BCC Minutes 01/03/1995 RREGULAR MEETING OF JANUARY 3, 1995,
OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COHMISSIONERS
LET IT BE REHEHBERED, that the Board of County Commissioners in
and for the County of Collier, and also acting as the Board of Zoning
Appeals and as the governing board(s) of such special districts as
have been created according to law and having conducted business
herein, met on this date at 9:06 a.m. In REGULAR SESSION in Building
"F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following
members present:
ALSO PRESENT:
CHAIRWOMAN:
Bettye J. Hatthews
VICE-CHAIRMAN:
John C. Norris
Timothy Constantine
Pam Hac'Kie
Timothy Hancock
Neil Dotrill, County Hanager
Ken Cuyler, County Attorney
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: When is the last time we had to
get a double shot at it? Good morning, and welcome to the meeting of
the Board of County Commissioners. Mr. Dorrill, if you'd be so kind
as to lead us in an invocation and in the pledge to the flag.
MR. DORRILL: Heavenly Father, we give thanks this morning
for the completed holidays. We give thanks for the enjoyment of that
time of year and the opportunity to spend time with our families.
Father, at this, the first meeting of -- of 1995, it's
with great promise and -- and excitement that we look forward to the
year ahead of us. We give thanks for the election of our new
leadership not only here but also in Washington this week. Father, we
would ask that you bless our elected officials throughout the course
of the year as they make very many important business decisions that
are -- affect our community.
Father, we give thanks for the citizens of Collier County and
the support and professional staff of this government. And we would
ask that you bless our time here together this morning. We pray these
things in Your Son's holy name.
(The pledge of allegiance was said.)
Item #2A
AGENDA AND CONSENT AGENDA - APPROVED WITH CHANGES
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: I understand we have only one or
two changes to the agenda this morning, Mr. Dorrill?
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Chairman, I have only one change.
It's a request to continue an item that was on your consent agenda,
item 16-E-2 under administrative services. The request will be for
two weeks, not one week, so that it will be continued until the
meeting of January the 17th. And that's all that I have this morning,
Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Mr. Cuyler, any changes?
MR. CUYLER: No, sir, no changes.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE:
COMMISSIONER NORRIS:
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE:
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK:
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE:
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE:
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE:
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS:
north county --
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE:
not on. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS:
Commissioner Norris?
Nothing further.
Commissioner Hancock?
Nothing.
Commissioner Mac'Kie?
No.
Commissioner Matthews?
I have one item. It's 16-H-2,
Apparently the microphones are
16-H-2, I would like to move it
to the regular agenda. It's a discussion of the north county regional
water treatment plant deep well observation project. MR. DORRILL: 16-H-2 will become 8-H-4.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: I have four items from the
consent agenda: 16-C-4, 16-E-l, 16-H-5, and 16-H-6. 16-E-1 we can
just change. It reads to allow us to do something for the tenure of
the current chairman. However, we won't be changing chairman until
after we voted on this, so we just may want to when we vote change
that wording to be for the tenure of the 1995 chair. So I don't need
to pull 16-E-l, but I just suggest we change that wording when we vote
on the consent agenda.
MR. DORRILL: The other ones again, Mr. Chairman?
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: 16-C-4.
MR. DORRILL: 16-C-4 will become 8-C-2.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: 16-H-5 and H-6.
MR. DORRILL: Will become 8-H-5 and 6 respectively.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: H-5 and H-6. They'll become
8-H-5andS-H-6.
And if there are no other changes, we need a motion for
approval --
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Chairman --
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: -- of the agenda and the consent
agenda.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: -- I'll make a motion that we
approve the consent agenda and the regular agenda with changes as
noted.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I'll second.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: There is a motion and a second.
All those in favor of the motion please state aye.
Anyone opposed?
Motion carries 5-0.
Item #3
MINUTES OF REGULAR BCC MEETING OF NOVEMBER 8, 1994 - APPROVED AS
PRESENTED
Approval of the minutes for the November 8, 1994,
regular meeting of the Board of County Commissioners.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Second.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: There is a motion and a second.
Any discussion?
Seeing none, all those in favor of the motion state
aye.
Anyone opposed?
Motion carries 5-0.
Item #4B
EMPLOYEE SERVICE AWARDS - PRESENTED
Proclamations and service awards. Service awards this
morning, Commissioner Norris.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have
four 5-year pins. I'd like to call them and have them come up at
once, please.
Carolyn Kocses from budget. Carolyn? There she comes.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Five years?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Five years.
MS. KOCSES: I made it.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Most of those down in the second
floor.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Thank you.
MS. KOCSES: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: You survived.
MS. KOCSES: I survived. Yeah. Week 11.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Marilyn Norris from library. No
Kin, of course.
MS. NORRIS: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: She's thanking her lucky stars
for that, John. Congratulations.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Sure is. Barbara Burgeson from
project plan review. Barbara's not here.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Barbara's not here.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Almost made it five years.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Almost made it five years. And we
have Joseph Griffith from the road and bridge department.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Congratulations, Joe.
MR. GRIFFITH: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Thanks.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: For a ten-year pin we had Jeannie
McPherson from parks and rec.
MS. MCPHERSON: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Congratulations.
MS. MCPHERSON: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: There you go.
COHHISSIONER HANCOCK: That's also a badge of courage.
MS. HCPHERSON: That's true.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: And for the rare and coveted
20-year pin we have Elmer Schrieber from compliance services. Elmer's
out on a call this morning, so he was unable to attend to pick up his
pin.
Item #4D
SELECTION OF COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS AS CHAIRMAN AND COMMISSIONER NORRIS
AS VICE-CHAIRMAN - APPROVED
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: And before we do the next item
which is selection of new chairman and vice chairman, as I do my final
minutes as chairman, I have to tell a little story. Neil and I had a
conversation the week before the holiday talking about finishing up my
term as chairman. And he said something to the effect of are -- are
you pleased, are you relieved, are you happy to be done? And I said I
was -- I was particularly excited because I get to finish the book I
was working on. And he said, I didn't realize you were reading a
book. And I said no, no, be able to have time to finish reading the
book that I was working on all year. So the spare time will be
appreciated.
With that --
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to take
this opportunity on behalf of the board to thank you for your year of
service. You did a excellent job, and we all appreciated the -- the
efficient manner that you operated the commission.
And I'd also like to take this opportunity to nominate
Bettye Matthews as chairman for next term. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: There is a motion and a second.
All those in favor of the motion please state aye.
Anyone opposed?
Motion carries 5-0.
CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: Thank you. Thanks, John.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Do you want to switch?
CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: Why don't we -- why don't we do
the vice-chairman first.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Okay.
CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: And then we'll take a small break
and switch.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Very good.
CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: Okay?
COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I'd like to make a nomination for
vice chairman, please.
CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: Yes.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Hac'Kie?
COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Thank you. I'd like to --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Woops. Sorry. Habit.
COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Old habit. I'd like to nominate
John Norris for vice chairman, please.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I would love to second that
nomination.
CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: Okay. We have a nomination for
Commissioner Norris for vice chair and a second. Any discussion on
it?
There being none, all those in favor?
All those opposed?
There being none, motion passes five-zero.
Congratulations, Commissioner Norris. Okay.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Are we going to hustle this
stuff around?
CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: Why don't we take a -- a short
five-minute break while we make some changes around here, and we'll be
back in at 9:20.
(A short break was held.)
Item #5
BUDGET AMENDMENTS 95-104 AND 95-106 - ADOPTED
CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: Let's reconvene the meeting of the
Board of County Commissioners. Are we on? We're reconvening the
meeting of the Board of County Commissioners for January 3, 1995.
The first -- first order of -- of business to -- for the
rest of the day is to start with public petition process. As -- as
all of you know, we have a policy for public petitions that allow us
ten minutes for the petitioner to state his case. And at that point
the board of county commissioner will make a -- the board of county
commission will decide if we wish to have their cause examined further
by staff and brought forward.
So with that in mind, we will move forward with item 7-A
which is a public petition.
MR. SHYKOWSKI: We have a few budget amendments.
CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: Budget amendments, I'm sorry.
MR. SHYKOWSKI: 5-A. Quickly there are two routine
budget amendments. For the record, Michael Smykowski, acting budget
director. Two budget amendments that require your approval this
morning.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Motion to approve.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second.
CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: There being a motion to approve
the budget amendments, any discussion on the motion?
All those in favor?
All those opposed?
There being none, motion passes five-zero.
MR. SHYKOWSKI: Thank you.
CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Smykowski,
Smykowski.
Item #7A
SID KANTER, CHAIRMAN OF THE GLADES STEERING COMMITTEE, REGARDING ST.
MATTHEWS HOUSE BILDING SITE AND OPERATIONS - NO ACTION
Okay. We will now move on with item 7-A which is a
public petition from Syd Kanter, Kanter, chairman of the Glades
Steering Committee regarding St. Hatthew's House.
MR. KANTER: Good morning, members of the commission.
My name is Syd Kanter. I live in the Glades. My home address is 112
Wintergreen Way. I have asked, however, to have another member of my
committee which is Glades Action Committee to summarize our petition.
It's an abbreviated form. I will be passing out the full petition
right after he speaks. We would appreciate an extra one or two
minutes inasmuch he will be the only one who will be talking.
CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: We would like you to try to keep
it as close to --
MR. KANTER: We will try to keep it --
CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: -- ten-minute allowance as
possible.
MR. KANTER: Right. Thank you.
CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: And there's only one speaker; is
that correct?
MR. KANTER: There's just one speaker. Thank you.
CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: Thank you.
MR. CLUTCHEY: Madam Chairlady, ladies and gentlemen of
the Collier County Board of Commissioners, we thank you -- we thank
you for giving us --
CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: Excuse me. Sir, we need you to
state your name for the court -- court reporter.
MR. CLUTCHEY: I will do that, Madam, yes.
CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: Thank you.
MR. CLUTCHEY: My name is David Clutchey. I am a
resident of the Glades and a member of the steering committee
appointed by The Glades Country Club Board of Directors. We'd like to
thank you for giving us the opportunity to speak today. And before
commencing, I would like to extend to you the compliments of the
season.
Today we are presenting this petition on the part of the
country club board of directors, and our purpose is without prejudice
to prevent the development of the proposed St. Hatthew's Homeless
Shelter euphemistically referred to as a transitional living center on
Glades Boulevard. It is our contention that to proceed with such a
proposal would be to endanger the well being of members of our
community and result in the deterioration of home values, both results
being documented very clearly, very well, and incontrovertible in
similar circumstances.
Initially we asked the board of commissioners to
consider several facts pertaining to the recent extension of the
building permit to St. Hatthew's. The question is whether or not in
attempting to facilitate the process which would allow St. Hatthew's
to choose an alternate site the board and its agents have erred first
in accepting the good faith efforts of St. Hatthew's that they would
actively search for an alternate site; second, in permitting an
extension of the building permit that waives certain procedural
obligations on the part of the entity requesting the building
extension.
With reference to the county commissioners' board
meeting, June 21, 1994, it is clearly evident that you, the
commissioners, were resolved to find a way to solve this dilemma.
Nevertheless, there were certain reservations expressed as well.
Former Commissioner Saunders suggested his continuing
support of St. Hatthew's was, quote, contingent upon their good faith
efforts to move to a new location followed later by his statement,
quote, the board should send a clear signal that they, St. Matthew's,
are not negotiating in good faith.
After a brief recess, the June 21, 1994, meeting
considered item number 8-H-9. It was a session characterized by
numerous comments such as those of Former Commissioner Volpe who
questioned the compatibility of the site, Commissioner Matthews who
urged St. Matthew's to look for another site, Commissioner Norris who
suggested it was time St. Hatthew's recognized that they have a
responsibility not only to the homeless but more importantly to the
citizens of the county.
Subsequence -- subsequent events showed in the next
several months that there was a possibility of a movement to the
Linwood site. Many Glades residents saw this as a delaying tactic
designed to pretend good faith while they, St. Matthew's, continued
their program to raise more funds and sought to extend their building
permit. This appears to be precisely what happened.
With regard to the building permit extensions and
waiving of the fee, the June 21, '94, minutes show Commissioner
Saunders was so willing to help the process he stated he would
entertain an emergency amendment to the land development code dealing
with the administrative procedures of building permit extensions.
Commissioner Matthews argued the board should not interfere with
administrative procedures unless they are done by ordinance
amendment. Yet on September 9, 1994, St. Hatthew's was granted an
extension of its building permit which allowed for, first, a waiving
of the filing fee and, secondly, exemption of inspections until March
9, 1995.
How then does the board of commissioners account for the
fact that the county manager allowed a procedural change when the
higher authority found it unacceptable without an ordinance
amendment?
With reference to the county commissioners' board
meeting, September 9, 1994 -- and incidently, all of this information
is taken from the tapes; the -- the direct quotes are -- Commissioner
Norris after a lengthy discussion suggested if St. Hatthew's were to
go forward in a location that was quite removed from a residential
neighborhood, I think you would see a dramatic turnaround in community
support which would in the long run be essential to their operation.
Reverend Collins' response was both surprising and
strange. We are one step ahead of you. We are presently studying
that possibility. Perhaps even more strange, no commissioner asked
Reverend Collins to elaborate on or explain his statement. It remains
unexplained.
In an effort, however, to encourage St. Hatthew's to
look for another site, a motion as follows was passed unanimously:
The board is willing to transfer the building permit fees to whatever
site is selected by St. Hatthew's and approved by this board. It is
patently evident that the Board of County Commissioners has made every
effort to accommodate St. Hatthew's on the condition, on the
condition, St. Hatthew's move to another location.
The members of the Glades Steering Committee acknowledge
that the Board of County Commissioners is well aware of this
controversial issue that has plagued our community for more than a
year and the potential for even more disastrous consequences in the
future. We respect the efforts the board has made to try to come to
terms with this issue. We understand the actions of the board in its
response to a perceived good faith effort of St. Hatthew's.
Unfortunately, the facts show St. Hatthew's has demonstrated very
little good faith.
The evidence: Number one, while St. Matthew's purports
to drop the soup kitchen proposal, they have made no changes in their
architectural plans for their building. If their intention to exclude
the soup kitchen function were honest, why then do their architectural
plans not reflect this particular option that they would have?
Number two, they refuse to consider an alternate site,
for example, the Prospect Avenue site. Our research shows that they
have not made a single contact with either the realtors or the owners
of this excellent location.
CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: Are you going to be -- be much
longer?
MR. CLUTCHEY: Maybe two minutes.
CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: Okay. Try to move it on.
MR. CLUTCHEY: Number three, the St. Hatthew's board
arbitrarily turned down an offer of $495,000 for the purchase of the
property. The proposed purchase price was the cost price of the
property plus 10 percent. This would have been a starting point for
negotiations. And while it would be subject to the approval of The
Glades Country Club membership, there is little doubt that the board
of commissioners in its acknowledged fairness would have granted an
extension of the building permit pending ratification of the proposed
purchase.
Number four, St. Matthew's has continued to solicit
funds proving the voracity of the remarks expressed by Former
Commissioner Saunders at the commissioners' meeting on June 21. It
seems apparent that St. Hatthew's does not have nor has ever had any
intention of using any site other than the already-permitted site on
Glades Boulevard, every move being a smoke screen to pretend
cooperation while seeking extensions and soliciting funds to build in
this most unlikely and controversial area.
The board's own growth management plan entitled future
land use element makes the following statement: Important to every
facet of this element is maintenance of a careful balance between
private property rights and the general public interest. Care has to
be taken to ensure the limits are rational, fair, based on the health,
safety, and welfare of the public. There exists ample evidence that
St. Hatthew's problem-creating plan does not serve the general public
interest and does not ensure the health, safety, welfare, and property
value of the public.
Therefore, we in the Glades will continue to oppose this
development now and in the foreseeable future if St. Hatthew's
exercises its option to build on Glades Boulevard. Our petition is as
follows:
Number one, that the board determine by vote whether or
not the extension of the building permit to St. Hatthew's was contrary
to board intention as of the Board of County Commissioners' meetings
on June 21, 1994, and September 6, 1994;
number two, that the board consider the apparent
procedural discrepancy in waiving the fee for the extension of the
September 9, 1994, building permit for St. Matthew's, and will the
county commissioners hear the specific issue and vote to determine if
the permit is extended or expired;
number three, that the board recognize a planning
process which results in two diametrically opposed and incompatible
land uses to share a common border is not credible;
number four, that the board take a proactive position in
helping us to find a solution to this problem in light of the
intransigence on the part of St. Hatthew's in refusing to relocate and
in light of their apparent lack of good faith in dealing with the
board, with the community of East Naples, and The Glades Country Club;
number five, that the board assure the citizens of East
Naples and the Glades in particular that St. Matthew's House, if it
builds, cannot be used under any circumstances as a soup kitchen;
number six, that the board assures that the building
permit will prevent St. Hatthew's from conducting a catering operation
from that site;
number seven, that the board assures that every aspect
of the building codes and health codes will be adhered to in
evaluating the construction and utilization of the proposed building,
the 2.3 acres of property, and the general surrounding areas
consisting of residential areas, public buildings, and particularly
the 40 acres of adjacent wood land;
finally, that the board ensures that there will be no
increase in the size of the present soup kitchen or the number of
persons it serves.
Madam Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I thank you
very kindly for your attention and cooperation.
CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: Thank you. I -- I have a couple
of questions first that I'd -- I'd like to clear up. First, Mr.
Dotrill, you have the authority to administratively extend building
permits; is that correct?
MR. DORRILL: Yes, ma'am, that's my understanding. And
I -- I think that we indicated at the meeting of September the 9th --
the question was whether we could receive a request for two concurrent
extensions. The land development code allows for an administrative
extension of 90 days and a subsequent administrative extension for an
additional 90 days. Their request when we received it was for two
concurrent or consecutive extensions for a total of 180 days.
We discussed that, and I indicated to the board as -- as
part of the executive summary that had been prepared for that meeting
that it was our intent to grant them the administrative extensions.
And I also said to my knowledge we had never denied a request for an
administrative extension of a building permit. There did not appear
to be a basis for it in this case.
CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: Okay. Is it also within your
ability to waive the fees?
MR. DORRILL: That's I think a legal question. That was
an item that was discussed as part of a series of requests from the
St. Hatthew's House board. And I indicated to my board at that same
meeting that it was my intent to allow for a waiver of the application
fee unless I was instructed otherwise. And there was no discussion
concerning that. And on review --
CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: That's what I remember also.
There was no discussion on the board at that time in giving you
direction either not to administratively continue the permits nor
whether you should not waive the fees at -- at the same time.
One other question. Mr. Clark, regarding the building
permit that St. Hatthew's House has, it's my understanding that that
permit does not include a soup kitchen?
MR. CLARK: That is correct. And there's been several
-- I'm glad you raised that point. There have been several questions
regarding what that permit does authorize. That permit authorizes
only the eighty -- I believe it's 84 residents, the care, feeding, so
forth of 84 residents, and I believe there's a staff of 16. The
number 100 -- the total number of 100 people, so the feeding of 100
people.
It does not authorize the existence of a soup kitchen or
the preparation of food for off-site consumption somewhere else, in
other words, like a catering service or other. In other words, it
does not authorize any -- any further use of the kitchen for other
uses.
CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: So it doesn't authorize or it
doesn't prohibit?
MR. CLARK: It does not permit it. It does not
authorize. In other words, that is -- in -- in the land development
code it says what you may do.
CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: Uh-huh.
MR. CLARK: And -- and under today's code that use
itself, all those uses, are conditional. And that use is very
specific to that site by saying a homeless shelter. And it
specifically numbers the amount of people, I believe 84 plus staff of
16, so 100 people they can care for, feed, prepare food, and so forth
for 100 people.
CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: Okay. So in your opinion the
existing permit does not permit them to prepare food at that location
and serve it off site.
MR. CLARK: That's correct.
CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: Okay. Commissioner Hancock?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Clark, two questions, the
first of which may be better answered by Mr. Arnold or Mr. Mulhere.
It's a -- a -- just a physical layout question. Based on the existing
site, the existing building location, proposed parking, and so forth,
in order to -- and -- and forget the concept of having to go through
the conditional use process again for now. But physically is there
room on that site to expand the parking to provide for a soup kitchen
down the road?
MR. ARNOLD: To the best of my knowledge, there would
not be room under their current site configuration to add additional
parking to the site.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: It's pretty tight at this point,
and -- and to do that the required parking would -- would make it
almost impossible?
MR. ARNOLD: I believe if my recollection serves me
there was maybe two to three extra parking spaces provided on that
site plan for that specific use.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. My second question's a
clarification for me, and that is that if they were to try and do
that, it would require a conditional use under the current LDC? If
they were to try and include a soup kitchen in the existing operation,
they would have to come back before this board for a conditional use;
is that correct?
MR. ARNOLD: That is correct.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Thank you.
CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: Commissioner Mac'Kie?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: A question again to Mr. Arnold,
please. Am I correct, though, that the issue here or -- or that the
argument relies -- is based on when the permit was issued and based on
what code and that, in fact, there was a different code in existence
at the time, different regulations with regarding -- with regard to
soup kitchens at the time that the permit was issued? I just think
it's fair for -- I'm not suggesting that that's the appropriate
result. But I think it's fair for the board to consider that it's not
just black and white. There -- there are some complicated issues to
be considered here, complicated legal issues and others.
CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: Just a second. Commissioner
Norris?
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Thank you, Miss Chairman. For the
benefit of the public at large and because we have two new
commissioners since the last time we discussed this, I'd like to point
out a few things that the commission has done in the past and ask the
board if -- if we still have unanimous approval of these three
points.
Number one, one of the -- the -- the things that we as a
board unanimously approved was in order to facilitate St. Hatthew's to
be able to feel free to look for a new location if they desired was
that -- that we agreed to keep their present building permit alive
during any relocation and conditional use process that they may enter
into. That was one of the points.
A second one was that we fully support their relocation
and will work with them as -- as best we can without going so far as
to preapprove a conditional use, of course, for any property that they
choose but that we would certainly -- that we're supportive and that
we will work with them on any appropriate site that they may want to
relocate to as far as their conditional use process goes.
And number three, we also unanimously declared that --
that the Board of County Commissioners finds that the Glades and
Airport site is inappropriate site and that we encourage St. Hatthew's
to move.
So if -- what I would like to find out is since we do
have two new commissioners, do we still have unanimity on all those
three points?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I could -- I could tell you that
-- that I agree with all three of those points. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And additionally so do I.
CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: I -- I don't think that we have a
problem with our agreement that the Glades site is not an appropriate
site.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Uh-huh.
CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: I've -- I've said that from --
from virtually the beginning. My question has been and continues to
be one of property rights and the fact that the property was purchased
under a certain scenario of land development codes. The -- the
property owner has even secured a letter from our development services
saying that the property had an appropriate use for which they
desired. And -- and that's part of the dilemma that we have, that
they have a property rights situation even though the permitted use
for that property has changed, so I -- I ask that we keep that in mind
also.
Commissioner Constantine?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Madam Chairwoman, I -- I
disagree with you there. Just as we require -- just at the last
meeting prior to our vacation we required -- I think it was the week
before that but sometime in December we required someone who had had
permits issued in 1991 under the -- the then land development code and
wanted an extension and the only way we would give an extension of
that was if they did it under today's code. And we have continually
and repeatedly required people to do whatever they want to do with
their property under the existing code.
If I buy a piece of property today and I don't develop
it until the year 2005, just because I buy it today and today's code
allows me to do certain things doesn't mean that when I go to pull a
permit ten years from now that I can expect those same things to be in
place.
I have to also disagree with -- I have to also disagree
with Commissioner Mac'Kie when you say it's not all black and white
because when the application was made, soup kitchen was clearly
defined in our land development code and required to be stated on the
permit that the soup kitchen would be part of that. It was not stated
on the permit application. And it's -- for my money you couldn't be
more black and white. Either you followed the regulations and
requirements or you didn't. And in this case St. Matthew's house did
not include soup kitchen on their application, so that seems very
black and white.
Just going through the checklist that Glades had asked
for, moving backwards, as far as enforcing the codes, I'd -- I'd like
to think we do that. Mr. Clark does a great job doing that on every
piece of property we allow to be developed. So hopefully the board
can assure you that we will enforce whatever codes are required there
without doing anything out of the ordinary today.
And just to follow up to Commissioner Matthews'
questions, the building permit does not allow for catering, so I don't
think we have to worry about that. The building permit does not allow
for a soup kitchen, so that's not appropriate.
Number four -- number three and four had to do with the
planning process, and it mentioned that it seemed inappropriate that
these two uses are side by side. It's unfortunate that the board of
commissioners in the past had not addressed that. But at this point
we have through changes in the land development code -- C-5 and C-4 I
guess is now allowed -- C-3 is no longer allowed for this without
conditional use, though it was then. So I think we have addressed
that for the future. It unfortunately came a couple months too late
for this case.
And so I think it -- what it boils down to is we need
some help from Mr. Cuyler determining if the extension was legal. And
I think that's what you were asking for.
CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: Uh-huh.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And if -- was it contrary to
the direction of the board from last June or from last September?
CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: Be -- before you answer that --
that, Mr. Cuyler, Mr. Dotrill, one other comment. If my memory serves
me correctly, in our last meeting with the relocation task force --
you and I served on -- on that -- when the question of -- of extending
these permits came up, if memory serves me correctly, didn't Reverend
Collins make a comment in that meeting that he was looking forward to
the homeless camp coming forward because he would like to turn the
soup kitchen operation over to that group?
MR. DORRILL: Yes, he did. I think Commissioner Norris
can verify that because they've had similar communications. He has a
separate task force. I haven't been privy to that. But that's my
understanding.
CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: Uh-huh. So it -- it seems to me
that the soup kitchen question in this will handle itself when the
homeless camp problem is -- is also addressed and we -- we get the
homeless camp situations established and set up. And -- and it's my
understanding that St. Matthew's House would -- would appreciate that
camp coming forward as quickly as possible so that they can turn the
-- the soup kitchen operation over to them. That -- that is -- while
it is part of their mission, it's my understanding that it's -- it's a
part of their mission that they see a need for, but they would just as
well like to see -- see someone else do it.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Cuyler, can I get an
opinion from you if the extension as granted was legal and was it or
the waiving of fees contrary to the direction of the board?
MR. CUYLER: I can answer that based on what I have seen
-- I have not gone back through the September 9 or whatever the date
record is, as you know. And normally on public petitions we'll set
them over, and I'll have an opportunity to do research.
Based on what I've seen and what I recall, I would say
yes, that Mr. Dotrill was within the scope of his authority and within
the scope of his understanding as to what the board understood.
With regard to the waiving of fees, I'm less clear on
that. But the board does on occasion when it finds a public purpose
in waiving fees for some reason or the other -- and I can't recall a
situation like this having occurred before -- but in this case I think
that part of it was an impetus to St. Matthew's House to get out and
look for another location. And as part of that the board was inclined
to at least waive the fee for the extension.
I'd also point out that if that ever became a matter of
controversy or litigation, they'd have to pay it. But that doesn't
mean that the permit extension is going to go away.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Why I ask that is because if
the extension is legal, then we're somewhat limited as to what we can
do about that. But it seems we can address or have addressed some of
these other issues that were brought up so --
CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: Commissioner Mac'Kie?
COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Just two things. One is one of
the things that -- that law school does to you is it teaches you that
there's not black and white. There are definite grays in this
scenario. There -- there's vested rights issues. There's certainly a
case that could be made, and I hope that it doesn't come to that.
But more importantly, mine is a procedural question.
This is my first public petition. What happens in a public petition?
Are we going to take action today? Are we going to direct staff to --
CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: No.
COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: -- go further in their research?
CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: Generally in a public petition we
do not take action, but we -- we do at times if we want staff to
investigate the issue further direct them to do so.
COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: See, I -- it's my -- my belief
that this is going to die a natural death, that the permit extension
as granted is up in February; is that right?
CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: February or March.
MR. DORRILL: I believe it's March. And if you'll wait,
I'll give you the exact --
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: March 9.
MR. DORRILL: March 9 Commissioner Norris has said,
which was contained in a letter that I sent to them in -- on September
the 9th.
COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: So March 9 is when it will die of
its own volition. So that confuses me, and we see these desperate ads
in the newspaper saying they don't have enough money, they can't
possibly make it. So I'm confused about what the goal is for today.
CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hancock?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: We -- we could probably spend the
balance of the day running off into tangents about what did or didn't
happen, should or shouldn't, or what could be. The truth is the nuts
and bolts at this point are that there is a building permit that
expires on March 9. If they come up with the funds and can construct
and begin by that date, it will probably happen. There's nothing this
board can do about this -- that at this point. Our action begins on
March 10 if they do fail to act on their building permit.
In that light, my understanding is that should they come
back for a new building permit -- and, Mr. Clark, correct me if I'm
wrong -- it will have to be under the current code?
CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: Uh-huh.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Is that correct?
MR. CLARK: Yes.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. And are land use reviews a
part of that code?
MR. CLARK: Yes, conditional use, right.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: So I think we could probably do
everyone a service by -- by looking at this petition. Commissioner
Constantine has -- has wisely gone down and hit a number of issues.
Numbers one and two I think have been somewhat answered by our staff
to the point that we don't believe there was any, if you will,
wrongdoing on -- on the board's part in granting the waivers.
However, there will be no further administrative waivers; is that
correct?
MR. DORRILL: There can be no further.
CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: There can be no further.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. I think --
MR. DORRILL: I should correct, though. Rather than
them having on March the 10th, they are entitled to petition the
county commission for an additional extension. But that would be
outside, again, any administrative process.
CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: But also they would have to do
that before March 9.
MR. DORRILL: Yes, ma'am.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Otherwise it would be after the
fact. I think the board has recognized a planning process which
results in diametrically opposed operations.
Number four, as far as a proactive position in finding a
resolution, again, I agree with Commissioner Hac'Kie. I think at this
point it's -- it's out there, and we -- we just have to see what
happens with it.
I think this board has assured the residents of the
Glades that there was a problem many months ago when this occurred,
that we don't want to see this same type of thing occur again. And I
for one encourage you to -- to keep up your public involvement, stay
on our doors, stay on our backs. And -- and I don't know what else we
can do as far as taking action on this particular petition today. But
I feel that we have covered most of the points.
CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: Thank -- thank you. Commissioner
Norris?
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, I'd just like to wrap up by
saying that I appreciate the board continuing to take the stand on the
three points that I issued, and it just points out the fact that --
that the community at large is quite willing to stand behind St.
Hatthew's -- Hatthew's and support their mission. It's a matter of --
of not agreeing with this particular location. I think that the
community at large has shown that by not stepping forward with fund
raising for this particular site.
The point is that the county commission and the public
at large stands ready to -- to assist St. Matthew's in going forward
with their location in the -- in the circumstance that St. Matthew's
would try to find a more appropriate location. The -- the community
at large nor the county commission is going to stand behind them if
they continue to press for the Glades location. I think that's --
sums up the issue here today fairly well, so thank you very much,
board members.
CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: Yes. Thank you. I believe that
does sum it up. And with that in mind, there's not a great deal that
we can do today other than -- other than to wait until March the 10th
to see what the position is going to be. With that in mind, I -- I
would presume that we should move forward.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We'll see you all at the St.
Patrick's Day party at the Glades I guess.
CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: Those of you leaving the room, if
you could do so quietly, we'd appreciate it. We have another public
petition coming forward.
Item #7B
DONALD ARNOLD, COLLIER COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION REGARDING THE
REMOVAL OF EXOTIC TREES AND SCRUBS - JEEPERS DRIVE PROPERTY. STAFF
DIRECTED TO PREPARE AGENDA ITEM AND DEVELOP ADMINISTRATIVE GUIDELINES
Item 7-B, Donald L. Arnold.
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Arnold is here and is trying to make
his way up from the back.
CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: Excuse me, ladies and gentlemen.
If you could -- if you could quietly exit the room so we can continue
to carry on.
Mr. Arnold, do you want to give it a go?
MR. ARNOLD: Good morning, Madam Chairwoman,
Commissioners. My name is Donald L. Arnold. I live at 475 15th
Avenue South in Naples. I'm representing Collier Commercial
Development which I'm part owner.
We are trying to solve several problems at one time.
During the construction of the road improvements in the HSTU in
section 36 known as Naples Production Park, there was a lot of excess
fill, and we negotiated to use the excess fill and take it over and
put it on a site just off Bayshore Drive. Due to the long permitting
processes and so forth, the fill ended up being stored on two
industrial sites in the industrial park. You've got copies of the
pictures of the two sites.
The site that we wish to clear exotic vegetation from
and fill is located on Bayshore Drive. It's zoned -- zoned mobile
home subdivision. It's between two mobile home trailer parks. It was
originally used as a shallow burl pit for hauling fill out in the
forties and fifties. It used to be around nine-foot elevation, small
mound there. It's now approximately -- of the 13 acres, there's
around 6 or 7 acres that are lakes 4 to 5 foot deep.
CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: Excuse me, Mr. Arnold. Sir, can
we shut that door at -- at the rear of the room? Okay.
MR. ARNOLD: The property in question, like I say, is 13
acres with some small burl pits less than 5 foot below sea level. We
have had a determination from the DEP that they have no jurisdiction.
We have the Corps of Engineers' jurisdictional lines.
And what we request to do is by sol -- to enorder --
enable us to solve both problems, we'd like to clear the exotic
vegetation off of the upland area and place the excess fill from the
MSTU on that property in a level and clean condition.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Commissioner Matthews?
CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: Commissioner Mac'Kie?
COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I just have a question. Why --
why is this a process that requires a public petition? Why can't this
go through some administrative process instead of the board?
MR. ARNOLD: Gentlemen?
MR. CLARK: For the record, Dick Clark, acting community
development services administrator. This -- it's -- it's a good
question, and the question will be answered this way. There's --
there's kind of a fine line, and we want to make sure that we address
the board in this instance. Several months ago the board of
commissioners in the removal of -- of clearing some issues -- clearing
some property of vegetation and -- off of Radio Road did give the
staff some administrative direction and set certain criteria. In
other words, if there's a public nuisance involved where the public is
being adversely affected that we do have some latitude.
On the other side of the issue, the land development
code states that clearing or filling -- exotics they can do anyhow --
but filling prior to the issuance of a building permit is -- is
prohibited. And there are some general exceptions, very few in -- in
that instance. In fact, we're coming back to look at that.
But in this issue the -- the exotic removal is -- is not
in question. We can do that administratively. The fill removal,
since there's a public purpose involved, both in removing it from the
two sites where it's extremely unsightly and detrimental to the public
to this site also benefits the public, we see no negative effect. We
-- we would just like for clarity's sake when we have these kinds of
issues until we develop those administrative standards that's --
that's incorporated in the land development code in these rare
instances to come before the board and tell you what it is and explain
the viewpoint so if there's questions later on they've already been
answered and you direct us to -- to take that initiative.
COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: One of -- one of my particular
hot buttons is that I think too many small issues come in front of the
board that ought to be handled by staff. MR. CLARK: I agree.
COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: So what's -- what's the
methodology for adopting some administrative procedures so that you
would be able to handle this without us in the future?
MR. CLARK: We are in the process of -- of doing that
now, in fact, have been for about -- about 45 days of developing the
kind of issues, and we don't anticipate all of them. There are some
unusual ones come up that we don't think of. But we are in the
process of doing that now, bringing back to the county manager and you
for your approval of administrative guidelines. Under these
circumstances we have the authority administratively to do that. This
is one currently we don't explicitly have that authority, so that's
why we're here.
COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: For -- for what it's worth for my
vote as far as direction from the board, I think my job is to hire a
good county administrator, and his job is to hire good people to do
your job and that is -- you should have the authority to do -- make
those kinds of decisions.
MR. CLARK: We agree.
CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hancock?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Quickly, Mr. Arnold, I notice
that in a couple of these pictures there is some construction debris
mixed in with the fill. I assume that won't be a part of the fill
process.
MR. ARNOLD: There will be no construction debris
removed.
sure.
board?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. I just wanted to make
HR. ARNOLD: Absolutely.
CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: Do we have direction from the
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: I don't, again, know what the --
what the process is in a public petition, but I would like to
encourage the staff to permit the requested removal.
CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: Can I make this -- this suggestion
then, that we direct Mr. Clark to bring back to this board whatever it
is that he needs for us to allow this fill to -- to occur and that in
our Thursday workshop coming up this -- this Thursday morning that
this be one of the items that -- that we discuss as to what -- what
kind of policy changes that we -- we can make to make life easier for
the citizens of the county so that they don't have to go through all
this.
MR. ARNOLD: Just one question, Madam Chairwoman; that
is, in developing a policy to handle things like this in the future,
my question is, what do I do to get permission to do it?
CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: We're asking Mr. Clark to bring
back to us an -- an executive summary that will address your problem
so that -- that you can move ahead.
MR. CLARK: We'll develop some --
CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: We -- we can't make decisions in a
public petition.
MR. ARNOLD: I understand.
CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: Okay?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: But have we given sufficient
direction? Do you kind of know where the board wants this to go?
MR. CLARK: Yes, I believe so. And the direction we're
anticipating we will go is that the fill will be removed, the exotics
be removed. The fill will be removed within a specific number of days
so we don't have this transitional thing going on for two years.
we'll put certain safeguards in there to protect the public and also
allow the petitioner to go in the direction he wants but within the
constraints of public interest.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It appears we have two
distinct questions here. One is setting up a policy so this doesn't
have to come back to us. But the second is this individual case.
if we're not going to take action today, I'd like to see this
particular one on an agenda next week or some time --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: As quickly as possible.
CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: That's what we've asked Mr. Clark
to do, to bring it back. And then in our policy discussions we'll
address it.
Commissioner Mac'Kie?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I can't stand that. This is such
a simple question. It seems to me that they -- that our staff should
already have the authority to do this without coming to the board.
CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: Apparently they don't. Apparently
they don't.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Well, can't we give them
direction to interpret the ordinances in a way -- I mean, we have to
have two public hearings on this? That's absurd.
MR. CLARK: If I might, perhaps I can clarify that. We
appreciate the viewpoint, and I think you all share it. We do too.
Here -- here is where the complication comes in. At what point should
we exercise the authority, at what point shouldn't we because you're
going to have many developers out here say that we want to develop a
hundred lots out here, and we want to scrape every piece of vegetation
off of it. So you have how far is too far so that's why we need to --
CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: Yeah. Also they want to scrape
all the vegetation off and for some reason the project doesn't move
forward. Then we have barren land, and we don't have a bond.
MR. CLARK: That's right.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: But that's not what we have here.
MR. CLARK: No, it isn't.
CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: It's -- no, but there's no --
there's no policy --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Hac'Kie --
CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: -- that addresses all of it.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I give.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- if there isn't a policy,
we can't ask our staff to follow something that doesn't exist. I
agree it's frustrating. But we have to create one particularly -- and
you as an attorney will appreciate this -- particularly in the society
we live in which loves to litigate. We need to have something to back
up whatever direction we give.
CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: Okay. So, Mr. Arnold, we --
MR. CUYLER: Madam Chairman, one thing you can do that
you haven't done in the past, but one thing you could do is you could
have Mr. Clark put it on the consent agenda for approval --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I was going to request that.
MR. CUYLER: -- with criteria he develops. And then if
you want to pull it off, you can pull it off. But if you agree with
what he's done, then you -- it won't take additional time that way.
CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: Are -- are you going to try to --
to develop a policy that's -- that's all encompassing -- MR. CLARK: Yes.
CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: -- and not necessarily fits just
this situation?
MR. CLARK: Right.
CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: Okay.
MR. CLARK: If it's within these guidelines that we can
administratively do it, bring it back to you in the consent agenda.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: While Commissioner Hac'Kie is
reaching for her Tums, the -- as I understand it, we just simply can't
act on this because it's a public petition. We can't direct staff to
let Mr. Arnold do what he has proposed to us because there's no policy
to allow that; is that correct?
CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: That's right.
MR. CLARK: No authority in the land development code.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Actually --
CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: There's nothing in the land
development code.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- I don't want to prolong
this discussion. We can direct staff to do whatever we feel.
Unfortunately, we can't direct a policy in general right now. As I
said, in my opinion, there are two distinct questions there. One is,
are we going to set a policy? And I thought that's what you're
bringing back.
MR. CLARK: Right.
CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: That's what he's bringing back.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: We can answer the second question
today by directing them to allow Mr. Arnold to do what he has proposed
here today.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Makes sense to me.
MR. ARNOLD: Makes sense to me.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I mean, why -- why make him come
back in -- in a week or two if we can --
CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: Mr. Arnold --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That I don't disagree with.
CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: I don't disagree with that. The
problem is historically, public petitions, we have not made
decisions. And -- and I think for precedent purposes we would be
better off not to start making decisions even though in this
particular instance it seems more than appropriate that we ought to.
But at the same time I think we need to give development
services the opportunity to look at the total plan that Mr. Arnold
proposes so that they have the time to examine all the intricacies of
what he's talking about. If we just say, hey, let him do it, we may
be opening Pandora's box. We don't know that. And I'd rather --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: We have no way to place
conditions or approvals on that because we just don't have the
information is what you're saying.
CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: Right. I would rather follow
procedure and -- and have development services bring it back to us.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Unless it's something that is
absolutely black and white, even though Commissioner Hac'Kie believes
there are no black and whites. We don't usually take -- if someone
comes in and says, you know --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: This may be one.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I apologize for your being caught
in the middle of this, sir, but we will -- we will -- MR. ARNOLD: Not my first time, sir.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah. We'll move on as quickly
as possible.
CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Arnold. I -- I
think you'll probably see this on the consent agenda within a week or
two.
MR. ARNOLD: I thank you very much. Appreciate your
time.
item.
CHAIRWONLAN MATTHEWS: Thank you.
Do you have something to add?
MR. HULHERE: No, nothing. Next petition, next agenda
Item #SA1
MARCO LAKE DRIVE COHMERCIAL DISTRICT PARKING PROBLEHS AND PROPOSED
SOLUTION - STAFF RECOHMENDATION APPROVED
CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: With that we'll move onto the
regular agenda portion which is county manager's report. Item 8-A,
Marco Lake Drive commercial district parking problems.
MR. HULHERE: Good morning. For the record, Bob
Hulhere, your planning services -- planning and technical services
manager.
This item was brought to the board's attention back in
October by Mr. Pat Neale, an attorney representing Pierre St. Dennis
who has the controlling interest in a strip of parking along Marco
Lake Drive that has historically been used in connection with the
county right-of-way for head-on parking. Your executive summary
intends to provide you with all of the back-up information and
historical information.
And unless you have specific questions, the -- the staff
is asking for direction to amend the land development code -- actually
we're proposing a two-phase solution to this situation or problem.
And the first is that a public parking area will be created utilizing
the eastern 20 feet of the existing 60-foot wide Marco Lake Drive
right-of-way. It will run the entire length of the Marco Lake Drive
right-of-way allowing for approximately 75 to 80 parking spaces
depending on whether or not we put any compact spaces in and the exact
dimensions of this strip here based on stakes, so a field survey.
That area is currently not striped and is in need of
some resurfacing. It's really not in very -- really too good of a
shape, but the -- Mr. Archibald has worked up a cost estimate for
that. And, in fact, that right-of-way, Marco Lake Drive, is scheduled
to be resurfaced in -- in this fiscal year '94, '95. And so the -- if
we can coordinate resurfacing of the right-of-way at the same time we
resurface the public parking area which is also located within the
right-of-way, the -- the cost for just that parking area is estimated
at approximately $3,700.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Madam Chairman, I'd like to
move staff recommendation on the item. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second.
CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: Great presentation.
MR. HULHERE: Thank you.
CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a -- a second
on the item to allow staff -- a recommendation on the Marco Lake
Drive. Is there -- is there any discussion on it?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I just wanted to hear from
Commissioner Norris if this was something he thinks we have support
of.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: We have seen this as a board
what? Two months ago? About two months ago?
CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: This was a public petition, and
this is what's come back.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Oh, gosh.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: We've gone through the issue
before. The two new members haven't seen it I know, but we have gone
through the issue before.
MR. MULHERE: Which is why I was -- the only issue I
would ask is that I think the staff recommendation indicates that what
we're looking for is -- is provided that the -- the property owners
adjacent to the right-of-way submit the cost of the resurfacing of
just that parking area, including striping -- and there is a cost
estimate in your package -- then we would go ahead -- go forward with
the land development code amendment -- CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: Okay.
MR. HULHERE: -- to create that -- that central parking
for central business district.
CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: And it's my understanding
according to the executive summary that the merchants who use this
parking area are going to fund the entire project.
MR. HULHERE: That is correct. That is correct.
CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: Okay. No further discussion, all
those in favor?
All those opposed?
There being none, item passes five-zero.
Thank you, Mr. Hulhere.
MR. HULHERE: Thank you.
Item #8C1
RESOLUTION 95-29 APPOINTING RANDY MERRILL TO REPRESENT COLLIER COUNTY
ON THE DISTRICT EIGHT HELATH AND HUMAN SERVICES BOARD - ADOPTED
CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: Next item under public services,
8-C-1, a recommendation that the Board of Collier County Commissioners
select one individual to represent the district 8 health and human
service board.
MR. OLLIFF: Good morning. For the record, Tom Olliff.
And you'll have to excuse me. I don't have a whole lot of a voice
today, but what I have I've tried to save for this morning.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll tell to what, Mr.
Olliff. I'll try to save you some voice, and I'm going to make a
motion that we appoint Randy Merrill. The -- I know Randy's done a
lot of good work for the community. He's active in the community and
has -- in particular if you look through his application has some
history with healthcare particularly through a mentally handicapped
family member, so I think he'd be appropriate. CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: We --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Not to mention a fine, fine high
school referee. I'll second that motion.
CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: There -- we -- we have a motion on
the floor and a second. Is there any discussion?
I do have one item that I would like this -- this board
to think about. All three applicants that we have for this position
are -- are qualified. There is an applicant in the group, though, who
it appears their resume is rather streamlined directly for this, and
that is it's a registered nurse with a master's degree in public
health and is now an attorney, and that person being Start Joyce. I
-- I must say that I -- I was well pleased with what I read in the
resume in her behalf.
But we do have a motion on the floor, so we will vote on
it. There being no other discussion on the motion, all those in
favor?
All those opposed?
Motion carries 3 to 2, Commissioner Mac'Kie and Matthews
opposed.
MR. CUYLER: Madam Chairman, if we could save a
resolution number for that as well if the clerk will do that for me.
CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: You've made a note that the clerk
will reserve a resolution number?
MR. CUYLER: They listen, and I'm sure they'll do that.
CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: Okay. Thank you, Mr. -- is there
more?
Item #8C2
BUDGET AMENDMENT TO HIRE THE STAFF FOR THE IHMOKALEE RECREATION
CENTER/POOL FOR NINE MONTHS - APPROVED
MR. OLLIFF: The next item I believe was a --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: 16-C-4.
MR. OLLIFF: -- consent item that was moved to the
regular agenda.
CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: Yes. Okay. We've moved it.
Sixteen --
MR. OLLIFF: C-4.
CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: -- C-4 is now 8-C-2.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Madam Chairman, I had pulled
this item off the consent agenda. I just had a question. It was --
this item was suggesting rather than budgeting for six months of the
year we would budget nine months of the year for staff for the
Immokalee Recreation Center and Pool. I just wanted to try to get a
breakdown for three months what they're going to be doing. And I
understand it says here trained in life saving, CPR, and other
requirements. I'm assuming if we're hiring them as -- as a lifeguard
they're not going to be novices at life saving nor at CPR. And I'm
just wondering if three months might be a little excessive. You
probably want to get them early to train them, but would a month '-
I'm just trying to picture what a staff is going to do for three
months with a pool not open yet.
MR. OLLIFF: So -- so the board knows the timelines a
little bit, nine months actually begins today. So if we had the
authority, we would begin to advertise and try to bring some staff on
board for that pool. Our chances of actually funding and paying for
them for the full nine months is -- is fairly slim.
We have two concerns at that location. One is our
ability to find lifeguards in Immokalee; and secondly, the amount of
work that the lifeguards will actually have to do in Immokalee. Our
experience this past summer with the bus program where we bussed the
Immokalee people to the Golden Gate pool showed us that there is a
large percentage of those people who don't know how to swim and made
our lifeguards work frequently. And I've got some concerns in that
particular area.
We had to train 100 percent of the lifeguards that we
hired for the Golden Gate pool and certify them because it is
difficult to find people who are certified lifeguards here in this
area, there having been only one pool historically.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What's the time frame to
train someone?
MR. OLLIFF: Thirty-hour training course that generally
can be done in a week once you find them. But we would like to be
able to bring them on board, sometime get them a feel for the pool,
especially before school's out and the pool becomes a crowded,
everyday occurrence. And if we can get them on board sometime between
now and April, we can get them trained, give them that three months
between April and June to actually have some limited pool activity.
And then come June we expect it to be --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: When will the pool be
completed?
MR. OLLIFF: Hid April.
CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: Mid April.
COHHISSIONER HANCOCK: If I may quickly, Mr. Olliff, the
training you're talking about, you're talking about their
certification as a lifeguard?
MR. OLLIFF: Not only certification as a lifeguard.
There are certain AIDS-related kinds of training, head injuries, any
kind of blood-related injuries that you have to have special, specific
training.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: The reason I ask is I sit as the
chairman of the board for the American Red Cross in Collier County,
and I would be happy to -- if you get a group together to -- to set up
the training necessary that the Red Cross can provide for you. MR. OLLIFF: Thank you.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Madam Chairman, I'll move the
item.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second.
Any further discussion on the item?
There being none, I'll call for the vote. All those in
favor?
All those opposed?
There being none, motion passes five-zero.
Item #SD1
SETTLEHENT AGREEHENT BETWEEN CONSOER, TOWNSEND AND ASSOCIATES AND
COLLIER COUNTY REGARDING THE SOUNT COUNTY REGIONAL WASTEWATER TREATMENT
FACILITY CASE NO. 93-1144 - APPROVED
Next item on the agenda, utilities, 8-D-l, approval of
the settlement agreement between Consoer, Townsend, and Associates and
Collier County.
COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: While they're coming up, Madam
Chairwoman, may I ask, would it be appropriate in my continuing to be
a trouble maker --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: We're getting used to it.
COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: -- I see that Mr. Freni is here
and he's here for a particular item. Do we ever take things out of
order as an accommodation to people's schedules?
CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: Yes, we -- we do occasionally.
However, why don't we go ahead and hear this particular item since
we've already called it, and if -- if the board pleases, we can
certainly listen to the other one immediately after this.
MR. CLEHONS: Good morning, Commissioners. Tim Clemons,
waste water director.
Item 8-D-1 before you today is for the approval of a
settlement agreement between the engineering firm of Consoer,
Townsend, and Associates and Collier County.
Just to give you a little history because this predates
everybody on the board today, Consoer, Townsend, and Associates were
hired by the board -- by the county as engineer of record for the
construction of the south county regional waste water treatment
facility which commenced construction in late 1988. They were also
the engineer of record for several other projects ongoing during this
same period of time which was noted in your executive summary.
In 1990 as the plant construction was going on, a
significant number of cracks were discovered in the oxidation dish --
oxidation ditch structure at the plant. At that point we had outside
construction experts come in, do some tests, review the situation, and
they concluded there was -- that the design was not correct for the
structure of that nature.
Based on these findings and under the advice of our
outside legal counsel at the time, we withheld payment on not only
this particular contract but on three other contracts that Consoer,
Townsend was working on at the same time. I believe the total
withheld was approximately $330,000 of which 150,000 was spent to
repair the cracks in the tank at the south county facility which left
a contracted amount of -- of $182,346.28 unpaid to the engineers on
the four contracts.
At that point CTA filed suit against the county which is
referenced in your executive summary under the basis that they had
four separate contracts with the county and none of these had any
cross-default clauses in them and they should -- and that the county
wrongfully was withholding money due them under the separate
contracts.
We disagreed with that, and the county attorney's office
had raised multiple defenses to their complaints. However, Consoer,
Townsend continued to maintain that they should have at least been
paid for the three contracts if not all four.
Representatives from the county manager's office, the
county attorney's office, and the utilities division have since been
working to resolve this issue as both parties actually benefit if this
is settled instead of proceeding to trial. And the attached
settlement agreement is a result of these efforts. And staff is
recommending that the board accept and execute the settlement
agreement. And at this point staff is here to and prepared to answer
any questions you might have regarding all of this.
CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: Are there -- are there questions
for Mr. Clemons?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just a couple of questions.
CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: Mr. Constantine.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Cuyler, if we were to
choose to litigate this instead of settle at this point, what kind of
-- Mr. Bryant, what kind of expense both in time and money would you
foresee?
MR. BRYANT: That's an excellent question,
Commissioner. And as some preliminary information to that, let me
take you back also through a little more of the background. As Mr.
Clemons said, this is an ongoing four-count complaint against the
county. They're four totally separate contracts. Payment was
separate. The work responsibilities were separate on each one of
them. However, the county withheld funds on all four of them as
opposed to just withholding funds on the south county project when the
cracks were discovered.
When the county was initially offered a settlement by
Consoer, Townsend prior to the lawsuit being filed, they wanted
$450,000. We said, no, we don't believe you're entitled to that.
They filed suit against the county. We have strenuously litigated it
in the county attorney's office, and that's one thing that I'm -- I'm
glad this has come up this way for you so you can see the benefit that
we've been able to provide to you by our new litigation group that Mr.
Cuyler started.
Consoer, Townsend has spent, they told us at mediation,
$150,000 in attorney's fees alone and that their attorney told the
mediator that he anticipated another 50,000 through trial. So they
were looking at 200,000 plus in attorney's fees. We were looking at
probably another at least 20,000 in expert witness fees that we had to
fly people in for the trial if we went forward with the trial.
We got them to agree at mediation that they would come
down to $175,000 to settle, and we said no. They came back with this
final settlement offer that we worked out for 95,000.
And the one thing that we have to keep in mind, this
deal, if you want to look at it that way, or this settlement would
never have worked because the numbers would never have worked if we
had had outside counsel during this entire period. You all would have
been spending at least a hundred and fifty to two hundred thousand in
outside attorney's fees. So it would never have worked out. The
settlement could never have been financially feasible for you and to
walk away from the table with money. That's the -- the beauty of the
whole thing. Not only do we pay them only a portion of what we are
still holding because it's not like we're creating new money, but we
are keeping almost half of that money that if they had gone through
all four of the contracts and been paid on all four, they would have
gotten all of it. Plus if we had gone through the trial and you had
had outside counsel, you'd have the exposure of their attorney's fees,
the attorney's fees you'd already paid. And if the jury came back
with a verdict on any of the four contracts, you're looking at
attorney's fees for all of them.
So it's kind of like a win-win even though we are having
to give up money that they would have normally received. But we are
keeping over half of that money, and we've saved at least a hundred
and fifty to two hundred thousand in attorney's fees by our office
handling the case for you. And I recommend the settlement to you. I
think it is a good business decision. And as my client, I recommend
to you to terminate this litigation with this limited amount of
exposure.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: I have one -- one question. I --
I guess, Mr. Clemons, my question is for you. The -- the cracks and
so forth that showed up in the -- in the tank, they've -- they've been
addressed and -- and the building -- the tank is structurally sound at
this point?
MR. CLEMONS: They were addressed at the time. We have
since experienced some other cracks that we've gone back and -- and
repaired and done some work to.
CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: Uh-huh.
MR. CLEMONS: And as concrete may or may not continue to
crack, we'll do the same thing throughout the life of that facility,
so they were addressed at that time, yes, ma'am.
CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: All right. We have a motion and a
second. Is there any -- any further discussion on the item?
There being none, all those in favor?
Opposed?
There being none, motion passes five-zero.
MR. CLEMONS: Thank you.
CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: Is the board in agreement to hear
the TDC question now?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let me say this. If --
MR. FRENI: Madam Chairman, I'm fine. I don't want to
up -- upset your -- your schedule. Go right ahead. I appreciate the
consideration, but thank you anyway.
CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: We'll just move on forward.
Okay.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: We're almost there anyway.
Item #SH1
BID 94-2263 FOR GOLDEN GATE PARKWAY SIX-LANING IMPROVEMENTS (JCT.
GOODLETTE-FRANK ROAD TO JCT. C.R.31) - AWARDED TO BETTER ROADS, INC. IN
THE AMOUNT OF $2,791,638.20
CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: Yeah, we are. Next item on the
agenda is 8-H-l, a recommendation to award a construction contract to
the lowest and most responsive bidder.
MR. CONRECODE: For the record, Commissioners, Tom
Conrecode from your capital projects office.
The particular item is a recommendation to award six
laning construction contract for the Golden Gate Parkway project
between Goodlette-Frank Road and Airport Road. The design was
completed by the firm Kimley-Horn and Associates and put out to bid.
All permits have been acquired with the exception of the South Florida
Water Management permit which is pending mitigation on the number of
easements outstanding in this particular project.
Per the bid the board has until January 5 to award this
particular contract and an additional 30-day period prior to issuance
of a notice to proceed. Staff feels confident that we'll be able to
resolve the majority of the right-of-way issues within that time
frame.
However, there is a potential that the right-of-way
won't be resolved, and the county has an option to go do a number of
things associated with the delays as a result of right-of-way
acquisition. One of those would be to reject the bid and rebid the
project which staff does not recommend. The second would be to
recognize the delay damages that would be caused to the contractor.
Those are summarized in the executive summary.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Conrecode?
MR. CONRECODE: Yes.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Not to -- not to cut off your
fine presentation, but after reading the -- the executive summary, I
see nothing out of the ordinary in this particular awarding of a bid;
is that correct?
MR. CONRECODE: That's correct.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK:
part of the board --
CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS:
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK:
CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS:
been accomplished yet?
Unless there are questions on the
I've got one question.
Okay.
Has the permitting for this road
HR. CONRECODE: Yes, ma'am, with the exception of the
South Florida Water Management permit which is contingent on a
mitigation preserve area adjacent to the project.
CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: You're not anticipating running
into a problem similar to Livingston Road where we got into all kinds
of permitting problems and it wound up costing the taxpayers a
thousand -- a million dollars to -- to collapse the bonds?
MR. CONRECODE: No, ma'am, I don't because the district
has approved the area designed for mitigation. It's just a matter of
the county acquiring the property. We're trying to acquire it without
going eminent domain.
CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: I see.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'll make a motion to approve
staff's summary.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS:
CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS:
I'll second.
There being a motion and a second,
any further discussion on the motion?
There being none, I'll call the question.
favor?
All those in
Opposed?
There being none, motion passes five-zero.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Take a break.
CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: Let's take a break for fifteen
minutes until quarter of eleven.
(A short break was held.)
Item #8H2
STAFF REPORT OF EFFLUENT HANAGEHENT OPTIONS FOR THE SOUTH COUNTY
REGIONAL WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITY AND RECOHMENDATION TO PROCEED
WITH SELECTED ALTERNATIVE - STAFF DIRECTED TO PURSUE REUSE AND PERC
PONDS AS DISPOSAL METHOD AND TO KEEP DEEP INJECTION WELL AND PERC PONDS
IN MIND AS PRIMARY AND SECONDARY BUT NO FURTHER FUNDS TO BE USED; TO
WORK WITH HUBSCHHAN'S AND LOOK AT PROPERTY AVAILABLE AND OTHER
PROPERTIES AND THEIR POTENTIAL USES AND COME BACK WITH ANOTHER REPORT
CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: Let's reconvene the January 3,
1995, meeting of the Board of County Commissioners. Next item is item
8-H-2, staff report of effluent management options. Mr. HcNees.
MR. HCNEES: Good morning, Commissioners. Mike HcNees
from your utilities division.
This is an item that you've seen twice before, and so
I'm not going to make a lengthy presentation here. What we've brought
to you today is a list -- I'll call it a decision matrix -- of our
effluent disposal options at the south county regional waste water
treatment plant which is what this item's all about. And Ron Benson
from Hole, Hontes is going to present to you the -- the matrix,
discuss with you the cost, the differentials between the various
options, and hopefully get from you today some direction on which way
you'd like us to head with effluent disposal options.
With that I'll turn the discussion over to Ron and --
and whatever questions you might have for him or for the rest of the
staff.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you.
MR. DORRILL: Ms. Matthews, we -- we do have some
speakers on this one as well. CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: Okay.
MR. BENSON: For the record, I'm Ron Benson with Hole,
Hontes, and Associates here in Naples, Florida. What we've provided
you is a matrix of the different options as we see them regarding
effluent disposal and then the cost for three different scenarios.
The first one, current conditions, that's the amount of
effluent you need to dispose of today over and beyond what -- what you
are by tense. The second one is if it's an eight HGD plant with a --
needing an eight HGD disposal capacity, and the last column is if, in
fact, the plant was expanded what we would see in that condition.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I don't want -- I promise not
to interrupt more than once. But isn't the current plant an eight
HGD?
MR. BENSON: Yes, but we do not have eight MGD of flow.
We only have about four HGD, so it's taking the current flow.
CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: So -- so this current conditions
is four HGD.
MR. BENSON: Approximately, yes, which approximately one
half is disposed of by tense.
CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: It more than doubles.
MR. BENSON: Okay. Let me just say one thing. There is
a tense study component of the work that we're under contract for.
That has not been begun yet, so this is kind of a preliminary look.
And all these analysis is based on representative numbers for other
cities and counties in southwest Florida that have done -- we have
done studies for them or other consultants have done the studies.
they are representative numbers. They're not specific to your project
unfortunately.
A couple other things as far as assumptions, one is all
the numbers on your pages are as thousands of dollars. I mean -- so
instead of being seven thousand it's seven million. You have to add
three zeroes.
You had requested some information at the last
presentation, and one item was what would be the impact on putting off
some of the water plant expansions if you had a substantial amount of
customers using reclaimed water for irrigation which would reduce the
demand on the potable water system. And you can see there's some
numbers in parentheses on the first page, and that is our estimate of
that impact. So that would be the amount to subtract off of the
overall project cost if you're looking at it as a water and sewer
combined program.
A couple other assumptions. One is that of the
additional water to be disposed of, we assume that half of that, if
you went to a tense program, would be residential and the other half
would be bulk users.
There's three alternatives, the first three, and those
are kind of your a la carte alternatives, if you did the projects all
one way, either as tense, percolation ponds, or injection wells. The
next three are a combination approach which we kind of believe is more
likely to be the best alternative for you. It seems to be the way
most other communities are going.
There's a -- in the evaluation of percolation ponds, we
assumed it takes 75 acres per million gallons per day of disposal
which is a number that we have come up with with some of our
calculations also. There has been a study by Law Engineers regarding
the Hubschman property, and they came up with a number that was very
close to that 75 acres per million gallons per day.
The purchase price we used would be that you could get
land in the rural areas for as low as $2,000 per acre. We've heard
numbers that low, but we really feel that more likely it will be more
expensive.
In doing this analysis, we went through a series of
capital costs. That's your first page. We've also looked at the
operation of maintenance costs for these options. And then the last
page, developed present worth cost on a 20-year basis.
It depends on, you know, what flow we want to look at as
what the magnitude of costs would be. But, for instance, for the
eight HGD which is the capacity of the current plant, if you were to
dispose of the full eight million gallons per day of effluent, on the
last page you can see that the first alternative which is going to
almost totally reuse system has a cost present worth of between
approximately 19 and 32 million dollars.
If you dispose of all the effluent and percolation ponds
in addition to what's already being done as tense, it would be between
eight and ten million dollars.
Two deep wells which would be in addition to the current
tense would be seven to eight million dollars.
A combination of additional tense and percolation ponds
-- and let me say one more thing about the combination. We've
assumed in order to come up with some numbers that of the increased
amount of effluent that would require disposal that approximately
one-third of that would be additional tense and then two-thirds would
go to the other disposal method which would be either perc. ponds,
deep well.
If you use a combination of additional tense and perc.
ponds, you have 13 to 18 million dollars; increased tense with deep
well, 11 to 16 million; increased tense with an upgrade of the plant
to an AWT with only water being discharged to surface waters in excess
of what you're using, 13 to 18 million dollars.
Now, I'd like to say a couple things about a few of
these alternatives. One is the AWT alternative, the fellows from the
Florida Department of Environmental Protection have indicated that at
this time they can't tell you you cannot do that. It's a
possibility. We've talked to them further, and they've kind of
indicated that yes, it is a possibility, but there's a long road ahead
with no guarantees. And that is you'd have to do a full study of the
stream and the bay and -- and look to see can it handle the effluent.
That is a number, many-year process, an expensive process. And in a
lot of likelihood, the answer would be no at the end of that period
even though they say, we can't rule it out today. So that one's
probably not highly feasible.
CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: I -- I have one question on your
numbers. The reclaimed water where -- or I'm sorry, the tense
numbers, do these numbers include the capital infrastructure for the
distribution?
MR. BENSON: Yes, they do.
CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: They do.
MR. BENSON: It includes the pipelines.
CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: And -- and -- but they do not --
does it include any potential revenue from the sale of that?
MR. BENSON: No, it does not include the revenues.
CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: Okay.
MR. BENSON: Yeah. At this point it would be hard to
say what kind of a revenue you could get for this commodity since we
aren't sure exactly how the program would be done.
CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: Well, it's just that right now we
-- we have a -- a -- a significant population using potable water to
irrigate. And if -- if we can sell tense water at one fourth the
cost, certainly there's some sort of revenue here.
MR. BENSON: There's -- there's also an offset there,
and that is when you reduce the consumption of potable water, you
currently are billing that at the full rate. And so you could have a
loss in revenue.
CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: Yeah, but we don't have to build
as many plants.
MR. BENSON: That's -- and I factored that in.
CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: You -- you have factored that in.
MR. BENSON: Yes. The present worth costs of
alternatives that had significant residential reuse, the number on the
first page that was in parentheses has been subtracted out. CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: Okay.
MR. BENSON: And that was your request last time.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just a --
CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: Is that the -- is that the end of
the presentation?
MR. BENSON: Yeah, that's -- you asked for some numbers,
and we've kind of put the numbers down. And as I said, these are very
preliminary, lots of assumptions.
CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: Just to give us an idea of what
we're looking at.
MR. BENSON: Generalities.
CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: Thank you very much.
Commissioner Constantine.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just a quick question. Item
4, number 4, on the first page assumes purchase at 2,000 per acre, and
then you said the chances are it will be more expensive. I'm
wondering why we chose 2,000 per acre if you believe that we can't
really get it for 2,000 per acre.
MR. BENSON: Well, it depends on how far to the east you
go in looking for large parcels of land, and we've heard numbers that
low. So we used the low end on that particular one.
The cost of construction of the percolation ponds in
this case is probably more expense -- I know it is. It's more
expensive than the land even costs. So if you doubled the price of
that property, it would only go up about a third of probably the
numbers that are here.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you.
MR. BENSON: There's a trade-off there also. If you go
further to the east, you have more pipelines and pumping requirements
to get the water out to the lower priced land than if you built --
build the percolation ponds closer in. So there is some trade-offs.
And a more thorough analysis at a later date would -- would be able to
incorporate all those site-specific options.
CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: Are there further questions on
this report?
I don't see any further. I think this is probably
something that we have to digest what some of these costs are and move
forward and ask our questions at a later date.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Just I guess for the balance of
the board's information, in averaging out the eight million gallon per
day column, obviously perc. and deep well come out at the bottom end.
But in that middle zone are the two tense which I'm -- I'm happy to
see.
CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: Uh-huh.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Yeah.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Because it -- it -- although it's
more costly, I think we are looking at something in -- in those two
areas that is a true benefit to the community as a whole. So I would
like to look very strongly at those and just stating that so the board
knows where --
CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: I -- I agree with that, and I --
and I -- I firmly believe that as our -- our population grows and we
have more and more need for X numbers of gallons of potable water more
as time goes on that the availability to sell tense at some fraction
of the cost for potable water is -- is very much there.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Was -- Mr. McNees, you were
hoping to walk away today with this board pointing to a single list on
this -- a single item on this list and say, Mike, go -- go get this
for us? Is that -- is that a fair assumption?
MR. MCNEES: Well, I hope we get at least a little
closer to that. If I may, going back to the matrix here, there are
six options listed here, and I think we can easily eliminate four of
them. And let me tell you why I say that.
The AWT upgrade we know is not -- not feasibly
permitable. We can scratch that one. I believe you've already
indicated reclaimed water is a high priority for you. So number two
and three fall off the list as far as pure percolation ponds and --
and pure deep well disposal.
The first item, a purely reclaimed water system, staff's
going to tell you as it has over and over that when it's raining and
everybody's wet, that's just not feasible as a sole alternative. And
the 71 million dollar tag on the far right is somewhat of an attention
getter as well, and I think we can probably scratch that one.
So you see, we've advanced considerably now. We're down
to two options where we pursue reuse which is what staff would
recommend in the cases where it remains economically feasible. In
other words, we wouldn't build a ten-mile pipeline to serve a little
bitty subdivision because that wouldn't make any sense.
But we would continue, as Mr. Benson referenced, a reuse
study that they're embarking upon that would help us identify where
that is cost effective over the long haul considering the revenue
issues, considering the lost revenue issues where we lose revenue on
the water side when reuse becomes more widely available. So we're
down to essentially the question becoming for back-up disposal, are we
talking about percolation ponds, or are we talking about deep well?
Now, staff continues to recommend to you because of what
we believe to be the cost effectiveness and the reliability that we
continue to pursue smaller scale deep well than you originally
presented as our back-up disposal method. We are, however, prepared
to continue to look at percolation ponds. I know you have an offer on
the table of some land that we -- that has been suggested that you
purchase. Staff will be happy to -- to consider that.
I think what we'd like to ask for you today is, one, to
endorse the concept of increased reuse as our first priority for
effluent disposal where it's cost effective; number two, that we study
further the site that has been proposed for what would be probably the
most quickly obtainable percolation ponds; and number three, that we
continue at least with the permitting effort for a single disposal
well, an injection well, and that we come back to you if you -- if you
would still like to digest these numbers a little bit further with as
much detail as we can on those two options as to which would be the
best long-term cost effective dis -- back-up disposal method.
CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hancock?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Just quickly, Mike. I understand
this board has not been gang busters about deep well injection, but I
understand it is a viable alternative. What is the cost of pursuing
the permitting? In other words, what kind of dollars are we talking
about spending on something that this board has not really shown a --
a favor toward?
MR. MCNEES: Approximately $120,000 to get it permitted.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Hundred and twenty thousand
dollars for something we're not really sure we're sold on yet. MR. MCNEES: (Mr. McNees nodded head.)
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: That's -- again, that's just --
that's where I'm coming from. We haven't shown a lot of support for
deep well injection. It has nothing to do with technology. It just
has to do, I think, with us being a little concerned about that end
question of where are we actually putting this stuff and what is the
long-term effect and not really having solid answers for it. Just I
think there's some skepticism on this board for that.
CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: Thank you.
Commissioner Mac'Kie?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And just -- and what would the
cost be of -- of suspending the deep well injection permitting process
because I have to agree with what Commissioner Hancock's saying?
CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: What do we have in it right now?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That we would lose if we
suspended the process. Do we have to start over with application
fees? Do we have to --
MR. MCNEES: I -- whatever we have spent to date is --
isn't lost in that process, and I'd have to ask the engineers doing
that. I think it's probably less than $50,000.
MR. MARTIN: Thirty thousand dollars.
MR. MCNEES: Kirk Martin from Missimer International is
the -- the consultant that's actually doing that work. He's -- he's
for the record indicating we spent about $30,000 to date. That's
certainly not lost. I guess staff has a feeling that in terms of the
long haul that we're headed eventually towards an injection well as a
likelihood because of the reliability, because of the problems that
we've workshopped and detailed with percolation ponds and the -- the
large number of acres required. And we may end up with a combination
of some perc. ponds and just as the emergency disposal method of the
deep well. That would be our reason for wanting to move forward. But
obviously it's your decision, but we're just making that
recommendation.
CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: I've got one -- one further
question on that -- on the reuse. And that is the capital
infrastructure for the distribution. Two -- two years ago, three
years ago we -- we went through a -- an enhancement to the south
county waste water treatment system where we put pipelines in for
sewer collection and we assessed the property owners for that even
though we -- we had to assess them because the cost was above and
beyond whatever grants we had been -- been able to get.
The value stated here includes a distribution system and
the cost of installing it? So we would be doing this for the benefit
of the water sewer district and not for the benefit of the property
owners? Is that -- is that where I'm seeing this so that there would
be no, quote, unquote, assessments?
MR. MCNEES: I'm not prepared to say there would not be
assessments or that there could not be. I think that's the kind of
thing we're going to have to look closely at as we approach this
because these are some new questions.
I can tell you that on Marco Island when we looked at
reuse systems as part of the sewer system expansion, we talked about
specifically assessing for the reuse system. And the residents down
there didn't want that. They didn't want to pay that extra bill. And
that's something you're going to hear more about in the Marco Island
master planning and how you want to handle that.
CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: Uh-huh.
MR. MCNEES: So some of this may be assessable. That
may be -- we talked at our last workshop about the -- the board may
need to make some general policy changes. The board has in the past
not wanted to pay the bill in cases where private property owners or
developers were receiving the major benefit. It may be -- we may be
to the point where the board's going to have to pay for disposal, and
it might be better to pay for effluent reuse systems as opposed to
perc. ponds or deep well.
I think probably we may get into some cost sharing with
property owners where the -- the water sewer district would pick up a
piece of the tab and the private property owners. Those are all
decisions that -- that will have to be made down the road in terms of
what -- I mean, the market will rule somewhat over what people will
pay and what we're -- our options are in terms of what's most
expensive. But it's a good question. I don't know if I've given you
any kind of an answer at all.
CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: You -- you've given me the answer
that you -- you're considering that -- MR. MCNEES: Yes.
CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: -- we may move in that -- in that
direction.
Commissioner Constantine?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm a little bit concerned
the staff thinks what ultimately be done is a specific thing, in this
case deep well. At least two members of this board have expressed
very strong reservations about that. I have some questions as well.
And I appreciate the forward thinking of trying to get on with this.
But at the same time I think you need to be careful not to base any
decisions on what staff thinks is the best. Hopefully that will come
across and we share that info and make that decision together.
But ultimately it's going to be whatever the board
decides. I don't think it's for sure at all at this point what that's
going to be. So I share -- I think Commissioner Hancock's made a
great point. If -- if there are at least two members who have very,
very serious reservations, I'm not sure we should be spending $120,000
without clear direction from the board.
CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: I share that as well. I -- I know
we may have $30,000 already committed to the process, but if that's
retrievable money, meaning that we can stave off spending the
additional 90,000 until we're a little more firm about what we want to
do, I certainly would endorse that. Any other questions?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I know we have speakers on this
issue, but it seems that we're down to one box on this chart that I
can read.
CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: Increased reuse with percolation.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: With percolation ponds. I -- I
guess if staff is seeking some form of direction, we should hear from
whoever's registered to speak. But I think I hear a general consensus
of the board that that is the direction that we favor as to what's
been presented here today. And I'd put that on the table for
discussion or motion or whatever you folks would like to do.
CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: Well, let's hear from the public
comment first.
Mr. Dotrill.
MR. DORRILL: Yes, ma'am. We have three. I have Mr.
Hubschman and Mr. Minor who will be part of that if I could have you
stand by, please. Mr. Hubschman.
CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: Mr. Hubschman.
MR. HUBSCHMAN: Happy new year, Commissioners.
CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: Okay.
MR. HUBSCHMAN: My name's Harrison Hubschman. I'm here
really just to introduce Grady Minor today to let him speak about our
property that we have to the south of the regional plant that you have
problems with here.
CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: Mr. Hubschman, I -- I think at
this point today we're -- we're merely trying to decide whether we
want to use a reuse system with perc. ponds and -- and -- or deep
well. I think the board has already expressed that it wants to go
with perc. ponds. And I know from conversations with you that you
have property which you believe is really suitable for perc. ponds.
And perhaps it's better for you to work with staff rather than to
spend your time today telling us about something that we're merely
going to direct staff to do.
MR. HUBSCHMAN: Yeah. Maybe that would be -- maybe that
would be better if you want to direct staff to work with -- with us on
that. That would be fine with us.
CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: If you want to give us just an
overview of -- of what's available in a few short minutes.
MR. HUBSCHMAN: Okay. All right. We have approximately
140 acres of land that's very short distance south of the plant
itself. It's boundaried on -- on two sides by vacant land, so you're
really not going to impact any housing or any, you know, communities.
You have the entrance of Lely Resort on -- on the east. You have a
vacant piece of land on the west and the -- and the north. And we've
done some of the testing already to try to determine what the
percolation rates are on that property. And they came up I would say
average. I wouldn't say they came up great.
There is an alternative, though, and I would like Grady
to speak about that. And that is the use of those ponds not just as
perc. -- percolation but as a -- as storage. The Florida Department
of Environmental Protection allows you to use land for storage. And
in that process you will get some percolation out of the process too.
And the numbers are pretty staggering as to how much storage you could
put on this property. That could fit into a reuse plan very nicely.
So rather than me speak about it, I would like Grady
just to spend a few minutes on it if he could.
CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: That's quite all right, yeah.
MR. HUBSCMAN: Okay. Thank you.
CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: Thank you.
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Minor?
CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: Mr. Minor.
MR. DORRILL: And then the final speaker will be Mr.
Perkins, Madam Chairman.
MR. MINOR: Good morning. My name is Grady Minor, and
I'm a registered professional engineer. I'm representing the
Hubschman Associates, and we've consulted with them regarding this
hundred and forty-three acre parcel of land that's located on the East
Trail across from the Hitching Post Plaza. If I may --
CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: You can give those to Mr. Cuyler,
and he'll distribute them, and you can just keep talking. MR. CUYLER: I'll hand them out.
MR. MINOR: We've prepared three schemes for this
property to hopefully assist you with effluent disposal of waste water
effluent from your south regional waste water treatment plant.
We contracted with Law Engineering to do certain tests,
computer modeling on the property. They performed double ring
infiltrometer tests and sludge tests which give you an indication of
the percolation rate and the porosity on the site. The tests were
conducted recently. The field tests were done about three weeks ago,
and the computer modeling was done about two weeks ago.
Scheme one which is the top drawing shows the entire
hundred and forty-three acres and the series of percolation ponds.
This, based on Law Engineering's studies, would allow you to dispose
of approximately a million and a half gallons per day on the site.
Scheme two shows the site set-up also as percolation
ponds, but it also shows a possible 50-acre regional county park
fronting on U.S. 41. With this scheme you could dispose of
approximately a million gallons per day on this site.
Scheme three --
CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: You said that -- excuse me, Mr.
Minor. You said a million gallons?
MR. MINOR: A million gallons.
CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: On scheme one.
MR. MINOR: A -- a million and a half. If I misspoke,
On scheme one it's about a million and a half gallons per
I'm sorry.
day --
CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: Okay.
HR. HINOR: -- without the park. On scheme two it's
about a million gallons per day with a 50-acre park. CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: Okay.
MR. MINOR: Scheme three shows the site being used for
treated effluent storage pond. The scheme would provide storage for
approximately 122 million gallons based on stacking it 5 feet above
the wet season water table. It provides you with at least eight days
of -- ten days of wet weather storage based on an eight million gallon
per day plant and then gives you additional storage as the effluent's
being moved to the different tense sites.
The added advantage of the effluent storage pond is that
the pond does not have to be lined. The water that you hold there can
mingle with the ground water, so you also get the benefit of the
natural percolation.
The site's real flexible. I've just drawn up three
schemes. The regional park can be in almost any configuration. It
could -- it could go north and south, east and west, or along 41 as I
drew it up. The site's available for sale. And hopefully with
further review by your engineer, your financial people, and your
staff, you could find a way to fit it into the south county regional
waste water treatment plant effluent disposal.
CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: Okay. Are there any questions for
Mr. Minor? Thank you.
MR. MINOR: Thank you.
CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: Mr. Perkins.
MR. DORRILL: He's the final one.
CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: Thank you.
MR. PERKINS: Good morning, Commissioners. I hope you
all had a nice holiday season and to you people out there too,
especially you, Jerry, back there sleeping. Absolutely, A1 Perkins,
Belle Heade groups.
Effluent, a problem that's not going to go away. Trash
and garbage, not going to go away. Now, we know what the problems
are. And if you people aren't pop -- prop -- part of the solution,
then you're going to be part of the problem.
Now, we can fix it. We've got the technology. We've
got the land available. We've got everything we need. Now all we
need is some people to take and do it.
Now, I'm getting mixed numbers here. The last time I
was here they talked about deep well injection at the tune of nine
million dollars per well.
CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: No, that was for two wells.
MR. PERKINS: For two wells?
CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: (Chairwoman Matthews nodded head.)
MR. PERKINS: Okay. Then I stand corrected because --
CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: Keeping in mind if that's going to
be the primary disposal method, you have to have two.
MR. PERKINS: Right. That's the point that I was going
to make, the fact that the EPA at the very last meeting stated that
they required two wells, okay, because before that it was subject to
getting a permit. And nobody knew whether or not they could get it.
Now, sewage, sludge, and effluent, trash and garbage go
hand in hand. The effluent and the sludge is needed to compost trash
and garbage into a reusable subject.
Now, you're talking about land. Land has been made
available to you people. A thousand acres is available under a joint
venture for waste recovery facility. This not only means trash and
garbage; it means gas from the dump. It also means the effluent, and
it means the sludge, all of the possible things. The only problem is
that I don't think you're getting all of the input, all of the
complete input about the whole thing.
Now, I'm going to take and try to provide because I -- I
asked the question of different companies, and they're dumping tons
and tons of information on me. Apparently you're not getting it. I'm
going to make it a point to make sure that you do get the information
from Gas Groups of Chicago, from Microbiology out of Atlanta, out of
Caterpillar of -- of Ohio but they're doing business through Fort
Myers. All these people are dumping information on me. And one
question leads to ten. Ten leads to -- it goes all over the country.
California's big on it. Connecticut's big on it. Chicago and
Illinois, all through that, Wisconsin is big on recycling and cleaning
up their waste recovery systems; okay? They're making money on this.
Now, privatization of the -- of the dump, Waste
Management is looking at a gold mine there. That's the reason --
CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: A1, A1, we're -- we're talking --
MR. PERKINS: Okay.
CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: -- about effluent today.
MR. PERKINS: Okay. All right. Back on this. First of
all, we're against deep well, okay, because don't tell me that some
expert can see down there where it's going, not in -- not in this --
CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: I think this board has already
said that's not the favorite way.
MR. PERKINS: Couple other of points and I'll get out of
your face here. As far as the amount of money that has been spent,
the $30,000 from the permit, throw it away. It's not worth it.
You're only going to throw bad money -- more money on top of bad
money.
The reclaiming of the effluent should be primary for the
simple reason that don't throw away a natural resource. We have the
ability to do it. And the amount of monies that you're talking about,
we're talking about eight to ten million dollars throwing it all over
the place. You can run a lot of pipelines. And you can take and make
it very attractive to people to water their lawns and if they can get
rid of it on the golf courses.
Something else, in Belle Heade area alone, the farmers
to the south can certainly use the water in the dry season. At the
same time the graze -- grazing land to the north, it's necessary
because it has all the proper elements in there that they can grow
good grass for cattle.
With that I'll close. I think I've covered everything.
But just remember, these two problems are not going to go away.
You're going to have to fix it. Thank you. CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: Thank you.
Further discussion? Commissioner Constantine?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just a question. Mr. Perkins
brought up the price for the two deep wells. If it was nine million
two weeks ago, it's only showing six to seven million now, and I --
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: That's a couple of weeks more and
it'll -- it should be fairly cost effective.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah. If we could hold off
maybe a couple more weeks, maybe we can get it down to three million
and --
MR. HARTIN: Can I speak to that?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah, please do. What --
what is the difference in the last couple of weeks in the price?
MR. HARTIN: The estimate that was given before was six
to nine million dollars. It wasn't just nine. It was six to nine.
In trying to refine these costs, we've got it down to six to seven
million dollars. And to be honest, if you look at the perc. ponds,
because the board has been wanting to go perc. ponds, we try to keep
those costs low. We're trying not to be accused of trying to push the
board one way or the other.
So if anything, we're trying to be high on the injection
well side, low on the perc. pond side. The six to seven million
dollars is a very, very good estimate, though, for two injection
wells.
CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: But the problem with the deep
injection well is once it's gone, it's gone forever.
HR. HARTIN: Correct.
a permanent disposal.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK:
CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS:
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK:
done?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I had one more question.
It is gone. It's -- it's -- it's
Madam --
Commissioner Hancock?
Was Commissioner Constantine
On
the perc. ponds, the second choice here, somebody needs to help me.
And I leaned over and asked, but I didn't -- this -- the 14 to 18
million dollars includes the 75 acres per million dollars per HGD or
does not include that? And what was the reason, Mr. HcNees, why we
immediately ruled that one out? First, does that -- that does
include --
MR. BENSON: Okay. The one with percolation ponds, the
second one on your list?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Primary and back-up, yes.
MR. BENSON: Okay. That includes the assumption that it
takes 75 acres per million gallons per day to dispose of the water and
that the land is purchased at a -- at a cost of $2,000 an acre and
there is money in there for some pipelines to get the water out to the
property.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So that is included --
MR. BENSON: That is included.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- in those costs. And, Mr.
McNees, the reason why we eliminated that immediately was --
MR. MCNEES: Because you had indicated to us as a board
that you preferred primary alternative to be reuse in place of potable
water wherever possible and we didn't presume then to say --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Unless we can't write the check.
MR. MCNEES: -- well, let's not do that. Let's --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: If we find difficulty writing the
check, we reserve the right to change our mind on that.
CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: Okay. Do you have questions?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I guess what I -- in the interest
of -- of moving things -- things along, it appears from the discussion
today and the last two sessions that we've had that reuse is a primary
and perc. ponds as a back-up seems to be the direction this board's
taking. If it's appropriate, I would like to direct staff to pursue
that as a -- a primary alternative on this matrix. I think we have
all the information on perc. ponds in the file we need. We've gotten
a lot of good information on deep well. And understanding if for some
reason the land costs for perc. ponds gets driven up so high that we
have to look financially at making sure we have -- we can get rid of
the effluent, we may be looking at AWT or at the deep well again. But
I -- I guess I'm trying to put in a nutshell what this board has --
the direction this board is taking. And if I've done so, I --
CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: It's a motion?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: That -- I will make a motion we
direct staff to -- to do that.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm going to need you to
restate that.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. We'll start from the top.
Direct staff to -- to pursue the option of increasing reuse as a
primary alt -- disposal system and percolation ponds as a back-up
system and to I guess at this point come back to this board with the
hard numbers of doing just that.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Let me -- let me see if we can
refine our direction to staff a little bit if it's acceptable to the
motion maker. I -- I -- what I would like to see us do is direct
staff to -- to put for the moment because of time constraints the --
the percolation ponds as the top priority and to -- to discuss with
the Hubschmans their offer and to also look at what else is available
at the moment because I think that's where our time constraint is is
doing something fairly immediately.
So if -- if the motion maker would accept that into the
motion, I'd like to see that.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I certainly will. I think the
two --
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: And I'll second that.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: The two can work together and --
and must work together. We have an immediate relief need, so I -- I
thank you for that amendment.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I'll second.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: And I will amend.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I have one more question.
CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: I was going to say we have a
motion and a second. Is there discussion? Commissioner Constantine?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And I'm sorry if -- if you
mentioned this during the explanation. These numbers in parentheses
on the one in particular that has been suggested, increased tense with
perc. ponds, those numbers in parentheses are representative of --
MR. HCNEES: Water plants we don't have to build. Those
are deducts to our cost for plant capacity that we don't have to build
on the potable water side if we replace potable water with effluent
for irrigation.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you.
CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: Any further discussion?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Just one thing.
CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hac'Kie.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I -- I liked what Commissioner
Hancock said but before it was restated just because there was this
third element of that we were going to look at the cost of acquiring
enough property to -- to have perc. ponds as the total secondary
system and -- and that we weren't completely cutting off the option of
a deep well in the event it was a financially driven appropriate
consideration. I just don't want staff to stop on -- on that one. I
do think that I don't want to keep spending -- I don't want to spend
$120,000 until we know more about it. But keep that option sort of on
the back burner.
MR. HCNEES: From the staff's point of view, we -- we
appreciate that. And I'll say now I apologize if it appeared that I
was presuming something contrary to what you'd expressed as your
wishes because I think what we're seeing from an operating point of
view is the potential that that may be a problem. The land costs may
be too high and the size. So if you leave that at least out there for
consideration from an operating point of view, I think staff would --
would appreciate that.
CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: Do you want to include that still
in the motion?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I will include that. And on a
side note, Hike, don't be afraid to tell us your opinion. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Please.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: We don't have enough of that on
county staff. If we disagree with it, it's nothing personal. But,
you know, I thank you for at least bringing your -- your opinion and
your direction forward.
MR. HCNEES: I didn't think you wanted me just to tell
you what I think you want to hear. So I appreciate that.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: No.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Thank you.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I appreciate that. But yes, I
will amend my motion again to include statements by Commissioner
Hac'Kie.
CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: Commissioner Norris, does the
second accept that inclusion, just that we keep --
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: The amendment is that we're not
going to spend any money but don't forget about -- CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: But don't forget about
it. If the -- if the dollars become ominous --
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Yes, I'll -- I'll amend the
second.
CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: Okay. And I believe, Commissioner
Constantine, you said you had another question.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Something to add.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: It's not an amendment, is it?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No, it isn't. Actually just
a question. As long as you're going to be looking at the cost of land
for perc. ponds, would it be that much effort to look at what the cost
would be if we were to do perc. ponds primary and back-up? Would it
be that much of extension of an effort on your part if you're looking
at just back-up versus the cost to purchase both?
MR. MCNEES: No, not really. It's - if we can come up
with a per acre cost, so to speak, and to some degree extend that to a
larger capacity. Now, it's -- the cheaper acres are obviously going
to be in the beginning, so we can consider that. CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: Okay.
MR. HCNEES: Given that what tense we have today would
remain in place.
CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: The -- I think the only problem
that -- that I'm having with percolation ponds as both primary and the
secondary disposal method is that we -- we are losing a significant
resource if we commit to doing only that.
So with that in mind, we have a motion. We have a
second. Let me see if I can clarify the motion.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: And I wish you all the luck.
CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: So that we have it -- so that we
have it accurately on the record. We're going to direct staff to move
forward with tense and percolation ponds combination as our disposal
method. We wish them to -- to keep the deep injection well and the
percolation ponds as both primary and secondary in mind but not to
expend any -- any further funds on it and to work with the Hubschmans
and to look at the -- the property that's available there and the
potential uses.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: And other properties as well.
COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And other property.
CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: And other properties as well and
come back to us with another report.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: By jove, I think you've got it.
CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: Okay. With that in mind, we have
the motion and the second. Any further discussion?
Call the question. All those in favor?
Opposed?
There being none, motion passes five-zero.
MR. HCNEES: Thank you very much.
CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. HcNees.
Item #8H3
YEAR-END REPORT ON REVENUES FOR FISCAL YEAR 1994 - ACCEPTED
Next item is 8-H-3, year end report on revenues for
fiscal year '94. Mr. Smykowski.
MR. SHYKOWSKI: Hi. For the record, Michael Smykowski,
acting budget director.
CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: I'll say it right one of these
days.
MR. SHYKOWSKI: I'll coach you.
CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: Okay.
MR. SHYKOWSKI: I'm used to that over time. For the
benefit of the new board members, what the budget office does is on a
quarterly basis provide a report on our major intergovernmental
revenues, enterprise revenues, impact fees in an effort to take a look
at current financial conditions and how we're doing compared to
budget.
This is a year end report for the fiscal year ending
September 30 for FY '94. One deviation on this report. It also
identifies a -- well, it identifies on the left-hand side the variance
from -- from the actual adopted '94 budget. It also identifies a
variance from the amounts forecast during the development of the '95
budget, how much we actually anticipated receiving during FY '94. And
since our cash balances -- our budget cash balances are based on what
was actually forecast in the FY '94 budget process, once we get that
far along, the variance from budget is actually more -- the variance
from forecast is actually more significant than the variance from --
from the initially adopted budget.
I'll be brief in terms of the overall report. It kind
of parallels the information that we've provided during the course of
the year. In general terms, intergovernmental revenues, the variances
are positive. Enterprise revenues, ambulance fees were well above.
Landfill tipping were just about right on target. Building --
building permits and road impact -- impact fees were above budget. Ad
valorem taxes just deviated slightly. We assumed 96 percent
collections. It was 96.4 percent in the unincorporated area, 96.5
percent in the general fund. So we collected slightly better than
anticipated in that regard.
CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: Commissioner Constantine?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: As I read the executive
summary, it talks about fiscal impact. It says overall the actual
revenues received in fiscal year '94 were, with minor exceptions,
equal to or greater than amounts forecast. Therefore, this will
provide additional revenues available for appropriation in fiscal year
'95 or to be carried forward into fiscal year '96.
I hope that just because we have money we don't feel we
have to spend it. And given the two choices there of providing extra
money to spend in fiscal '95 or carry forward to '96, I hope as a
general policy unless some emergency type things come forward that we
will carry forward that extra money and --
MR. SMYKOWSKI: As -- as a general rule and -- to
appropriate any excess revenues, we would have to prepare an executive
summary to the board, identify what the amount of the surplus is, and
what we intend to do with it if we were inclined to do. So you would
have --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I understand. I'm just
hoping that the board as -- as a group will see that as an appropriate
policy to set that barring some emergency item that we shouldn't go,
gosh, extra money.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I don't see an intense desire to
go on a shopping spree, Commissioner Constantine. CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: No.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I think we're all -- I think you
can fold that in.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: One thing for like the impact fees,
you've already factored into the cash analysis, you know, we've
advanced 951. So that is something that has already taken place. But
in general terms, we would, again, bring any items back to you in the
form of an -- of an executive summary that would require formal
approval prior to that.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: This raised one other -- one
other question for me. Back in -- I think it was in September we
talked about adjusting impact fees and that we might have to hire some
mathematical wizard to do that because they were so complex we
couldn't possibly do it ourselves. And I'm wondering where we've gone
with that because as I look at these, all but one have come in
substantially above what was budgeted. One of them's a hundred --
almost 102 percent higher than what was budgeted. As we look over the
forecast, they're all the way high. Seems to me, great, bully for
us. It will allow us to do some things now. But the purpose of
impact fees is to -- growth, to pay for growth. And if it's 100
percent more than we expected, then perhaps impact fees are too high.
MR. SHYKOWSKI: A portion of those are financed over 7
years. Almost $450,000 of water and sewer impact fees were financed,
but they're credited there as received in FY '94 but are financed a --
CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: The other thing --
MR. SHYKOWSKI: In speaking with the utilities staff,
the projections were fairly conservative based on assuming an even
distribution of the -- assuming more people financing. And actually
what we've found is that we've received more up-front revenue in the
impact in the water and sewer areas as opposed to the assumptions that
were made when the south county system was being --
CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: Are you -- the --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The bottom line question,
where are we in that review process?
MR. DORRILL: We didn't hire a wizard. We anointed Mr.
Hargett as our wizard, and I believe the preliminary report was
complete just before Christmas. I have not seen it, but I would think
that you would see it within a couple of weeks once it's complete.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you.
CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: The other side of this coin also
is -- is that there may have been in -- in this fiscal year a -- a bit
of a building spurt --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Right.
CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: -- in which additional impact fees
came in that were unanticipated.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Which Alan Greenspan --
CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: But -- but --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- is doing his best to
stop.
CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: He may be. But at the same time
if we have that building spurt, we're going to have additional demands
made upon the facilities for which these impact fees are collected.
And we may be finding ourselves having to accelerate some of the --
the building programs. So I'm -- I'm not too sure that we should say
that we're collecting more than we're going to spend. We may have to
spend it sooner than -- than we anticipated.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No, the question was just
intended --
MR. SHYKOWSKI: We've also attempted over the years --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The question was just
intended to find out where we were because that was four or five
months ago that we directed staff. So I wanted to make sure that was
picked up.
CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: Okay. Well --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I think that's understood, that
-- that it -- you know, it fluctuates with the building and so
forth. But with nothing else, I guess the only motion we have to make
is to accept the year end report for revenues.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: That's correct. And in approximately
six or seven weeks when we have three months of full actuals with our
intergovernmental revenues, we'll be bringing you an FY '95 first
quarter report. And if we had any recommended budgetary changes at
that point, we would bring them forth in terms of adjusting the budget
either upward or downward.
COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Second.
CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second. Is
there any further discussion?
There being none, I'll call the question. All those in
favor of accepting this report?
Opposed?
There being none, motion passes five-zero.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: Thank you.
CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Smykowski.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: We'll have a clinic on your name
a little later.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Smi.
CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: Smi.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Smi.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Smi.
CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: Smykowski.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: There you go.
Item #8H4
FINAL RANKING OF CONSULTANTS FOR PROFESSIONAL HYDROGEOLOGICAL SERVICES
FOR THE NCRWTP DEEP WELL OBSERVATION PROJECT, RFP 94-2284 - CONTINUED
FOR TWO WEEKS
CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: Like smile, huh? Okay. Next item
on the agenda is 8-H-4 moved off the consent agenda. Mr.
Constantine? No, this is one I moved off.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: 8-H-27
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah, it was 16-H-2.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: 16-H-2.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I think we both --
CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: Yeah, it's now 8-H-4. Yeah, we
both were questioning this one. And this is -- is, I guess, a
continuation of the deep well concept that there's -- I'm still having
concern even though this is a water treatment plant as opposed to a
waste water treatment plant. I think we're all -- we are still
experiencing some difficulties with the deep well at the north county
water treatment plant.
MR. CONRECODE: We actually haven't been experiencing
any difficulties with the well as much as we have with the mixing of
two of the discharges that are going into that well. This specific
item before you today is to build the second injection well to go
along with the expansion in capacity at the north plant. It -- it
simply would provide the redundant capability in the event we do have
a problem with that first well, but it also provides for a disposal
source for this -- the expansion.
CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: What would we do with the --
whatever it is we're disposing of if we didn't have a -- a deep well?
MR. CONRECODE: I'd have to -- I'd actually have to go
back and research that because I don't know what the alternative
analysis was that was done seven or eight years ago.
CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: I suppose it's the -- it's what's
left over from the raw water after we treat it and so forth and pull
out the calcium and --
MR. CONRECODE: Do you remember what the alternatives
were?
MR. MARTIN: For the record, Kirk Martin, Missimer
International. A study was done before the plant was built for
disposal options. Because the plant you have is a membrane softening
plant, the water that's produced, the concentrate, is actually a
fairly innocuous substance. It's -- it's -- it's not that bad of
substance.
Unfortunately, the EPA considers that a -- an industrial
waste product because it comes from outer facility. Being industrial
waste, there are certain provisions that have to be met in order for
it to be disposed of.
They looked at trying to mix it with the waste water for
disposal by irrigation. At that time it could have been done in terms
of the quality of water that would have been produced. Unfortunately,
the rules require that if you put more than 5 percent of classified
industrial waste into waste water, the whole thing is classified as
industrial waste. And you couldn't then dispose of your waste water
by irrigation. At that time you're pumping three to four million
gallons a day of waste water at the north plant. And this -- this
million gallons a day of concentrate from a waste water plant would
have been much more than the 5 percent. So deep well was the only
provision.
At this time there is a requirement for a primary and a
back-up injection well. The well that you have now will meet all the
demands that you need for a very long time at the plant. But the law
requires you have to have a back-up.
Right now the back-up in your permit for your water
treatment plant says shut the plant down. So if -- if something goes
wrong with the injection well including every five years you have to
go through what's called a mechanical integrity test which is a
requirement, you have to -- at this point your only provision is to
shut the plant down. And that's written into your permit right now.
CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: Commissioner Constantine?
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: How old's the plant? How
long has it been open?
MR. MARTIN: Two years?
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: How long since we've accepted
the plant?
MR. CONRECODE: One year.
MR. HARTIN: One year?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Has it even been that long?
MR. CONRECODE: Next month it will be one year.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The -- so less than a year.
I guess I'm concerned. Why wasn't this part of the original plan?
MR. HARTIN: It is part of the original plan. The --
both wells were permitted, so you have a permit already for the second
well. It was decided to -- in order to lower costs that we could get
by with putting the first well in and just holding the second well
until the time that we had to do it.
The permit that's given is a five-year permit. DEP
requires you have sub -- substantial completion of that second well by
the end of that five-year permit which ends, I believe, end of '96 or
beginning of '97. So the construction needs to get going on it.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: How much is anticipated that
the well will -- will or would cost?
HR. MARTIN: Cost of the well is approximately two and a
half million dollars.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That for starters bothers me
that we have this item on the consent agenda. And even though we're
not awarding it, I understand, but that's going --
MR. MARTIN: No, no. This is just for the -- for
consulting services to put out the bid and supervise construction.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I understand. But if it's
something -- obviously deep well has been a topic of discussion among
the board and their comfort level with the board. This is to pursue
something that will cost us two and a half million dollars. MR. MARTIN: Correct.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That seems like perhaps it's
something we should be discussing instead of put on the consent
agenda. I -- I'm not comfortable moving forward with this right now,
and I don't know what the rest of the board feels, but if there -- I
want to know what -- what other options there are as back-up.
MR. MARTIN: There are no options for the -- for -- you
need a back-up. You have to have a back-up for this.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Can I finish my question?
MR. HARTIN: I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Hake it much easier to
answer.
MR. MARTIN: Okay.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The -- surely there is a
difference, but there are other alternatives other to having a well or
closing it down as the back-up method. I don't know what those other
alternatives are.
HR. MARTIN: Again, it's an industrial waste product.
There -- there is no other disposal. We can't put it on the land. We
can't put it in the water. The only option that -- we've talked about
what DEP prefers in terms of options of disposal. For RO plant
concentrate the preferred alternative is deep well injection.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And the other permitted
possibilities are --
MR. MARTIN: Mixing with other product water, say a
waste water product, to a -- to a concentration less than 5 percent in
order to irrigate or put down to -- to a deep well.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So it sounds like there is at
least one other mixing as an alternative.
MR. MARTIN: You're right now producing one million
gallons a day of concentrate.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What is the general record of
maintenance, and what's the shut-down likelihood of the well we
currently have?
MR. MARTIN: You will -- you will have a shut-down in
two and a half years for the HIT, for the mechanical integrity test.
And that is required, so you have to shut down the plant for the test.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And for what period of time
will that be?
MR. MARTIN: Approximately three days or so.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's a pretty expensive
three days. I'm just trying to get a feel for what's the likelihood
that we're going to have to shut down this existing well for any
extensive period of time.
MR. HARTIN: I don't think there's much of a likelihood
of that, but the requirements of the law say you have to have a
back-up in case that happens.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And right now you're telling
us that legally one of those back-ups could be shut the plant down.
MR. HARTIN: Correct. Which means no water to your
constituents.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Right.
MR. CONRECODE: Commissioners, if I could, just by way
of expanding on what I -- what I view initially as an adopted approach
for the north plant for providing water service through the north
plant, we're going forward with a number of other steps this year that
may cause you additional concern as well. And I'd just like to take
one minute to let you know that.
We are in the process of pursuing brackish well sources
for additional raw water capacity or treatment at the north plant. We
have some serious capacity issues with treatment in the north region,
and we are looking at and in the process of designing the expansion of
the north plant for an additional eight million gallons a day of
capacity.
So we just want you to know that we are working on that
now, that you have given us direction through the budgeting process
and through the -- you know, the current active plan for utilities
expansion to do that work. Maybe we erroneously made the assumption
that if we're doing injection well now that the additional injection
well is, in fact, the way you want to proceed at the north plant.
We'll take a step back based on your direction and do whatever other
options you want us to do.
But we're considering running out of capacity within two
years and expanding that plant by an additional eight HGD. So just to
advise you all of that, those are steps we've taken. If you want us
to step back and relook at all that, now's a good time to do that.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: When you say running out of
capacity, you're not referencing the well, though. Mr. Martin said we
have --
MR. CONRECODE: We're not look -- well, we're looking at
water available for your customers in the north part of the county.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: But even if we expand the
plant, that well can take and use the volume that the expanded plant
would have; is that correct?
MR. HARTIN: It can, but you still have to have a
back-up.
CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: You have to come to the microphone
and put that on the record.
MR. HARTIN: The deep well will take the water I think
anticipated out to -- plant capacity was like 12 HGD I believe, but
you still have to require -- you're still required to have a back-up
disposal.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I understand.
MR. CONRECODE: And -- and if your back-up option is to
shut the plant down, you're looking at shutting it down for 12 HGD
worth - worth of use as opposed to 20 HGD worth of use. You know,
either one is -- is a crisis if you're going to shut that -- that
volume of capacity down.
CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: Commissioner Mac'Kie?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I -- I am getting the feeling
that staff would think we're making a major error if we denied this
request, and I'm also getting a feeling that the board doesn't --
isn't likely to be approving it. Is it something that we need more
information on and should come before us with a regular staff report
instead of on the consent agenda? Maybe that's the nature of the
problem.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: To -- to be quite honest, I'm not
hearing an option. What I hear is we're producing a million gallons
per day of this stuff. If we can't exceed 5 percent mixture, then we
have to produce 20 million gallons per day in order to avoid
classifying the outgoing water as industrial waste.
MR. CONRECODE: We need 20 million gallons of capacity
at the north plant -- north waste water plant in order for this to be
a 5 percent constituent --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Right, which is not likely to
happen. The option of shutting the plant down sounds good unless, of
course, you're the person who's got that baby in the bathtub when it
happens or you're the person that needs the water in your house to
take your medication or you're the -- you know, you can -- the list
goes on and on.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It doesn't even sound good --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: It doesn't sound good.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- regardless.
CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: It doesn't sound good.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: So, you know, I know it's -- it's
-- it's two and a half million dollars. But I'm not seeing an
option.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm not either. And I guess
that's what bothers me is I can't believe that this is the only choice
that in this great world of ours that they give us, the EPA allows one
choice, and that's it. I'm not suggesting that shutting down is the
appropriate option. I'm suggesting perhaps there are other options,
and I'm also saying why is that crisis any more likely now than for
the first three years of operation of that? If it opened up a year
ago and we couldn't have this done till late '96 anyway, that's three
years that we're taking that risk that we might have to shut it down.
So how does that risk shift? I'm not saying we shouldn't correct it.
But I'm -- I'm curious of why it was acceptable for the first few
years of operation and now it's not going to be acceptable.
MR. CONRECODE: I'm not saying that it's any more or
less acceptable. I'm just -- in -- in the plan for the phasing of the
plant and the expenditure of the monies for injection wells for the
additional eight HGD of capacity, that was all phased out in the
original plan for this plant. And what I'm telling you is that we're
going forward with additional raw water source investigations right
now. This is another piece of that eight HGD of expansion to the
north plant.
CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: It -- it seems to me that the --
the deep well process was kind of latched on to when a prior board,
rightly or wrongly, decided to go with the membrane softening plant,
that there is -- that there is simply no other option available if
you're going to have a membrane softening plant.
So we're -- we're kind of at this point committed to
moving forward with a decision that we had nothing to do with. But
still it's a commitment that was made by -- by the board to provide
water for the constituency of Collier County. I don't see that we
have a lot of choices, and I'm not happy about that. But I don't -- I
don't see that we have the choices.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Martin, are you 100
percent sure that there is no option -- obviously the mix option
doesn't exist for us -- that there is no option for a membrane
softening plant allowed by the EPA other than deep well injection?
MR. HARTIN: Unlike O. J. Simpson, I'm not willing to
put the 100 percent on it, but I'd say 99 percent sure. The study
that was done -- I believe it was by Boyle Engineering -- back in '87,
'88, and at that time I came out saying, gee, I can't understand
this. Seems to me this water's so -- is reasonable quality. Why
can't we mix it with waste water, except at that time the rules were
pursuant to say we could not do it. So, in fact, I was against the
injection well back in '88.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I guess with that 1 percent
in mind it's worth 7 days or 14 days or whatever it takes to look and
see if there is an option that may exist other than this. I don't
think we have to do this today and have to move forward today.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I don't want -- I don't want to
steamroll. You know, if there's a -- a question on the board, then --
and we can do it in seven days and get it answered, then let's do
that. And then we can move ahead how ever we see -- see fit next
week.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I agree. I don't think seven
days is going to affect this one way or the other.
MR. CONRECODE: I would propose to be back in two weeks,
not one week.
CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: Two weeks? Also is it -- is it
possible since we've got this deep well already in place and -- and
you're very comfortable that the product of the RO is really a -- a
kind of innocuous substance, is there any way that we can take that
information to the DEP and begin to work with them in showing them
that this is not an industrial waste, that it's something other than
that, and that their original supposition was in error?
MR. HARTIN: That work's been going on for probably ten
years now. And, in fact, DEP in Florida well recognizes because they
have so much experience with RO systems that even with a true RO where
you're using brackish water which is proposed for the county at the
next phase, even at that point you're only looking at dilute sea water
for the most part. And if you were to put that in sea water, you're
not causing a big -- a big problem. DEP or many people in DEP feel
that way. The problem's been EPA. And, again, that fight's been
going on for at least ten years. And it's still being worked on. So
it's nothing -- you know, you can put your input to that, but I'm
saying it's -- there's a lot of people working to that end.
CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: EPA, i.e., Washington, D.C.?
MR. HARTIN: In this case Atlanta.
CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: Atlanta?
MR. HARTIN: Yeah.
CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: Well, they're run by Washington,
D.C.
HR. HARTIN: That's correct.
CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: Same -- same group of people.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll make a motion we
continue the item for two weeks.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK:
Second.
CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second.
Any discussion on the motion?
There being --
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I assume it will appear on
the regular agenda, not on the consent agenda.
MR. DORRILL: It will, although this is a routine
consent agenda item. So it's difficult for me to try and prejudge or
predetermine what is -- the staff recommendation on this item is to
ask to try and go negotiate a contract and then bring the contract
back so --
CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: We understand.
MR. DORRILL: Because of your other concerns that you've
raised, it will be on the regular agenda.
CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: Okay.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Okay.
MR. HARTIN: Hay I make one point?
CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: Yes, sir.
MR. HARTIN: When I talked about the innocuous nature of
this fluid, when you go to RO, it becomes now a much less innocuous.
In other words, you can't put this on your grass anymore. What you've
got -- technically. Legally you can't do it anyway. But once you go
to a true RO system with a brackish water supply, now you have a
concentrated saline or brackish solution, so it won't be the -- it
won't be the same innocuous fluid anymore.
CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: But still not as concentrated as
sea water.
question.
HR. HARTIN: Not as concentrated as sea water.
CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: With that in mind, I'll call the
All those in favor of continuing for two weeks?
Opposed?
There being none, motion passes five-zero.
Item #8H5
STAFF REPORT ON EFFLUENT HANAGEHENT SYSTEH IHPROVEHENTS FOR THE NORTH
COUNTY REGIONAL WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITY AND RECOHMENDATION TO
PROCEED WITH NECESSARY IMPROVEMENTS - APPROVED
Thank you. Next item is 8-H-5, again, an item pulled
from the consent agenda.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That was 16-H-5.
CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: Yeah. Commissioner Constantine?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Fairly simple question. The
effluent management system for the north county regional plant work
that's being done there --
CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: I think there -- is this the pump
that we talked about at the water workshop?
MR. CONRECODE: I wasn't here two weeks ago when -- when
they went through that.
CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: Okay.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah, I was not here.
CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: You were not here.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So maybe that will help.
That's what I was going to ask. Is three hundred twenty-five, almost
three hundred twenty-six thousand that was not budgeted as part of
this project? I'm just wondering what's going on. I need some help
there.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Maybe for the benefit of
Commissioner Constantine we could ask Hazen and Sawyer to make a real
brief summary of what we saw at the workshop as for the justification
for this request.
MR. SHEBANI: For the record, my name is Saadeh Shebani
(phonetic) with Hazen and Sawyer. We made a full presentation almost
two weeks ago when the need for this pump station. And basically the
reason is that you have a reuse commitment up in the north plant that
has a delivery problem. You can't deliver the water needed for reuse
simply because of mechanical restriction with your pump station is not
able -- is not capable to deliver the commitments you have. And this
will provide you the ability to deliver the commitment you have at the
north plant.
Unfortunately I didn't bring my charts today with me
because I didn't think we'd have to go through it again. But we did
leave a little notebook with all this data, Commissioner. I don't
know if you got your own notebook or not. I'd be more than happy to
share those numbers with you.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Okay. Thank you.
CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: So right -- right now if my memory
serves me right, the -- the pump station is between the plant and the
perc. ponds. And we want to make the pump station after the perc.
ponds.
MR. SHEBANI: That is a true statement.
CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: And turn the perc. ponds into a
storage --
MR. SHEBANI: A storage facility.
CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: -- pond so that we can now --
MR. SHEBANI: Basically work it like yourself -- you
yourself said last week, a ground storage tank, becomes a storage
facility that allows --
CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: Becomes a storage facility.
Did you want to move the item?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No.
CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: Is there a motion?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'll make a motion that we
approve.
CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS:
second to approve this item?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS:
CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS:
We have a motion. Is there a
I'll second.
We have a motion and a second.
Any further discussion on the item?
There being none, I'll call it. All those in favor?
All those opposed?
There being none, motion passes five-zero.
MR. SHEBANI: Thank you.
Item #8H6
CHANGE ORDER NO. ONE TO THE SOUTH COUNTY REGIONAL WASTEWATER TREATHENT
PLAN STANDBY GENERATOR IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT - APPROVED
CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: Next item, item 8-H-6.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Which was 16-H-6.
CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: Yes. Mr. Constantine?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I just -- it just kind of
raised a red flag with me when the contract amount was for 188,000 and
now a change order is in the amount of 148,000. A change order for 80
percent of the cost of the original is kind of unusual. So I just
thought I'd --
MR. CONRECODE: Yes, sir. And, in fact, it's due to an
-- an -- an impossible unforeseen condition, that being the failure
of the generator at the site. And that is the predominant amount of
the -- the change, that being $129,000.
The balance of it is associated with some minor
revisions to some telemetry valving and an electrical -- additional
electrical box at the -- at the site.
So the large quantity, again, is -- is due entirely to
the -- the cost of replacing the generator. We've asked the
consultant, Hole, Hontes, to take a look at the option of repairing
the existing generator by replacing the engine on it as opposed to
replacing. That difference is $35,000 in cost. And due to the age of
the generator and the extent of -- of other unknown problems as we get
into replacement of that engine, staff's recommending that we go with
replacement.
MR. DORRILL: That would have been my question. The --
the generator that is there at the south county place is probably ten
years old or very close to it. And did staff do an evaluation of
whether you could repair that old generator versus buying a new one?
MR. CONRECODE: We have, and the repair estimate from
the contractor on site is $94,650. MR. DORRILL: Okay.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And I assume there will be
some sort of warranty with a new generator. MR. CONRECODE: Yes, sir.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The -- that was my question
because I was just a little concerned when it said after the award of
the contract the existing generated (sic) sustained mysterious and
severe -- I'm adding that part -- damage. I just wanted to make sure
that it wasn't anything out of the ordinary.
I'll move the item.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Second.
CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second to
approve this item. All those in favor please say aye.
Opposed?
There being none, motion passes five-zero.
Item #10A
RESOLUTION 95-30 APPOINTING SCOTT FRENCH, PAUL LAUGEL AND VICKI CLAVELO
TO THE GOLDEN GATE COHMUNITY CENTER ADVISORY COHMITTEE - ADOPTED
Next item, we move onto the Board of County
Commissioners, item 10-A, appointment of members to the Golden Gate
Community Center Advisory Committee. Mr. Constantine, I presume that
you have some recommendations.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Ms. Filson -- by the way,
it's Constantine.
Ms. Filson --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: It's her first day. Easy.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The -- one of these was
received after the deadline; is that correct? MS. FILSON: Yes, that is correct.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So there were three --
MS. FILSON: We have three.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- applications that were
received in the requested time frame under our three openings; is that
correct?
MS. FILSON: Yes, that is correct.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I -- I know Nancy McLean.
She has been on the board and has done a great job. However, we have
consistently during the last two years required people to apply within
the time.
CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: Within the required time.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So I -- I don't know that we
can change that now. With that in mind, knowing all three of the
others as well, I'll nominate the three who submitted in a timely
fashion to fill the three vacancies.
CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: That's Scott French, Paul Laugel,
and Vicki Clavelo?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Second.
CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second.
Any discussion?
There being none, I'll call the question. All those in
favor say aye.
Opposed?
There being none, motion passes five-zero.
Item #10B
RESOLUTION 95-31 REAPPOINTING HS. DORCAS HOWARD AND APPOINTING HRS.
CHARLES ST. JOHN TO THE COLLIER COUNTY HOUSING AUTHORITY - ADOPTED
Next item is 10-B, gubernatorial appointments to the
Collier County Housing Authority.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: I don't believe we have much
discretion on this so motion to approve.
CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: Not a great deal.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: I have a motion.
second?
Do I have a
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let's challenge that
governor.
CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second.
Any discussion on the motion?
There being none, I'll call the question. All those in
favor please say aye.
Opposed?
There being none, motion passes five-zero.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: A beleaguered aye at that end.
CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Sorry.
MR. CUYLER: Madam Chairman, again, I need the clerk's
office to save a resolution number on that. We'll prepare a
resolution for that.
CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: Okay. The clerk's office will
reserve a -- a resolution number.
Item #10C
CONSIDERATION REGARDING DECLARING A VACANCY ON THE TOURIST DEVELOPMENT
COUNCIL - VACANCY NOT DECLARED AND MR. FRENI TO REMAIN ON SAID COUNCIL
The next item on the agenda is item 10-C, recommendation that
the board consider declaring a vacancy in the Tourist Development
Council. Mr. Constantine, you've been chairing that for the last year.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah. I had raised this
question following our vacancy declaration on EPTAB a couple of weeks
ago where someone had circumstances that were certainly acceptable but
they were unable to attend in their case I think all, if not the
majority, of the meetings. Mr. Freni's here today, and I'm sure he'll
speak for himself. But during the past year he's -- we've had eight
meetings, and he's attended four of those, been absent for four of
those. It seems if we're going to be consistent, we need to require
the attendance at all meetings.
I understand Miss Filson has spoken with Mr. Freni, and
he may want to share some thoughts with us today. I have some concern
if we're going to have -- particularly something as important --
important as the TDC, if we're going to have people on there, we need
to have regular attendance.
CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: Mr. Freni, do you have any
comments you want to make?
MR. DORRILL: As he comes forward, Madam Chairman, I
just to want advise you we also have someone here asking to speak
today under public comment before you go to communications. Mr. Freni?
MR. FRENI: Good afternoon. Good morning still. I just
wanted to respond in terms of the comment that I had made to Sue. She
called me on the 22nd. And by the time I got back to her that day, I
know she had already prepared a report.
Yes, I did miss four meetings last year. Reasons
primarily were because of my responsibilities with my company. I had
been -- had been assigned the Asian region of our company's growth,
and we had been involved in four hotels over there, and it was my
responsibility to travel there. However, on one of the missed
meetings on March 9, 1994, I was in Germany attending the ITB,
International Trade Mart, representing our company, The Ritz-Carlton
Naples, and Naples. That's the largest international exposition of
European travel buying that takes place, and that's -- I've been
attending that meeting for nine years. And I would say it's one of
the main reasons why we're enjoying so much European business these
days.
I also have checked with staff to determine the schedule
of meetings next year, and now -- and -- and -- and I might say as an
aside our company is reorganized, and we'll be putting a senior leader
in Singapore probably within the next 90 days to assume
responsibilities for all of Asia and Australia, so that will be taken
off my area. I'll assume other hotels on the east coast, but my
travel will certainly not be in any way, shape, or form as -- as
difficult as it has been.
Based on the scheduled meetings we're in -- staff
provided me for 1995, February 6, May 1, August 7, and November 6, I
see no reason why now that I will not be able to attend those
meetings. I -- people who know me in this community know that if I
can participate, if I volunteer to participate in an organization, I
make every effort to -- to certainly participate fully. And I think
this was just an extenuating situation that probably will not happen
again.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And I don't mean to question
you or your integrity. It's only a matter of does your business take
you away often enough so that you can't participate regularly. In the
past year there's been some question as to whether you have or not.
While there are only four scheduled meetings, there are other meetings
that crop up from time to time as evidenced by the eight meetings this
year.
MR. FRENI: Uh-huh.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And I guess that will --
that's a concern for me is while you have an opportunity to plan ahead
for the four that are scheduled, what's your confidence level that
you'll be able to participate in the other meetings?
MR. FRENI: Well, again, I think with my travel being
restricted down to a much more reasonable load, I should be able --
and -- and I control pretty much my travel schedule other than maybe
one or two situations that might pop up. I feel fairly comfortable
that I can make the majority of them or maybe even -- certainly not
miss four like I have. I should be able to say that maybe one or two
I might miss. And I know that that's been a situation which has been
acceptable in the past because other members have missed one or two
meetings. So I think I can get it within reason.
I have the same situation with the Naples Airport
Authority. And my company knows that certain civic responsibilities
must be allowed to take place over and above corporate meetings,
normal corporate meetings. If we have an emergency disaster or some
sort of that nature, then that certainly would be out of my control.
But I feel relatively comfortable and confident that I
can certainly make the -- the lion's share of the meetings, maybe
missing one or two.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I just need to clarify
again. We've talked about the four scheduled meetings. When you say
you may miss one or two, do you expect to miss one or two of those?
MR. FRENI: No, no. I would say the only thing that
would pop up would be meetings that are not scheduled at this point.
But usually what happens, as I recall, at the actual TDC meeting the
chairman usually tries to get a consensus as to when the meeting can
be held. I understand there's a subcommittee meeting on January 12
which I volunteered to participate on, and I'll be here for that
meeting.
CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hancock?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: As someone who has sat on a
committee for Collier County previously, I share in Commissioner
Constantine's concern. However, I -- I want to thank you for coming
here today, for expressing the interest and I think the willingness to
-- to make whatever effort possible to make this committee a
Success.
I would like to make a motion that we do not declare a
vacancy in the seat of Mr. Freni and allow him to continue on the
board with the assurances he's given us today.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second. Is
there any further discussion on the motion?
There being none, all those in favor please say aye.
All those opposed?
Motion passes three to two, Commissioner Constantine and
Norris being in the minority.
Thank you, Mr. Freni.
MR. FRENI: Thank you very much.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: You make me look good, Mr. Freni.
PUBLIC COMHENT - ACCESS USE AT BAREFOOT BEACH PRESERVE BY EMILY MAGGIO
CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: That concludes the regular agenda
for the Board of County Commissioners today. We're into the public
comment section. I understand we have --
MR. DORRILL: Mrs. Haggio.
CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: -- Mrs. Haggio. Mrs. Haggio, you
know that we restrict the public comment section to -- to five
minutes.
MS. HAGGIO: I'll try not to lose my voice and to be as
concise as I can.
CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: Okay. Thank you.
MS. HAGGIO: For the record, my name is Emily Haggio. I
wish you all a happy new year. And it's Haggio, not Haggio, Haggio or
-- I wish to speak to you --
MR. DORRILL: Did I say it right?
MS. HAGGIO: Yes. I just didn't want them to feel that
they were the only ones who had their name mispronounced.
I wish to speak to you about the access issue at
Barefoot Beach Preserve. I don't want to rehash a lot of things.
However, at the conclusion of a very long and emotional public hearing
on October the 4th, certain directions were given; first, that the --
both gates open; access would be enforced; and that the legality of
the guard house would be researched. There were a couple of other
things, but those were the ones I wish to address.
To this date three months down the road the gate is
still down. There is no adherence, and I don't know that anything and
if anything has been done to enforce the public's right, legal right.
As far as the guard house, it is my understanding from
my own research, the research of my attorney, and the compliance board
that it has been deemed to be an illegal structure. I understand it
takes time to do these things, and I appreciate the fact that the
county is being cautious in trying to work things out without --
without getting us into a lawsuit.
However, I picked up the paper on Saturday, the Bonita
Banner, and it says in here that the county lawmakers are searching
for a compromise that would allow them to keep the security
structure. This is not something that can be compromised. There is
no compromise. We have nothing to give up. The public has no
compromise. What can they give us as a compromise that we are not
already legally entitled to? There is nothing.
This happened on the weekend. I -- there was no way to
contact anyone. I was ill. The business -- the offices were closed.
I spoke to Mr. Clark just today out in the hall. And he tells me no
compromise is being worked on, and I appreciate that. However, it
also says in this article that there are meetings being held between
the Lely homeowners and the county.
This matter came to you and came to light because the
public brought it to you through many people, particularly Harge Ward
and the Citizens' Association of Bonita Beach and myself as an
individual and as a representative of the public, through my attorney
also.
We would like to, if any meetings are going on that
concern the public access, the public rights, the public property,
that the public be allowed to attend. I understand -- I just today
got ahold of -- my attorney contacted me that he has written a letter
to Mr. Weigel asking that we be included in any such negotiations.
I wish further only to say this: As long as that guard
house is allowed to stand there, they are in control, not you. They
are thumbing their nose. The representative from the homeowners told
you three months ago that we have four years, that they have
absolutely no intention of giving the public their legal right.
Please, if it takes a long time with the guard house, I understand it
has to go through certain -- but something must be done to enforce the
public access now, please.
CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: One question. Mr. Clark, what's
-- what's happening as far as this is --
MR. CLARK: I can give a -- excuse me. I can give a
brief status report. We anticipate that the February hearing of the
Code Enforcement Board, that that issue will be brought before the
board. We have had, as -- as Miss Maggio has -- and I even know the
pronunciation -- as she so generously assisted us and several people
up there in -- in doing some research and there is voluminous -- I
mean, there is volume after volume after volume and -- and -- and
she's absolutely right. We -- we do in all cases try and we think
we're expected to protect the public interest in doing things legally
and correctly in enforcement because -- for several reasons, because
it's the right thing to do. But secondly, it may be a litigious
situation by the time it's over. And we certainly want to make sure
that we represent your interest in the most efficient and correct
manner possible.
Having said that, we have met as we do with -- with
anyone who is by -- by county standards who has -- we've stated that
we believe there's a violation that exists, we meet with the property
owners of anyone who is accused of violating any of the ordinances and
attempt to resolve it in any way possible within the framework of what
our codes demand.
And having said that, it does not appear to -- to date
that it's going to work without going before the Code Enforcement
Board, so we are going forward.
We have one other issue that -- with Mr. Archibald's
assistance, the -- the construction condition of the road is another
issue, and we want to address all of those issues so we don't address
one, then another, then another. We want to address them all up front
and have them all resolved and brought before the Code Enforcement
Board and whatever bodies that -- and -- that are deemed necessary to
resolve the matter.
So it is going forward, and certainly it's not within 30
days or 60 days, but I think particularly for the -- as com -- the
complexities involved in this and the possible repercussions, it's --
it's going -- it's going fairly well. I'm not un -- dissatisfied as
well.
CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: I -- I've also read some news
articles printed from mid December to -- to just before Christmas, and
both articles I read mention a public forum on January the 6th. And
I'm -- I'm -- what is that?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I think that was when the
Code Enforcement Board was scheduled here this -- which raises my
question which is why it's now February.
MR. CLARK: Because of -- as I mentioned with Mr.
Archibald, we're just resolving those issues today, and he had to do
quite a bit of research as to deeds ownership, all -- all of those
areas. So in order to facilitate all of those at one hearing or I
should say so we don't -- we don't split all of these enforcement
actions into different months and -- and have a prolonged litigation
and perhaps exposure to the county too, we'd like to resolve all of
those up front.
CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: So you're -- you're trying to
bring all of the various issues involved under a single umbrella.
MR. CLARK: That's correct, a single date, a single --
CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: And we're looking at that now, and
it's February.
MR. CLARK: It would be the fourth Thursday of February,
yes, last Thursday of February.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Is there -- when is the next
scheduled Code Enforcement Board meeting?
MR. CLARK: The -- it would be the last Thursday of --
of this month.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And maybe we've missed the
advertising requirements by now. I don't know. MR. CLARK: Yes.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: But I'm wondering if -- one
of the problems with the -- the gate and the guard house and the whole
thing is for people who are not regular residents of the area,
tourists or winter residents or others, that gate can be intimidating
or can be misleading as to the open issue of the public park which
we've gone over several times, several occasions. My biggest concern
is to try to get this solved as early in season as we can so that
those seasonal visitors can enjoy that park unrestricted and -- and
according to the law.
MR. CLARK: If I might go just a little bit further and
get some direction from the board, the fact -- as you well know, Mr.
Constantine, Commissioner Constantine, the -- the fact that it's going
to go to the Code Enforcement Board won't of itself remove the gates.
If -- if you would like -- if they're willing to let the fines get
assessed, obviously we can take other action. So I guess there may be
a good time to bring it up to you and see the sentiment of the board.
Do you wish to direct to the county attorney's office some action that
we take to the court, in other words, to get an injunction for them to
cease that activity at this time and until this issue is resolved
before the Code Enforcement Board and even after that? As we well
know, they can appeal it to court which I don't doubt will happen.
the most expeditious possible method of doing that may be through an
injunctive relief or at least through discussions of that to the
county attorney's office if that's your desire.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The last time we discussed
this, if I recall -- and Commissioner Norris, Commissioner Matthews
can help me here -- but the direction we gave -- and I think I made
the motion -- was to enforce state management plan which says gates,
plural, up and to look into the legality of the guard house, and if it
is not legally placed there, then to take the necessary actions. I
don't think we specified whether that was strictly through code
enforcement or through county attorney's office. Maybe we need to
give that direction now. But to -- to the best of my recollection,
that was our direction at that time.
CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: Uh-huh. That's the way I recall
it.
MR. CLARK: I might also state we have one other method
if you so wish. We can do it also. We can go out every day. I can
send investigators out there every day and every time someone puts one
of those gates down cite that person to court. You tell me which you
want.
CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: The individual that put the gate
down?
MR. CLARK: Yes.
CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: But they have one gate. I
understand now that it's going to be working on an electronic method
in which there will be a beeper-type thing to open the gate.
MR. CLARK: But the impediment -- and I'm asking. But
the impediment to traffic -- if any gate comes down, it could be
considered an impediment to traffic. If that's your desire, we'll go
out every day and every time the gate goes down cite somebody to
court.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Might I -- and again, I'm not --
although monitored, I was not a part of the -- the -- the history of
this. Let's -- let's crawl before we walk. If we have a code
enforcement issue, let's address that. If the response is legal, then
we end up in the legal end of things. But let's not -- let's not jump
ahead. And -- and everyone's done a lot of work on this. I don't
think that we have what I would call a clear legal opinion on every
element of this discussion. I think there are a lot of things out
there that are still arguable and you can have one side or the other.
And again, I'm -- I'm just a little hesitant to -- to
leap into this and -- and position one of your code enforcement people
at that gate all day. Let's take the code enforcement action we
normally take, the normal due course on this -- that's my personal
feeling -- and not, you know, make a mountain out of a mole hill, and
if that doesn't work, then let's resort to other measures is my
personal feeling.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I think it may be excessive.
I'd love to have the gate up every day. It may be excessive for us to
post a person that we're paying a regular salary to.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Agreed. And I'm not looking to
protect anyone.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Cuyler, though, have we
missed the advertising requirement for the January meeting of the Code
Enforcement Board?
MR. CUYLER: I -- I believe we have. You have notices
that have to go out, and Dick's office does that. And I'm sure we've
missed the January date for late January.
CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: What -- what would be the cost,
trouble, and possible ramifications if we were to go into court and
get an injunction?
MR. CUYLER: The cost would not be extensive. We would
do that in-house. In terms of time, again, that's not a tomorrow type
of item either. I mean, you have to get on the docket. You have to
go before a judge. That's going to be tried, and then that possibly
could be appealed as well. So I'm not sure that in terms of saving
time -- if you want us to sit down with Dick and talk about -- my
understanding was Code Enforcement Board was going to proceed. If you
want us to sit down and -- and, again, talk about that, we'll be happy
to do that.
CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: He's already indicated, though,
that even if the Code Enforcement Board agrees to act and they assess
fines, we are not finished. That -- that's nothing that is going to
cause them to remove the building or raise the arms short of paying
whatever fine is assessed.
MR. CUYLER: I tend --
CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: And that's another arguable issue.
MR. CUYLER: Yeah. I tend to think -- and this is only
a guess on my part -- but I tend to think $250 a day against that
type of homeowners' group is going to be something that's going to get
their attention. And if they're going to fight it, their -- my guess
is they're going to remove the gate, and then they're going to fight
it.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: That's my point. I want to make
sure and -- and make no bones about it. The state management plan
will be enforced. I am not saying anything other than that. But
let's take the normal course that we would take in any other situation
on this which I believe is to go through code enforcement first. And
-- and we will -- we will take each step as necessary to enforce the
-- the management plan. I just don't want to get in an emotional
wrap-up and jump a step or two ahead. That's -- that's my only
concern. We need to be legally defensible on this too.
MR. CUYLER: And in terms of timing, there can be an
appeal under both of those scenarios. You're really looking at that
time.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Cuyler, would it make
sense to do the two, requesting an injunction as a parallel course to
pursuing our code enforcement?
MR. CUYLER: That I would like to sit down and discuss
with staff. I'm not sure that I would suggest that. I think you may
want to do one or the other.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I might suggest that if you
had an opportunity to talk to them, maybe under staff discussion or
BCC discussion, we need to take this up again next week just to
clarify that point. But it might be worth your while to talk with our
staff and see if --
MR. CUYLER: That'd be fine.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- we can pursue a parallel
course. Commissioner Hancock's right. Regardless of which way --
and hopefully in the most aggressive manner -- we need to enforce
that state plan.
MS. HAGGIO: Couple of quick comments. First of all,
the gate is being monitored by private citizens every day, and every
day it is down. I want to make it absolutely perfectly clear. I --
my comments here today were in no way intended as a criticism of
either Mr. Clark or anyone in the county, the county attorney's
office.
I felt because these articles and others had appeared in
the paper the best way to do it was to come here in a public forum and
have them addressed so that it is on record, clear as to what
exactly's going on.
And if I could really quickly, Commissioner Hancock,
just address what you said, yes, we have to be careful, and we have to
make sure that we are on legal ground. It is clear what our rights
are under not only the management plan but under the easements that
were given to the public and also under the terms of the PUDs. We
donTt want to jump in.
However, itTs been a long, hard struggle. We have been
fighting for our legal rights for years and years. And I must tell
you and not -- ITm not asking for sympathy, but it has been an
emotional, a physical, and a financial drain on all of the public,
myself in particular, the CitizensT Association of Bonita Beach who
have funded attorney fees which we cannot afford. I personally paid
for the last round. ITm continuing to pay. And I will continue to
pay not because ITm getting anything personal but because this is a
matter for the public.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Miss Maggio, my -- my concern is
not to throw your efforts away.
MS. MAGGIO: I -- I --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: That is my concern, that we do
what is right and consistent by this board so that your efforts are
not wasted.
MS. MAGGIO: Thank you very much for -- for hearing me.
MR. DORRILL: We have three additional public comments.
Mr. Pointer?
CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: Mr. Pointer?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: You sneak in at the last minute,
donTt you?
MR. POINTER: We do at that. Good afternoon,
Commissioners. My name is Jack Pointer, and I am here today
representing Willoughby Acres. Willoughby Acres has long supported
Ms. Maggio on this project. We are supporting the commission on their
actions and the code enforcement people on their actions and hope that
it will proceed under normal conditions.
I might like to add one thing. We have heard so many
times about this road, this two-mile road or whatever the length of it
is, that is a private road. And the deed says that this private road
is owned by the adjacent property owners.
CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: Of which we are one.
MR. POINTER: On the north end and the south end,
Collier County is an adjacent property owner of a private road that
now becomes public. Thank you very much. MR. DORRILL: Mr. McGilvra?
MR. MCGILVRA: Good morning, Commissioners, and happy
new year. My name is Douglas McGilvra. ITm speaking as a private
individual here.
I want to back Emily MaggioTs concern here tremendously
because I think this thing has gone on so long. Every time I pick up
a paper, I read that while the county commission has said this and
weTre going to do this. And the next time I pick up the paper, it
says, well, weTre going to not pay any attention to what the county
commission says. And I think itTs ridiculous. I mean, you know, we
gotta get one -- one ball rolling here and have it roll in the right
direction. And ITm happy to see that youTre going to get the county
attorney and everybody to look into it and start down the road that
path. At least weTre going two ways instead of just one way.
Hopefully one of them will work. Thank you. MR. DORRILL: Mr. Perkins?
MR. CUYLER: Just to clarify the record, we have been
involved in researching this. We did do what the board said to do,
but weTll take that additional step.
PUBLIC COMMENT - EVACUATION ROUTES THROUGH THE BELLE MEADE AREA
PRESENTED BY AL PERKINS
MR. PERKINS: A1 Perkins for the record again.
It wouldn't be a beginning of a new year unless I
mentioned the evacuation routes through the Belle Heade; okay? Sable
Palm --
CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: A1, you have five minutes.
MR. PERKINS: Right. Sable Palm and Miller Boulevard
Extension. You need to be brought up to speed to that. That needs to
be put in place before we lose a bunch of lives.
PUBLIC COHMENT - DISCUSSION REGARDING THE SNOWFEST IN GOLDEN GATE BY AL
PERKINS
Next item, okay, Snow Fest in the Gate. Apparently
there's been some comment about moving Snow Fest out of the Gate.
CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: Where did that come from?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Horrible idea.
MR. PERKINS: Well, if you want to take and start a
problem, you people at home, especially in the Gate --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to
the A1 Perkins hour. Do you have any guests today, Ai?
MR. PERKINS: Beg pardon? No, no. But anyhow, you're
going to find that I do that because I think -- I get a lot of
people. I reach a lot of people by talking to them.
CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: You know, A1, in -- in another
three weeks -- three months you'll be able to look at a camera right
up here. You won't have to turn around and look out there.
MR. PERKINS: You know, now you just opened another can
of worms. Oh, boy. The videotaping of these meetings and our
representative meetings and the remote meetings need to be put in
place. We have the technology, and I'm sure we've got the money that
they can do it, but we need to document.
Now, Pam, you weren't brought up to speed on the dump,
and the question was -- right. This is not going to go away -- to
review the tapes that were in existence about the contract, the verbal
contract of the people in the Golden Gate, bring yourself up to
speed.
But that's not what I'm talking about; okay? Snow Fest,
it's going to stay in the Gate. We're going to keep it there, and
we're going to make it twice as good as it was last year, and the
following year we're going to even double it again. Ask Timothy if
you don't believe me. Something else too, if need be, we close
down --
CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: I believe him.
MR. PERKINS: -- Santa Barbara Boulevard and put enough
patrols out there, sheriff patrols, to direct traffic for one time out
of the year for the kids of Collier County; okay?
Next thing, smile, everybody. We're coming up on
February the 24th, 25th, and 26th. That's Frontier Days, guys,
Frontier Days in Collier County. I want to invite everybody out there
to come and see the golden side of the Gate. I understand the board
has been -- has or is going to be asked to participate in the parade
out there.
With that I will close and wish you all a good day.
CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: Thank you, A1.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Always entertaining, A1.
Item #14
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' COMMUNICATIONS
CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: With that I believe that concludes
the January 3, 1995, meeting.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I have a couple things under
BCC communications.
CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: Yes, sir. One moment. Let's go
the regular route.
Mr. Cuyler, do you have anything under communications?
MR. CUYLER: I have nothing.
CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: Mr. Dorrill?
MR. DORRILL: Roll Tide.
CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: Pardon?
MR. DORRILL: Roll Tide.
CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: Mr. Norris?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Nothing.
CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hancock?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'll withhold my football
comment.
night.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It was a great game last
CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: It was a great game.
Commissioner Mac'Kie?
COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: No, thank you.
CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: Now it's your turn.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Two questions. One, the
workshop we're having Thursday, do we have an agenda? And do we have
a location? You had indicated you didn't necessarily want that to be
here.
CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: No. To me the location is in the
-- the new BCC conference room. It's plenty big for the seven of us.
MR. DORRILL: It will either be there or the -- the
museum.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I had a memo that said it would
be at the museum, and I also got a preliminary agenda asking for
additions to it.
CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: Yes, yeah. I --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Perhaps they're on my desk.
CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: I -- I put out a memo last week
with -- I think it's got five -- five or six items on it and asking
for any other ideas and to -- to contact Mr. Dorrill who will -- who
will put together a formal agenda for us. But it's -- it's my
understanding that this meeting is to include for discussion purpose
only the seven of us, that agency administrators and so forth --
MR. DORRILL: They are staying home.
CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: -- are staying home.
MR. DORRILL: That's the direction that I've given. It
will be a public meeting.
CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: Yes, very much so, but -- but it's
-- it's a brainstorming concept between the seven of us.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Great. Second question, we
had asked in December for an update on the school board's
participation in the reef which we've agreed to fund and the city has
agreed to provide the dock for, and the school board continues to drag
on. I was wondering what that update told us.
MR. DORRILL: I have not contacted the school board.
The note that I had -- I'll check -- was to put that on an agenda of
things that the new chairman and I will meet with them. I think we
have a meeting scheduled this month with ourselves and the city. But
I will double-check that and let your office know this afternoon.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I do have an upcoming meeting
with the chairman, Nelson Faerber. Maybe I'll raise the issue.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The demolition I believe is
scheduled for the next session in March, so we need to know on that so
they can plan accordingly fairly quickly.
MR. DORRILL: And I believe it's either today's meeting
or -- I've seen an executive summary authorizing us to apply for the
next grant cycle.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah, that was today.
MR. DORRILL: And just a bit of history on that, the
city has already expressed a willingness to allow us to use the Naples
Landing as a staging area for that rubble material, but there's been a
concern on Mr. Constantine's part that the staff at the school board
is less than enthusiastic about that aspect of the demolition, and I'm
being very diplomatic when I say that. So we're going to have to
nudge them a little bit.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The third and final item was
a follow-up to Mr. Perkins' comment. I, too, don't think the Snow
Fest move -- and I'm sure I'll be sharing this with the staff who
suggested it -- is a good idea. Leave it to government to have
something that is overwhelmingly successful and then try to change
it. Because traffic is inconvenient when you have 10,000 people turn
out to that park once a year I don't think is -- is a reason. I went
to a football game this week at Joe Robbie Stadium, but we had to wait
in traffic a little while too. But 70,000 people still showed up at
the game, and so I hope we don't go and spoil --
MR. DORRILL: That's the first time I heard that.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I hope we don't go and try to
spoil a good event by trying to move it elsewhere.
MR. DORRILL: Can you just tell me where it is or who it
is that -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Naples Daily News; Steve
Brinkman I believe.
CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: I heard it on the -- on the radio
news.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I think they're just looking for
alternatives to try and alleviate some traffic complaints they got
that --
MR. DORRILL: They typically will have a little critique
or something like that with the parks and rec. advisory board, but I
haven't heard anyone say we were going to move the Snow Fest from
Golden Gate.
CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: Okay. Are we finished?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Don't forget to ask Sue.
CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: We're finished; right?
MS. FILSON: You're finished.
CHAIRWOMAN MATTHEWS: We're adjourned.
Commissioner Norris moved, seconded by Commissioner
Matthews, and carried unanimously, that the following
items under the Consent Agenda be approved and/or
adopted:
Item #16A1
APPROVAL FOR RECORDING THE FINAL PLAT OF EASTON PARK AT COACH HOUSE
LANE
Item #16A2
RESOLUTIONS 95-1 THROUGH 95-24 AUTHORIZING WAIVER OF ROAD, LIBRARY
SYSTEM, PARKS AND RECREATIONAL FACILITY, EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES,
AND EDUCATIONAL FACILITY SYSTEM IMPACT FEES FOR 24 THREE AND FOUR
BEDROOM HOUSES TO BE BUILT BY IHMOKALEE NON-PROFIT HOUSING, INC. IN
TIMBER RIDGE PUD IN IHMOKALEE AND TO FUND SAID WAIVERS FROM AFFORDABLE
HOUSING TRUST FUND - ADOPTED
See Pages
Item #16A3
WATER FACILITIES ACCEPTANCE FOR WINDSOR PLACE WITH STIPULATIONS AND
LETTER OF CREDIT
See Pages
Item #16B1
SIGNAL EQUIPMENT PURCHASES FROM THE STATE CONTRACT IN EXCESS OF $25,000
FOR SIGNALIZE INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS
Item #1682
ANNUAL CONTRACTS AWARDED TO MCGEE AND ASSOCIATES FOR MEDIAN LANDSCAPE
MAINTENANCE SUPPORT SERVICES TO THE FOUR BEAUTIFICATION DISTRICTS,
MARCO ISLAND HSTU; GOLDEN GATE PARKWAY HSTU; LELY GOLF ESTATES HSTU;
AND IHMOKALEE HSTU IN ACCORDANCE WITH PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENTS
RFP 93-2131
See Pages
Item #16C1
BID #94-2303 FOR IRRIGATION SYSTEH REPAIRS RELATIVE TO ALL COLLIER
COUNTY PARKS - AWARDED TO COHMERCIAL LAND MAINTENANCE, INC. IN THE
AMOUNT OF $26,000
Item #16C2
BID #94-2285 FOR THE PURCHASE OF A PARK MASTER HETER RELATIVE TO THE
COCOHATCHEE RIVER BOAT RAMP/PARK - AWARDED TO SCHLUHBERGER TECHNOLOGIES
IN THE AMOUNT OF $26,890
Item #16C3
BUDGET AMENDHENT TRANSFERRING FUNDS FROH FUND 368 RESERVES TO GOLDEN
GATE COHMUNITY CENTER EXPANSION - CHANGE ORDER APPROVED AND NEW 10e
CHANGE ORDER LIMIT AUTHORIZED
Item #16C4 - Moved to Item #8C2
Item #16D1
PRESENTATION OF SOUTH COUNTY REGIONAL WASTEWATER MASTER PLAN UPDATE -
PREPAERD BY MALCOLM PIRNIE, INC. MINUS THE SECTIONS ON INFILL AREA #4
AND ACQUISITION #7
Item #16El
RESOLUTIONS 95-25, 95-26 AND 95-27, AUTHORIZING THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COHMISSIONERS' CHAIRMAN TO EXECUTE THE APPROPRIATE DOCUMENTATION
REQUIRED TO EXPEDITE THE COUNTY'S LAND RIGHTS ACQUISITION PROGRAM FOR
THE 1995 CHAIRHAN'S TENURE ONLY
See Pages
Item #16E2 - Continued to 1/17/95
Item #16G1
AUTHORIZATION FOR THE CHAIRMAN TO SIGN THE APPLICATION FOR THE FLORIDA
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ARTIFICAL REEF GRANT FOR THE
ARTIFICIAL REEF PROGRAM OF COLLIER COUNTY - IN THE AMOUNT OF $25,000
See Pages
Item #1662
APPROPRIATION OF FUNDS FOR BRAZILIAN PEPPER REMOVAL PROJECTS THAT WERE
INADVERTENTLY NOT CARRIED FORWARD FROM PRIOR YEAR - IN THE AMOUNT OF
$33,241
Item #1663
RESOLUTION 95-28, ADDING UNITS TO THE 1995 COLLIER COUNTY MANDATORY
SOLID WASTE COLLECTION SPECIAL ASSESSMENT ROLL AND AUTHORIZE THE
CHAIRMAN TO EXECUTE CERTIFICATES OF CORRECTION CORRESPONDING TO THIS
RESOLUTION
See Pages
Item #16H1 - Deleted
Item #16H2 - Moved to Item #8H4
Item #16H3
SOLID WASTE DEPARTMENT BUDGET AMENDMENTS TO RECOGNIZE CARRY FORWARD FOR
PROJECTS IN FUND 471, TO RECOGNIZE CARRY FORWARD AND APPROVE ADDITIONAL
MONIES FOR PROJECTS IN FUND 470, AND TO APPROVE A TRANSFER OF MONIES
FROM FUND 470 TO FUND 471 TO COVER THE COSTS OF FUTURE CELL CLOSURE
Item #16H4
PURCHASE AGREEMENT COVERING BEDINGHAUS (STRIKES AND SPARES BOWLING
ALLEY) PARCEL 107 AND 707, FOR THE GOLDEN GATE PARKWAY IMPROVEMENT
PROJECT #69031
See Pages
Item #16H5 - Moved to Item #8H5
Item #16H6 - Moved to Item #8H6
Item #16J
MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE - FILED AND/OR REFERRED
The following miscellaneous correspondence was filed and/or
refered to the various departments as presented by the Board of County
Commissioners:
Item #16J1
CERTIFICATES OF CORRECTION TO THE TAX ROLLS AS PRESENTED BY THE
PROPERTY APPRAISER'S OFFICE
Number
268-271
183-186
199-205
1991
Real Property
Dated
11/14/94-12/19/94
1992
Real Property
11/14/94-12/19/94
1993
Real Property
11/14/94-12/19/94
1994
Real Property
52-58 11/14-11/15/94
95-100 12/09-12/14/94
1994
Tangible Personal Property
102-105 12/05-12/19/94
108 12/08/94
Item #16J2
SATISFACTIONS OF LIEN FOR SERVICES OF THE PUBLIC DEFENDER
See Pages
Item #16K1
SATISFACTIONS OF CIVIL JUDGMENT LIENS
See Pages
There being no further business for the Good of the County,
the meeting was adjourned by Order of the Chair at 12:50 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
BETTYE MATTHEWS, CHAIRWOMAN
These minutes approved by the Board on
as presented or as corrected
TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF DONOVAN COURT REPORTING
BY: Shelly Semmler