefit. Mr. Lienhart reported that the facilities
required for this project will be two types, one the conTeyance
systems which are jointly in the Gordon River area and t~e City of
Naples with the assumption that Naples will take care of theirs and
limit their flow to the existing conditions to the Count! system, and
the second type is the main channel facilities which are marginal in
that area because they are designed for a two to five ye. Jr plan but
have to function under a 25 year plan, and the assumptio)~ is that the
total of these costs are part of the $78,000,000 and lde]~tified
strictly as a County cost. He informed that part of the funding in
this area will have to be by contributions from the City or construc-
tion tn lleu of contribution.
In response to Commissioner Volpe's remarks on the cc,sts of deve-
loper contributions in the Lely and Gordon River basins, Mr. Lienhart
responded that in the Gordon River case if the City elect:ed to do
nothing those improvements would still need to be made tc~ serve people
in the County portion of the basin; and therefore, those costs were
included as a County cost. He specified that in the cas,~ of Sable Bay
and Water Management District Slx costs were included as a County cost
recognizing that tn the cost recovery aspects, the money will be
returned by way of special assessment or developer contribution.
Commissioner Hasse guestioned if any undertaking has been done
regarding financing, to which Mr. L~enhart disclosed thai this has
been handled by the Water Management Department and Water Resources
Associates. He stated that the costs have been identified and it is
recognized that those costs w~ll be split between the City, the
County, and the County developer. He related that there are many
opportunities for joint funding solutions for existing p~oblems, but
how those come about w~ll depend on how the program progresses and
clearly states who takes the lead, on whether or not the County has
the money at the time to proceed when the other party is ready to work
on the project. Mr. L~enhart concurred with Commiss~oner Hasse that
the State and Federal Government are ~nvolved ~n some of the repurcha-
Page 10
Augus: 27, 1990
ses of environmentally sensitive land and some private a!tencfes are
also looking at this project.
Commissioner Shanahan remarked that the main Golden {;ate and
Gordon River basins seem to account for approximately $3:!,000,000 of
the total $78,000,000, to which Commissioner Volpe added that 25~ is
soft costs for engineering.
Commissioner Volpe asked if certain assumptions could be made as
to what part of the ~'etmbursement mechanism the County c~Juld account
for from the City, explaining that the City in their cap:ltal improve-
ment element of their growth management plan has a cost ;."actor for
drainage. Mr. Lienhart responded that this is being rev:~ewed.
Mi'. Lienhart concluded that with the recommendations before the
Board, he suggests the County proceed to solve the probl(:ms of meeting
the requirements of funding for the improvement of matnt,:nance, the
remedial and replacement activities, and the new capital facilities.
He invited Hector Cyre who has done the financial analys:[s for the
program to address this subject.
Hector Cyre, President of Water Resources Associates. stated his
primary objective is to clarify any questions that are p)'esent. He
stated that the County not only faces the challenge of s.[mply a storm-
water management system but also must solve a critical w~lter supply
and quality challenge, so not only the capital improvement element but
also the financial element of the program will try and a~[dress all
these aspects.
Mr. Cyre explained that in the Growth Management Plan, the County
conceptually attempted to finance the stormwater managem~nt plan as a
utilities, however, as the program developed the complex~ties of the
problems became evident. He perceived that the financia~, plans
suggest that it is not Just a stormwater utility financi~l problem,
but rather the question of how to combine a variety of financing
methods including the use of special assessments, the cor. tinued use of
ad valorem taxes, and the development of a stormwater utility service
charge as indicated ~n the Gz'owth Management Plan. He added that in
Page 11
August 27, 1990
looking at the recommended overall financing of the Plan only 75% on
an annual basis would be derived from stormwater utility service
charges.
Mr. Cyre stated that the recommendation to the County is that it
retain ad valorem property tax for water quality, emerge~cy response
and hazard mitigation costs because these functions bene] it ail of the
County, not Just the incorporated portion such as the City of Naples,
but also the unincorporated portions. He rationalized tl~ts recommen-
dation by explaining that water quality enhancements whi~:h occur
throughout the systems in the unincorporated areas, aid the incor-
porated areas, and the ability for the County to respond to emergen-
cies in order to prevent as much damage as possible to p]'operty and
danger to people will benefit both incorporated and unin¢:orporated
areas. He clarified though that ad valorem taxation is only a portion
of the funding.
Mr. Cyre commented that in the overall perspective it is
recognized that there is an equity objective and a mechar.ism must be
developed, which the Growth Management Plan identified ag the utility,
for applying the major responsibility of the program's ccsts that are
uniquely attributable to the unincorporated area against the unincor-
porated area. He cited that the stormwater utility service charge
through the definition of service areas in the County is the best
method of accomplishing this ob3ective.
Mr. Cyre addressed the rationale for retaining special assessments
to fund certain selected portions of the program which are primarily
~.ore localized capital improvements. He stated that there is a
complex institutional framework with the Big Cypress Basin (BCB), the
County, the Clty of Naples, the Water Management District, and the
State of Florida, which creates the challenge to have the combination
of these separate entities adequately funded in total the water mana-
Gement resource needs in Collier County. He explained th.~t the total
water management resource needs are three interrelated col~ponents; the
primary canals which the BCB presently has principle resp,)nsibility
]'age
August 27, 1990
for, the secondary systems which are the feeders into the primary
canals and the County has responsibility for, and tertiary systems
which are the little ditches and storm systems that are the respon-
sibility of private property owners.
Commissioner Volpe commented that perhaps a representative of the
City should be present to which Mr. Cyre replied that he ~ee]s that
the City of Naples and the County have two distinct systems, and the
ideal situation would be to have a meeting with everyone ':o sort these
problems out, however, in this instance only the County's respon-
sibility is being reviewed. Mr. Cyre agreed that ultimatE~ly when the
final decisions with Stormwater Management in Collier County are made,
a meeting with the City of Naples will be a necessity.
Commissioner Volpe referred back to the retention of the ad
valorem tax to fund approximately 25% of the overall project costs and
asked if this is for operation and maintenance and if the~.e costs have
been figured into this project? Mr. Cyre responded that approximately
50% of the costs of Ctormwater Management is operational costs from
the County's perspective in terms of facilities and the other 50% is a
capital expense. He explained that the operational requirements can
be reviewed in a three to five year time frame and a relatively
accurate cost estimate can be made, however, over a 20 year time frame
considerations have to be made for new requirements that the Federal
Government may have imposed upon the County for water quality, infla-
tion, etc., therefore, the predictions on cost estimates b~come very
broad and almost meaningless. He said that capital improvgments can
be reviewed as to their size and a realistic time frame ca~ be applied
by the County and in this case a 15 to 20 year period woul~ be prac-
tical for the County, BCB, some special assessment funds, and deve-
loper contributions to make a significant impact on the capital needs.
Mr. Cyre clarified that the $77,000,000 is capital needs and that
operation and maintenance is over and above this.
In response to ~ommissioner Hasse's question, Mr. eyre responded
that estimates for operation and maintenance in a three to five year
Page 13
August 27, ~990
time period based on what is being spent today and using .~n assumption
rate of 5% inflation would be approximately $3,000,000 fo;~ an annual
operating expense and $15,000,000 over five years with th,~ current
operations expense at approximately $1.2 million. He spe,ified that
the assumption is that the County must not only continue in its area
of responsibility being the secondary facilities but also improve and
expand what the City of Naples Is doing in the lower level facilities
with a complimentary expansion of what is being done in the primary
facility. He felt that the BCB is attempting to address this through
the increases in its funding. Mr. Cyre reiterated the importance of
all three systems working well together. He stated that he has
approached this in terms of what the County's ]eve] of opecation and
maintenance'and capital improvement needs are and what the funding
implications are of this if these three systems are to work well
together.
In responding to Commissioner Hasse's inquiry as to ho~, the costs
will be divided, {4r. Cyre referred to page 6 of the "Executive Summary"
which indicated the funding sources consistent with the Gr¢.wth
Management Plan shows a significant shift toward stormwate! utilities
service charges from the present reliance on ad valorem ta~es,
however, this stormwater utilities service charge does not become the
sole source of funding for the program only the major source. He con-
tinued that a certain portion of growth in ad valorem tax revenue will
be accounted for through growth in the County and reappraisal of pro-
perties. Commissioner Volpe questioned what portion of grcwth, to
which Mr. Cyre specified that the the increase which would come from
9rowth and reappraisal was not analyzed, but what was analyzed was
what portion of the program should reasonably be funded thxough pro-
perty taxes. He added that the program was reviewed by seeing that it
included water quality, emergency response, and hazard mitigation
which is reasonable to fund from ad valorem taxes, and noted that this
is a revenue ob~ective and the implication on the tax rate that this
would carry was not analyzed. He explained that by lookin~ at the
Page 14
August 27, 1990
c?~art it appears that the ad valorem taxes double from 89/90 at
$600,000 to 93/94 at $i,200,000, however this is not the c]se because
growth takes care of a certain portion of this increase as well as
reappraisals of properties and increased values. He state,! he was
unable to say what the effective growth and reappraisal would be but
there would not be a doubling of the tax rate to achieve the stated
level of ad valorem tax.
Mr. Cyre affirmed that the next step will show a more detailed
rate study which will compare the past few years of growth to what is
being projected for the ne×t five years, as well as a revi~w of
~eappraisals over [he [~as~ £~w years, and an estimate of w~ether a lO~
~r 20% increase in the property tax rate will be needed to achieve the
$1.2 million level. He clarified that the tax rate which Js being
referred to ~s the tax rate applicable to the special reve[ue funds
for stormwater management which is presently one tenth of a mill.
Comm~ssioner Volpe voiced his insistence that represen~atives of
the Clty of Naples be present for the next level of the plan and sa~d
he feels that more focus needs to be made on what the commitments are
assuming worst case scenario for planning purposes. He added that he
does not see how the Board could establish a stormwater utility fee
based upon a number that is not clear for the capital port]on of the
costs.
Mr. Cyre pointed out that an investment of this size in capital
facilities has a great deal of planning involved such as sFecific
basin plans, identifying the priorities for the projects, ~utting the
projects together in a design package, bidding them out, and construc-
tion and lag time, all of which could take three or four years, there-
fore, the capital investment portion of costs will not be realized for
that amount of time. He agreed that a great deal of negotiations w~ll
be discussed especially ]n the Gordon River area regarding how these
costs will be distributed between the City and the County as a product
of the design phase, however, the funding of the operational component
needs to be made earlier than three or four years from now.
Page 15
August 2?, 1990
Commissioner Hasse questioned if costs will also be distributed
between the State and Federal Government along with the C,[ty and
County? Mr. Cyre said he feels that more importantly thall the State
and Federal Government is the Big Cypress Basin and the relationship
.j' of the County with the Basin and the sharing of the expenses of the
~i:~- primary canal systems both in terms of capita/ improvemen~: of those
~s and in terms of their operation and maintenanc~. He said
~he does not feel in the near future that either State or Federal
financing will be a significant factor in local governmen~:'s ability
to deal with stormwater. He added that the ~mpact will be negative
because the water quality emphasis which is now becoming apparent at
the State and Federal levels affects every aspect of stor~water
control in Collier County and every other location within the United
States not only physically but also financially. He rema~'ked that the
way atormwater is managed will change significantly in th~ next five
to ten years as emphasis becomes stronger on water quality control.
Mr. Gyre stated that the State and Federal Government will give
requirements not money. Commissioner Hasse pointed out that other
hcounties and other governmental agencies are involved in ~he storm-
water, management to which Mr. Cyre commented that their involvement
-will cause Collier County to revise all of stormwater management
i;w~th~n the next decade.
.. Commissioner Volpe asked if the plan involved any bonding? Mr.
Cyre suggested bonding be avoided because of interest costs associated
~t. Mr. Cyre alleged that at some point in t~me bonding may have
to be considered for some capital projects anticipated in the master
plan because of their magnitude.
Commissioner Volpe clarified his question by asking that of the
~$~?,000,000 cost estimate is any debt service assumed? Mr. Cyre
noted that on one side is the $77°000,000 and on the other side is the
of how to fund this over 20 years. He explained that if the
was $80,000,000 and it was divided by 20 years, it would seem
the cost per year would be only $4,000,000, however, the complt-
Page
August 27, 1990
cation is that there may be an improvement or a series of improvements
that have. to be accomplished in a short period of time su:h as over a
one or two year period $15,000,000 of capital improvements need to be
made, then bonding would become an issue of funding. He felt that if
the capital projects were properly phased then of the $77,000,000 only
i~:! 25% to 35% would have to be bonded and interest costs could be avoided
on the rest.
Commissioner Shanahan questioned the financing and bonding
approach and the overall acceptance of the citizens in th,,~ other areas
of the State where 25 other stormwater utilities exist. }[r. Cyre
~,;-~,.. commented that of the 25 stormwater utilities not all of ~:hem have
adopted charges. He confirmed to Commissioner Shanahan that this
includes Lee County's identified rate objective of $4.35 for single
family/residential. Mr. Cyre said the charges are rang/n_c; from 50¢
per month in a small community which is doing a very minimum of main-
~.~ tenance and no capital improvements to $4.50 per month in St.
~'~ Petersburg with the average range around the country being $1.50 to
'~' $?,00 per month for zesidences. Mr. Cyre explained that the area in
which there is a $?.00 per month fee charges up to $20.00 per month
depending on the individual property. He stated that the reason this
area is so high in its charges is because 90% of their stcrmwater
master plan is built so they are paying for capital improvements, and
they have implemented an extensive water quality program spending
almost a third of their annual operating expense on it which is unique
among cities in the country. He clarified that the area being
discussed is Bellevue, Washington, where stormwater utilities have
~exlsted for over 15 years.
;>'~,.. Commissioner Shanahan asked that if in general the stormwater uti-
,,,,!i~tfes that have been established have been well accepted, received,
and supported? Mr. Cyre responded that the initial acceptance is
from being very well received to a great deal of controversy,
,..however, the long term acceptance seems to be very good be,-ause the
ter problems have been solved. He cited Cincinnati as an
P,:~ge 17
~ugust 27, 1990
example which has had a utility tn place for five years, stating that
the backlog of 10,000 drainage complaints being totally eradicated and
the elimination of 2,500 street barricades set up around the City
where stormwater systems had been caving-in and are no longer, have
created a solid credibility in the community to the point where the 48
community councils within Cincinnati are strongly supportive of the
stormwater utility through the budget process.
Commissioner Shanahan asked if the average annual tax would be
approximately $5§.00 if SS.§0 per residence and the 1/10 of a mill
assessment in ad valorem were applied for the average Collier County
residence? Mr. Cyre replied that with this combination ]t would be
between $§§.00 and $60.00 annually.
Commissioner Shanahan questioned if the 1/10 of a mill referred to
is the 1/10 of a mill for water pollution? Mr. Cyre explained that
this ts the 1/10 of a mill which funds a large portion of water mana-
gement, Fund Il0, which he is suggesting be retained. Mr. Dorrill
clarified that there is a 1/10 of a mill which funds water pollution
which is Fund 114.
Mr. eyre stated that the average stormwater utility ~ervtce charge
adopted thus far in Florida is $2.50 per month initially, however, of
the 25 cities that were reviewed that have establlshed utilities have
arrived at a rate of $3.00. He explained that $2.50 ts ~he average
because of Port Orange County which only charges 50¢.
Mr. Cyre cited that a preliminary analysis of rate s~fftctency
shows that $3.50 per month would generate between $4.8 and $5 million
in Collier County. He explained that this is assuming that commercial
property is charged a fair and equitable fee relative to the $3.50
service charge applied to the residences, realizing that the commer-
cial property generally has more land of which a great deal is covered
with asphalt and rooftop which means there will be more water run-off.
Commissioner Saunders remarked it has been stated thzt the cost of
development of a methodology to determine how much a residence should
~be charged versus commercial property could bring the co~t of the
Page 18
August 27, 1990
stormwater utility system anywhere between $100,000 to $1,000,000. He
agreed that a rate study analysis was needed, however, h.e said he
would like to avoid spending a great deal of money develDping it. Mr.
Cyre said that a recommendation was made to the County to choose bet-
ween the two different rate methodologies suggested in the study and
commented that both of these recommendations were, he felt, inexpen-
sive. Mr. Cyre agreed that to develop a rate charge study that was so
infinitely accurate in distinguishing one property from another was an
unnecessary expense and was not worth the small amount of return the
County would receive from it. He suggested that if the County wishes
to bill undeveloped property as well as developed property then a ser-
vice charge based on gross area and its intensity of development
should be used. He continued that if only developed properties are
billed then he would suggest that a rate structure be used based on
strictly the impervious areas. He commented that if in the final ana-
lysis it seems fair and equitable to charge a flat rate for residen-
tial properties regardless of any differences in land then it should
be done because it will lower the cost of implementation as much as
50%. Responding to Commissioner Saunders' comment, Mr. Cyre pointed
out that the final analysis has not been completed and, ~.herefore,
cannot recommend this flat rate at this time, however, ewery utility
in Florida which has been implemented thus far has a flal: rate for
Commissioner Volpe asked what Mr. Cyre's recommendation is
regardinG undeveloped versus developed property7 Mr. Cyre replied
that his recommendation is that some undeveloped lands be billed
along with developed landg. Mr. Cyre referred to the display map
indicating service areas in the County which presently receive and in
the future will receive stormwater services. He defined the urbanized
and suburbanized western portion of the County as a potential service
area, subject to further analysis of the rate study, as well as the
relatively developed areas of Immokalee, and perhaps Marco Island. He
stated that'what may be'~und in providing services to th~se areas is
l~age 19
August 27, 1990
tl~t the costs My vary.
Cosmimsioner Vo]pe questioned if there is to be a different rate
structure in terms of am~ount for undeveloped property or if Jn certain
instances there wi]] be no assessment on undeveloped pro)erty. Mr.
Cyre clarified that some undeveloped properties do not n~ed storm~ater
services from the County and do not contribute to the problem. He
cited, as an example, the differences between grazing agriculture, row
crop sgriculture, and citrus agriculture, stating that although they
are considered undeveloi~ed land, they h~ve different Impacts on storm-
~ter ~n-off In ter~ of ~llty and ~ntlty, therefore, a fairly
refined ~h~ly~is of the u~evelo~d land~ ~111 have to b~ ~ade to be
f~tr and equitable In h~ they are charged.
Nr. Cyre re~nded to Co~l~sioner 5h~nab~n's question ~ stating
that there Is a v~rlety throughout the other 15 stor~at.~r utilities
· s to h~ they are charging undevelo~d land; however, f.~r convenience
~t stor~ter utilities, ~ot only In llortda but nation, ids, do not
c~rge u~evelo~d p-o~rty. Ne explained that the conw~nlence Is
that these syste~ u~e their ~ater ~nd se~r hilling sys"e~ as the
~ls of their ~ter ~ccount file ~nd, of course, unde~loped l~nds
do ~t spar on these eyntess, He clarified though the~ communities
thtume the property tax films am the b~sls for gathering stor~ater
utility ~ta umually bill uM~eloped properties, h~evex, not all of
t~a ~.
Co~immioner Hesse questioned why the eastern ~rtlon/emtate areas
are ~t ~lng a~resmed to which Mr. Cyre confessed that this Is going
to ~ t~ ~mt diffl~lt ~rtlon of the rate analysis, defining the
limits of the service area that the County provides. BCB, Oolden Oats,
~ ot~r c~le. ~r. Cyre explained iht by looking at the
redefined priory canals of the BCB ~ large scope of It i~ ~B's
rem~nmibilitV, aM it in the future the County do~s not used to ~in-
tsin the secor~a~ and the l~er level facilities then it is not part
ot the County's me.ice area. He added tMt the definition of the
~rlem of t~ .trices area of the County's stor~ater program ts
Au~st 27, 1990
probably the soqt critical section of the detail rate ~t~dy.
· ee R~::ems 10:25 A~I - Raconvmned 10~35 A~I
Hr. Slayton stated that h~ sup~rts the stor~ater u~llity concept
· nd feel~ It Is a~ excellent funding ~ethod. He noted t~at wh~ther
t~re Is · sto~ater utility or not there will ~l~ays b~
fl~l~ In Collier County.
~. Sl~yton referred to B~ln R~solution 90-7-1, of '~hich copies
~re given to the Co==is~loaers, and stated that this re~olution
~pted ~ t~ ~in ~ard ~t their September 28th ~eetiag. He stated
t~t t~ resolution identifies the priory ~ystems of ca.aals tn
Collier C~nty ~ he referred to the display ~ap, statiag that the
yell~ syst~s~ are the canals seen as th~ primary ~ystem of the
c~]s. He co~tinu~d b~ r~/.rrl~ to the mu)ti-colored )tap provided
to th~ Comml~lo~rm which depicted th~ primary ~y~tem o:' B~sin canals
highlighted i~ y~l]~, the canals hlghlight~d in purple being
c~n~lm that the B~Xn pro~s~m to return to Collier County
Octo~r 1, 1991, a~ the orange highlighted canals b~in~ the remaining
ca~lm t~t th~ B.~in will .dopt, m~kin~ th~m conmimtent with th~
198& ~gree~nt.
Mr. ~l*yton explained that th~ c~nal s~stem~ that ~rt highlighted
In blu~ ~re the final ~xp~n~lon of th~ priory m~tem which will be
~bJect to ~ ~ ~gr~e~t that will be developed between the County
~d th~ B~ln. He .t~t.d t~t ~ draft of this r~molutio~ lncor-
~r~ting t~ final ~st~=~ ~re planned to b~ brought back before the
Co. la. loner Hames questioned If these canals are going to be
~inteined ~ the Big Cypress Basin and if the vegetation in these
~ c~er t~ capttal construction costs for structural Improvements
Of t~ ca~ls. Res~ndtng to Couissioner Hasse' tn~l~,
· l~yton r~led t~t t~o of th~ County's weed ha~es~ers ~htch were
?age 21
Augus! 27, 1990
purch, aed through GAC trust fund monies under the proposed rssolution
would b~. transferred to the Basin at no coat. He explained that the
two capital lieu are bought with GAC trust funds, they can only be
used In the Golden Gate canal system. In response to Commissioner
Hames, Mr. Slayton Identified the Golden Gate canal system, the
Faka-UnJon cane] system, and poel$bly the 1-75 canal systems because a
portion of Golden G4te drains into It aa areas where the ~eed har-
vesters would be used, and the Cocohatchee River or Henderson Creek
system wo~ld be. ~intain ~/ spraying and a drag line will be purchased
to remove vegetation and shoals. Commissioner Hames comm-~nted that he
hag received a nueb..r of cal]~ on these sy.tem~ stating t:~at after
sprsyl~ th~ l~k and s~ll bad.
C~tesJoner Shanahan clarified that the ~apa before
C~leeJonere with the yel]~ aho~e the priory system which the
eec~ system t~t is not eh~ on the ~pe, and the r~sidence's
eyetea~ are not sh~ on the map~ either.
~r. S[ayton referred to page number seven of th. matex'~a] provided
the Co~S~olonere ~hich i~ ~ ~trlx titled "Big Cypreem B~oln and
Collier County Rei~tlonehl~ on Nate~ ~age~nt". He no~ed that thie
~trix ha~ ~en dev, lo~d b7 th~ coa~Jeeloner~' et~tf and hia~elf to
identify through th~ priory, eecondery, ~nd tertiary cem~l
Collier County ~htch ~ntity, th~ County or the B~in or b.~th ~ouId be
~ee~lble for the varioua pr~ra~ ele~nte and ~hat the divialon
that rea~neibility ~ould ~ If ~th ~ere ree~n~tble. H,~ added that
thi= ~trix e~e the ea~ functions, roles, and rea~nsibilitiee that
~re pr~ented previously and included here a~ page nu~be~ eight.
Hr. ~]~Tton continued that on Au~et 24, 1990 the B~s[n Board
~ted their budget for l~90/9t ~hich reflecta a 12~ =tiiage increaee
a~ ~ 62~ ~dget lncreaee. He etated the propoeed ependi.~g for opera-
tJon/~Jnte~nce and capital conetruction for next yea~ i~
rely 82.1 ~tl]lon ~ that thie accounte for the 50/50 eplit that
~ector Cyre referenced ~ega~ding capital construction and
m CCO,,;, 22
;'age 22
August 27, 1990
O{~er&tlon/malntenance. He pointed out that the B~ain'm adopted budget
which $g projected to the g3/94 time frame provides $.8 million per
year for th~ capital Improvement needs of the primary system of which
only $.? million per year la requested in the "Fact Sheet Number Two,"
page six. He add.d that in 91/92 the Basin will be hiring four or
five additional people to handle the added responsibility due to the
lo~a of the cooperatlv, agr~eme_nt with the County.
Coulm~loner Shanahan a~k~d If the total capital improvement
pr~r~ for th~ ~B 1~ $10 ~illlon. Mr. 91ayton r~plled that this
th~ ~mnt projected kt th. con~ultmnt, mad he feel~ that ~hat
~lng planned on a ~horter tl~ frame t~ $3 to 84 million uver a three
to four y~ar perl~ which will affir~ and possibly exceed the
~llllon projected over the 20 year tim.
Co~l~toner 9hanahan a~k~d h~ th~ three ~y~tem~ are 7olng to
tl.d together and h~ thm County 1~ going to achieve getting the
~~r~ Involved a~ wh~ther th~ ~y~te~ are going to be taken care
of $ Mr. 91ayton r.~ed t~t th. ~m~er~ ~ltuation could
~ndl.d thr~gh th. County'~ md v~lor~ funding c~pabllity or the
~tor~ater utility capability and the County n~.d~ to take a very
· ggr~mlv~ approach In ~king ~ura the homaown~r~' ~ocl~tlon~
t~ir obligations. ~e ~dded that It 1~ not · ~ltu~tion wter~ th.
C~nt~ ~hould a~u~ tho~a r~n~lbllltie~, but that th~ homeo~er~'
au~ocl~tlonm w.r..mt~bll~h.d ~cl~lcally when the devel{pm, nt per-
~lI~ were granted to ~ th~ re~n~lble entity. He ~ald lhat thi~ can
~ accomplished through th~ re~.latory program and public education
~d ~bllc awarene~ ~hould ~ expanded. Mr. Slayton mtat~d that the
water ~9e~ent district ham a mtaf~ of two ~nforc~ment [er~onn~l tn
~lll.r County to ~lp en~ure t~t the project d~velop~nl~ m~et their
obll{~tlon~ ~ [*r ~ retention, tr.{t~nt, and discharge. He ~ald
t~t h. feel~ t~t t~ County need~ to do th. ~ame for th.
within tM County'm re~latory ~ymt~. Mr. 91ayton advised th{t where
tbre ~re ~ ho~r a~moclatlon~, thm County mhould look at
at~ll~d basin ~tudiem to arrive at regional ~olutlonm.
P~ga 23
August 27, 1990
Nr. $1ayton suggested in order to establish an agreement to be
presented to the Commissioners In December 1990, the County staff and
Bamtn staff should review tc~ether and arrive at mutual requirements
and responsibilities.
Co~.~lisstoner ~hanahan questioned if the County's staff and con-
~uItlng organization and all Involved are In total agreemeqt that this
ia the way to handle the canals: the primary, secondary, and
homeowners? He ~entioned this because staff and the consultant pre-
Vilely ~d a different a~roach. Hr. Slayto~ affirmed th.~t there
~ve ~en $~eral ~orking session~ ~lth ~th C~nty staff .~nd the con-
sultant and ~hat ia ~tng presented ts ~hat has been agreed u~n as a
re~lt of t~se sessions.
~r. Bill ~renz suggested that the Co~tssloners at this tt~e turn
to the rec~ndations presented In the study ~hich ah~s h~ the
l~le~ntation ~Jll proceed. Ne stated that the first rec,~mmendatlon
la to adopt the ~ter Plan as the "blueprint", adding the: Hector
Cyre ~111 explain the other recosmendattons.
Mr. Cyre cosmeflted that th~ proces~ ha~ been arrived a: by the
reco~attone and details of the study and maintains ~ c, metst~ncy
~lth the ~r~th ~nageeent Act and direction It has previously been
given. ~e stated t~t he ~111 Identity the process the Co'mty ~tll
~ed to ~rsue In order to leplesent storewater utilities -ervlces
c~rges by 1991/~2. He ~lnte~ out that the most critical date is
Septes~r 15, 1991 ~hen ~ certified roll o~ service chargers -111 have
tO ~ provided to the County for tax billing purposes.
Nr. Cyre stated t~t it Is desired that action begin o~ August 27,
1990 on several tte~ t~t ~111 all~ the process to co~ce. He
~scrl~d the first step to ~ the creation of a utility as~d direction
t~t t~ County Attorney's office and th~ staf~ proceed ~ith the deve-
lop~nt of an appropriate ordinance for the ~ard to consider to form
a utility. ~e stressed that the ~or~tion of the utility ~'ould be
~st~d until t~ $eptem~r 15, 1991 date; however, the reason the
fomtlon ota utility is created earlier tn the process i,~ so the
P~ge 24
August 27, 1990
COmte of emtablishing the utility can I>e utility cost~ rs:her th~n
comte borne t~y genera] taxpayerm. Mr. Cyre answered Commissioner
Hasee'a cruestlon am to the cost of forming a utility by c.)mmentlng
that the only cost would be the time applied to formulating the ordi-
nance ~/ the County Attorney's office.
Con.missioner Hasse asked for the consensus of the Com:~ission.
Commissioner ihanahan reurked that his feelings are to a'ithorlze and
advertise to the ~blic tM t an ordinance ~ created ~or .~ stor~ater
utility. Co~lssion~r Go. night agreed.
Hr. Cyre continued discussing the rate study and ~ln:ed out that
prev$~aly ~ rate ~tructure analysis was presented which ~as a concep-
tual asae~a~nt of wh~t the alternative~ are. He exp]ain.~d that the
rate etud~ ~hould ~ddr~ the details of applying the con,:~pt to the
County's ~rtlcul~r ~ituetlon including the definition of a se~ice
area, th~ ~sible us- of ~Iat rat~ ~or residential, the pos~ibl~
of credits for on-site detention facilities, ~tc. H~ sug!lasted that
th~ rat~ study comaenc~ ae moon as the utility l~ formed.
~r. Cyre stated that it is suggested that th~ County {~dvertiae
a etor~ater utility ~n~ger who ~ill ~nitor the statI's respon-
sibilities for ~rk -hich will need to ~ accomplished In the next
year~ aM a~ed that this individual be hired a~ soon as possible and
~ part ot up~r levels ot ~n~gement ~o he can gain the {'no. ledge and
ex~rJenc~ from the consultants while they are her~,
eec ~W Clerk A~ighI r~laced ~ty Clerk Klark It 11:05
Hr. Hector Cyre presented the actions that th~ Roard (.f County
Co~issioa.~re ~uld have responsibility ~or which la the ttility ordi-
nance, the rate study which will com~ back to the Board for
pro~bly s~eral ti~s ~th in terms of individual conferences with
~ar~ ~rs aM In t~ras of ~inal adoption, and the decision to
~erti. and select t~ ator~ater utility manager. Comsiaeloner
~se ~stioned who the stor~ter utility ~nag~r would be respon-
sible to, th~ ~ard or the County Nanag,~r? Bill Lorenz answered that
~ch ~ employee ~uld re.ri to John Bolt In the ~ater Management
0 CC, O,,,,, 25
August 27, 1990
:)apartment under the County F~anager's agency.
After the completion of theme actions and the Roard lt~ satisfied
with the rate study and Its outcome. Mr. Cyte continued, the County or
Jte consu]tants will have to assemble data on Individual l,ropertles,
quality a~urance checks wtl! have to be made on this dat~, for
accuracy, an air elimination proces~ will have to b~e done to a~sure
that delivery mechanism will work which ~s the pro~erty t~x ro~l~, the
pro~rty tax ro]]~ wl~] have to be ~d[f~ed, and th, mast,.r account
file fo~ stor~ater utility charge~ will have to be ~sted ove~ to
pro~rty tax ro]~e ~o the two systems are ~ntegrated. ~r. Cyre stated
t~t the~e reqMJrementm w~]] have to start a~ut March or April, ~99~.
~r. ~;~e ~ugge~ted that there Js a need to train the ~taff ~n pre-
~ratJo~ for the type of ~nqu~rJem they w~l] be rece~vJng
the mtorwater men lee charge~. In reaCheS to Commissioner
~mmtlon., Mr. eyre agre~ the training ~uld ~ under the. new uttllty
Nr. ~re emphasized h~ essential It la to have a etr~,ng public
lnfor~tton program. He eatd the County needm to take an
~mltlon In explaining the needs and prob]ea~ that th. Co~nty faces
mtor~ater ~nage~nt, and h~ this etorewater service ch,~rg, along
with retention of the ad valorem charges, u~e of ap-clal ~,ee.aement
certain cases, uae of e~clal charges for some typem of tn~pectlon~
key to the aucceae o[ the Stor~ater Manageeent M~ter Pl,m la to do a
g~ Job In Involving and educating the public on thia aa~ter.
:o~l~lonet ~aeae felt that thla 1~ eaaential, however, ~aked It thia
~ld r~t ~ the rea~nalbliity of the utility aanager, lit. eyre
~ted yea, adding t~t In teru o[ ~kJng aure that th~ prograa la
tattled ~t, t~ Utility Manager ~ould be the focal point
:oul~aloner $~nahan ~lnt.d out that ~veryone would hav,~ to be
Involved to leple~nt the plan
~t. ~yre adviaed the ~ard that an ordinance regardln,i the
~ntatlon o[ utility ratea ~111 coee ~[ore thee for appr,~val approxt-
EO0,¥,, 26
August 27, 1990
safely next July or sometime before September 15, 1991, Ihs final day
for certification,
After these actions have been completed, Nr. Cyre commented that
the results for the storm water service charge will be a~ded to the
tax rolls which will be sent out in the fall of 1991 and the County
will have to prepare itself to answer the inquiries that will be
received from the l~Jblico He suggested that specie] phore banks and
I~cia] training of people are 3uet a few way~ to handle the enormous
a~ount of calla that are likely to result from this charge because
even with the ~bllc infor~tJon program, there will ~ti]l be people
w~ have ~estlons about their individual bill. general qu.stions
a~t the utility concept, general que~tlon~ a~ut how the basin and
the C~nty are c~rdlnmttng t~ether, and other question~.
cml blocks that h.ve be.n identified for the proce.s covering approxi-
M tely the next 13 ~nthm.
~ the ~xt step mince the ~ard has indicated their wle~ to proceed
with consideration of an ordinance to form the utility, [~ever, the
tieing la In the hand. of the County Attorneys' office, toting he has
prJ~rJly been .orkJng ~ith David Nelge%.
CouJaaloner $aundere stated that he feels It la appropriate to
have the ~ard direct Hr. Nelgel to draft the stormwater utility
otdlnance since the ~ard has been ~orking t~ard this fcr approxiaa-
rely the pa~t eight aonths. Cosalasioner Saunder~ requelted also that
once Hr. Nelgel has drafted the proposed ordinance, there be a series
of ~bllc ~orkshops discuselng It so t~t the affected mesbers of the
co~nity ~lll ~ve an op~rtunity to revle~ this ordinarce prior to
It ~lng brought ~fore the ~ard for a public hearing.
~ ~ a bl~tnt for ~1~1~ t~ C~'s C~e~t~
ItoTmm~tlT )Maa~lli~t lh'ogru; that the C~ty Atto~'e office ~
dl~ to ~re e .tinter ordl~ce; c~c~ ~bl~c ~rksh~e;
~ ~TtiN f~ I ~blic ~lrl~ ~fore t~ ~ard of C~ty
~JM~ tn t~ fall.
thei~ conlultants draft a ~ob desc~iption o~ the Sto~ate~
~ger to Identify the duties of the ~sitlon, after which time the
deecrlptlon ~ bright before the ~ard at a regular Board meeting so
the co~lsaloners can authorize the advertisea~nt. Coaalssioner
$hanahan agreed ~lth this request.
Coulsatoner Saunders pro~ed a question to ~r. Lorenz regarding
the rate study, questioning the recos~ndatlon to begin negotiations
~lth ~ater ~esources Associates and asked ~hether the ~ard should
~rha~ ~ preparing a request for a pro~al to solicit suggestions
for an entity, Including Nr. Cyre, to serve aa a rat~ consultant as
o~sed to stating at this time that the Board Is n~o:tatln9 ~lth
~rtlcular group. Nr. Mrenz replied that this can be tone, however,
staff*s preference 1~ to ~ork ~lth Nr. Cyre ~cauae of his expertise
~d d~elo~nt of the process. Co~lasloner $aundera a:knowl~dged
that h~ la not at all concerned regardln9 the quality of the group the
~ard la dealing ~lth, but to pro~te mom~ competition, ~e feels
the ~ard should 9o through the typical r~queat for proposal analysts.
He ~ald that even though th~ rate study la a different aspect of
~ ~en done ~fore and to negotiate ~lth Hr. Cyre ~ou],t be the
~tmlem~ ~ay to accomplish the ~ard'a objectives, It ~ould be of bene-
fit tc the County to see ~hat other group~ can do. Commissioner
~d Co~lsaloner Shanahan agreed that this should be the proper
a~roach of the ~ard.
C~lssloner ~hanahan stated that he thought the Board ~as going
to take the priory/secondary ho~o~ner approach and that the
~preas ~ln ~ard ~ould ~va a prograa In the County
~s ~ the eM of I~0 relative to the qultclala on the land rights.
Nr. ~ranz added tMt th~ staff has to bring hack to the Cosmlssloners
August 27, ]qSO
i,i~ an actual ~gree.~_nt h. e tween the County and the Big Cypress Basin Board
in · alail&r form that wan pre·anted to the Board in the outline.
Coum.t~olonee ~· moved, ·econded by Coumiaaloner Shaflahan and
4/0 (Co~i~ion~r Volp~ absent), that Staff prepare a Job
~riptio~ for th~ ~t·r R~rces N~nag·r and bring that back to the
· oard for its approval and th~n a/verti·e for the position; ~nd that
St·fl alo~ with th~ halp of th~ County con~ltant·, d~v·lop · r~lueet
for ~1 for · rate ·tm~y which is Part 'b" of Section 4 of the
'Jtors-.ter liaster Plan' [xac'~tive Sari ~nd bring that back to the
for t~ir r~l~ ~lor to ls~i~ the r~eet for
~loel~r ~~ ~ed, ~~d ~ C~lssloner Sanders ~d
carried 4/0 (~l#lon.r Voll~ absent), that Staff bring back the
r~m~d~tion b~t~n th· Big CTpres· ~ln and th· County for appro-
val alos~ with th~ quitclaim ~ th· land right· responsibilities.
C~mls~mto~r ~a~e~ v~icsd concern~ regarding the motion a· it is
not saTtn~ a~thlr~ reqarding th· city. to ~hlch Nr. Lorenz replied
that a~ th· pro.rs- ~ir~m d~v~lopln~0 In particular, within th·
Oordon Rl~er ~e~in study, coordination b~tw~ th· City mad the County
~i!l ~:~ln. Co~nlaelor~er ~su.-~er· comm~mnted that p~rhap~ th· County
&ttol-eae~ should includ~ th~ City Attorr~y in ~ disc-us.ions on the
overall o'rdir~c· arid includ~ his in th~ ~orkahopa.
~ inferred that this m satisfactory to him.
Com~li es loner
There being no further t~·ln·e, for the (food of the County, the
~eetlng wa~ adjourned ~! Order of the Chair - Time: 11:~0 A.M.
BOARD OF COUNTY COI~'ISSIONERS
BOARD OF ZONING APP[ALS/EX
OFFICIO GOVERNING BCARD(S) OF
SPECIAL DISTRICTS U~DER ITS
CONTROL
, al p~e·anced_ or as correc~