Loading...
BCC Minutes 09/12/1995 RREGULAR MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 12, 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 a.m. in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: ALSO PRESENT: CHAIRPERSON: Bettye J. Hatthews Timothy J. Constantine John C. Norris Timothy L. Hancock Pamela S. Hac'Kie W. Neil Dotrill, County Hanager David Weigel, Assistant County Attorney CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Call to order the board of commission meeting for Tuesday, September the 12th, 1995. Mr. Dotrill, will you lead us in an invocation and pledge. MR. DORRILL: Heavenly Father, as always, we give thanks for the wonder and the glory that is Collier County and its people. We give thanks for the dedication, the commitment, and the desire of our elected public officials to help lead this community and be a reflection of your will. Father, we'd ask that you bless our time here together today, that we give thanks and lift up those special people to be recognized today, especially our local economy and industry and our law enforcement officials. Father, we also give thanks for the hard work and dedication of our staff, be it support, professional, or technical staff. And we would ask that you bless the people of Collier County and bless our time here together this morning. We pray these things in Jesus's name. Amen. (The pledge of allegiance was recited in unison.) Item #3 and #3A AGENDA AND CONSENT AGENDA - APPROVED WITH CHANGES CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Looks -- Hr. Dorrill, looks like we have a plethora -- if that's the right word -- of changes. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We're taking our morning break right after the change list. MR. DORRILL: You need to remember my heritage is from south Alabama, so I don't know if we have a plethora, but we sure have got a page full of changes this morning. I'll work through these as quickly as I can. We have a number of add-on items. The first one is under proclamations. It will be 5(A)(4), a proclamation recognizing the support and contribution of Mr. and Mrs. Herbert Sugden for the Lake Avalon project, 5(A)(4). We have under public works 8(B)(6), a report and update on the Royal Cove sewer problems, 8(B)(6). Also under public works 8(B)(7), an update and status report on activities concerning drainage throughout the county, 8(B)(7). Under public services, 8(C)(1), we have further consideration and the recommendation as it pertains to imposing beach parking fees for noncounty residents. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Can I just ask a question? We were scheduled to have that on next week anyway. And I know there were some different folks planning on coming. I'm sure there will be a pile of people coming. Why are we doing it this week as opposed to when we had told everyone we were going to do it? MR. DORRILL: We're doing it, frankly, at my request. It will be subject to the final budget approval that is a week from tomorrow, next Wednesday evening. I'm scheduled to be out of town next Tuesday, and I was concerned that given the -- the amount of money and the fact that we have our fund balanced, I wanted to be able to participate in the discussion. Yesterday, in addition to contacting all of the county commissioners, we did contact the media, and we contacted all of the people who had previously participated in that discussion at either budget workshops or your first public hearing, specifically the citizens of Bonita Beach Association and residents of Marco Island who have participated in those discussions. It's my understanding they will be here today to participate in that. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Unfortunately, I had a phone call last night about 10:15 on this very issue, and I don't know whether anybody from this CABB is here or not. But as of 10:15 last night, they were having great difficulty rearranging schedules. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I still have a little bit of discomfort because we did just say last Wednesday that we would schedule that for the 19th, and I know there were some groups trying to mobilize for that. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I'm not as much opposed to it if everybody could be here for the discussion, but it doesn't look like some are going to make it. Commissioner Mac'Kie. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: I just wanted to -- I think that, correct me if I'm wrong, Mr. Dotrill, but it's not a vacation that you're scheduled to be out of town for next week. It's a seminar that's a very important, very useful, I think -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Uh-huh. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- in continuing education. MR. DORRILL: I go to one professional meeting per year, and this date was set a year in advance. And I just thought that this issue and the fact we're dealing with $900,000 was -- was important enough for me to be here and participate in the discussion today and recognize that any and everyone will still have the opportunity to participate at the final budget hearing. But I wanted you to have the benefit of the staff report and the executive summary while I was here to be able to guide that. Your final action cannot be taken until next Wednesday. I will tell you that the CABB organization was the first organization that was called yesterday morning to advise them of the fact that this was going to be on today at my request. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: The other consideration here, Mr. Dotrill, is that if there's any changes to be made, the budget department needs some time to -- to get that done before next Wednesday; right? MR. DORRILL: In fairness to them, yes, because otherwise you'll be sitting here until ten or eleven o'clock as he recalculates all of the millages that have to be read into the record in the event that any changes are made to the general fund and then the aggregate millages that are affected. And I'm trying to give them at least a week's notice as to what your intent may be for -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: If there's a choice between causing myself a little discomfort for an extra two or three hours or allowing the public an opportunity to say -- I'll gladly inconvenience myself. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, yes, and I feel the same way, Commissioner Constantine. But the point is that they've all been notified. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Why don't we see who shows up? If there's enough participation, then we'll have the -- leave it on today's agenda. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Can I just ask a question? Is there anybody here from CABB right now? No. Okay. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I notice you didn't ask if there was anybody from any other group. Is just that one the one you're concerned with, Commissioner Matthews? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: No. They were the people -- excuse me, Commissioner Norris, but that was the person who called me last night -- COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: -- who said they were having difficulty -- COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Well, if you're concerned about the public not having an opportunity to speak, it just seems to me that you would want all groups who were interested to know if they were here, too. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Well, I would, but they didn't call me last night to say they were having difficulty. I mean, excuse me, but I -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: You're only concerned with the people who call you and not any of the other public. Is that it? COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. We're not getting anywhere with this. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I think we've done this enough. Mr. Dotrill, do you want to move forward? MR. DORRILL: Yes, ma'am. You all blame me for this. I just thought it was important enough -- COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Don't worry. We'll blame you for it no matter what. MR. DORRILL: In addition -- we have an addition, another add-on item. And it will be 8(C)(2) under public services, which is the authorization to designate a broker of record in order to sell the shares necessary to raise the $500,000 for Lake Avalon, that's 8(C)(2). Final add-on item under the county attorney's report is 9(C), which is an authorization for the chairman to travel to Tampa this coming Friday to participate in a mediation of a construction dispute. In anticipation of the Hideaway Beach item again being on the agenda today, we had looked for items that could be continued in order to try and shorten your afternoon session under public hearings. It's my understanding that at least one of these may need to be considered today, and so I will read through these, and now given the fact that the Hideaway item will not be on the board, we'll be at your discretion as to whether you actually want these continued or not. All of these are under advertised public hearings. The first one is 12(C)(1), which was an ordinance amendment to correct a scribner's error for Pine Ridge Center West PUD. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Dorrill, I have a question. It -- have we notified the people -- MR. DORRILL: We did in every -- in every instance. I believe we did that last Thursday or Friday. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: -- that these would be continued? So if the board were to hear them today in spite of that, wouldn't that be somewhat of a difficulty for them? MR. DORRILL: We contacted the petitioner. The example that I was -- was advised of, frankly, was one where we're renaming a street. And I know that Mr. Constantine said this is something that the residents have all been aware of for I would say probably two months, but that's an example of something that could be heard today if you wanted to hear it. And I believe Ms. Hac'Kie may have also been contacted on another one that is a really routine-type item. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: There's two items. It seems like the scribner's error isn't going to be any discussion. And the Logan Court item, our sign department is so efficient that the Logan Court sign has already been up so -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: It's already up. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- it seems like that ought to take all of about 10 seconds. There are others here where obviously there may be some discussion, and the petitioners have been alerted that that won't be heard today. It's not appropriate that we do, but at least those two seems like there's not going to be much discussion on them anyway. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Miss Filson, I was contacted yesterday -- I don't know which item it is -- about the church school. Is that still on the -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I think that was left on. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. We intended to leave that on. MS. FILSON: Yeah, that's on the agenda today. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It's a different one from that. That's what I thought. I just wanted to be sure. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. So we want to go ahead and hear the scribner's error? Is that what we're saying? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: 12(C)(1). COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: That's fine with me. MR. DORRILL: The next one was 13(A)(1); that's a petition SV-95-4, a sign variance for Discount Auto Parts. These are all continued for just one week. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. MR. DORRILL: We've got some other continuances and one withdrawal, but all these right now: 13(A)(7), petition CU-95-4, conditional use for a church and school facility on 951; petition 13(B)(1), CU-92-4, an extension of an existing conditional use. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: And we are going to continue these that you just read? MR. DORRILL: Yes, sir, unless you pull these and direct otherwise, as Mr. Constantine had with the first one. 12(C)(1) will be on today; that was the scribner's error. I haven't gotten to Logan Court yet. The next one is continued as a result of what I'm told is an agreement in concept to settle the Hideaway Beach issue. That's item 12(B)(2). It will be continued, if necessary, until your meeting of October the 10th. That was PUD-80-20(5), 12(B)(2). The next one is the one that Mr. Constantine referred to. It is the renaming of a portion of Logan Boulevard to Logan Court. And I presume, Mr. Constantine, you desire that that remain on the agenda? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yes, please. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Should we go out and take the sign down and wait for the item? MR. DORRILL: We have a request to continue indefinitely. This was separate and apart from our agenda management, 12(C)(3) which was an ordinance amending certain aspects of the county building and structural codes for hurricane protection. That will be rescheduled and readvertised as necessary. Continued for two -- three weeks, excuse me, item 13(A)(12), which was an appeal of a growth management plan, mixed-use activity center on MArco Island. Then the final two items that I have this morning were withdrawals. The first one was ll(A) which was a request from the sheriff pertaining to a computer-aided dispatch system, and a withdrawal of item 16(A)(2) that was on your consent agenda that involved a compliance service case for the owner of record for a portion of the A1 Gallman estate property. And that's all that I have, Madam Chairman. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. Is there any further discussion on the changes? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Just -- if I may at this point, I need to make a record of my abstaining of an item on the consent agenda, 16(A)(1). I have a conflict in that matter. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Norris, do you have any additional changes? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Nothing further. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hancock? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: No, ma'am. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Mac'Kie? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No, ma'am. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Constantine? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah, I have a couple. I wanted to add 10(B), unless we have already added 10(B). I want to add something under 10 -- that's a discussion. We've got an advertising problem as part of our appointment process. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: 10(B)? What is this? Our advertising? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah, we had with one of the appointed boards we have. We have a -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: At least one. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We have a little technical problem. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Is this so that they don't get in the newspaper -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: -- quickly enough? And we've been trying to address that for almost a year. Okay, we can discuss it and see if there's a remedy. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Also I have a couple of others. 16(D)(2), if we can pull that, which is board approval of resolution to adopt the terms for members of the Council of Economic Advisors. And what I would ask, Mr. Weigel, sometime between now and when that comes up, could someone pull the resolution that created the CEA? MR. WEIGEL: Sure. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And that may answer my question. MR. DORRILL: That will become 8(D)(1). COMMISSIONER NORRIS: 8 (D) (1) ? MR. DORRILL: D as in David. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And also I'd ask the board if we could take an hour and fifteen minutes at lunchtime today. I have a meeting with the Mental Health Association. I'd just like a few minutes to get there and back. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Annual checkup? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yes. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: You might not make it back then, just check you right in. Sorry. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: This has the makings of a tenuous day. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm just having fun. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I guess that's all the changes. I have nothing that I need to change. Is there a motion for the agenda and the consent agenda? COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Motion to approve the agenda and consent agenda as amended. COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Second. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second to approve the agenda and the consent agenda as amended. All in favor please say aye. Opposed? Motion passes 5 to 0. Item #4 MINUTES OF THE AUGUST 15 AND 22, 1995 REGULAR MEETINGS, AUGUST 22, 1995 WORKSHOP AND AUGUST 24, 1995 EMERGENCY MEETING - APPROVED COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Mrs. Chairman, I'll make a motion that we approve the minutes of August 15th regular meeting, August 22nd regular meeting, August 22nd workshop, and August 24th emergency meeting. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I will second that motion. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second to approve the minutes of four as-stated meetings. All those in favor please say aye. Opposed? There being none, motion passes 5 to 0. Item #5A1 PROCLAivLATION DESIGNATING SEPTEMBER 29, 1995 AS LAW ENFORCEMENT APPRECIATION DAY - ADOPTED Proclamations and service awards, our first one, Commissioner Mac'Kie. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It's my pleasure to read a proclamation for Law Enforcement Appreciation Day. And I understand Jerry Brock and perhaps Jim Sanders are here to receive this proclamation, if you'd come forward. If you don't mind, face the camera while I read the proclamation. Whereas, the problems of crime touch all segments of our society and can undermine and erode the moral and economic strengths of our communities; and, Whereas, we are fortunate that law enforcement officers from all area agencies dedicate themselves to preserving law and order and the public safety; and, Whereas, we recognize that the men and women in law enforcement risk their lives on a daily basis to protect our citizens and maintain social order; and, Whereas, we encourage all citizens to pause to recognize our law enforcement officers so that we may not take their work for granted. Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that the day of September 29, 1995, be designated as Law Enforcement Appreciation Day and ask all citizens to join with us in honoring these law enforcement officers and to assist them by exercising responsible citizenship. Done and ordered this 12th day of September, 1995, Board of County Commissioners, Bettye Matthews, Chairman. I'd like to move that we approve the proclamation. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll second that. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second to approve the proclamation. All in favor please say aye. Opposed? There being none, it passes 5 to 0. Thank you. (Applause) Item #5A2 PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING THE WEEK OF SEPTEMBER 17-23, 1995 AS INDUSTRY APPRECIAION WEEK - ADOPTED CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Next item on the agenda is a proclamation. Commissioner Constantine. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you. Sorry. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: That's all right. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We have a proclamation for Industry Appreciation Week. Is Colleen Kvetko -- Colleen, you need to help me. If I did that wrong, I apologize. MS. KVETKO: No, it's perfect. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: She is chairman of the Industry Appreciation Week, and we have the following proclamation: Whereas, industry in Collier County is vital to the community's economic health; and, Whereas, Collier County's existing industries are the key to a prosperous future; and, Whereas, the expansion of those industries account for the majority of new jobs created; and, Whereas, Collier County's industries help sustain our quality of life. Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that the week of September 17th through 23rd, 1995, be designated as Industry Appreciation Week. Done and ordered this 12th day of September, 1995, Board of County Commissioners, Collier County, Florida, Bettye J. Matthews, Chairman. Madam Chairman, I'd like to make a motion we approve this proclamation. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second to approve the proclamation. All in favor, please say aye. Opposed? There being none, motion passes 5 to 0. (Applause) MS. KVETKO: I would just like to, of course, thank the commission for this award. And it will be read and presented at a luncheon on September 21st, next Thursday. We will be recognizing over 70 companies of Collier County that have contributed to this county, and everyone is welcome. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. Item #5A3 PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING THE WEEK OF SEPTEMBER 16, 1995, AS BEACH CLEAN-UP DAY - ADOPTED Next item on the agenda is another proclamation, and it gives me pleasure to read this one. Is Susan Nichols-Lucy here? Whereas, the quality of life and the ecological and economic well-being of Collier County citizens are critically dependent on the continual protection of the natural resources of southwest Florida's coastal zone; and, Whereas, Collier County's sandy beaches and estuaries serve as an essential community function by providing for fisheries production, storm protection, and recreational opportunities while contributing to our county's natural beauty; and, Whereas, Collier County's canals and roadsides serves as the entryway to the community as visitors, residents, and potential residents enter our area; and, Whereas, Collier County's businesses, organizations, youth groups, and individuals want to participate in helping to maintain the county's cleanliness and its natural resources; and, Whereas the international cleanup is occurring on September the 16th, not only in Collier County, but across the world, in the largest single international effort to collect and clean coastal areas. Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that the week of September 16, 1995, be designated as beach cleanup -- it says day, but I guess it's week. Done and ordered this 12th day of September, 1995, Board of County Commissioners, Collier County, Florida, Bettye J. Matthews, Chairman. And I'd like to make a motion that we accept this proclamation. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second to accept the proclamation. All in favor, please say aye. Opposed? There being none, motion passes 5 to 0. (Applause) CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Miss Nichols-Lucy is going to tell us about all the things going on. MS. NICHOLS-LUCY: On behalf of the international beach cleanup I'd like to invite everyone to participate in the event this Saturday. It's a fairly exciting event. In Collier County alone we expect over a thousand people volunteering to clean and catalog the debris collected along the beaches, roadsides, and canals as part of the international effort that started in '86 and occurs in over 60 counties and 30 states and territories. I think this year's cleanup is an excellent example of how governmental agencies, nonprofit agencies, local businesses, local civic, and special interest -- interests -- special interest organizations can work together for one common cause. And there's several people in the audience that I would like to stand up as I read, just because it's amazing the number of organizations that are involved. The Collier County solid waste department, Collier County natural resource department, the Everglades National Park, Collier Seminole State Park -- and this is the first time that we've ever included Everglades City and the Everglades National Park, Rookery Bay staff, Friends of Rookery Bay, Marine Industries Association and associated marinas, CABB, the Conservancy, Naples Police Department, Naples Sailing Club, and the Diving Club and also the U.S. Postal Service. Private businesses include Waste Management of Collier County, FP&L, Earth Outfitters, Ben and Jerry's, and Publix. We expect over 600 students and scouts out there and along with 400 adults. Also, I'd like to recognize that this summer, as part of the advertising, we had a poster contest sponsored by Earth Outfitters where we had several hundred posters drawn by Collier County children up to age 12. So there is more than enough for us -- all of us to participate, so please come and join us. Thanks. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. Item #5B EHPLOYEE SERVICE AWARDS - PRESENTED The next item on the agenda, Commissioner Norris -- but I think you're delaying that until the parties are -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: It's my understanding, Mr. Dotrill; is that correct? MR. DORRILL: Yes, they will be arriving at ten o'clock. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Ten o'clock. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Can I just interrupt for a second and take note that God answers prayers even when they're uttered at the county commission meeting that Commissioner Haas is here, and it's wonderful to see you out and about. We're so glad to see you doing so well. MR. HAAS: Thank you. (Applause) CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Well spoken, Commissioner Mac'Kie. Next item on the agenda, service awards, Commissioner Hancock. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Thank you. It's not very often we have the ability to recognize an employee with 20 years of service with Collier County. And today we have the distinction of having two employees meet that mark. First, I'd like to recognize for 20-year service with parks and recreation, Mr. Robert C. Allen. (Applause) CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Do we have 40-year pins? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: We would make one. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We would make one. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: In addition, also with parks and recreation -- and, Mr. Olliff, is there some secret to longevity in parks and recreation? We have a 20-year recognition for Mr. Murdo Smith. (Applause) COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: After a recent workday in parks and rec -- it's not all just softball, kids. I mean, there's a lot of hard work going on out there, and we appreciate it. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: It's all that hard work that lets them play softball. Item #6B RECOMMENDATION THAT THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ADOPT A REVISED INVESTMENT POLICY - CONTINUED AND TO BE HEARD WITH ITEM #9A; CONTINUED ONE WEEK AND RAYMOND JAMES TO REVIEW Next item on the agenda is item 6(B), a recommendation of Board of County Commissioners adopt a revised investment policy. Mr. Brock. MR. BROCK: Good morning, Madam Chairman, Board of County Commissioners. You have been provided with a copy of the revised investment policy that has been submitted to the Board of County Commissioners. Pursuant to Ordinance Number 8765 -- I'm reading from the minutes of the board meeting pertaining to that particular issue dealing with subsection 2 of that particular ordinance. It provides that -- section 2, as stated by Mr. Cuyler, requires the clerk to prepare and propose to the board a cash management investment policy which the board will be required to adopt by resolution, and no investment can take place until the clerk returns that policy proposal and it is adopted. In the present legislative session or in the legislative session that just passed, our Florida legislature added some statutory language requiring certain -- I think there were 14 different criteria had to be included in the investment policies of state and local government. As a sequence of that, I put together what I considered to be a blue chip committee which is comprised of your chairman, Commissioner Matthews; the Honorable Guy Carlton, elected tax collector here in Collier County; and two private citizens, a Mr. Keith Glisch. Mr. Glisch was a senior vice president at Citibank and was an investment banker for 30 years; and a Mr. Ed Mahoney who is a private citizen. Mr. Mahoney was a senior vice president for Merrill Lynch and has worked for central banks around the world. Mr. Mahoney has over 30 years experience in Wall Street. With the assistance of my money manager, Mr. John Kannengeiser -- Mr. Kannengeiser has had 23 years of experience in portfolio management in New York City and has managed bond portfolios as large as 6 billion dollars. He has managed funds and was a senior bond trader for the fourth largest bank in the world, Mitsubishi Bank. As a consequence of these individuals coming together, we have developed for the board and are submitting to the board a revised investment policy which has been presented to you for consideration. There is one particular item that I would like to address in that particular policy and to explain to everyone why it is there. And that is that we have limited investment to maturities of five years. The new law that was passed by the Florida legislature this year provides that the three criteria that will be taken into consideration in establishing an investment policy is; first, preserve elevation of principal; two, liquidity; and three, last, but not least, return. As a consequence of that particular language, we have limited the investments in this policy to five years. But there is an additional reason why we have done that, ladies and gentlemen. This county has passed a bond issue. It was the Pine Ridge Industrial Park, Naples Production Park, municipal service taxing and benefit units, special assessment bond series 1993. It is a $17,335,000 bond issue. In the bond covenants of that particular issue it contains the following language: Monies on deposit in a reserve account shall be invested in authorized investments of not greater than five-years maturity. The way that this county has historically and does today invest its investments, invest its money, is through a pooled investment account of which that reserve account is a part. And it was the opinion of the people that were involved to extend beyond the five-year period would constitute a violation of the bond covenant. As I'm sure the Board of County Commissioners is aware today that we have investments in that particular portfolio which exceed five years, we have been working with the bond rating agencies who are aware that we are in violation of the bond covenants as a consequence of that. We have talked to them, and we are in the process of trying to get back into compliance with the bond covenants. But to create an investment policy which is contrary to the bond covenants as is stated, we thought, would be totally and wholly inappropriate. If you have any questions about any of the other issues in the investment policy, I'd be glad to address them. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Questions? Commissioner Hancock. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: This question really is kind of left over from the previous policy we looked at, which has been revised I understand, but I would like some clarification. A disturbing recommendation has been issued by -- by Mr. Grady that recommended the county selling all CHOs at a real tax dollar loss to buttress a legal position. That was reported in the paper. Does this policy -- if by adopting this policy, are we putting ourselves in a position that we would be required by this policy to liquidate all CHOs which currently show no -- you know, we haven't lost any tax dollars in them yet. They have a long buyout, and I understand that. But would it put us in a position that we have to throw tax money down the drain by selling all CHOs at this point? MR. BROCK: No, Commissioner, it wouldn't. And the reason for that is -- I think the committee discussed with Commissioner Matthews whenever we talked about this particular policy was that in the implementation process of this particular policy the thing that we wanted to do would be to insure by creating language that would allow us to go outside of the policy specifically for the purpose of not incurring the losses that you are talking about. But to just clear up something that I think you said, that Mr. Grady recommended that we sell them to establish a legal position, I think what Mr. Grady said was that we should consider selling those securities, and that would -- should be one of the things that we should undertake in our thought process, what we should do, not that it was a recommendation of his to do that, but that was something that needed to be considered. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'll stipulate he said we consider selling them at a real tax dollar loss. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I have a question here. We have a similar item on our county attorney's report, 9(A). Are we -- what are we going to do here? Are we going to take tacks on both of these, or should we not combine these or something? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Well, when we set the agenda earlier this morning, there was no discussion as to combining them. I'm certainly not opposed to combining them. I think in all haste we would be able to set our mindset to our investment policy and discuss them all at one time. But I guess that would be for the rest of the board now to agree to do, because we did not set that with the original agenda. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, my concern is that if we're going to take action on one and then turn right around and hear the same issue again, we may be in a contradictory position before we're through. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I -- I'm not sure that that's true. The item at 9 -- 9(A) is a report to the board regarding issues of the county investment policy including control of the portfolio. This is the policy itself, and I would assume that if we accept and -- and confirm this policy today, that regardless of what we do in 9(A), this policy will continue with that. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I see. But the report to the board is regarding some issues of something we're discussing right now. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: That's true. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: So we don't know what the issues are yet, but we are being asked to -- see what I mean? We've got the cart before the horse here. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Well, no, we didn't combine them when we set our agenda this morning. And, quite frankly, as I said a few moments ago, I'm not opposed to combining them if the remainder of the board is interested in doing that. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Madam Chairman, if it requires a motion to amend the agenda to combine these two items -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I don't think we really need a motion to -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: -- to combine them. I think we just need consent that we're going to do that. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: It just makes sense to combine them to me. I don't have any difficulty with it. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Why don't we do that then. Mr. Weigel, what -- there are issues in the existing policy or in the new policy that's causing you concern, or do you want to make your report at this time as to what these issues are? MR. WEIGEL: I'd be happy to, Madam Chairman. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Might I suggest -- Mr. Brock, were you planning on being here for item 9(A) also? MR. BROCK: Yes. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. We have a lot of items between these two which I think the majority of the audience is here for. I would prefer to table this item and join it in discussion with 9(A) and let the -- the folks that are here assembled for the earlier items in the agenda be heard. MR. BROCK: I certainly have no problem with that, Commissioner. You know, I have to be here. I'm sort of like you. I have to be here all day anyway. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: We're going to get paid the same either way, Dwight. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We're going to be here all day. MR. BROCK: These people don't. There's no need for us to keep them here. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Accommodate the public, that's fine. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We don't have a motion to accept this property, so a table of the motion is not in order, but I would like a motion to continue this and hear it in conjunction with item 9(A). COHMISSIONER NORRIS: So moved. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second to continue this item and hear it in conjunction with item 9(A). All those in favor, please say aye. Opposed? There being none, the motion is adopted. Item #SA1 REPORT ON WATER QUALITY PROBLEHS IN VANDERBILT LAGOON - REPORT ACCEPTED AS PRESENTED Next item on the agenda is 8(A)(1), a report on water quality problems in Vanderbilt Lagoon. Mr. Lorenz, good morning. MR. LORENZ: Good morning. Yes, as part of the direction from the board back earlier in the year concerning -- with a concern -- discussion of the Naples Park drainage project, the board requested staff to look at some opportunities, evaluate some water quality problems of Vanderbilt Lagoon, and report back to the board. And that's the purpose of this presentation. I'd like to thank Inge Johnson and Judy Johnson for assisting staff. They were very good. We were able to use their boat to do a number of water quality testing of where we did some -- some meter work, and I would like to be able to just acknowledge their help and assistance. And, indeed, they provided us with a -- a boat trip to -- to gather the testing -- the test results. And we basically went through the whole lagoon, performed dissolved oxygen conductivity and temperature testing with meter work to give us a fairly good feel as to what some of the problems are in the lagoon. And it was interesting just simply just going from the -- from the -- from the southern end of the lagoon, which is, if you will, the end of the lagoon northward out toward Turkey Bay to see the system itself. And as you move through the system, it's very apparent, of course, in Vanderbilt Lagoon itself, it's residential finger canals, very intense development, the point where the Naples Park drainage comes into the lagoon. And as you come underneath the bridge there, Vanderbilt Drive, I get into -- get into the more natural system, the mangrove system. And that particular day we could see the interface of the high tide coming in and the difference in clarity of the water quality just visually, which, of course, our meter measurements supported that. I think the point of -- the point of just simply thinking about as you travel down that -- that -- that waterway out to the natural system, a number of things just visually are apparent. And the first thing is is that the Vanderbilt Lagoon system itself and the Naples Park drainage system are all intense land development on a very sensitive estuarine type of system. These developments would not be permitted today because of their impacts on the system. We have a highly urbanized system, and it's quite evident as you -- as you visually observe it and as you take meter measurements. As you get into the natural system, the mangrove fringe system, the system that's closer to the opening of the gulf, you don't see any type of water quality problems. The problems that we did see very specifically is very severe dissolved oxygen problems in the lagoon itself. We -- the first day we were out was in the afternoon, and we saw dissolved oxygen levels that were much greater than what we call saturation. That's the amount that you would typically see as normal in a water system. The reason we saw those very high levels in the afternoon is because algae produces a lot of oxygen and pumped up those oxygen levels. So, therefore, we have an algae problem. Algae grow and respond to more nutrients, nitrogen, and phosphorus into the system. We subsequently came back during the early morning hours, six in the morning, because that's where the algae begin to consume the oxygen, and we found dissolved oxygen violations in the -- in the lagoon itself. Out in the natural system we have very low dissolved oxygen, but we'd expect dissolved oxygen basically in mangrove systems anyway. So we -- we are able to document, certainly confirm the residents' visual observations, that, yes, there are water quality problems in the lagoon. These problems are not atypical of urban systems, of urban water systems that experience a lot of intense land development and especially those systems that have been dredged and have finger canals. It's very similar to the areas in Naples Bay. Marco Island -- although we haven't had any specific meter data, but just from visual observations of some staff in the area, are likely to see these same types of conditions start to exert themselves in Marco Island as well. Basically whenever you have dredged the system, you have changed the hydraulic characteristics. You have changed the flushing characteristics. And with intense land development and storm water into it, unfortunately our estuarine system has been urbanized, and this is -- these are -- these are the results we are suffering, not from the decisions we are making today, but from decisions that were made 20 or 30 years ago. The question is, is -- is what can we do about it. We're looking at severe retrofit types of problems, high -- high cost, high dollar costs to try to reduce the deterioration of the water quality, at least to get it back to some particular point where it's -- it's stable, that what we see is what we continue to have. To go beyond that requires, again, more dollars. The executive summary that I -- that I prepared, you know, we're looking at plus or minus 25 percent type of numbers there. They're best-guess estimates, but you're looking at a multimillion dollar program to try to take care of the problems of the past and what we're continuing to do today. The Naples Park drainage system, for instance, is -- is recognized by the South Florida Water Management District basically as a retrofit system. You don't have a standard system. You're going in to try to make some improvements. You have to do some retrofitting. And the point for the Naples Park system is that the district has accepted the swales as being the best water quality treatment given these existing conditions. You'll see that as a note from the engineer in a letter in the executive summary. To go beyond, to try to make improvements, there are a number of things that can be looked at. One is the example of the flushing. We have two types of flushing problems. One will be the flushing of the finger canals themselves to try to exchange water in those very long canals to the main body of the lagoon. This is a kind of problem that suffers in -- in Naples in those type -- Naples Bay in those types of canals. Secondly is to try to get an exchange of water in Vanderbilt Lagoon itself, which may be an easier possibility, and open some channel to the gulf. In the report that I presented to the board, if -- if the board is interested in doing that, that's -- could be -- could be a couple of million dollars in terms of construction -- would be to go through a feasibility study to determine, number one, is the likelihood of success of -- of that type of scenario working and, secondly, is to look at the various impacts of -- of such a scenario because we could have other environmental impacts of such a channel that -- that could cause problems down the road. And so we need to be very careful when we implement such a -- such a recommendation and, thirdly, we'd want to look at a variety of different alternatives; connection to -- to the Clam Bay system, connection to the gulf, a gravity-flow system, a pump system, where would we put the -- possibly the inputs in to get the best exchange of water into the lagoon. So if -- if the board wants to pursue and is interested in -- in a -- in several million dollars for actually constructing and implementing the system, we would recommend to spend a good chunk of money, up to a hundred thousand dollars, to do that feasibility study. A second -- second option that -- or strategy that has to be implemented would be dealing with water quality treatment. And the residents within Vanderbilt Lagoon itself do not have any water quality treatment. They are roughly 20 to 25 percent of the land area draining to Vanderbilt Lagoon. There needs to be water quality treatment within those residential finger canals. Obviously Naples Park, if you're looking at -- at by managing the storm water -- you heard in the last meeting that you had concern. If we're looking at some land treatment system, you're looking at 15 percent of the land area of Naples Park to try to dedicate to a land treatment system. If you go to some kind of chemical treatment system, you're still going to need some land area, and you're going to have very high operation and maintenance costs ongoing. We haven't looked at those alternatives in detail, but you need to be able to reduce the nutrient concentrations going into Vanderbilt Lagoon from the storm water system, not only from Naples Park, but also from Vanderbilt, the residents along Vanderbilt Lagoon itself. Another potential problem which I think should be looked at in the feasibility study if -- if we go that route is to look at the bottom conditions within the lagoon. That lagoon has been dredged in the '50s. That's what created the finger canals and the current shape of the lagoon. It's very quiescent. Over a long period of time we've had contaminants settling from the outside settling into the bottom. And also as the algae grow and die, they be -- they then settle out to the bottom of the lagoon. And we have bottom conditions that also can exert oxygen demand in the future. So after you reduce the storm water inputs to the system itself, you then have to be concerned about the bottom conditions exerting oxygen demands. And that's needs -- that's going to need to be looked at as to whether that's going to be a significant problem or not. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Lorenz, may I ask you, is there something about a dredged bottom that would be different from a natural bottom in that regard? MR. LORENZ: Well, the dredging has occurred making it deeper, especially as you get into these finger canals where sometimes you have sills that will occur, an unlevel bottom, and it can trap some of the more denset water. As the saltwater moves into the system, it's more dense than the freshwater, and if it can't -- and that's your exchange mechanism is the saltwater. And if it can't pass some of these sills, especially -- it just sits there and gets trapped, and the water quality deteriorates. A bathymetric survey in understanding the bottom conditions needs to be looked at. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: So if the -- if these dredged areas had a more gentle slope, that probably wouldn't occur at least as bad? MR. LORENZ: That's correct. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. Thank you. MR. LORENZ: Indeed, there is, I think -- as you come out of Turkey Bay into Vanderbilt Lagoon there is a very deep hole there, and the saltwater coming through will plunge into that deep hole, and that in itself with a fairly long residence time can cause some problems. So these types of things need to be looked at as part of a total solution. The other -- the other item that we looked at is a possibility that I think can -- can happen fairly quickly with minimal amount of dollar costs, and it's kind of similar to the sign here to celebrate Estuaries and Coastal Day, clean it up, is working with the neighborhood and the owners of -- of property so that they can take more stewardship of their own land, apply appropriate practices in terms of fertilizer and cleaning their property up to minimize the pollutant loading that goes into the system. I think that's -- that's still part of a strategy that would need to be done. There's a successful program in Hillsborough County. It's tied to the SWIM program with Tampa Bay neighborhood yards program that is being developed or is being implemented. And we certainly have a lot of expertise from state agencies and also our Collier County department of agriculture that we would recommend developing a -- a program of -- with the residents, all the residents in the drainage area, and get them into that type of program that is -- that we have a model for. I need to clarify my executive summary. I said that could come from existing staff. In talking with Denise Blanton with the agriculture department, she recommended strongly that we look at least $5,000 for either a part time or a contractual employee that will be able to come in and work very intensely with the homeowners very quickly and develop the program. So in terms of a fiscal impact, I'd like to modify the executive summary there to recommend that. If we move forward with that program, I would recommend that we -- that we spend the money to get someone involved with that program to work quickly. And we could develop a -- we could flush that out in much more detail than what I've outlined here and come back to the board in two or three months with a -- with a detailed program and a detailed cost of a program. The bottom line basically is there are opportunities to improve water quality in that -- in Vanderbilt Lagoon, but it's going to cost three, four, five million dollars at least to implement these types of programs. Staff would love to be able to say that let's go ahead and move forward, and we've got a really good chance of getting a water quality within that lagoon that everybody is -- is comfortable with and is happy about. Our concern, however, is that even after you spend all that money, you're not going to get water quality that perhaps will meet the expectations of the -- of the individuals that live on the lagoon. You're not going to bring it back to a natural system. You will be able to perhaps reverse the deterioration of it. We could be seeing continuing deteriorating water quality in the system, if you will, more frequent algae blooms, worse dissolved oxygen conditions in the future. But it's going to cost you a lot of money to -- to do that. And if the board is willing to -- to spend those kinds of funds, then we also have to make sure that the -- the people involved understand what the water quality expectations may be, and that's where I was saying that we need to first go develop some type of feasibility study so that we can understand what type of improvements we can get out of it. And if -- if they're going to be more than marginal, then it may be cost effective, but I think we need to take that type of approach. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hancock, you have a question? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I -- just to kind of give a quick summary, and then we'll get to the public comment. I met with the Vanderbilt Beach Property Owners' Association, their water quality task force, in addition to representatives of the Conservancy and the Florida Wildlife Federation. The reason for doing that -- and I actually called that meeting just before I got the staff report on Thursday -- was just about everything that could go wrong in a system in Vanderbilt Lagoon has, everything right down to some clearing on a far bank created sedimentation that washed into the lagoon. I mean, it's as if someone drew the perfect disaster and put it all in one place. But the one thing that's important, and it's important to me, because this has arisen out of discussions of the Naples Park drainage, is that it is, in essence, pitted perceptively anyway, Vanderbilt Lagoon against Naples Park, and I don't think that's accurate. I think if you draw a list of all of the things that contribute to the continual degradation of that water body, Naples Park drainage is a part of it, but certainly not solely responsible. And the residents in Vanderbilt Lagoon recognize that, and I appreciate that. What we're dealing with here is not pointing fingers but trying to find a long-term approach that's going to result in some improvement in the water quality there. We're not going to get back a perfect system at any point, and I think when you try and set that as a goal, you're going to end up with a financial price tag that is unrealistic. What I have tried to do -- and I'll just set this on the table, and then we'll get to the public comment -- I'm going to do my best to come up and try and find somewhere in the budget process the ability to kickstart a -- a feasibility study that will result in a form of a Chinese menu that says here's the possible solutions; these are the associated costs. From there with help from the Conservancy and the Wildlife Federation and others, we hope to look at pursuing state or federal grant monies that may become available. Dr. Fitch with the Conservancy seems pretty excited about, in essence, a new department within the State of Florida that's in the forming process that may provide that. So I think talking strictly about what the fiscal impact to this board is at this point would be premature. And I think we need to put that aside for now, because we may not be the ones footing all the bill if we do come up with a potential solution. My goal is to get on the road to finding that solution, and I'll put that budget onus on my shoulders to see if I can come up with a way to help make that happen. But I just wanted to kind of give that, in essence, as a background as to what we've been doing. And so we got away from two and five million dollars at this point and dealt with what is, in essence, the next step hopefully. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Constantine. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Hancock, do we know if there are specific sources available out there that we can apply for, or are we simply looking at this point to see if there are, because I hate to kickstart something that we're simply going to have to turn off again? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: No question. We're early in the process that we have not identified specific sources that are available. If I am successful in finding some funds, those funds would not be expended unless we determined that there is a potential possibility of the project coming to fruition. So we're very early in the process, so I -- you know, I can't give you a definitive answer but, no, we haven't identified specific funding sources as of yet. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thanks. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Other questions? MR. DORRILL: We have a dozen speakers. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Can I make one comment, and that's the neighborhood education program? It would seem to me that that is at a nominal cost in this list of ten to fifteen thousand dollars. And if part of the problem is a public perception of what they think they want versus what's really doable, that an education program like that may make their expectations more realistic and also get them -- get the citizens started on helping reduce the nutrients and so forth that are going into the water. And that may be something that we want to consider looking at getting the formative parts of it started pretty quickly. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Based on the meetings I've had with the residents, I don't think we have unrealistic expectations of creating Crystal River up there. You know, we're not going to have that type of situation. I'm not as concerned about an unrealistic expectation on their part. I think they're just looking to us to identify this as a problem area and see if we can obtain funds to make this a test case for how we go about improving water quality of systems that no one in this room is directly responsible for the condition of. We may be indirectly responsible in one way or another, but we didn't create it or build it or design it, but we're stuck with it. And I think what the residents are looking for from us is a level of concern and a commensurate approach to try and find a solution to the problem. And I really -- that's what I gained from the residents. And if I'm wrong, I'm sure they'll tell me when they -- when they get up here. So I appreciate the comment, but I think we have a fairly realistic approach from the group there, and we can get away from finger pointing, get into hopefully solution-oriented work. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Well, I just feel that education never hurts -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: No question. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: -- and that may lend itself to one of the solutions for the problem. But why don't we move to the public comment, but let me interfere first. Commissioner Norris, is Mr. Sugden here yet? I don't see him but -- COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I don't -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I don't see him yet either. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I don't see Mr. Sugden, no. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. We'll keep our eye open. Mr. Dotrill, do you want to call the public speakers? MR. DORRILL: Yes, ma'am, we have a dozen speakers. So if I could have the second individual come to the front, it would just aid us in our process. Mr. Kobza, you'll be first. And, Ms. Wiegold, if you don't mind standing by, please, you'll be following Mr. Kobza. MR. KOBZA: Madam Chairman, members of the commission, I'm appearing before you as -- in my capacity as president of Vanderbilt Beach Property Owners' Association. I'd like to start by saying that we very much appreciate the work that staff has performed here and the consideration that you have given to this issue. The Vanderbilt Beach Property Owners' Association has over 600 members. We're one of the largest voluntary property owners' associations in the county. We represent over 1,200 families in this area. We represent over 300 million dollars of tax base, and we contribute about five to six million dollars of tax revenue to the county every year. Those taxes, that property value, is largely dependent upon the water quality in this area. Certainly there's a very strong interest upon the part of the property owners in that area to maintain the water quality to reverse degradation of the water quality and to have the best possible solution we can. That doesn't mean that we're going to go back to an estuary system. It's not -- it's not going to happen that way. But we do have a responsibility to try to maintain the best water quality we can in that area. I think that Mr. Lorenz very correctly stated that today what we're doing is addressing maybe sins of the past in a sense. And we can't reverse that -- that history, so we're going to have to do the best with what we have to work with. In Vanderbilt Beach we have to accept some responsibility for dealing with this issue; one, in the form of educational programs which we have, in fact, initiated. Last year we started addressing this issue and inviting Mr. Boldt, who is your storm water management director, to our -- to our public meetings. We worked with the Naples Conservancy, the Wiggins Pass Conservancy to start to address this issue. So we started this process well into last year. Last year we set up a water quality task force to specifically try to understand and put our arms around what -- what the problem -- the nature of the degree, the extent of the problem, and what solutions might be. So we accept responsibility to -- to that extent to engage in a solution. We have also recently worked and we hope to finalize in the very near future -- near future being within the next week or two -- a contract, an agreement, with the Naples Conservancy and the Wiggins Pass Conservancy for water quality testing, because one of the problems that we've historically had is that there is very limited data on what the actual extent and nature of the problem and the water quality actually is. We've taken limited testing at different points in time, but we don't have data over a long, extended period of time on a regular basis. So we recognize that as being part of a solution, and we have taken the initiative, again, to participate in gathering of that data and actually being able to have that tool to work with. But very -- very apparently the problem is bigger than us. And the solutions are more than we're capable of, number one, identifying and, two, implementing. The -- as Mr. Lorenz has said, the solutions are potentially ones that involve a fair amount of study and engineering. There's great irony in the fact that we have a banner draped across the dais today saying Celebrate Estuaries and Coastal Day. This system directly enters into Water Turkey Bay, which is one of the very nicest estuaries and more productive estuaries in the Collier County area and one of the more enjoyed resources that we have. There's a strong public interest in identifying what this problem are -- is and what the solutions may be. So to that extent we very much support Commissioner Hancock's initiative. We would ask that the board support that initiative, that we recognize this as being a public issue and a public problem, that there is a strong public interest, and we -- we invite your support and your understanding. We understand, too, that we're in it for the long term. This is not something that we can address overnight. It's taken years to develop the problem. It will probably take years to develop the solution and implement the solution. One other thing that I'd like to address, we're very -- in that I -- from a leadership position in that part of our community -- is very important. We recognize the effort that everyone has made with respect to the Naples Park drainage issues. And as Commissioner Hancock has -- has accurately said, we don't want any of these issues to be community versus community or neighborhood versus neighborhood. We want to work in a positive way to work with Naples Park and to work within the community to develop solutions and approaches. We -- we have spent a lot of time working with the folks in Naples Park to develop better relationships, and that is something that's very, very important to us. We don't want this to be a divisive issue within that area. So we have to work together to develop -- develop an approach, and to that end we would ask for your support. MR. DORRILL: Ms. Wiegold and then Miss Pistori. MS. WIEGOLD: Good morning, Commissioners. My name is Mary Wiegold, and I speak to you today as a concerned homeowner and representative of the water quality task force of the Vanderbilt Beach Property Owners' Association. Several weeks ago you charged staff with the responsibility of putting together a feasibility study of the Vanderbilt Lagoon in order to determine what could be done to increase the flushing action, the possibility of reopening the waters to the gulf, and to propose a better water treatment plan for the runoff waters entering the lagoon and canal systems. We have worked with staff, and I compliment staff and our group for working together over the last three months, although we have come to a point where we can go no further, and that's because we need your commitment. We need the commissioners to get involved, to go ahead and pursue what we need for our water systems and our estuaries. We would like to also state that we are willing and ready to go ahead and work with the educational program, which really ends up being a no-brainer. We can have that in place within 30 days, and that's -- we will have not only with our own residents, but also with the Naples Park. We'll work with that association as well. One of the things that I also want to stress to you, which Kim also stated, was that we're not just a residential community. You have to understand that we have commercial interests; we have state interests in Wiggins State Park; and we also have Collier County public land interests as in Cocohatchee River Park. We have these facilities. We have to make sure that they are being utilized and that we take care of them and they're available for the public. So it's not just Vanderbilt Beach. Everything we are saying here really affects the entire county. One of the things that we have found out in the water sampling and the testing that was done -- several things actually -- is that it was pointed out to us that considering we are class two standard waters, that we are not within the guidelines and the minimum of those standards. These guidelines were established for dissolved oxygen, because they are critical to the existence and the survival of the crustacean and the aquatic marine life. Secondly, we have also found out that the past and the present planning and development decisions that were made more on an immediate-need basis were not looking ahead to the effects -- to the future on our area and other areas that impact our area. We need you to commit. We need your commitment for the technical feasibility study which will determine the physical structures needed to solve the problems. It goes well beyond Vanderbilt Beach. As our elected officials you are the decision makers. You control the decisions that affect our present and our future. We also need you to address the line-item figure for the budget for the Naples Park drainage project. The receding waters are going to have a greater effect. They are currently having effect due to the runoff waters that are being discharged into our system. It's going to have a greater effect. We have to stand up and be responsible. We need to address the issue in the budget process. Our problem, again, is not an isolated problem. Every waterway system in the county needs monitoring and maintenance in order to protect the water quality standards. With your approval of the feasibility study, we can set the pace for the future and establish it for every single waterway within Collier County. We owe it to the public, and you owe it as our elected officials to do so. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you, Miss Wiegold. I understand that our recipient of our next proclamation is here, and I would like to entertain a motion to continue the current discussion -- COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: So moved. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: -- for that proclamation. COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Second. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second to continue the current discussion for a very short time while we issue another proclamation. All those in favor, please say aye. Opposed? There being none, the motion passes 5 to 0. Item #5A4 PROCLAivLATION RECOGNIZING AND THANKING MR.. AND MRS. HERBERT J. SUDGEN FOR THEIR GENEROUS CONTRIBUTION TOWARD THE LAKE AVALONG PROJECT - ADOPTED COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Might I suggest that we also take item 8(C)(2), because that's something that we need to take official action on in regard to this same matter. MR. DORRILL: We can have Mr. Olliff give you a brief recommendation on that following the recognition of Mr. Sugden. COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. Will Mr. Cox, Mr. Sugden -- if you would like to come forward, I have a proclamation here to read for you. If you'd like to face the camera, the 0. J. Simpson trial has been interrupted while we put this on worldwide television here. This is, by the way, more important than the 0. J. trial, I feel. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Absolutely. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Absolutely. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: The proclamation reads: Whereas, the property known as Lake Avalon is a 120-acre site of undeveloped land and lake lying within the urbanized area of Collier County; and, Whereas, the property was zoned for over 350 multifamily residential housing units; and, Whereas, citizens who live in the area, citizens who have used the lake, environmental interests, gardening interests, water ski show personnel and others met and agreed that for everyone involved and for the community that the property was better suited to be a park; and, Whereas, the county commission directed a review of the property and expressed their interest in the property as a park; and, Whereas, the Gulf Coast Skimmers has since 1990 produced free public water ski shows and as part of the program have conducted a very successful youth outreach program; and, Whereas, the county commission during a public meeting on March 21, 1995, received a surprising and exceptionally generous offer from Mr. and Mrs. Herbert J. Sugden to provide 500,000 of their own money towards the project; and, Whereas, the contribution was accepted and made a contingent part of the project; and, Whereas, the donation was the contributing factor in the decision to pursue the purchase of the property; and, Whereas, the property will now be developed into a regional park that will have a positive impact on the community for generations to come. Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that Collier County does hereby extend a heartfelt thank you to Mr. and Mrs. Herbert J. Sugden for their exceptionally generous gift to the community and that this park will from this day forward be named Sugden Regional Park in honor of the contribution that was so instrumental in making this project possible. Done and ordered this 12th day of September, 1995, by the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida. Madam Chairman, I'd like to make a motion that we accept this proclamation. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Second. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second to accept the proclamation. MR. SUGDEN: Thank you very much. Thank you very much. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: All those in favor, please say aye. Opposed? There being none, it passes 5 to 0. (Applause) MR. SUGDEN: Thank you so much, Madam Chairman. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Oh, thank you. No, we have to thank you. And I'm sure the children of Collier County are going to appreciate it for a long, long time. Thank you, Mr. Cox. Thank you, Mr. Sugden. MR. SUGDEN: Thank you. (Applause) COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I believe I've never heard such a generous person in all my life say thank you so much. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: It's we who need to thank him. And I know the citizens of Collier County will look at Sugden Regional Park years from now and -- and question what we did today, but I think it's great. CONTINUATION OF ITEM #8A1 - REPORT ON WATER QUALITY PROBLEHS IN VANDERBILT LAGOON - ACCEPTED MR. DORRILL: We'll continue -- we'll handle the other matter in normal course as part of Mr. Olliff's report. Miss Pistori, then I have Mr. Wood. Mr. Wood, if you would stand by. Miss Pistori. MS. PISTORI: Good morning. My name is Genevieve Pistori. I belong to the POND drainage committee. Now, I'm looking at all of the reports that have been given to me. And of the report of the engineering firm of Agnoli, Barber, and Brundage to Mr. Boldt of 8-17-95, the engineering firm and Harper's study states that the proposed enclosure of 91st-92nd ditches with the proposed pipe system will improve the water quality; it will not make it any worse. And of the engineer's report it states also the major source of the sediment and turbidity will be eliminated. Also, it is also evident -- I'm taking fragments, and I'm speaking for those areas. It is evident that the fact that many of those who live along the ditches have experienced erosion of their property into the ditches. And we go, again, now to page 4 of Mr. Lorenz's statement which says, the state -- staff recommends that since the proposed drainage system improves -- improvement is acceptable to the SFWHD, the Naples Park drainage improvement project should proceed to the next step. The proposed improvement to enclose the ditches and upgrade the capacity addressed, value safety and health concerns and outweigh the marginal increase of runoff timing and quality to Vanderbilt Lagoon is marginal. The problem that they're having with the water system, yes, it is serious, but it should be considered at a later date. Right now we are having a tremendous amount of flooding. Our homes are being inundated. Our homes and property are being damaged. We must first take care of this flooding situation, and there's also a health hazard. And everybody should be impressed by this recent flooding that we have had. Our homes have been completely devastated. I don't think that we could stand another year of this, so please, please pass this today. It's very important. Flooding first, water quality next. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Miss Pistori, are you talking about the Vanderbilt Lagoon water quality, or are you talking about the Naples Park drainage? MS. PISTORI: All of the water quality that goes into the lagoon, that should be considered later, but right now we have a terrible flooding system that is very bad for us. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Just for -- Gene, for your information or for anyone else who may be speaking on this item, these two are -- are -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Linked. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- not necessarily linked. In other words, approving one doesn't preclude the other. They're linked environmentally, but the reason for hearing this today is not a deterrent to the Naples Park drainage system. It's, in essence, a separate item that needs to be addressed whether Naples Park improvements occur or don't occur. MS. PISTORI: Okay. Then it should be considered separate from the flooding that we have in Naples Park -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And it is. MS. PISTORI: -- and it is very serious. Please pass this today. Thank you. MR. DORRILL: Mr. Wood and then Ms. Mortensen. MR. WOOD: I'm Richard Wood. I live at 92nd Avenue, Naples Park. Good morning, Commissioners. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Good morning. MR. WOOD: It appears that we have a water quality situation in Vanderbilt Lagoon versus flooding and erosion of private property in Naples Park. Eight years ago at the first two town hall meetings with the property owners and tenters of Naples Park we listened to the ABV engineering reports. At that time plans included Vanderbilt Lagoon. Then the Vanderbilt Lagoon people said that we did not get any benefits, so they wanted out, and the county agreed. So they were omitted by their request not to be a part of Naples Park drainage problems and plans to correct it. Now eight years later the Vanderbilt Beach Property Owners' Association have problems and may or may not delay our project. And as I just heard, I'm going to quit because the rest of what I was going to say was to keep these two projects separate, and let's go ahead with the Naples Park drainage on schedule and get the construction done in January and so we can have it done by May before the rainy sea -- next rainy season comes. Thank you very much. MR. DORRILL: Ms. Mortensen. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I want to make a comment as we move forward with the Vanderbilt Lagoon discussion, and that is that this is a report on water quality. There's not any, as far as I can determine, specific action that the board is going to take on this other -- today other than to give possibly direction to staff to proceed in certain directions and to possibly urge Commissioner Hancock on with his discussions with varying groups. So I -- correct me if I'm wrong, board, but I don't see these two are anything but exclusive. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah. They're not directly linked, although the problem is overlapping. It's really -- the two are separate decisions to be made today. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: With that, let's move forward and see if we can keep Naples Park confined to Naples Park and the report on the lagoon confined to the report on the lagoon. MR. DORRILL: Ms. Mortensen, do you still wish to speak? MS. MORTENSEN: Who did you call? MR. DORRILL: Flo Mortensen. And Mr. McGilvra, do you still wish to speak? MR. McGILVRA: Yes. MS. MORTENSEN: Good morning, Commissioners. My name is Flo Mortensen, and I'm a homeowner in Naples Park for more than 19 years. The fact that this lagoon problem is also -- is on the same agenda with the Naples Park problem makes it important to those of us who live in Naples Park. And I'm also remembering a previous discussion, don't remember what month it was, and the lagoon problem was introduced during a Naples Park drainage ditch discussion. Therefore, I am going to read my remarks. It is my sincere hope that you will not delay the construction of the Naples Park drainage system because of the problems in the Vanderbilt Lagoon. The county staff report dated September 1 in the Agnoli, Barber, and Brundage letter make it clear that the storm water runoff from Naples Park is not the only reason for the pollution in the lagoon. I will not speak to the technicalities of solving the pollution problem. Others more knowledgeable than I can do that. However, I would urge you not to allow the Vanderbilt Beach problem to become a stumbling block to the drainage improvement plans for Naples Park. Naples Park residents have been debating their drainage problems with county commissioners for years. Surely the Vanderbilt Beach property owners were aware of the progressive presentations and ultimate solution -- solutions. Isn't it odd then that they should introduce their pollution concerns publicly, not nine years ago or even two years ago, but only when it was time for commissioners to vote. Boggles my mind that a densely populated community with marinas and restaurants can place the onus on Naples Park but yet fail to site their contribution to contamination from their own lawn-care products and debris. One last comment. It was said in this very room that wading birds no longer visit Vanderbilt Beach properties. Maybe concrete seawalls discourage them. And then again, maybe they don't like the taste of oil and gasoline, because a variety of birds, including herons and egrets, are steady customers of the drainage ditch in Naples Park. They bathe in it and drink the Naples Park storm water runoff. Seriously, I as a concerned citizen -- I believe steps should be taken to reduce the pollution in the lagoon and canals, but improvements to Naples Park must move forward without further delay. Thank you for listening. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. MR. DORRILL: Mr. McGilvra. MR. KELLER: By the way, which subject are they talking about -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Keller, please, we don't take comments from the -- from the audience, and you're not a registered speaker. MR. KELLER: There's something wrong here. We're discussing two different subjects, and we've got items on the agenda CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Keller, you are not a registered speaker at this time. You have not been called to speak, so please keep your comments. We have asked the speakers to address only the lagoon issues. Obviously they're individuals. Mr. McGilvra. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Welcome back, George. COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Yeah, looks like summer's over. MR. McGILVRA: My name is Doug McGilvra. I'm the president of the Property Owners of Naples Park. Once again, the Lorenz report on the item that was breaking out water quality on Vanderbilt Lagoon was very good, very concise, and very thoughtful. I thought they did a very good job on it. We agree with the neighborhoods program. I think that's a very inexpensive way of helping to attack this whole thing about the problems in the lagoon as well as discharge from the Naples Park area. This problem is about ten years old, and I want to read you the following. I'm going to -- I've got copies for you all up there, so you can follow me along if I make a mistake in reading. This concerns the water qualities in Vanderbilt Lagoon, and it goes through some various -- Vanderbilt Beach has a total area of 407 acres which consist of land and lagoon. 267 of those acres or 65.6 percent of the total area is land which is fully developed with homes, condos, motels, marinas, restaurants, shops, et cetera. They have no place to discharge storm water except directly into the lagoon which has 11.3 miles of shoreline. There is no treatment possible for storm runoff, so all fertilizers, pesticides, gasolines, oils, et cetera, impact the lagoon far greater than any runoff from Naples Park. Now, as to the runoff from the lagoon from Naples Park. The Naples Park west basin which discharges into the eight finger canals along Vanderbilt Drive consists of 274 acres with 17.3 miles of drainage swales prior to discharge. There is a missing culvert just south of 108th Street. That must be reinstailed. The Naples Park south basin consists of 242 acres with 15.2 miles of drainage swales plus fifty-six-hundredths of a mile of the Eighth Street ditch and seventy-four-hundredths of a mile of the 91st and 92nd Avenue ditch. The Pavilion, Pavilion Club, and Beachwalk consist of a hundred acres approximately. They all have water retention areas and only discharge into the seventy-four-hundreds mile long 91st and 92nd avenue ditch. The Naples Park north basin consists of 241 acres with 15.3 miles of drainage swales plus seven-tenths of a mile of the Eighth Street ditch. The north basin discharges north to the Cocohatchee River and has no impact directly on the Vanderbilt -- on the Vanderbilt Lagoon. Any discharges into the Vanderbilt Lagoon from Naples Park are created by thirty-two and a half miles of drainage swales and 1.3 miles of ditches. The Pavilion, Pavilion Club, and Beachwalk and water retention lake discharges only into the three-quarters of a mile ditch along 91st and 92nd Avenue. Since the 1.3 mile ditch system only represents 4 percent of the thirty-two and a half miles of swales, any change in the ditch should move the water into the lagoon faster but have little or no negative effect on the quality of the discharge into the lagoon. The main point is this: If nothing were done to the Naples Park drainage system, the problems with the Vanderbilt Lagoon would persist and further degrade because of additional development in that area, in particular to the north of it. There are at least seven or eight fairly new condos that are building up just to the north of Bluebill Avenue. The main problem is the lack of any flushing action in the lagoon. Observation of aerial photos from 1979 and 1985 -- and that's approximately 10- to 15-years span -- show that there was an apparent -- within the last 10 or 15 years. I shouldn't say span -- show that there was an apparent connection between Vanderbilt Lagoon and the Pelican Bay lagoon system located immediately west of the Vanderbilt Hideaway located at 377 Vanderbilt Beach Road. The lagoon at that location comes to the edge of the Vanderbilt Beach Road. Directly to the south another body of water comes to the road's edge. Sometime prior to when the 1985 aerial photo was taken, fill materials were deposited for the construction purposes and shut off the connection to the rest of the Pelican Bay lagoon system. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. McGilvra, can you wrap it up? MR. McGILVRA: Yes. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. MR. McGILVRA: It may be possible to reestablish its connection with a new culvert to meet Vanderbilt Beach Road and another culvert beneath the fill material used to make the employee parking facilities at the Ritz Carlton Hotel. Vanderbilt should concentrate on the major problem of flushing. Further, any feasibility studies should not be at the county's expense. Naples Park paid for our studies by taxing ourselves; so should Vanderbilt Beach. That's all. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you very much. MR. DORRILL: Ms. MAiale, do you wish to speak on this item? Ms. Straton. MS. STRATON: Following Ms. Straton, I have Ms. Nichols-Lucy. MS. STRATON: My apologies for being late. Chris Straton. Personally I'm glad that the Naples Park drainage issue has come forward. It's galvanized people into beginning to look at the system, Vanderbilt Lagoon, Clam Bay, and the entire area. And it is a system that we're trying to look at. And as was mentioned by Ms. Wiegold, it's used by the public in terms of our parks. It's also residential as well as providing commercial. And the other thing is we've only touched upon the Clam Bay portion of the system also. We have a sick system here in that the Vanderbilt Lagoon is not getting the flushing. And then on the other side of the road that's there now we have the Clam Bay -- we have the mangrove die-off area. And as we go forward it's probably a good idea to think about trying to look at the total system on a piece-part basis. I think it was suggested if you try to do something to fix the entire system, you're really talking about something going down to Naples Bay and all the way up through, and it goes on forever, and it will cost us more than the storm water drainage master plan, but still it's important to bear in mind that any solution is part of a total system. Collier County Audubon Society is also very interested in this activity. We have been supportive of the OFW designation. We've been concerned about things going on in the Wiggins Bay area, which is really the -- the only estuary system up in the north end of the county. It does have a fairly pristine section to it as well as a developed section, and we have over 250 of our members that live right within that general area. So we are concerned. A purist would have said we should never have built on beaches, but we did. And we're renourishing our beaches, and one of the reasons why we're renourishing the beaches is not just for the recreational value, but also because of the impact on reduction of property values. If a natural system is not performing properly, then property values go down. I would suggest the same thing potentially can happen up in the Vanderbilt Lagoon area. Mr. Kobza reminds us that there's about five to six million dollars coming to the county coffers as a result of the property in that area. Just a 1 percent drop in property values could flow through to a fifty to sixty thousand dollar loss in revenues to the county. A 10 percent property loss was not imagined when people were talking about the need to renourish beaches because of property values. So there's some good economic reasons why we really want to try to fix the system. Education is important. And in addition to the Naples Park people and the Vanderbilt Lagoon people, I would hope that through the Collier County Audubon Society we can help put something in our newsletters, because we all need to be reminded of what we can do to better protect the estuaries. The other thing is the Second District Association has been one to get involved in issues that have an impact on neighborhoods, and I would hope that the Second District Association would also do some things because our friends up in Barefoot Beach and in Bay Forest and Audubon also are doing things that are affecting that same estuary system. And the last thing I want to say is that there's a major effort underway currently in the State of Florida. There's a governor's commission looking at the issue of a sustainable Florida. And what they define sustainability is is meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs. Collier County is considered as part of south Florida, and the commission talks about the need to do things to study, analyze, and improve pollution that's going on with our water systems, not just because of what we've done to Florida Bay or what we're doing down to the Keys. But Collier County is specifically cited as being one of the areas that has extreme levels of pollution with respect to water. And they talk about the need to be able to actually, as part of the idea of leaving to the next generation the same quality of life that we're enjoying here, the need to be able to not just study it, but to take the necessary steps to improve it. We'll never go back to what it was before we came here, but at least we have to have some sort of a level that we'll be able to keep property values from declining and to give the recreational opportunities a chance to continue. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Miss Straton, quick question. I just want to make sure I heard you right. Did you say Collier County has been cited as one of the places that has extreme pollution? MS. STRATON: Yes. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Okay. Thank you. MR. DORRILL: Ms. Nichols-Lucy, then those Stallings. MS. NICHOLS-LUCY: For the record my name is Sue Nichols-Lucy. I'm speaking on behalf of the Conservancy. And I was going to rush around and take down my banner, but as long as I can leave it up there, I will obviously. I'd like to summarize a letter that's addressed to you from those Fitch. Poor water quality in Vanderbilt Lagoon can have negative environmental and environmental impacts, not only in the Vanderbilt Lagoon area, but in the greater Cocohatchee ecosystem. Cleanup efforts of Vanderbilt Lagoon, if carefully planned, can have the potential to be a model for other polluted areas in Collier County. The Conservancy recommends that a feasibility study be funded by Collier County as the most expeditious way -- means of improving Vanderbilt Lagoon's water quality. We believe this study should obtain accurate data to confirm and define problems as well as identifying feasible solutions. Water quality testing should be carefully designed to also include storm events such as we have just experienced. Thank you. MR. DORRILL: Those Stallings and then Ms. Fitz-Gerald. MR. STALLINGS: Fran Stallings representing Florida Wildlife Federation. I guess if there's any one thing that's very, very, clear, it is that we do have a problem there. It's a serious problem, and unfortunately it's one that's not going to get better, the reason being that infilling and development continues. For example, the Barton Collier mega mall is going to drain into this system. So down the road we have a number of activities that are simply going to aggravate the situation. It is a quality of life issue. It's one where we have property values involved, the recreational potential, marine productivity, and those kinds of things. In terms of looking at how we might solve it, we have in the proposed budget something over $90,000 for a study of the Clam Bay system. These two systems formerly were interconnected, and it would seem to make some sense to look at the possibility of a feasibility study that would take into consideration reestablishing the circulation in the south end or the Vanderbilt Lagoon area as well as the north end of the Clam Bay system. So there is potentially some money in the budget at this time. Whether or not it will be approved or not, I don't know, but I would hope that you would give that careful consideration. The total cost of fixing this is unknown. I don't think we would be very successful in applying for grants until we do know exactly what we have to do to fix it and how much it would cost. The suggestion that by working throughout the neighborhood, having people treat their water a little better would solve the problem is just simply not enough, especially with the building that is going on in the future. As far as getting some kind of grant funds are concerned, there are possibilities. One, for example, would be the Pew Charitable Trust. This is the largest trust that gives money to environmental projects. It has assets of about three and a half billion dollars. The trust was founded by the Pew family who were the founders of the Sun Oil Company. Fairly recently the president of the Pew trust, Rebecca Rimel accompanied by a majority of the board of directors consisting mostly of the Pew family came to Naples, and I had the privilege of spending the day with them. They do have firsthand knowledge of our area and some of the problems here, and that certainly would be one of the areas or one of the foundations that we might look towards for potential funding. And we certainly would be willing to do our best to help assist in some funding to correct this problem as well as to work to assist in the permitting procedures to get such a project permitted. I do continue to think that the reconnection of these two systems with the open gulf is the primary and most feasible means of solving the problem, but we do need a feasibility study to lay out the technicalities of it. The reconnection through an underground pipe that would run underneath some of the streets reflects no real problems from the engineering perspective. To design something like that is a relatively easy thing to do. We just need to know if that's going to really solve the problem, how big the pipe should be, which way and when the water should flow, and those technical things. And that's what the feasibility study could do. Also, I do have to comment on one thing, the statement that the improvements in Naples Park, the addition of the storm water would improve the conditions in Vanderbilt Lagoon. That particular statement flies in the face of conventional wisdom as to how these systems work. I'm a little disturbed to see Harvey Hatper being used here. I have had the privilege of meeting those Hatper, listening to some of his presentations. I think he would be appalled to see some work that he did in an area that's very different from this one being used to justify such a statement. So as someone who -- whose area of expertise includes water resources, that particular statement is not -- not one that most people would agree with. I do hope that we can proceed forward with this, that we can do the feasibility study, and we certainly will do everything we can to assist in any way possible. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. MR. DORRILL: Ms. Fitz-Gerald's the final speaker. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Dorrill. MS. FITZ-GERALD: I'm Vera Fitz-Gerald. I do hope that Kim Kobza's speech got through to the other members of his group, because they're a couple more rabid ones that were going to spit on me in August at the meeting here. They've been running around taking jars of water out of the Naples Park system to prove that our area is polluted. But I've got a resident green heron who has been -- spent the summer feeding in my ditch along with a little snowy egret, so -- and then the larger egret, so I don't think there's very much pollution in that area. The -- we've already -- everyone's talked about the major contributions or contributors of that -- the degradation of that system, and one of the major ones, of course, is the construction of the Pavilion shopping center and Beachwalk and the Pavilion condos. And for the Pavilion center and the condos, they only have a 2.9 acre lake that holds all of their runoff which is crazy. It depends entirely upon shelving 20 cubic feet per second into Naples Park and into the lagoon. One of the things that I have noticed on -- again about the Vanderbilt Lagoon having a strong interest to maintain their water quality, but every time they build a seawall or a dock, they throw an enormous amount of sediment into those canals. One in particular on Heron -- somebody just put a seawall in, and during this last flood I think half of the fill went into the canal there. All he had to do was throw some sod on top of it to protect the canal, but it's really a mess there. Another one built a seawall on Flamingo, and prior to that we used to walk by there every morning, and we always enjoyed the great blue heron who seemed to reside; that was his main feeding ground. This was only a year or so ago. And so the people on -- who built that didn't do anything to protect the canal. They had a piece of plastic up, but it did nothing. And now the great blue is long gone, and so is the snowy that once in awhile went there to join him. So I think they have to look too, and never mind blaming Naples Park. Look to what their own activities have been with these seawalls, with the boats. Every time a boat goes flying up in there they recirculate the silt. As for the money for the feasibility study, Naples Park paid about two -- almost 200,000 for our own study. And if you want to support other peoples' feasibility study, let's see some here in Naples Park, please. If state and federal funds could be available, maybe something could be done about redirecting that Pavilion shopping center's runoff. Maybe it could go back to the east side, because the same developer owns it, and to the ponds over there and relieve some of that. Then it's the same thing with the condos. Then we would maybe not even have to pipe 91st. And especially if we put the Eighth Street pipe north all the way from 93rd. The flooding starts at 94th, so if we put the pipe all the way from 93rd and went across lllth where it goes now. When Erickson was developing that property over there, they were going to incorporate that runoff into their lake system. Maybe that could be done with whoever is going to do that development. And that would certainly help this runoff that goes into the lagoon system. It would reduce it considerably. And my final thing is Dick Wood's solution on the 22nd of August was very valid. He suggested a countywide tax for storm water management, and we -- we had in this county. It was built in. We had this storm water plan, and it was dumped a few years ago by the county commission because they didn't want to tax everybody. But, of course, they're shoving it on little local areas. And I think you should relook at that as countywide storm management and have a countywide tax, and we could address problems that occur like in Golden Gate and east Naples, Naples Park, to name a few. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I want to clarify something that Hiss Fitz-Gerald just said, and that is that the county commission dumped the storm water utility. I believe our direction was to have it on the November '96 ballot for the citizens to decide if they want to spend 80 million dollars. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Another correction that needs to be made is that that system is not designed to correct anybody's neighborhood flooding problems like in Naples Park or any other neighborhood. That's for the primary and secondary canals and will not affect the neighborhoods, Hiss Fitz-Gerald. MS. FITZ-GERALD: In the long run it will affect the neighborhoods because it can help. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, thank you for your engineering advice, Hiss Fitz-Gerald, but we take it from other people. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Last I heard, and I don't know if it's going to be there now, because we're in an administrative hearing process, but it was going to be on the November ballot for the storm water utility. Commissioner Hancock. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: There's no question that the reason we are talking about Vanderbilt Lagoon today is as a result of an awareness brought to this board from Vanderbilt Beach residents and other people that were speaking regarding the Naples Park drainage. That doesn't mean that if one occurs the other can't or vice versa. These things can work in concert to improve the long-term situation of everyone involved. So the idea that moving ahead on one means excluding the other simply isn't true, not from where I sit. There are a lot of problems that have contributed to Vanderbilt Lagoon, and Paul Harvey who is sitting here today would like to take this study all the way back up the Cocohatchee River. And I think he's got a valid point. I mean there are so many things contributing to this situation. The question is what can we do; what can we isolate so that we can be effective on our solutions. And that's -- that's my goal in trying to reach something with the Vanderbilt Lagoon problem. I'm not here to ask the board today to make an approval or expenditure. The purpose of this report was to bring the community's awareness and our staff's report to the board for our review. I am going to proceed ahead whether the board tells me to or not -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: That's your job. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- with trying to find a funding mechanism. I will take exception to the fact that people say that we -- the county shouldn't be paying any part of a study here. There is a public boat ramp. There is public waterways. With the exception of tropical storm Jerry, nobody was canoeing in Naples Park. During tropical storm Jerry you could motorboat in Naples Park. So I think there is a distinction between the two. But my goal is to make the county's involvement, if you will, a catalyst to get something done. And for what I can do in that regard, I will proceed ahead and hopefully during the budget process bring this discussion back to the board with -- with the hopes of some approval. Beyond that, I think it is our job, other than comments my colleagues wish to make, to just accept the report from staff and then my -- my work begins. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I'll make a motion that we accept the report as presented. I think I'm persuaded by the logic and the argument that we shouldn't fund a study right now at this moment until we know whether or not we're going to be able to find funds or how we're going to find funds. I think that's the logical step, the progression that we should follow here. So for now I think just accepting the report is the action we should take today. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Constantine. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll second that, but I have a couple of questions. Mr. Lorenz, I need you to help me out here. I think it was Ms. Straton used the analogy of the beach and particularly for economic impact this could have. With beach erosion as the beach is gone, the impact on the value of those homes goes down, also the potential for damage if a storm hits goes up, and I can visualize that. If the beach isn't there, there isn't as much of attraction to some of those homes. So I can visualize what damage the storm would cost -- cause. I'm having a little trouble visualizing this. When we talk about the economic impacts, do we have a pool of stagnant water and swamp out there? Do we have -- not necessarily now, but where are we headed with this? I can't visualize it in my mind. MR. LORENZ: Our best guess is that if no action were to be taken, we could conceivably see dissolved oxygen levels going lower for more frequent period of time as a result of more frequent algae blooms and causing fish kills, which we haven't really seen fish kills, but we do have evidence of -- of dissolved oxygen problems. Obviously from a property owner's perspective, if you have a continuation of deteriorating water quality and have the reputation of, yeah, you have fish kills here, then that could lead to lower property values. I'm not a property appraiser, but I certainly would not want to have my property in a system that would be going down that road. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm oversimplifying the question, but I mean is the ultimate question here, gosh, we can have some dead fish floating around or -- I'm trying to -- you know, we can talk about lowered oxygen. We can talk about all of the technical terms. But when we -- I'm trying to visualize, okay, what is the problem, the end result if we do nothing. We have some fish kills. There is some algae there and, I mean, when we look long term of millions and millions of dollars for a fix, I'm trying to see what is it we're going to fix. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Let me -- if I may, the main problem in Vanderbilt Lagoon is the sedentary nature of the south portion. The water -- there's not enough water coming in to get back in there and to draw out. And one thing that -- and this came up in our meeting is we're all now conscious -- conscientious people, and we're mulching our lawns. Well, those clippings go somewhere when the rain falls, and if they fall right after you've mowed, you end up with vegetation and so forth that's transferred into the water. That vegetation as it decays robs the water of oxygen. If the south lagoon can't flush it all and we continue robbing it of oxygen, the degradation is that there will be little or no marine life. Someone will tell you there isn't any in there already, and others will tell you there is, but little or no marine life and the actual visual quality and the smell of the water gets worse and so forth. So to try and visualize it, I have to go back to when I was about seven years old living in Pompano Beach on a finger canal. And I went three houses down the end of the canal, and there was always a mat of coconuts and grass and stuff, and it stunk, and it wafted its way down. So I can visualize it because I've, you know, lived on canals before. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: You've been there. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And that's why we don't build them anymore. So that -- that's kind of where it's heading. And those are only the things that I can see. There -- there are things such as nitrogen and phosphorus buildup that I can't see that may have some impact. So the key is to get the water moving in there. And that's about the biggest bang for any dollar I think that we could have, and that's why I'm focusing my efforts on that area. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just one other thought. I seconded Commissioner Norris's motion, and obviously something needs to be done in there. However, if we in our search find no sources of any money out there, it's a shame to have a study we can do nothing with. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: A study that goes nowhere is not my goal. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. We have a motion and a second. Before the call -- I call the question, I'd like to ask one question of Commissioner Hancock. Is it your intention to investigate this and -- and we examine it in the next -- next budget cycle next spring? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yes. Between this and fire consolidation, it may take me a couple days to get back to you if you call. But, yes, I will be sleeping with my budget books over the next week. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: That's not comfortable for a pillow. All those in favor of the motion, please say aye. Opposed? There being none, motion passes 5 to 0. Thank you, Mr. Lorenz. Let's take about a 15-minute break. We'll be back at 20 after. (A short break was held.) Item #SB1 RECOHMENDATION FOR BOARD APPROVAL OF THE FINANCING HETHOD FOR CONSTRUCTION OF THE NAPLES PARK DRAINAGE PROJECT - STAFF RECOHMENDATION APPROVED CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Reconvene the Board of County Commissioners' meeting for September 12, 1995. The next item on the agenda is item 8(B)(1), which is a recommendation for board approval of the financing method for Naples Park. Can we ask for quiet, please? Thank you. MR. BOLDT: As a continuing effort -- my name is John Boldt, the county storm water management director. As a continuing effort to implement the Naples Park drainage project, I'm going to ask you to entertain three different procedures this morning, all related to the Naples Park project, the first of which involves the recommendation for your approval on the financing method for the construction of the project. We're dealing both with a short-term interim loan that we would need during the construction phase. If we were to stay on schedule, we propose to start construction in January of '96 and complete it in like May of '96. The special assessments that we're proposing to implement would not be taken in until the fall of '96. We have that interim period; we need to have a temporary interim construction loan. We presented this information to the finance committee and their financial consultant, and their recommendations are contained within my executive summary that they propose to finance the interim either by a bank loan or tax exempt commercial paper, whichever mechanism is least expensive. At this point in time the commercial paper program is the one that looks to be the most -- or the least expensive. So the recommendation at this point is that you would accept the finance committee's and the financial consultant's recommendation and direct staff to continue in cooperation with the finance committee to investigate these financing mechanisms that are the least expensive which I said appear to be at this point the commercial paper program for the interim financing of this project. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Boldt, let me interrupt for a moment. Mr. Weigel, we have three issues, items 8(B)(1), (2), and (3). MR. WEIGEL: Yes. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Obviously we can hear them all at one time, but we do need three separate motions on those? MR. WEIGEL: Yes, that's correct. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Thank you. Excuse me, Mr. Boldt. Go ahead. MR. BOLDT: At this point I am looking for a board approval of the finance committee and the financial consultant's recommendations. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. Are there questions? Commissioner Hancock. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Boldt, I've got a list of a few questions based on something that Doug can tell you we've talked about this before. When this process started one of the main considerations was what, in essence, based on the property values in Naples Park is something that is in what I call the financially feasible range for the residents in Naples Park, and I don't pretend to make determinations for each individual by any means. But this project, I believe, is needed and a good project, and to proceed, but not at any cost, but at a justifiable cost. The original amount that this board looked at was 3.8 million dollars for this project. We're now looking at a proposed amount of 4.12 million dollars. There's a natural distrust that exists out there when any government body moves forward on a project, and the price starts creeping up and so forth. As much as I've explained to several people, until we get the construction bids back, we really don't know the final cost of the project. It may be higher; it may be lower. MR. BOLDT: That's correct. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: And what I've tried to assure people is that this project doesn't move ahead to finality without this board's approval after receiving those bids. So if those bids come in at 4.5 million dollars, this board has the ability to review that and say, no, that's too much. If the bids come in at 3 million dollars, well below what's expected -- you know, trying to draw the two scenarios. So that leads me to ask a couple of questions I think are important for everyone to understand. First is this cost of 4.122 million, which is tentative project costs. Is that an all-inclusive costs that we do not, in essence -- you know, there have been changes that have occurred in the last couple months. Is this the most up-to-date, all-inclusive cost that we have? MR. BOLDT: To my knowledge, it is. We have included all the miscellaneous items that we have previously not included in that preliminary estimate, and it's been reviewed by the financial consultant, finance committee, and different members of staff, and we think we've now included everything that should be in there. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. The second question was raised by some of the folks in Vanderbilt Beach. Part of our DEP permit includes water quality monitoring. Is there a line item in this for any -- and obviously I don't think Naples Park should bear the brunt of all water quality monitoring. They aren't contributing to everything going on, but is there any allowance in this amount for some water quality monitoring? MR. BOLDT: Not specifically. That statement that's in the permit is a standard condition that's in all DEP permits for all types of projects. It gives them the flexibility that if they feel during the construction process there's created water quality problems as a result of construction, they can ask for water quality monitoring and other types of, you know, control over the type of turbidity we're putting in the water, the amount of sediment. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: So that's more a construction requirement as opposed to an ongoing year by year what is this doing type of monitoring situation? MR. BOLDT: I have seen monitoring programs required of the type you're speaking of on a few different projects, but it's been very limited over the years. And when they ask for that, they get very specific about, you know, what they want monitored, when, how long, and the different parameters they want. They would be very specific if they wanted it, you know, before, during, and after. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. But our permit does not require that type of approach? MR. BOLDT: No, sir, it does not. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: The last question I have is I've had some discussions with the project engineer that the methodology the board initially adopted or approved may need to be revised to make it legally defensible. Apparently these days just using what you think is common sense isn't always enough. The chance of ending up in court is probable on something like this. So we needed to make sure, and the county attorney has -- Mr. Weigel has worked very hard to make sure what we do, in fact, is defensible. That methodology as proposed, though, does present a change in the dollar values that each person in Naples Park would have to pay. When does that come to this board for review, because, again, it's -- it's not a question of does a project move ahead. It's at what cost at this point, and we need to make sure that cost is contained and accurate as to what was originally approved. MR. BOLDT: The procedures we're going to go through this morning is -- the next item we're going to discuss is a resolution that initiates -- the project is called the initiating resolution, and one of the things we're going to direct in there is actually the consultant to come up with this methodology, prepare the tentative assessment role. Obviously we've been working on this all along. And it also sets up the meeting, another meeting, for the review of that tentative rule. So at the -- before the October 24th meeting we're going to be sending out first-class notices to everybody. And at that point you'll get a chance to review the complete methodology and see how these dollars are assigned, allocated, to the various groups of users and benefitters. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. My final question -- I assure my colleagues on this -- is we have been proceeding ahead and have, in fact, expended dollars that are related to this project believing that everything is moving along on a consistent path. We now look at an estimate that's a few hundred thousand dollars more than original and a possible change in the methodology. My concern is any continuing expenditure of dollars in the interim before these things are nailed down may not be prudent. I don't want to pull -- you know, put the stops on the project, but I want to be very, very prudent in our approach as to how we look at expending dollars until we have a final hard cost and can set that firmly. MR. BOLDT: Okay. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: If you could kind of give me an idea between now and when that can happen or if we can expedite the bid process to make that happen earlier so that, you know, if this thing should get way out of whack, that we don't expend excessive dollars and then be forced to reconsider. And, again, I want to assure the people that are here from Naples Park, this is not at this point a reconsideration but what I think is a prudent fiscal position that, you know, this project can't be done at any cost. It's got to be done near the cost that this board originally approved it. And that's -- that's where my concern lies, and I just want to make sure we don't go expending significant dollars when we're already seeing some changes that may cause questions in the end. MR. BOLDT: We have the consultant, Agnoli, Barber, Brundage, under contract for specific tasks that need to be performed as we go through the process. And we're going at it one step at a time. We're not really working on things out in the future that may not be necessary at this point. We're just concentrating at this point in the preparation of the tentative assessment role, getting ready for our October 24th meeting. So your concern is well taken, but we're doing just a minimum amount of work as we have to as we proceed along. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. I have one question, Mr. Boldt. If -- if we use the tax-exempt commercial paper program to finance this during the interim eight or nine or ten months, whatever the construction period is, the estimated costs here is now 4.9 million dollars. What does that do to the assessment of the lots along Eighth Avenue and 91st-92nd? MR. BOLDT: You mean directly on the -- on the project? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Those are the highest paying portions; correct? MR. BOLDT: That's correct. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I just want a feel for how much their assessment is increased by this adjustment to the program. MR. BOLDT: I can't really answer that directly. I have -- the engineer as late as yesterday was talking to Commissioner Hancock about the methodology, that the table is being set up. You know, I haven't even seen the final figures. That's going to be worked out. We should see that before the end of the week. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Do you know what 1.1 million dollars does to it? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: The potential for confusion exists here in that we have previously discussed prefinancing costs. In other words, the costs that we've talked about were, you know, if you paid it in lump sum. And then understandably if you would choose to finance over a period of seven or ten years, there's going to be a finance charge associated with it. The numbers I saw from the consultant yesterday were including financing, so it really wasn't apples and apples. What I would like to see us do as we proceed ahead with the cost of this project is talk in terms of both, one, prefinancing dollars -- in other words, what is the assessment to each individual 50-foot lot based on -- on lump-sum payment. The next column over should be what does the financing charge add to that if they choose to pay over a seven- or ten-year period. That would answer Commissioner Matthews' question '- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: No. I'm talking about the intermediate construction financing that puts $800,000 on the cost of the project. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: In other words, how does that -- you know, how does that impact the individuals that are paying? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, that would be the difference between the lump-sum assessment and what someone would pay if they're financing; correct? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Huh-uh. MR. DORRILL: No. Her question is -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Oh, okay. I understand. MR. DORRILL: -- the maximum number cost. It was like I'll say $2,000 for those highest lots on average, and Ms. Matthews' question is if you add an additional $800,000 in what is the revised estimates, what would that hypothetically do to those highest paying owners of record, and somebody with a calculator just needs to tabulate that. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: 77 percent -- so the current number is 77 percent should -- MR. BOLDT: If you recall, the preliminary cost allocation methodology I came up with originally, we had a benefit factor per location on those properties abutting 91st, 92nd, Eighth Street. The one we ended up with was 2.2. I do know for a fact that the last table I seen the consultant work on had been lowered to 1.5, and so that cost on those particular lots was about one five -- was gone down because just of that change alone. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: So we're not final yet then on the -- on the benefit points on -- for each grouping; is that what you're saying? We haven't finalized that yet? MR. BOLDT: It's going to be finalized this weekend. We're still doing trial runs. MR. DORRILL: You'll finalize those at the public hearing where you assess -- and approve the assessment role. That's where you'll have to. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I think the important issue is that we need to make sure that we are prudent and cautious as we proceed ahead with this project so that the cost does not get out of control. Whether you're for or against this project, I think that's the only prudent measure this board can take. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Mr. Boldt, we are -- we're going to address items 1, 2, and 3 all at one time. Have you concluded what you need to say regarding all three of those? MR. BOLDT: Item number 1, I guess. Item number 2, just real quickly, is a recommendation for your approval of the resolution, so-called initiating resolution. It's just to initiate the program. It directs the engineer to go ahead and describe the area to be improved, the cost of the improvements, plan specifications, and the tentative assessment role. And I said that's really already been initiated. Your passage of this recommendation for the resolution would make that official, which it needs to be. And the final resolution, number 3, is to set time, date, and place for the public hearing for the tentative assessment role at which time all these figures will be known. The property owners will have an opportunity to come before you and present their case. And our recommendation is that that meeting be held on October 24th at nine o'clock here in this room. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Thank you. Do we have speakers? MR. DORRILL: We have a number. My understanding is you're hearing these concurrently so people who have registered to speak on all three will be given a chance to speak one time. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yes. And I want to -- want to remind the people who are here that we have a request to adjourn for lunch at noon. So if you are here for an item subsequent to the Naples Park drainage, we probably will -- we most -- most probably will not hear that until after 1:15. So if you want to go and take a lunch break, I think you could probably feel free. And we -- we will probably interrupt this process for lunch as well. MR. DORRILL: Ms. Pistori, you'll be first. And, again, you're speaking on any or all three of these items. Mr. Newman, you'll follow, if I can have you stand by, please. Ms. Pistori. MS. PISTORI: I'm going to speak on all three? MR. DORRILL: Yes, ma'am. MS. PISTORI: Okay. I'll start off with 8(B)(1). Attempting -- my name is Gene Pistori, again, Naples Park. Attempting to keep Eighth Street ditch and the 91, 92nd canal free from weeds, killer chemicals, and vegetation, it takes the county's expenditures of $10,000 per year. This is what we were told. The weed killer eventually goes into the lagoon. When these drainage pipes are installed, this will no longer be necessary. Therefore, there will be much less pollutants going into the lagoons. Now, in 1985, as you have said, the cost was 3.3 million. And here it is 10 years later, and it's over 4 million. Now, certainly the cost is high. I, too, would like the county to pay for all of the costs. It would be great. But this is not possible, and we must get on with it before this gets any higher. We can't allow this to go on another year or another six months, because things go up and up and up, and then it will get completely out of hand. So please pass this drainage system today. We are flooding in our Park. We need it desperately. 8(B)(2), the cost of any safety and improvement of a community must be shared by all property owners of Naples Park. Half of the community cannot absorb the cost alone. Where property values increase due to improvements and safety factors, all the property owners of Naples Park will benefit. So this could also be taken into consideration. Our property will go up in value if this is put through, so please pass it. On 8(B)(3), of course, there was so much of it to -- to read that a lot of it went over my head, and I just don't know a good deal of it. But we're waiting long enough for all of this to go through. We cannot wait any longer. I mean, this is a very serious situation in the Park. Please put it through. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. MS. PISTORI: Thank you. Okay. MR. DORRILL: Mr. Newman. And then Ms. Hortensen, if I could have you come stand by, please, ma'am. MR. NEWMAN: Alan Newman, Naples Park. Good morning, gentlemen, ladies. All I can say is I repeat what Ms. Pistori just said. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. MR. DORRILL: Hiss -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: That's an excellent example of someone just agreeing without spending the time to continually repeat the same information. MS. HORTENSEN: Flo Hortensen again. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yes, ma'am. MS. HORTENSEN: I will agree with everything Gene Pistori said and urge you to approve all of the recommendations on B(1), B(2) but -- particularly because we have to get started. And I just wanted to point out to you in case none of you had ever seen the area I'm going to mention after -- after a rain, it's a little -- there's a little church on 109th Avenue and corner of Eighth, and they just -- well, it doesn't take an Erin and a Jerry to flood that building. A heavy rainfall does it, so that's why I'm urging you to approve Mr. Boldt's and other staff's recommendations so that this project can go on without further delay. I thank you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. MR. DORRILL: Mr. HcGilvra, then Ms. Bateman. MR. HcGILVRA: Once again, Doug HcGilvra, president of Property Owners of Naples Park. Good morning, Commissioners, once again. Regarding 8(B)(1), Commissioner Hancock is exactly right. All the speaking so far in the papers delivered to the people has been on the basis of the construction costs and have not included any financing costs. The four million one twenty-two is a construction estimate here. And if I'm not reading this incorrectly, the section 2 shows that the -- including the quantities for financing you would have on a seven-year term, four million nine hundred five and for a ten million (sic) four million one ten total. This actually works out to be less than what we would have calculated for the previous figures based on a 7 percent, seven-year term estimate for the three million eight thirty-two. So I would say that let's go ahead with the thing. Let's take the ten-year term which seems to be ridiculously low with respect to the other one, and go ahead with the thing. Regarding 8(B)(2), I agree, let's initiate this thing and get it going. Regarding 8(B)(3), once again, yes, let's get going and initiate it. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. MR. DORRILL: Ms. Bateman and then Mr. Wood. MS. BATEMAN: Good morning, Commissioners. My name is Barbara Bateman for the record, and I am an over 20-year resident in Naples Park. And concerning the agenda items today of the approval on the interim and long-term funding recommendation, as a property owner and resident I ask of you to not go ahead with an approval today for any moving forward with the drainage system, not only for myself, but for a number of other Naples Park residents that are not in favor of this. As you well know, it had been voted down previously. We came back -- the issue came back again. We had a town hall meeting where only I believe 35 percent -- percent of the people had wanted to move forward with it. If you combine those people that wanted the wrap system and those that wanted nothing at all, I think it totaled out to be over 55 percent. People do not want the system. It's everyone's problem. It needs to be addressed. However, we need figures and not estimates. I don't know why we are -- would move forward on approving an interim loan term when we don't really know what the exact costs would be. So I'm asking that you reconsider it, go back to the drawing board in terms of figures, that we have something a little more specific before October the 24th, but not to move forward on voting on a resolution and a financing mechanism to move forward on something when you don't have all the particulars. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. MR. DORRILL: Mr. Wood and then Hiss Fitz-Gerald. MR. WOOD: Richard Wood, Naples Park. All Naples Park residents in favor of this stand up. (The audience complied.) All Naples Park -- you may be seated. All Naples Park against it stand up. (The audience complied.) All right. Who wins? Just to prove another point, at our meeting we had out there when you called the meeting, we were in favor of it. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Woods, how many people live in Naples Park? MR. WOOD: Counting children? COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Children count. MR. WOOD: Between five and six thousand I would guess. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: How many people are in this room? MR. WOOD: How many people? I know what you're getting at. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Right. MR. WOOD: How many people is in this room? I don't know. We've got about twelve from Naples Park for and three against it, so that's percentage-wise. How do you get voted to be a commissioner? You don't count how many potential people are out there. You count how many votes you get. So we have more votes for it than show up at a meeting. How many show up at an election hall? How many go to be elected? It's who shows up to vote, not how many people live there. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: You're well into your five minutes for convincing us. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Wood, you would take into consideration at our town hall meeting in Naples Park. How many people showed up at that? MR. WOOD: I think around two -- the last -- the one you called, Mrs. -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah, it was about 250 at that. MR. WOOD: At the elementary school. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: At the Naples Park Elementary School. MR. WOOD: How many? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Two fifty, three hundred. MR. WOOD: Two or three hundred, yes. And we had a majority there, too, in favor of it, or we wouldn't be here today if we didn't have that majority. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. MR. WOOD: All I have to say on B(1) is full speed ahead but not at any price. Item B(2), after eight years I can finally recommend that the adoption of this resolution, which just mentioned by Mr. Boldt, be initiated and a program for the purpose of providing storm water drainage improvements within Naples Park MSBU, that you approve it today. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. MR. DORRILL: Ms. Fitz-Gerald and then Ms. Maiale. MS. FITZ-GERALD: I don't know which item I'm going to be speaking on, but it's going to be primarily about the funding. And so most of my comments actually aren't valid here now, but in order to tax a property as a benefit unit, you have to be able to show that there's some benefit. And unfortunately, there is about half of Naples Park that really isn't going to benefit at all by the Eighth Street, and they're not going to benefit certainly by the 91st and 92nd. And this is the big problem. I know that I'm not going to benefit. I've been a real estate agent and a broker for 24 years, and I can tell you that my property is not going to go up or down because of something that's happening a mile or a half a mile away. It doesn't have anything to do with the value of my property. I've done enough appraisals in my 24 years that I can tell you that as an absolute fact. I don't benefit, unfortunately, and I can't even benefit marginally because of the problems of the swales between Sixth and Vanderbilt Drive being plugged. My lot floods. It's sunk about 3 feet in the back. There's a big ditch in front. There's no money involved here that's going to mitigate my problems. I'm paying to fix somebody else's problems. Yes, I want to see Eighth Street flooding stopped. I think when the highway is built a lot of it will, but not enough. And I really -- I want to contribute, but on a percentage basis since I don't directly benefit. As you said, there's a problem here because there are a lot of people -- there's other than 12 here who are complaining loudly, but they never get up and come where they're supposed to register what they say. But that's the one point I wanted to make. And, lastly, Madam Chairman, I would like to address a comment that Commissioner Norris said when I finished up on the Vanderbilt Lagoon thing about my not being an engineer. My comment on the storm water utility, the countywide storm water utility, was based on the fact that previous commissioners had said to -- said to us when we met with them just hold off on the Naples Park drainage project, hold it down, because we're going to try and get a storm water utility. We're mandated by the state to have this utility. Now, if you just back off for a year or two, there will probably be some funding for that. That was my comment to Commissioner -- that Commissioner Norris made. But -- and just to wrap it up, I would like to see it, because the 91st ditch wasn't caused by anybody who lives on it. It wasn't caused by anyone else in Naples Park. The county owns this ditch, period. The Pavilion shopping center, the Pavilion condos are the cause. Their drainage is the cause of the erosion and the problems in that ditch. They have got to contribute, and I believe the county really should be contributing your share too, because it is your property. That's my comments. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. MR. DORRILL: Miss Maiale. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Vera, there's one thing I need to mention, and you and I have talked about it before. When you talk about I don't benefit, what you talk about is what do you contribute. Each home in Naples Park contributes roughly the same amount of storm water to an overall system. And you may not -- you're not going to agree with this, but I think it needs to be mentioned that everyone in Naples Park contributes to the storm water system. To say you don't benefit -- if you don't contribute, that's fine. If you want to dike your property and keep all the water on your property, not let it go off your property to other people's, then you should be exempted. But since your property, your house, and your driveway contribute the same as everyone else, then you should be assessed the same as everyone else, and that is a fairness issue for all people. MS. FITZ-GERALD: I've got to be allowed to rebut, because the people who live in the west basin do not drain into the north basin nor into the south basin. Our water slowly, if anything, makes its way down to the Vanderbilt Lagoon. In my case, I might just as well have a dike around my property because -- I wish I did, because then the abutting properties wouldn't drain onto my property. Mine goes nowhere. Come out and have a look at my ditch. It's just as high now as it has been all summer long. It doesn't go anywhere. The backyard is all flooded. It has been flooded all summer. It goes nowhere, and I live west of the ridge. My property does not drain, nor does anybody's west of that jaggedy line that runs somewhere near Seventh Street. They do not drain into that Eighth Street basin. They don't drain into the 91st and the 92nd basin. Okay? I want to make sure you understand that. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Believe me, I understand that. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. MR. DORRILL: Miss Maiale. MS. MAIALE: Shall I be here, or are we going to lunch? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Are you buying? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Go ahead. MS. MAIALE: My name is Jeannette Maiale. I live on 92nd Avenue, and I've lived here for 25 years. And I sent a letter on August 28th to the Board of County Commissioners. Chairman -- excuse me, Chairman Matthews did answer my letter. It was a letter to the editor and also a cover letter to all of you. I hope you remember it. I was talking about the 100-year storm which on 92nd Avenue we all survived without a drop of water in our yards. Now, when you're talking about contributing, our water goes right down into that waterway. Every drop that falls on there goes on there. Don't look like that. So I don't think we should pay any more than anyone else, although I really don't even want it covered. I don't want the eight-foot pipe in there. And I think Mr. Lorenz will tell you that the Vanderbilt Bay will get more water than they do now because it's being cleansed when it comes through that ditch. So that was one of the things that I want -- is that true, Mr. Lorenz, that there will be more water going into the bay? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Just get there faster. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Seems like. MR. LORENZ: No, that's not exactly true. There will be a higher discharge rate. It will move quicker. MS. MAIALE: It will move quicker. MR. LORENZ: But the same amount of volume of water roughly will reach Vanderbilt Lagoon now as it would with the improvements. MS. MAIALE: Okay. Thank you. And also as you heard, Fran Stallings, who is in charge of wildlife, he said that that statement that the water quality would be improved is entirely wrong. You all heard that. Okay. I think that's about all I have to say except, oh, also Naples Park residents -- this was in Sunday's paper -- will pay for most of the improvements, and Vanderbilt residents want money built into the Naples Park budget. Please don't do that. MR. DORRILL: Ms. Veccia. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. MR. DORRILL: And then Mr. Jones, if I could have you stand by, please. MS. VECCIA: My name is Lucy Veccia, and I've lived in the Park for 15 years. And I agree with the recommendations of the staff, and I urge you strongly to proceed with the Naples Park drainage project today. Thank you. MR. DORRILL: Mr. Jones, he is your final speaker. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. MR. JONES: Good morning, Commissioners. My name is Red Jones. I live on 102nd Avenue, and I think I'm right on the crest. They tell me I'm 14 feet above sea level, which is a magic number, I guess. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I guess you can't figure out which way your water drains then. MR. JONES: No, I can't. But anyhow, I'm here to speak in behalf of John Boldt. I hope you give him permission to go ahead with this. I would like to make a couple corrections. One of our speakers said that the -- we -- we paid $200,000 for the survey with Barber, Brundage, and whatever. It was only $75,000, and I think we got a refund of about 6,000 back. I'm not sure. I would like to say that I have been in this storm water deal for about 18 years, and I hope that I don't have to hold my breath any longer, because I'm 85, and I'm running out of breath. So please give John Boldt permission to start this thing once and for all. I have a request of Mr. Hancock. When you turn the first spade of dirt for this project, I would like to turn the second one. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Jones. It is the noon hour, and we -- we have been asked to adjourn at noon. Do we want to have debate on the motions, or are we going to have a quick debate or adjourn or what? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, I would make a motion that we accept staff recommendations for 8(B)(1). COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second to approve the recommendation of staff for the approval of the financing method for the Naples Park drainage project. Is there discussion? There being none, I'll call the question. All in favor, please say aye. Opposed? Motion passes 4 to 0. Is there a motion for 8(B)(2)? Item #882 RESOLUTION 95-517 INITIATING A PROGRAM FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROVIDING STORMWATER DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS WITHIN THE NAPLES PARK DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS MUNICIPAL SERVICE BENEFIT UNIT - ADOPTED COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yes, ma'am. I'll motion and move approval of staff recommendation on 8(B)(2). COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Second. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second to move approval to adopt the resolution initiating the program. there discussion? There being none, all those in favor, please say aye. Motion passes 4 to 0. Is Item #883 RESOLUTION 95-518, SETTING THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THE TENTATIVE ASSESSMENT ROLL FOR THE NAPLES PARK AREA DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS MUNICIPAL SERVICE BENEFIT UNIT FOR OCTOBER 24, 1995 AT 9:00 A.H. IN THE COHMISSION CHAMBERS - ADOPTED COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Madam Chairman, move approval of item 8(B)(3), recommended -- approving staff's recommendation to adopt a resolution setting date, time, and place for public hearing on the tentative assessment. COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Second. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. I was wondering if we were going to get a second. We have a motion and a second to approve -- or to adopt a resolution setting a time -- date, time, place for public hearing on establishing the Naples Park area drainage improvement municipal service benefit unit. Is there discussion? All those in favor, please say aye. Opposed? There being none, motion passes 4 to 0, Commissioner Constantine being absent on all four -- all three issues. Thank you. Why don't we break for lunch until 1:15. (A lunch break was held between 12:00 p.m. to 1:23 p.m.) Item #887 COUNTY DRAINAGE UPDATE - STAFF DIRECTED TO TALK WITH SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT RE SANDBAGGING CULVERTS AND SUBMIT A PROPOSAL AFTER TALKING WITH THE RESIDENTS CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Reconvene the Board of County Commission meeting for September the 12th, 1995. I had a request right at -- when we broke for lunch from citizens who live in the -- I don't want to say Golden Gate Estates area. That's not quite right. But they have school children to pick up, and they were asking that we listen to the drainage update right after lunch so they can go and pick up their children, and I guess the question is, do we want to move that up on the agenda. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Absolutely. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, I -- I know we -- we have two groups that I know of that are here, one on beach parking and one on this item, and I'm not sure of the numbers of each. So just in fairness -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Well, the -- Well, the drainage would come before the beach parking anyway. But anyway it's -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: It's just a question of them being able -- Because of the flooding conditions, they have to pick their kids up from school. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. If they were going to come first anyway, then it's a moot point. (Commissioner Norris entered the boardroom.) CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Why don't we do that. Mr. Dotrill, do you have the people here? MR. DORRILL: That's fine. And that will be 8(B)(7), and I'll ask Mr. Conrecode to introduce that. He has some exhibits, and then I'll say that you have about half a dozen speakers. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Thank you. Mr. Conrecode. MR. CONRECODE: Good morning, Commissioners. For the record -- Good afternoon, Commissioners. For the record, this is Tom Conrecode from your public works division. This item is being put on as an add-on to give the board an update of the efforts of your transportation department's work both in Immokalee and in the greater Naples, Collier County area as well as the stormwater management department and report back to you on really all the post Tropical Storm Jerry events that have occurred, where we're making significant progress, the areas where we've had some ongoing problems and what the nature of those problems are in terms of public versus private actions in the -- in the -- in the drainage -- drainage problem areas. I'd like to start by reminding the board that staff has put in a heroic effort in terms of manpower and the mobility of the equipment to the hot spots throughout the county. There are a substantial number of them, and the amount of overtime and the effort by staff is -- is commendable. And although you're going to hear from -- I think probably hear from a few people today who are having continuing flooding problems, I'd like you to remember that there's -- there's been a substantial effort and some really significant progress in a lot of areas where there's drainage. With that, I turn it over to John Boldt. He's going to go through several of the specific areas where we've got flooding and what some of the specific fixes were in those areas. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. MR. BOLDT: For the record, John Boldt, the county stormwater management director. Just to give you a little perspective on the scope of the situation, the executive summary that was probably on your desk this morning as an add-on, I looked through and checked the rain gauge information that was available to me through the Big Cypress Basin Water Management District, and from September of last year to September of this year we had 72 inches of rainfall. Our normal is 53 inches or a little bit more than that sometimes. We've had a relatively wet dry season. We had a wet summer going. Before Jerry came along, we were already -- You know, Erin went through here three or four weeks ago, about four weeks, and had us at a saturated situation. So we were already considerably above normal to begin with. Jerry, depending on where it was at, was about 14 to 16 inches of rainfall, depending upon which part of the county. Total for the month of August was 18 inches, and we have about 54 years of record in the area, and that sets the August record for the most rainfall for any August since we started keeping records. September has been six inches, and give it a few more minutes and we'll have a few more. We've got some more clouds rumbling around out there. So put the 18 and the six together. We've got 24 inches of rainfall in less than a month. So obviously it's a significant event. I would say, you know, even if we had all our systems in place, if we'd have went out and spent our $80 million, you know, we could not have prevented the flooding that took place. That's pretty obvious. But I think it showed us there are some -- some areas that we need to pay more concern about. There's some areas -- particularly in my executive summary I've outlined, we noticed that there are several newer type projects, the modern design that did not bleed down as fast as they should have after a storm. It was like a week later, and some of these structures-- projects like Royal Wood, Regent Park, and Brookshire Lakes, relatively new projects, the control structure still wouldn't release enough water. Those need to be re-evaluated. I think it's pretty obvious that some of the older subdivisions like Naples Manor and Naples South and Riviera Colony, we had the flooding. They just didn't have a modern design and that's -- There's -- They got the kind of flooding you would expect. There's portions of Golden Gate Estates in the middle, sort of highlighted those if you'd like to go over the areas that are in some low-lying, flood-prone areas, some wetland areas that are continuing to have some flooding problems. Even as late as Saturday when I was out there, there's still a number of them that had water on the streets. Commissioner Matthews and I flew over Thursday, and there was vast areas out in that area that still had considerable amount of water on them. There are still -- There are some areas also -- I think some of the people are here today from the Woodcrest, Acremaker, Rock Creek area. They're in areas that are flood-prone. They're on private roads. There really is no established drainage system there that the county is responsible for, and that's a separate subject we need to address. (Commissioner Constantine entered the boardroom.) MR. BOLDT: Also, from my perspective, just because we have a lack of resources in some of the secondary and the roadside drainage ditches, it's not been possible to have them in top-notch shape because of lack of some equipment and manpower. We obviously came up with some problems in Pine Ridge subdivision, Immokalee, up along New Market Road and some other areas of Golden Gate Estates where the road drainage system just wasn't sufficient to provide them with a secondary drainage they needed. I also need to point out just for the record under item number six that there's a number of water level control structures out in the Golden Gate Estates area in particular that were constructed some 30 years ago, and within the last five to ten years, those structures had a complete renovation. They were rehabilitated. They were -- Control gates were put on them, and the crest of those structures was raised somewhat, and those are put in operation. And then within the last two or three years, a number of the structures -- I know particularly Golden Gate structures three, four, and five which is around Golden Gate City up near the boulevard and Randall were raised an additional amount to provide particularly some water supply up near the well field areas. So those levels up in that area have been increased over the years and I have to say contributed somewhat to those flood stage areas. I'll just -- I'll just point out real quickly some of the things -- some of the flooding experiences, some of the things we did real quick, and I'll go over them real briefly. If you have some questions about some specific areas, please stop me. But starting up in North Naples, you're going to talk about Royal Cove here in a little bit, but there was even some drainage problems there that stood in there for almost a week, that the road -- road ditches weren't draining properly. Up internally within Imperial Golf Estates of the northeast corner, they experienced considerable flooding up there because their own internal draining systems weren't passing the water on down. We had a real isolated area down in Cypress Way East and Palm River subdivision that had water in there for about ten days. We were able to relieve that situation. There was a berm along the ditch. We went in with a piece of equipment, and we cut it out and bled that water out of there. We now have to follow up with that and then do the repairs and probably put a pipe back in there to make a permanent fix. Naples Park along Eighth Street had significant flooding that was documented. We've talked about that this morning. I mentioned Regent Park had considerable flooding extending to the roads for an extended period of time. And I might need to note that, you know, if we were going to -- were to map out all the areas that got flooded by Jerry, you know, for one or two days thereafter, you know, the whole map basically would have been covered. We've all experienced flooding during that event. These are the ones that I'm isolating that lingered on for more than a week and sometimes into two weeks. Now we're about two and a half weeks. I mentioned earlier also Pine Ridge subdivision which is one of the higher places in the county. There was some flooding around Mockingbird Lake. There's some maintenance needed there on some road ditches and some culverts needed to relieve that situation. Trade Center Way, the boulevard up on north of north Pine Ridge industrial park continues to have water standing in their streets. Their problem is that they're responsible for the maintenance of their ditch along the south side of the project and has not been properly maintained. We had some problems at the entrance of Forest Lakes. We have a pumping station in there. It was a taxing district established. We had some electrical problems with the relay on that that caused us some problems, but that's now been repaired. Moving over more to the east of 1-75, there continues to be almost an association with the Bonita problem, quite a bit of flooding north of Immokalee Road and east of Quail area. This is a large area, most of which is, you know, lots of cypress, low-lying flood plain areas. Golden Gate Estates near 22nd Avenue, there was flooding along the boulevard for an extended period of time. Again, the road ditch systems weren't able to handle that, and there was really no well-maintained drainage ditch to handle the flow. The same with Logan south of Vanderbilt Beach. The road system there had some prolonged flooding. Mentioned Brookshire Lakes didn't bleed down fast enough. I know there's a number of people here today to talk about the area out at the 951 and 846 surrounded by and areas near Crystal Lake R.V. Park and Woodcrest and Acremaker Road and that area. We can talk about that more specifically. This is -- Let me just do this one first. This is more East Naples area. And, again, it's kind of more the same. We had -- You know, we had road closings and flooding and some buildings flooded up near Commercial Drive or Commercial Boulevard near the triangle of Davis and 41, prolonged flooding of the streets in Lakewood. It took a number of days to bleed that down. We still have some flooding down on South Bayshore south of Thomasson. There's a drainage ditch down there that is in dire need of some -- some good maintenance. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Could I ask just you -- That's -- That's one that's the county's job to maintain? MR. BOLDT: That's correct. Although I don't believe we have sufficient easements to do the whole thing, but we're in the process of trying to get that. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Okay. MR. BOLDT: Then we had general flooding again in Lely South and Royal Wood, and even today we have water still up around the Woodmere Racquet Club east of County Barn Road. Intersection of County Barn and 951, the water is still standing around some properties up there. We had considerable flooding north of Davis Boulevard between Davis Boulevard and Radio Road stacked all the way up there. We didn't take an action there, and we have temporarily opened up the box culverts that are under Davis Boulevard, and we've bled that water out and give them considerable relief, and that was able to be handled down through Crown Point. Naples Manor had quite a bit of flooding during the storm event and for days afterwards. For the lack of good outlets southwesterly from Tamiami Trail, that's going to be a portion of our Lely basin. The Lely basin improvements we're proposing would -- would deal with all these areas in here plus the Naples Manor, the second part of that project. So the bulk of these things would be at least minimized with our Lely basin study and implementation. A couple of other minor areas along Henderson Creek on 951. That channel wasn't able to handle it, and there was some flooding in that area. And then this is out in Golden Gate Estates area. This is Alligator Alley, and here's Everglades Boulevard. I just -- a number of areas, a lot of which you're familiar with. Some of them have been ongoing for the last couple of years. We've had problems along Fifth, Seventh, and Ninth Streets Southwest and some areas north of there. There's an area over west of 846 across the road from -- west of the fairgrounds that has experienced flooding for the last several years, and I was out there Saturday. There was still hubcap-deep water in -- in the roads of that area. Sanctuary Road near the Audubon facility has quite a bit of water around some homes up there, and the list goes on. Immokalee is kind of a special case, particularly up along New Market Road and out of another Mockingbird Lake. We have a Mockingbird Lake in Pine Ridge and one up in Immokalee, not to be confused, and we're still working on this situation, have been for sometime. I think last Tuesday we worked until about 9:30 at night. We're leaving a culvert at the Collier Pack just south of State Road 29. That dropped the water considerably. We've since modified that. There's some other culverts we did some work on. We removed a couple of culverts that we found that were not necessary, and I know transportation department is working real hard trying to re-establish the flow from the lake down to the secondary system in that area. There's a flooded area out along the edge of Lake Trafford. Lake Trafford came up, as you would imagine, a foot, 18 inches, and it's very slow in going down. So those properties around there have continued flooding. So that's kind of a general overview of, you know, some of the lingering problems we've had and some of the things that we're continuing to do. I know my crews -- my street crews have worked almost full time on it, and the Archibald crews have done the same for almost two and a half weeks trying to address these situations, some of which we can deal with, and we can help others. It's just -- It's overwhelming. It's just so much water poured into the area. It's almost impossible to deal with. If you have any specific questions or want more detail -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I think you used a good word, "overwhelming." A couple years ago we were -- we were looking at flooding out in the area around Crystal Lakes and we -- I thought we had addressed putting in a drainage ditch down along Woodcrest to the Golden Gate main canal, just a kind of quick backhoe-type thing, get it out there, and get drainage into there. And then, John, you and I had talked about a ditch that would better relieve all of it and working along the Crystal Lake berm down to -- down to another drainage canal, and you had come back and said that you were having difficulty getting easements to make that work. MR. BOLDT: Yeah. We proposed a diversion ditch along the north side and east side of Crystal Lake to intercept that water where it appeared to have been blocked, and we had eight property owners we approached trying to get easements, and we got no cooperation from them. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Hmmm. That makes it difficult to do a whole lot if -- if the -- If the property owners affected aren't going to help with the easements in order to put the drainage ditch in, it makes it difficult. I have one other question and -- and -- and then I'll let the other commissioners address it. You had -- You had said in our flight over the eastern part of the county Thursday that many of the structures that had -- had failed, so to speak, culverts and so forth, were in excess of 30 years old. MR. BOLDT: A lot of them date back to that. Golden Gate Estates was constructed in early 1960. So they're 30 years old. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I guess my question is and -- and you may not be able to answer it now, but I think I'd like to know more about what the design life of those structures was and what kind of maintenance that -- that the county may need to look at having to do in the future to -- to meet the limitations placed on us by this -- the very design life of the -- of the structures that are there. I know one of the culverts in the 29 canal just merely -- it collapsed. MR. BOLDT: You know, a lot of those are metal pipes, and they have a limited life, and they do rust out and collapse. So we have culverts all up and down State Road 29 that need to be re-evaluated and replaced, but actually there -- there are private crossings. We don't even have easements along State Road 29, and we don't really have a policy on how we would share in the cost of those. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I understand that and we -- we had equally a culvert collapse at -- at Lakeland Avenue in the Cocohatchee canal system, and we were able to work with that one pretty quickly as well. But, I mean, I guess my point is, is that these structures do have a design life, and in some instances we're using them now beyond their design life, and I guess we need an evaluation of -- of what the potential is further down the road if another tropical storm comes in, and where we live that's not unlikely. MR. BOLDT: That's very possible. We're saturated now. This is only September. We've got two more months of our tropical season. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Are there questions? Commissioner Hancock. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: The comment you just made is very similar to, you know, what we've heard and John has heard from the public which is, why don't you know exactly what's out there, why didn't you anticipate these 30-year-old culverts collapsing, why didn't you check them before today. And the problem is, it's very much like, you know, each of us know we have wiring in the house, and it may some day go bad, but when's the last time you went through and checked all of it. The proj -- If you realize the lane miles of roadside swales and the number of culverts, we can implement a program where we check each one every year. I don't think you want to see the bill on it. So a lot of times -- and I'm not disagreeing that when we realize we have a 30-year-old pipe somewhere, the chance of failure is immense, and we should flag those. But I do want to mention that the concept of going and ch -- you know, on an annual basis or every three years and checking each -- every single culvert in the county becomes so cumbersome and so costly. I -- I just don't want to mislead people that we can physically do that without a tremendous expense. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I agree with what you're saying, that the expense is -- is, you know, hottendons but -- but at the same time I think if -- if we were to have a system for evaluating the systems -- I mean, if -- if -- if the design life of a drainage system in a particular area is 20 years, then I would think somewhere around 15 years we ought to be looking at whether we're going to have to replace it at 20 years or whether we can make it go to 25, similar to the way we do our vehicle replacement program. Mr. Dotrill, isn't that correct? We have a standardized thing, and then we evaluate it as we get close to see if we can push it a little farther out. MR. DORRILL: Yes, ma'am. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: So, I mean, it -- it's kind of that same idea. Commissioner Mac'Kie. COHHISSIONER HAC'KIE: Mr. Boldt, I was just -- When I think about the budget process and -- and the fact that we have learned from what some of our deficiencies are -- As you've shown us here on this map, some of them are private utilities, you know, private stormwater, and some are ours. When we go through the budget process, I guess what I want to know is, have you asked for and been told no, that you need more crews, more funding, more money, so that you can get the maintenance more adequately addressed? And if so, I'd ask you to ask again because I think we have hopefully learned something. MR. BOLDT: I would -- Quite honestly, the maintenance of the primary system done by South Florida Water Management District, they've done an outstanding job. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Right. MR. BOLDT: They have adequate funds to -- to really do it right. For my secondary system, I think it's been in pretty fair shape also. Of course, I could always use more crew. I could always do a better job, but I don't think the failing of the system is in the secondary system quite as much as -- I don't see Mr. Archibald here but I'll -- There he is. Most -- Most of the problems we've had I think could have been solved by, you know, more aggressive maintenance of the roadside ditches. And George, of course, doesn't have those crews, those excavators and -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: So it's his budget that we need to be addressing. MR. BOLDT: That's my opinion. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I guess I'm trying to find out what department does more money need to be spent in, because it's my observation that we're not doing an adequate job in keeping those culverts cleaned. And -- and I guess what I'm learning here is it's the third level of the system, Mr. Archibald, that your crews maintain? MR. ARCHIBALD: Yes, it is. And -- And I think what the board needs to know is what, in fact, is the county paying for, and the procedures and the policies that we have in place are, in fact, we do inspect our system. We do clean our system, and we have it prepared for the rainy season, and our responsibilities are such that during the months of March and April, you typically see the road and bridge people doing exactly that. In the dry season, we're preparing for the rainy season. But I think we need to recognize that once the rainy season is upon us, then our job changes. Our job changes from having the system maintained to maintaining the system because our people have been spending hours and hours trying to keep these systems open, and you would not believe that job and manpower, nor would you believe the debris and some of the items that are pulled out of these storm drain pipes. Compounded by the concern that John just outlined, we do know where all the rusted pipes are. We know we're -- we're looking at possible failures in an upcoming year. We do, in fact, budget a certain amount of replacement. The concern that you have is one -- and it applies to Immokalee as well as Marco Island as well as Naples Park. You have a system that, in fact, needs to be retrofitted. It needs to be upgraded. So we not only need to take a look at the condition of that system, but also that periodic replacement or maintenance of that system. And as John said, it's being done, but, again, the level of maintenance for a rainfall event of five or ten years is much different from the maintenance of a rainfall event for a 100-year storm. COHHISSIONER HAC'KIE: Would you say that -- that -- I understand what you're saying about -- that we need some retrofitting capital improvements made in the areas of the county. But -- But as far as the adequacy of your staffing to respond to storms, would you say that we are -- we've budgeted -- We funded you for a five- or ten-year kind of event, and so we haven't -- we haven't budgeted for a 25-year event or a 50- or a 100-year event because -- I'm just trying to get some handle on it. MR. ARCHIBALD: If I could shed a little more light, we -- we're funded to maintain the system that is out there. What happens is the development community builds the system. They turn it over to the county, and the county maintains what's there. We're getting into many areas of the county where that system either wasn't properly built or doesn't even exist in many cases, and the county isn't out there maintaining it. The county is actually out there building it. And the shortfall that we see -- and this is primarily in Golden Gate Estates. The shortfall that we see is the inability of us to construct what needs to be constructed to keep up with the growth that's occurring. As most of you are aware, when the stages of putting -- or completing a report that we want to submit to the board to outline the kinds of problems you've just brought to the surface, the problems of what type of system is out there versus the system we may actually need, and that's what I think the staff would like to bring back to the board, not necessarily the maintenance of it or replacement of pipes here and there, but also the issue of, is the system we're maintaining, are we losing money maintaining a system that doesn't work right to begin with, and that's part of the concern we have. Another concern on behalf of a number of people here does, in fact, deal with the private road system out there. I've got a listing here of many, many roadways that are going to be substantially impacted now and even more impacted when the rains cease and the runoff recedes. They're going to be impacted because they're going to go from a drainage problem to a road problem, and I've got a listing here. I'd be happy to provide the board members with a copy of it. But I also see a need in the private sector on private roads where, in fact, they have no mechanism to repair their roads after all of this is behind us. So that's another issue that the staff most likely needs to report to the board, not only to create a mechanism for some of that work to be done, but also who should do it. Should it be done by private contract, or should it be done by county forces, and how do those activities impact on some of the scheduled activities that the county does perform? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Archibald, I was going to interrupt you because we have some people who need to get moving to get their young people from school, and if we could listen to the public comment and then continue with this discussion afterwards, I'd appreciate it. Mr. Dotrill, can we -- can we hear from those? MR. DORRILL: Mr. Miller, you're up to bat first. I know you've been interested in this. And then Mr. Kantainis, if I could have you stand by. Go ahead. MR. MILLER: Good afternoon. My name is Jim Miller. My concern is Acremaker Road and Woodcrest area. I keep hearing the word "private road." The 951 canal is basically our biggest problem. The north end of it was never blasted. That's probably this deep in places, and the water flows, but it doesn't have the volume to drain the area off. You know, it flows, but there's no big volume going through it to -- to get rid of it. If you go to Vanderbilt Extension on the south side, it was blasted. You know, it's a deep, narrow canal. It's probably eight inches lower than the north side because of the flow difference, you know, the volume of the water leaving the area. If we were down even with the south side, you know, we wouldn't be anywhere near as bad as we are right now because that would be eight inches lower. Our water drains off into the 951 canal. You know, it's -- As long as the 951 canal drains, we drain. And then the other problem I have is the two little underpasses coming under Immokalee Road, and it's like two rivers just coming under the road. I mean, it's -- Whatever we lose on the back side we get on the front side from the north side of Immokalee Road. It's a -- You know, we've probably -- In -- In a month's time, we've only probably went down an inch and a half, two inches. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I talked with you yesterday about that. MR. MILLER: Yes. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: And I thought -- It was my -- my understanding that the residents sandbagged those culverts. MR. MILLER: That was four years ago. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Four years ago? MR. MILLER: And the water was probably eight inches lower than it is this year. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah. And the sandbags have since rotted and -- MR. MILLER: Right. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: -- the sand's washed away. MR. MILLER: Last year we were flooded for several weeks, and the water never flowed underneath the road so -- You know, my immediate help would be the blockage of the two things coming under Immokalee Road which would not affect anybody but us. There's nothing on the north side of the road but cow pastures and a rock pit. It's not going to overflow by the little blockage that we have coming underneath, but it would alleviate the river coming down because everything from Rock Road west feeds to us. And, you know, the little blasting that it would take right at the end of the canal there at Vanderbilt Extension -- you know, that could -- I don't know how hard it is to get permits to blast or whatever, but right there where the main flow is where it's coming from the north to the south, it's probably only a foot deep. You know, they never blasted the rocks at that point, and that would just -- That would be quick, quick fixes that would help a great deal as far as draining our water. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Commissioner Hancock. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Did you say that Rock Road flows down towards you? MR. MILLER: Yes. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: If you block that culvert, would Rock Road be affected? MR. MILLER: No. No, because -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Because someone from Rock Road was telling me they had sewage solids in the street so -- MR. MILLER: No. There's only -- There's only two -- There's only two of those underpasses, and they're both down our direction. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. So we're not going to adversely affect Rock Road if we do that? MR. MILLER: No. Once you get out past Rock Road, it starts to drain towards the Orangetree canals, and that drains that way. The only thing that's on the north side of us is the Piper's field and the rock pit, and the little bit that's draining underneath the two coming under us is not going to raise the level of the canal. It's just going to force more down the 951 canal and down the Immokalee canal towards Palm River, the weirs on Palm River. The other houses that are on the north side at Nursery Lane, they have the main canal right in front of them, you know, so -- Like I said, the little blockage that we would have to keep the water from flowing onto us, there's no way -- You know, it might keep it from draining quite as fast right there by the cow pasture or by the rock pit, but, you know, cows can move to dry land, you know. We don't have other houses to move to. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Most of those cows build homes real quick. MR. MILLER: Yeah. You know, we've got cows down by us that's been walking in water for a month now. We -- We -- We expect it to flood when it rains. I'm a native. I know it floods when it rains. It's when it stays two months or two and a half months that, you know, we have problems with. You know, a week or a day like in Naples Park -- You know, I drove to Naples Park, and the next day the roads were passable. Well, you know, our roads -- the cops have refused to come out. If somebody had a heart attack, there would be no way to get anybody, you know, out from an ambulance. The cops said it was the wild west, and we handle it on our own. That's basically what they said. So -- So that's about all I've got to say. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Miller. MR. DORRILL: Mr. Kantainis. MR. KANTAINIS: Ladies and gentlemen of the board, thank you for your time. My name is Stan Kantainis, and I live on Acremaker Road. Basically I've heard a lot about private roads and everything -- Boy! That was a short five minutes! COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Nothing personal. MR. KANTAINIS: My big concern is Friday night our alarm went off, and our house had been broken into. Now, the alarm company called the sheriff's department. The first response was, we do not know where Acremaker Road is. The alarm company re-called the sheriff's department, and they said the road was impassable. It was impossible to get out there. I talked to the commander of the Golden Gate area, and he said a lightning strike had set off a few alarms out in the area and that he had figured it was an alarm strike, and he didn't want to jeopardize a car. And it's kind of when I ran the scenario, what if it was a life-and-death situation type. And he said, well, then we would try to get in touch with an agricultural unit which is a four-wheel drive. Well -- So we went out to the property the next day, and, low and behold, our window had been smashed in, and our glass door was wide open. So we switched the window from the back of the house to the front, and we locked up the glass door again and all, and Saturday night we got another call that the house had been broken into. So I called the sheriff's department, and they said that the agricultural -- Oh, I'm sorry. I kind of skipped a little bit. That day when we went out to the house and we found that it had been broken into, I called to find out if I could get a sheriff out to make a report, and his response was, well, it's flooded. There's no way we can get out there. And I asked him -- I said, well, what if this was a life-and-death situation? And he says, we would try to get an agricultural unit. And I had asked him about that before, and his response was, well, it's a weekend. We'll probably have a hard time getting in touch with him. So now I said, so you're telling me if it was a life-and-death, you'd try to get in touch with an agricultural unit, but you've already said you'd probably have a hard time. He said, honestly, the person would probably be dead. That's what I was told by the sheriff, and that's where I really worry. It's no longer just a matter of flooding. Now it comes down to safety and -- I mean, we do pay our tax dollars, and I would hope we could have some kind of protection. I had said, basically what you're saying is it's like the wild west? He said yes. COHHISSIONER HAC'KIE: Who are you speaking to? That is just amazing. Do you know this person's name? MR. KANTAINIS: I -- I'm not that great with names. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Well -- MR. KANTAINIS: I can't recall it and I -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I'm just flabbergasted. I'm not questioning you. MR. KANTAINIS: Right. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I would like to know. MR. KANTAINIS: Right. No. I know. I mean, it's -- And then the -- When we did go out after Saturday night's break-in, we had called the sheriffs again. We met him down at the road Sunday and he -- The sheriff that day told me, well, it is a private road, and people move out to private roads for -- since it is cheaper and so on, and this is kind of what they run into. Basically now what they're saying is any area that's flooded, not just Acremaker, not just Rock Road, anyplace, even your Imperial Golf Estates or some of these rich places, if a band of thieves could get in there, the sheriff's department won't run their cars in there because they're afraid of flooding them out and so on. You could have one heck of a mess on your hands. And that's -- Like I said, I mean, my big concern now comes down to safety. What if somebody has a heart attack, or since the water is so high, there are snakes out there and so on. What if a kid gets bit out there? An ambulance can't make it in, and what if the parents can't get him out to the road in time. It's -- It's an awful big liability or I -- I mean, I don't know exactly -- I think you understand what I'm trying to say. Really what we need is just some kind of drainage of water. We moved out there five years ago. When we bought the property, we had went out after every heavy rain, and there was never any flooding and flooding, and we moved in. Then the following year we flooded. The next year afterwards there was no flood, but ever since then, every year we have flooded. We've talked to people that have lived on the road ten years or so. They said basically prior to these last few years, there had only been one flood, and it lasted like a week. So something somewhere has changed, and it's starting to trap the water out there. It's kind of caused us to become a basin. Somehow we need to -- I mean, if possible if y'all could -- I don't know -- If a survey or whatever could be done to see how we can relieve it, whether it is the small backhoe canal or so on, and I would question -- Somebody had said there was eight people that refused to give easement. My question would be, were those eight people flooded? If they were sitting high and dry, of course they're not going to give easement. You know, maybe it's to the point with the safety factor and so on -- and I'll get out of here in just a second. Maybe that easement almost has to be taken. I don't know legally how, but we're getting to the point where people's lives might be in jeopardy. Thank you for your time. I appreciate it. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. MR. KANTAINIS: Oh. The other thing -- Okay. MR. DORRILL: Mr. Castro and then Ms. Ruck. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We've -- We've heard about how much flooding and some historical stuff on it, so if we can try to eliminate the duplication -- MS. CASTRO: Well, thank you for having us here and listening to us, and my only concern is, you know, to have something done. I do have a grandchild with cancer, and I do have -- I can't have her going out there, and I need to get her in and out of the house. Okay. So I ask for your help somehow. Thank you. COHHISSIONER NORRIS: Where do you live? MS. CASTRO: I'm sorry. I live on Acremaker Road. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Oh. On Acremaker also. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Could you state your name, Hiss Castro? MS. CASTRO: Maria Castro. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. MS. CASTRO: Thank you. MR. DORRILL: Miss Ruck. MS. RUCK: My name is Jane Ruck. I live on Woodcrest. I'm one of the people who said, no, thank you, to the swale. You were not going to put in a drainage ditch. It was a 30-foot easement they were requesting. I don't know what happened between what you asked Mr. Boldt to do and what Mr. Boldt actually came up with, but what they came up with was a 30-foot easement that would include a swale which, as we know, is not a drainage ditch that would only follow Crystal Lake R.V. Park's boundary. It would not have dumped water anywhere. It would not have alleviated anything. I -- I can tell you that for a fact. That is why $10 for the one corner of my property was, like, major ridiculous. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm sorry. How much were you offered? MS. RUCK: $10. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: For how much property? MS. RUCK: We abut the corner of ours to Crystal Lake. So you're talking -- It was a 30-foot easement all the way around. I also called the county to find out exactly what it was supposed to be for, and they told me for utilities also and possible road which meant to me Crystal Lakes looking for a back entrance to their park, not to help us out. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So maybe we could have staff -- Maybe you could communicate again because I don't think that -- I think it's clear from today's discussion nobody is talking about putting a road there. I don't know about utilities but -- MS. RUCK: They told me it was a 30-foot easement that included utilities. Utilities is only going to help Crystal Lake. It's not going to help us. The road is not going to help us either. A swale is not going to help us. A drainage ditch, you still wouldn't get anything out to the 951 canal really, not with a swale. Drainage ditch, maybe. Crystal Lake used to have a drainage ditch all the way around Crystal Lake, all right, before it became Crystal Lake when it was the quarry. What happened was that the county requested them -- as a matter of fact, told them, fill it in. Before it was filled in, it used to drain us farther down into the canal. The county caused that problem for sure. Okay. Here. I'll have Mr. Dotrill give it to you. These are pictures on the road. On the back you can tell exactly what the pictures are from. Mr. Dotrill, if you'd hand that to them. The road is worse now than what it shows in the pictures. The pictures were taken two weeks ago. It's gone up since. Okay. As a matter of fact, I had -- I had an exciting experience just a few minutes ago when I was waiting to speak with you. I went down to the ladies' convenience, and I actually got to flush the toilet. We haven't been able to do that for more than once a day for the past month. Neither have we been able to wash clothes nor take showers. If we want to take a bath in our house, you have to do it in a tub and throw the water outside, and as far as you have to go is right out the front door to get it into the polliwogs and fish. All right. Mr. Boldt stated something which is absolute bull dingy. Collier County would have us believe that the flooding we are experiencing is correct for our area, that we are traditionally a flood area. This is nonsense. The trees we have on our properties are mostly slash pine, palmetto. Anybody who lives around Collier County knows slash pine and palmetto do not like standing water. We have very few cypress trees. We are traditionally not a flood area, no matter what Mr. Boldt would like to have you believe. All right. About ten years ago we had a solid week of rain, and the saturated ground eventually led to some flooding. Within three days of that rain ceasing, the flooding ceased. Now we get some water in. It stays for a month, a month and a half, two months. The reason for this being that Collier County has allowed building to the south of us of whatever nature it may be, the Collier County new water treatment plant, old Florida golf club which bermed all the way around them to make sure they didn't flood, don't want Didka to get his feet wet. All right. Collier County has allowed building to the south of us that has cut off the normal historic water flow patterns. As far we are concerned, Collier County caused our problems. We would like Collier County to fix it. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Wait. I'm going to -- I'm going to insert something -- MS. RUCK: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- right there. Collier County doesn't do the -- the permitting for water management. South Florida Water Management District does. MS. RUCK: Fine. But Collier County issues the building COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: And by the way, their -- their taxing you increased again this year so -- MS. RUCK: We're paying taxes for absolutely nothing. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, when it comes to South Florida, I don't disagree with you. MS. RUCK: Okay. Now, on the other hand, though, Collier County is the one that issues the building permits. South Florida Water Management does not issue the building permits. They may issue the water-okay permits, but they don't issue the building permits. So Collier County is allowing the actual building, so I guess maybe half your fault and half Southwest Florida Water Management. Okay. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: You're going to have to wrap it up. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I just need to ask -- I've got a question. What was your -- MS. RUCK: I -- Well, I -- I know the gentleman from Vanderbilt Beach pool got to speak a little bit longer. Yes? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What would your suggestion then be? We just -- MS. RUCK: We want -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Could I finish the question? MS. RUCK: -- the drainage ditch. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Could I finish the question? MS. RUCK: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: As far as the people out there that have built whatever they have built, should -- should we just no longer issue building permits and buy their property because they're not allowed to build on it, or what -- MS. RUCK: No. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- What would you suggest? MS. RUCK: What I suggest is that you look into what the water flow patterns are and don't allow them to interfere with it or make something so that the -- we'll continue the water flow patterns so that it won't interrupt it. For instance, if the old Florida golf club had large streams going across into the main canal, that would probably alleviate the property, but they've got it bermed all the way around. They're paying a $10,000 a day fine so that they can pump so that they don't have to worry about the golfers getting wet, but they're not stopping them from pumping. They can afford to pay the fine. We couldn't, of course. But what we want -- Okay. To wrap it up, we want the drainage ditch. We want you to stop the flow from Immokalee Road. We're getting dumped on from the Piper's pasture where they dump all the septic. That's coming our way too. I've got sores all over my feet from walking through the water. I have to walk a third of a mile through water this high to get to my car to get here. Okay. We want the drainage ditch from Immokalee Road straight through down our road through to Massey. I had permission two years ago when we were promised we could have it. I had permission from the property owners, the two property owners that have private property south of us, to go across their property. We went the canal to go down .... canal .... drainage ditch to go down to the main Golden Gate canal and dump in down there. That would solve -- It's a permanent fix. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So you've gotten -- We thought we needed eight property owners. Have you identify -- MS. RUCK: Okay. The way -- Okay. May I answer her question? MR. DORRILL: I don't represent -- MS. RUCK: The eight property owners -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: The commissioner has asked a question. You can answer it. MS. RUCK: The eight property owners that you are talking about, I'm one of them, and they're talking about the property owners that are bordering the north side of Crystal Lake and the east side of Crystal Lake. That has nothing to do with what -- what I'm talking about. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But if -- if what Mr. Boldt or whomever approached you was asking for is a drainage instead of a swale, is that something you would be willing to give for -- MS. RUCK: I don't think that that particular area would help. It would not help putting a drainage ditch in there because -- Okay. If the drainage ditch they were talking about -- the swale they were talking about putting would have gone along Crystal Lakes' north boundary and across their east boundary but would have stopped one property away from the ditch on Acremaker Road. It would only have affected Crystal Lake. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Well, I'm not an engineer '- MS. RUCK: It wouldn't help us at all. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: -- but they are and they -- you know, the engineers are the people who have to design the solutions for us and I -- What you have to say is -- is very valid and very important, and I want to listen to it, but if -- at the same time you're saying, but I'm not willing to give an easement to help address the problem, you know, solve the problem the way the engineers say '- MS. RUCK: The easement is for a swale. There's a difference between a swale and a ditch. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: But I'm asking you if they ask for a ditch instead of a swale, if a ditch is what's going to work. MS. RUCK: If the ditch would go all the way around Crystal Lake, fine, because we used to drain -- used to drain out -- Crystal Lakes used to have -- Before it was Crystal Lake -- When it was Highway Pavers North Quarry, they had a large ditch all the way around it. Okay? But the county made them fill it in when it became Crystal Lake. So if they wanted to redig that ditch, fine by me. I -- I will sell them that corner of my property. Ten dollars I think is kind of cheap for the county, but what can I say? But if it's going to be a ditch -- A swale isn't going to do anything, but we want the ditch from Immokalee Road down through -- past Hassey into the Golden Gate canal. That's -- That's our permanent fix. Hey, if you guys don't want to pay for it. Just give us the equipment. We'll dig it. We have people who can run backhoes. We'll do it. We'll sandbag the -- the thing underneath the road again too. They tore out that one sandbagging last time. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: All right. Thank you, Miss Ruck. MS. RUCK: You're welcome. MR. DORRILL: Ms. Olson. MS. OLSON: Hi. Thanks for the time, board and ladies and gentlemen. I live on Rock Road, and I can't get my car out, but I've been getting a ride. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Would you state your full name? MS. OLSON: Harcene Olson. I live at 1500 Rock Road which is almost to the end. We would like to have -- if we could get our road maintained. I'm told it's a private road, and I -- I -- I know that, and other people tell me, well, if it's not your driveway, it's not a private road. The other thing is we have like -- about 87 tax paying citizens on the road. People -- Okay. Friday night they worked all night and all day Saturday and Sunday made three ditches on the end of Rock Road going out to the east -- the canal east of us which is just west of Wilson, that canal there, and then on Carry Island Road relieve some of the people that were -- especially west of Rock Road. They dug another ditch on Carry Island Road, okay, and then on Mango, and now we need another one. We're still in water and a lot of mud, but if we could, you know, get some help -- We've had some meetings and talked to a lot of people, and they're willing to be assessed over a period of years because we know you need the money, and all this is redundant and everything and -- but we are taxpayers out there, and we'd like to have the county help us with something. People have taken out of their pockets, have rented backhoes and this -- this is -- Everybody is doing this out of their own pocket, $300 a day. We've gotten some contributions. People -- The people that have, there's been about three new trucks ruined in the water and -- Thank you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. MR. DORRILL: That's all. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: That was the last speaker? MR. DORRILL: Yes, ma'am. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you very much. Mr. Archibald, if we could continue with a proposed fix. I know you and I had talked -- along with Mr. Dotrill, had talked about this assessment that you had mentioned about a half-hour ago and -- and -- of what we might be able to do to enhance the drainage systems in the older areas. I'm hoping that we can see that. MR. ARCHIBALD: I need to defend the sheriff's department for a minute if I can. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Someone needs to. MR. ARCHIBALD: Having been down Acremaker Road and recognizing some of the holes in that road, right now that's not passable, and the sheriff shouldn't be going down there, neither should emergency management, because they're not going to be able to make it down the road. It's that bad. And -- And the solution to that particular problem for Woodcrest and Acremaker, probably for Krape Road and that area is, in fact, to recognize that a lot of the water that's coming into that area is, in fact, coming in from the Immokalee Road canal, is, in fact, coming in from the 951 canal because those are at flood stage or beyond. And the solution to that is one that's been identified and is being implemented by the Big Cypress Basin. Contract by contract, structure by structure, they're trying to build that Immokalee Road canal. The problem that they run into is, of course, that's a tremendous system in terms of mileage to build, and I would think that you're probably looking at five to ten years for substantial improvements to occur that would, in fact, provide the relief that these people are looking for. In the interim, there may be two things that the county can do. One may be involved in working with some of the groups that are trying to help themselves to provide better drainage for their areas. The other is, in fact, to assist in the construction of road improvements; in fact, bring the elevation of their roads up. Those two items would be items that I would ask the board to consider, recognizing that they create a liability. They create some exposure on the part of the county. But historically because of emergency conditions, there has been prior actions of boards to authorize us on a one-time basis not to accept road maintenance, but, in fact, to perform road improvements or drainage improvements for areas like this, but the key item was in every case the residents pooled up enough funds to pay the county up front for those improvements. That, in fact, is what you're going to hear more and more from residents about. The list of roadways that I outlined and provided to the board are a list of roadways where people have contacted us asking that very same thing. And, yes, we continue to say it's a private road, and we can't get in there, but there may be in many of these cases something we can do that the people can afford, and one thing the board may want to consider is having staff come back and indicate what can be done and possibly authorize a limited amount of work where, in fact, that cost or that activity is subsidized by the benefiting of property owners. A very good case in point is Rock Road. They've gone ahead, and they're cutting ditches to drain their area. Once it does drain -- and it may be weeks away. But once it does drain, they're going to need some work to build their road. They're, in fact, pooling some money together, and they're going to be asking the county if the county will, in fact, on a one-time basis with no responsibility for continued maintenance, perform some -- what we would call base work or subgrade work on their road to make it serviceable. So those are the kinds of issues that the staff is hearing. And, in fact, some of those we can do. Some of them we shouldn't do and we can't do, and I think staff has to consider being able to draw the line. But, again, the problem we deal with is many of them where the property owners are willing to pay up front and the work is well confined and defined, those activities the board may want to authorize staff to perform. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: That sounds like the prudent thing to do. Why don't we have Mr. Archibald work with the -- the residents in question here and develop a little something for us to take a look at as soon as possible and see if there's anything practical we can do if we can. Let's do it. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah. I -- COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I agree. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I like that too. I was just thinking as he was talking, if it may not be -- and -- and George and John Boldt I guess would have to answer this -- if it -- if it would be practical to go ahead and -- and sandbag those culverts under 846. That will relieve at least the continuing water coming -- coming southward, and I don't know if South Florida Water Management likes that or not, but I guess that's something we have to work with them MR. ARCHIBALD: We've talked with them. We can go back, because that's one of the biggest concerns we have. The amount of water coming under Immokalee Road now is tremendous, and if we can get some approval to slow it down, that would help. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Is that the direction then? For you to bring back a proposal and to talk with South Florida Water Management again about getting those -- those culverts at least sandbagged to some degree in the next couple of days? Okay? MR. ARCHIBALD: (Nodded head.) Thank you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. MR. DORRILL: Just a final note. I -- I do want to thank both George and John publicly. I know they and their staffs have put in about $80,000 worth of overtime in the last month or so and working all days Friday and Saturday and just -- I think they've done a fine job responding to that type of situation. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah. I can say it's a -- I've seen some cases where I've been exposed where I went out and looked at something and saw a solution or -- That department has -- has done a terrific job in responding where the response has been requested, and that's been the biggest problem here, is initially we didn't know every single place in the county that was under water, and as things come in, you respond to them, and it looks like the list is growing. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: They -- They -- Our staff has worked long and hard in -- in trying to deal with the water, and we were inundated, and we're still trying to deal with it. MR. DORRILL: I told some people recently we -- we calculated just one inch of rain, and we probably already had an inch of rain today. One inch of rain in Collier County equals 40 million gallons, and you might think, well, it's a big county, but if you thought of 40 million one-gallon milk jugs that just suddenly descended on the county with a one-inch rain, I think it puts it in perspective, and you start thinking about having two feet of rain in the last 30 days. That's like six billion milk jugs that would just be dumped in Collier County. I think it really starts to drive home the point of how difficult that can be. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: It puts a different perspective on it. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah. I can see that. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Did -- Did -- One question before we move on. Did the federal government ever declare this a disaster area? MR. DORRILL: They did, in fact, only to the extent that corporations or individuals without insurance can access SBA loans. We did not get a presidential declaration through FEMA. So this is sort of a level one emergency. It's localized for southern Lee and Collier Counties. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: It would have been nice to get some FEHA money to help with the work we're going to have to do. MR. DORRILL: Fairly -- Fairly isolated, and I think given the scale of it, you can -- can appreciate that, even though Bonita Springs has had a real hard time. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: They are and continuing also. Item #884 STAFF REPORT ON THE PURCHASE NEGOTIATION OF THE BATHEY PROPERTY - STAFF TO WORK FURTHER WITH MR. HUBSCHHAN & ENGINEERS Next item on the agenda is item 8B(4). It's a staff report on the purchase negotiation of the Bathey property. MR. CLEHONS: Good afternoon, Commissioners. I'm Tim Clemons, your wastewater director. I know you're tired of hearing about water, but this is another issue we need to look at today. Item 8B(4) is a staff report on the purchase of the Bathey property. In February of this year, the board heard a presentation from staff regarding various effluent disposal options for the south county regional wastewater treatment facility, and as a result of that presentation, you authorized staff to proceed with the permitting and construction of two deep-injection wells for that site. The first of these wells has been bid. The board has approved on August 22 that bid with the construction cost of $2,470,000. Permitting for the well will be complete in the next month or so according to the FDEP in Fort Myers. As part of that same presentation, Mr. Harry Hubschman offered to sell to the board a 143-acre piece of property known as the Bathey property, and this property is located between Naples Manor and Lely Resort fronting U.S. 41. The sales proposal was to provide land for two things. One's for an effluent storage lake site, and the other was for a county park site. The idea was to -- to be able to put both things on the 143 acres. The board then directed us to negotiate with Mr. Hubschman and to look at the feasibility and possibilities of using this site for effluent storage and to determine the details of Mr. Hubschman's proposal. One of the integral parts of these negotiations includes the fact that the Hubschman family and the county have three ongoing legal cases. If the county moves forward with purchasing this property, the proposed settlement agreement results in a complete and final settlement of those, and David can speak to those for just a minute if he would like to. MR. BRYANT: I didn't mean to interrupt Mr. Clemons, but I wanted to bring something to the chairman and the board's attention, and I want Mr. Siesky to agree, and I'm sure he will, that all the discussions here today are in the nature of settlement discussions and are not discoverable and would not be used in the fact if we should continue on the litigation against the board or against Mr. Hubschman. MR. SIESKY: I absolutely agree. MR. BRYANT: Thank you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. MR. CLEHONS: So that's one of the issues as part of the negotiations, is the settlement of those -- those pending cases. Since this February meeting, staff from utilities, public services, and the county attorney's office have been negotiating with the Hubschmans and representatives of that family on this property. The package before you today and the negotiations today include a turn-key package for the effluent storage lakes. We would buy the property, and as part of that price, they would construct -- They would permit, construct, and turn over to us fully operating effluent storage lakes. The purchase price I'm told has decreased by about $200,000 since the executive summary before you was put together. Mr. Hubschman can speak to that issue in a few minutes. The present proposal for the property is broken up into two different pieces. One is for the utilities division portion. The other would be for the public services division for the park. The utilities division portion totals in cost $5.9 million or a little more than $5.9 million. The parks portion would be a million dollars for the park property site and $277,500 for some improvements on the site, primarily the placement of fill material on that site. One issue to the purchase is that the Hubschmans would like to close on the park property immediately for a million dollars at this time. And the alternative, of course, to this purchase would be to move ahead with the installation of a second deep well at your south county sewage plant, and the estimated cost for that at this point are about $4 million, 3 million for a second well, a million for some temporary ponds. The unknown factor -- and -- and David Bryant will speak to that in a few minutes -- would be damages from the litigation cases. And I would let David speak to that for just a few minutes, and then we'll go on with the presentation. MR. BRYANT: As far as my presenting what I foresee the damage could possibly be, there are some givens, and there are some unknowns. I think that it would be more appropriate for Mr. Siesky at this time to tell the board what their client or his client would be willing to do, what he believes the exposure of the county is, and then I'd be glad to tell you what I see as the exposure. Some things we're going to agree on because they're given. Sometimes some of the things we're going to be wide apart on. Jim. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Siesky. MR. SIESKY: Thank you, Commissioner. Jim Siesky representing the Highlands Properties of Lee and Collier at this time. The damages as I've outlined them or the anticipated potential damages for David in a letter last March include the existing condemnation action. That one was tried once. A judgment was rendered that the county had to pay $70,000 to my client as damages for the property that it took. It's the old sewer plant site. My client wasn't happy with that and appealed it, and the appellate court agreed that that was not a proper compensation for various reasons. What I'm really looking at here is potential damages. We have alleged at the initial trial that the damages to the remainder of the site after taking the sewer plant tank over there were 313,000 based upon our appraiser's evaluation. Having received 70,000, or at least have a good faith estimate of 70,000, our -- we suggest that the remaining possible damages to the county are 243,000. In that initial case, there were expert witness fees, costs, and attorney's fees which I estimate to be 150,000. To re-try the case, because it is a fairly involved case, and also since we've done a lot of groundwork, I'm anticipating the expert witness fees, attorney's fees, and costs to be 75,000. I don't have it in my memo here because I'm just talking about the damages that we're asking for compensation for, but the county should consider also that it will have costs on the same side for hiring an outside attorney. I know Mr. Bryant's involved in the case, but there's another attorney out of Tallahassee and -- I'm sorry. His name escapes me at the moment -- who represented the county at the initial trial and I believe will do the same -- It's anticipated he'll do the same at the next trial if it occurs. The other case that we would be settling and the damages related to that are the lease of the effluent pond site on Davis Boulevard and the lease of the sewer plant site on Palm Drive. We alleged, and the jury agreed, that those leases terminated -- I believe it was July of '93. That was appealed by your counsel. It went to the Second District. The Second District affirmed that decision on appeal. The only part of the case that's been tried so far is our action for possession. Based upon the record at this time, we're entitled to possession of the effluent pond site and the sewer plant site. We've not attempted to take possession because of these ongoing negotiations. What is left to be tried are the damages related to the county's occupation of the premises after the termination of the lease. For the trial of the damages portion, including expert witness fees, I'm estimating $50,000. The attorney's fees related to the initial part of the trial, the charges there, $14,000. The damages that we'll seek with the next trial if we get to that point will be the damages for holding over for that period, and I've only used double the rent in this analysis because that was -- that's a statutory guideline that you can use, but what I really had alleged was the fair market value. I think the fair market value would be greater, but just using this as a benchmark, double the rent for the period of 7-23-93 to 7-22-96 is $516,000 less the rental payments that we've received to date, 150,000. The net damages are about 366,000. The fair market that I estimated was a million dollars, leaving 850,000. I'm trying to get a range for you to consider. We also are claiming damages to the effluent pond site because that was well populated with slash pines. All of those slash pines have been killed as a result of the county's use of that site. Before the county took occupation of the site and began dumping its water on the site, the wastewater, the trees all were alive. $200 per tree, 1,000 trees, $200,000. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: And that's for slash pines? MR. SIESKY: Yes, sir. The -- There's also the potential -- One of the elements of damage that we've alleged in the leases case is inverse condemnation and the fact that you will probably want to use the effluent pond site at least for some period. There's a potential that you could be required to purchase the effluent pond site and the sewer plant site which we estimate to be between 500 and $10 million -- pardon me, 1,000 and $10 million as potential damages. Those are all really just numbers right now. It's not our goal to impose these damages. This all began with the condemnation action about a year or two ago. Your park staff came to the Hubschmans and wanted to purchase a park site on this -- on the Bathey property. At that time it was not opportune. Last fall, November, December, Mr. Hubschman suggested the possibility of combining the park site purchase with your desire for an effluent reuse, and that's how we've gotten to the point that we are today. We believe that the proposal that has been suggested is a very reasonable proposal that permits you to have -- the park site and the effluent ponds for reuse, permits both of us to get out from under this litigation because -- I'll be honest with you. I don't want to try these cases. They're going to be involved. I'd much rather settle them. We think it's a good deal for everyone. It's a win-win situation. My client gets fair market value for his property, but, most importantly, the public gets what its need -- it needs for the park site and the effluent reuse, and fortunately it permits a settlement of the litigation. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hancock. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Siesky, if -- if my math is correct, right after the 200,000 for the slash pines, I had a total of 1,098,000 from your itemized list; is that correct? MR. SIESKY: Yes, sir. Add a million ninety-eight to a million five eighty-two is the range, and that's not even considering the possibility of the inverse condemnation. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Right, which who knows? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Bryant. MR. BRYANT: Thank you, Madam Chairman. One thing we've got to look at is that we have a myriad of issues in this particular settlement. We've not only got the settlement of the lease issue, we've got the settlement of an age old condemnation case dealing with the old sewer plant site. If you just take what we know our givens are today from the five sixty-eight for the prior lease damages, taking the lease agreement on its face and doubling it, we know we've got that expense. Mr. Siesky's told us that he's got roughly 15,000 in attorney's fees. The contract provides -- at least provides as far as his attorney's fees if he should be successful, and he was, and he was successful on appeal. We know we've got a five eighty-three given going in on the Santa Barbara pond sites. If you look at the old sewer plant site, they're estimating their damages at two forty-three. That's what they're going to go in and ask for. Obviously we would not be agreeing with this. This is one of our old cases that's handled by outside counsel that was engaged before I came with the county. The county is going to have to pay for that new trial by its outside counsel. We're going to have to have expert witness fees and expert testimony for the trial and for any intervening appeal, and I think there might be some appeal that's going to be taken up on an interlocutory basis prior to getting to the trial. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Could I ask you a question? MR. BRYANT: Yes, ma'am. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Is the reason that we would have to continue to use outside counsel instead of your office is that they're so far into it already or something? I mean, why would we have to continue? We could fire outside if we wanted to, couldn't we? MR. BRYANT: We certainly could. In fact, I have wanted or have thought about entering into that case. I have not as of yet because it's been handled by others, and I've been doing other things, and nobody's asked me to do that. I'd be glad to do that. I mean, that's no problem, but that's one thing you need to know, that right now we are not handling it in-house. We are spending money outside, but we know we're going to have given expert witness fees. That's going to be a given. As you know from being an attorney, that's expensive in condemnation cases. We're going to have to have appraisers. We're going to have to have maybe some landscaping, a lot of different myriad of things. So if you just take anywhere from -- Mr. Siesky's using the figure 75,000 for his fees and costs for trial. If you just take half of that or a third of that, we're going to spend 25 to 50 if we continue on with outside counsel and expert witness fees for a new trial for the old sewer plant site. They're also going to be able to show -- and I assume since they're using the figure of 150,000 for attorney's fees from the old trial and the appeal, they're going to have records that will support that, time sheets. If -- We obviously can disagree with what they're entitled to, but that's what they're coming to you and telling you they're going to ask the Court to give them. So we're looking at anywhere from four sixty-eight in their numbers and adding ours into it, anywhere five seventy-five to 600. What we're looking at is somewhere between 1.1 and 1.2 as givens right now that the county could end up writing a check for. These are not "what if" situations. These are what has happened situations. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: You're saying between 1.1 and 1.2 million? MR. BRYANT: Yes, sir. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: So your number and Mr. Siesky's number of 1,098,000 is pretty close? MR. BRYANT: Yes, sir, it is, on the givens. Now, the area that we don't know about -- and if I could tell you the answer to this, I wouldn't be here. I'd be picking lotto numbers -- is we go to trial -- we'd say no deal. We go to trial on the Santa Barbara effluent ponds. Mr. Siesky is going to attempt to have that turned into an inverse condemnation issue that we have to buy the whole site. We are going to resist that. In fact, I would probably be advising the board that we go forward and attempt to condemn it on a temporary basis and go forward with our deep-well injection if that should be the board's decision. That's an area that we are going to litigate very vigorously I'm sure because he believes that we're going to be made to buy the whole site. I believe there's an argument there that we can use it on a temporary basis. We don't know the answer to that yet. But let's say we lose on that. We're looking at whatever they're going to find as far as their appraisals for their damage for the site that if -- if the Court should determine we took we took, and that's all over the balipark. I mean, there is no -- where we know what that figure is going to be. I think Jim's using a figure from 500,000 to 10 million, something like that. That's why I say if I could tell you an answer to that, I would, but there is no attorney that can stand here and tell you you're going to successful or you're not going to be successful. But the given is the area that I think you need to look at, and then I think you need to listen to what Mr. Clemons is going to tell you about what the cost of a deep-well and also the temporary ponds he's going to need versus going with the park site and the effluent ponds and reuse and -- and that's going to be a positive decision this board's going to have to make. Yes, sir. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hancock. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: So, in essence, if we decide not to proceed with the land purchase, we're rolling the dice on the potential for an inverse condemnation decision which could cost us anywhere between a half a million to $10 million? MR. BRYANT: More or less, but, yes, sir, that's exactly right. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. MR. BRYANT: Thank you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. MR. CLEHONS: I think at this time Mr. Hubschman has some things that he wanted to share with the board, and I'll go ahead and turn the floor over to him and let him do that. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Hubschman. MR. HUBSCHHAN: Hi there. Harry Hubschman. Actually, I was going to wait and let them do the presentation first because they basically, you know, should do that before I -- you know, I should get up and speak, I think. I mean, I've already talked to all you commissioners in private about the details of this, you know, settlement agreement that we've come up with. And, you know, if they have something new to add here, I think they -- they need to do that now. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hancock. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Madam -- Madam Chairman, this has the potential to take a tremendously long period of time, and I just as soon we cut to the chase on this. There are really a couple of simple questions for this board today as I see it. That is, there are two purchases in the wings, one of county park property and the other of -- of perc ponds. There's a cost associated with both. If we looked at the difference in what we would pay to obtain a park site like this and what we would pay for a deep-well injection, that -- that's where the question lies as to whether it's worth getting out from under the litigation or not. So if we could focus on that, we could probably get to the real decision on this and avoid a lot of the fringe discussion that would take us all afternoon. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Let's do that. MR. CLEHONS: Okay. On the park site -- On the park site, I'll let Mr. Olliff speak to that. On the -- On the effluent lake site that utilities would be looking at, the cost again would be $4,457,000 for the property. You're looking at improvements on a turn-key package. This would include a pipeline to the site, total construction, and turnover of the site to us for use of $1,403,680. There's some other ideas -- or some other issues that go with it. There's title insurance on the property that the county attorney's office will advise you to buy. It's $19,000. There's the lease to continue on the Davis Boulevard pond. The annual lease on that at this point is $56,000. That's going to come in somewhere around 5.9 -- a little over $5.9 million. The alternative would be to look at the deep well. The well we believe can be constructed for about 3 million. The bids that we received recently were under that. They were less than $3 million, but we bid two wells, and we're just -- you know, we think there's an economy of scale we got with the two wells. To bid one separate, we said $3 million. We would have to construct probably near -- either construct near some temp -- some ponds we have today a temporary ponding which we've talked to DEP about, and that's a possibility, or as David said, we would look at being able to stay on those Davis Boulevard ponds through legal means, but the temporary ponds are estimated to be a million dollars, and they are only temporary. So that's a million dollars spent to hold water for a short period of time, and then after that, that money goes away, and those ponds go away because they're not ours permanently. If you take that and the attorney's estimate of 1.1 to $1.2 million on damages at this point, we're at 5.1 to 5.2 million to drill that second deep well. So you've got a difference from the utilities side of a little over 5.9 million back to about 5.2 million or a spread of about $700,000. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Questions? COMHISSIONER NORRIS: A question for Mr. Olliff. Mr. Olliff, where does this particular park proposal fit into our park plans? MR. OLLIFF: The parks department has been looking in this particular planning community for a number of years for a site for a park. Primarily we have been looking to try and service that neighborhood, that Naples MAnor area. We have looked as far as -- That planning community actually extends all the way down County Barn Road, and we were at the point of looking at properties that far away which -- which, frankly, don't serve the community which we try and serve with this park. In terms of location, this property actually abuts the Naples MAnor community, and there are some opportunities to provide some -- In fact, I think at the bottom of that drawing, the wavy line that he's showing is actually their conception of a pedestrian bicycle pathway directly from the Naples MAnor community into the park without ever having to go out onto U.S. 41. So from the parks department perspective, it fits in -- it fits in well in terms of where we're looking for park property and the size of the park property and the location of it. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: On that same level, another question of cost. When you look at what we're willing to spend per acre and size-wise, how does this fit into that puzzle, and is there a -- a financial separation between what we would pay for this site and what we would pay for a site not involved in litigation? MR. OLLIFF: The only thing unique in terms of this particular property are two things. One, that it is U.S. 41 frontage, and so when you actually do an appraisal on the property, it actually probably comes in a little higher than what we would traditionally buy in the way of park property. We as a rule of thumb look at properties somewhere in that $25,000 an acre range. This is probably 34,000, and it probably appraises actually higher than that. The other issue on this particular property is it's fairly low and requires a significant amount of fill, but because of the joint utility project, there are some advantages that can probably take care of that fill issue and using the fill from the ponds directly on the site as much, much less costly than it would be if we had to import it from some other fill site. So from the park perspective, it's very, very important that we be in a position to be able to use that fill because the development cost will be significantly different on this property depending on -- on yes or no, whether we can get the permits to do that. So from a dollar standpoint, I think from land-wise it's probably a little higher, but, frankly, we've been looking for at least three years for a piece of property to be able to site a park. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Have we paid around 34,000 an acre in the past for any other park sites that you know of? MR. OLLIFF: We -- We paid -- We paid probably 27, I believe, an acre, and I would have to go back and double check that, for the Lake Avalon property that we just got done purchasing. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. So it's ballpark, but it's MR. OLLIFF: Yes. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: -- on the high end? MR. OLLIFF: Yes. MR. SIESKY: Could I interject, Commissioner? I'm only relying on my memory, and it's not that good -- COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: I know the feeling, Jim. MR. SIESKY: -- but my recollection is maybe two years ago the offer from the county was a million dollars for this site plus $600,000 worth of other property that is owned off of 951 back by the Gran (phonetic) property. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: And what was the -- Now, per acre, that came out to be what? MR. SIESKY: It would have been similar. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Similar? MR. SIESKY: I think so. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Norris, you had some questions? COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Yes, for Mr. Olliff. Mr. Olliff, I have -- Strangely enough, for a proposal for a park, I've heard some negative talk about this one because of just the very idea of locating a park in amongst a bunch of effluent ponds. Have you heard that same story and -- and what is the -- in your opinion, the breadth of that sentiment out in the community? MR. OLLIFF: Yes. In fact, I've had members of the public just tell me, who would be stupid enough to put a park next to effluent ponds, and all you need to do is look to the veterans community park on Immokalee Road which is the exact same situation as what's being proposed here. It is a park directly adjacent to effluent ponds. In that particular park, we have not found any adverse problems to that location. In fact, we've found probably more benefits in that we use a lot of effluent to water those fields there, and it also offers some opportunities for utilities. When their ponds get full, we'll try and cooperate and extra water when we can those fields. So it's an extremely good relationship for us. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: In essence, the -- the complaints you've had from veterans community park really have been because we haven't installed the complete treatment system for the -- the -- the wastewater treatment up there; is that correct? That's most of their complaints? Not from effluent, but from wastewater treatment? MR. OLLIFF: Correct. And, in fact, even those numbers of complaints, I -- I probably in my entire tenure here in public services, I probably could count the number of complaints on that park and that related issue on one hand, very, very limited. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm the other hand. So now we're up to two hands. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Clemons. MR. CLEMONS: There's one other issue that I need to point out, and I -- I forgot to give it to you as we were talking about the numbers. And Friday we were having a meeting with our design engineers on that south county treatment work that's ongoing, and one of the issues that came up was the construction of reject storage ponds on that site. And as part of their design work, they're looking at building reject storage ponds, and we got into a discussion as to the effect of having to build those if we went to this Bathey property or if we built a second deep well. If we go to the Bathey property, we would still have to have on-site reject storage ponds. The Bathey property could not be considered for reject storage. To be honest with you, that plant very seldom goes into reject storage state. The only time it has since we've opened it actually was three weeks ago during the -- the storm event when we pushed so much water through it. The deep well would be used for reject storage in lieu of reject storage ponds on that site. So there's a potential savings according to OCPM of $700,000 on top of what we've talked about already today by going to the second deep well in lieu of the Bathey property. However, I will tell you that I've talked to Mr. Cadenhead this morning, and he's got some proposals to share with you on providing that reject storage out at the Bathey property also at a much lesser cost than OCPM has -- has given us at this point. So it's another number that's in there. It's not an absolute known at this point. It's -- It's purely an engineer's estimate, and, again, Mr. Cadenhead who is proposing to do the work on the Bathey site has got some ideas on how to handle that also, but I wanted you to be aware of that because depending on how we go, there is still the reject storage issue that must be addressed. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. Mr. Clemons, now, having an effluent pond near a park may be one thing, but a reject pond near a park is a completely different proposition here, isn't it? MR. CLEMONS: Not really, Commissioner. As -- As Mr. Olliff said a moment ago, we have that same reject storage situation at our north county plant. We have a reject storage pond that's adjacent to that park. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, we may have it out there. That doesn't make it a very -- That doesn't necessarily make it desirable; right? MR. CLEMONS: I would agree. Again, I -- I would need to reiterate that in the five years that plant's been in service, there's only been one time, and that was three weeks ago that we had to do that. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: The way life works, though, that would be right in the middle of the little league playoffs and -- MR. CLEMONS: Could be. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Yeah. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah. Murphy's Law would say the worst -- the worst possible thing at the worst possible time. MR. CLEMONS: And I -- I need to re -- Let me clarify reject storage for you. Right now -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: We're not talking raw sewage here? MR. CLEMONS: No, it's not at all. In fact, it's the quality of water that we normally would put into percolation ponds anyway. The -- The state's requirements for the effluent to the golf course is fairly stringent. NTUs of less than four; turbidity, less than four; total suspended solids, less than five. If they go to five and a half, it becomes reject water. So I don't want you to think that it's raw sewage by no means. It's not. It's something that's slightly off. Maybe the plant's had a minor upset or something, and we may go to reject for just a short period of time until parameter is back within the range, but I don't want to frighten you by making it sound like reject storage is contaminated waste or anything. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Another question for Mr. Olliff. Mr. Olliff, are we intent -- is our intent to pretty much isolate this park from the ponds where not necessarily visible or noticeable from the park site itself? MR. OLLIFF: I think most of those ponds would probably be bermed and landscaped on top of the berm or somewhere landscaped. The one that we -- They actually did this design and -- and the design is -- is not one that we've gotten into in great detail, but one of the advantages the way they have it currently designed that way is -- is you'll see all the softball fields in wheel in the middle there -- those ponds actually create a buffer between us and any residential neighborhood as well, and one of the issues we always have is -- is athletic field lighting near a residential area, and this is -- We're right on a major highway and buffered by a significant amount of storage ponds from any close residential area. It's a nice feature to have. But I would, yes, assume we would have some sort of buffer between us and the actual ponds. MR. HCNEES: I would make one amplification there before Mr. Olliff spends too much of Mr. Clemons' -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. HcNees, I think you have to identify yourself for the court reporter. MR. HCNEES: Yes, ma'am. Mike HcNees of the utilities division. We would certainly think those would be bermed because probably at this point not proposed to be extensively landscaped. They would just be grass berms and probably not landscaped. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I would have a question on that, Mr. HcNees, as to whether the ponds would be fenced since the bike path or walkway goes around that one pond in getting to the softball field wheel. MR. CLEHONS: Our risk management department has advised us that they would need to be fenced. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: They would need to be fenced? MR. CLEHONS: Yes, ma'am. Fencing is not included in the process we've given you today though, but because they are ponds, they would need to be fenced. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Do current ponds we have -- are they fenced? MR. CLEHONS: The ones at the north county are fenced, yes, ma'am. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: The ones at Davis Boulevard? MR. CLEHONS: Yes, ma'am. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: They are? Okay. Any other questions? Is there any suggestion of what we may want to do? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, there -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: This is mainly a report. We don't have to do anything except accept it. MR. CLEHONS: I think Mr. -- I think Mr. Cadenhead wants to give you some information if you have a moment. That's -- MR. CADENHEAD: Bobby Cadenhead, for the record. We've first met with the county staff, two divisions, the park division and also utility division, to try to formulate a plan that would work. As you can see, you've got 3,400 feet on U.S. 41 which puts this park site as like a jewel in Naples -- I mean, in East Naples. You've got a beautiful park site in East Naples. In doing the park, we was able to buffer all the activity by putting ponds to each side of the park which creates all the noise factors from Lely on the other side, Naples Manor from this side. The park becomes isolated. The ponds and the lakes become part of the buffering process. The other great part about this -- this whole operation is Naples Manor, is that we came in and figured out a way that the people from Naples Manor would be able to come by bike to come to the park, and we think that is a great plus as far as having a park. We also have a way for the kids from Lely High School to leave the high school and they are able to bike from Lely High School down to the park if need be in the afternoon to play baseball or whatever they might want to do. The other part that we did, we did something unique. We went out to the county south regional sewer plant, and we got ahold of the operators, and we talked to them a little bit about what they wanted and what would work for them as far as a pond site. Basically we're 7,000 feet from the sewer plant site now which is not a long way as far as maintenance. The other thing that makes it nice is that if you really sincerely want to get into the tense system and be part of the future as far as a sewer system where you're furnishing tense water to developments and what else, this works as a perfect solution because what it does, it gives you -- these lakes become like tanks. During your peak time, during when the plant's running is when the golf courses and things could not take all the water so you've got a place to store. You've got a place to bring the water back and tense it. It's not like putting it down a deep well and it's gone. Today you listened to a lot of people in here talking about water and being flooded. You're going to find the general consensus of South Florida Water Management is to start opening up and not retain the type of water that they retain before, and the need for tense water is going to be here even more. So if there's any questions, I'll answer any questions for you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Questions? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Your -- Your comment, Commissioner Matthews, was that we're not going to make a decision today? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: No. We're not required to. This is a report. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: That's not -- Gosh. I guess I misunderstood. I thought we were supposed to try to make a decision today. MR. HCNEES: I'll field that with a yes. It is titled a report, but we're asking for some direction from the board today. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, if you want comments from the board, my inclination is to go with the deep wells and take our chances in court. The problem is that, you know, the park site does have some merit although I -- it's hard to come to this park site because of overall price of the project. It's a lot of money and I'm -- I -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Norris, the overall price is what? 7.2? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Yes. 7.2 now. But the -- Somebody clarify for me this 1.4 million for improvements for effluent lake, who's doing that and -- MR. HCNEES: That's the price of what's proposed to be the turn-key construction where they would actually do the construction and we would buy the ponds fully constructed. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Why don't we -- Do we know what we could build the ponds for? MR. MCNEES: Yes. And we estimate that we can't do it any more cheaply than that, and we certainly can't do it as quickly. OCPM engineers have looked at that estimate. They feel like that's a real good number. We can't do it more cheaply, and we certainly, as I've said, given bid requirements, so they can't do it as quickly. MR. BRYANT: One other thing, Commissioners, that we did not want our client to purchase something he couldn't use for what he wanted. That's why we put the onus on them, and by turning it into a turn-key package where they've got to get all the permitting, they've got to do everything or we don't have to pay them, we thought that protected the board a lot more too. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. So that's in our agreement. MR. BRYANT: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: That still leaves me at the point where I think it's a little too much money for the whole thing. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm not -- I'm adding -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hancock. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- as I'm making notes going along trying to find where the differences are, how it adds up. I've come up with seven, $800,000 on the utilities side and the difference between the deep well and the perc ponds. I understand that we would -- you know, we'd prefer the reuse over deep well, but seven, $800,000 is still a big chunk of money. In addition, an additional cost of construction of reject storage ponds somewhere up to $700,000. So already with those two items alone I'm at $1.5 million as an additional cost to the county by going with this site. As we mentioned earlier, if we pursue the litigation based on the cost that we know we're going to have to pay, we're rolling the dice between $500,000 and 10 million. Now, with that upper end number, you can just pick a number. I mean, that -- I don't honestly believe we're going to get hit for $10 million, and I don't think anybody in this room really does either. So what we're looking at is $1.5 million. You know, is it worth a million and a half for us to make -- you know, to make it go away. And I'm inclined to agree with Commissioner Norris. A million and a half is a ton of money, conceding a $1.1 million amount in -- in previous suits already. So we're adding a million and a half on top of that. So, in essence, we're looking at $2.6 million in difference of cost to make the -- the -- the legal side of it go away, and that's -- that's a hefty -- a hefty price tag. MR. BRYANT: One other thing, Commissioners, I would suggest that you might think about. There are a couple of things that are fine-tuning type items that are housekeeping matters in the final draft that I received today from Mr. Siesky that we are not in agreement on, that if the board should decide to do it -- I'm not saying it would, but if it should, we would tell you not to tell us to bring that contract to you in this form to be executed. So if the board wanted to say go back and talk to them for a week or two weeks, we would be more than glad to do that because there are a couple of items that we are still in disagreement on that, either we're going to have to negotiate, or if the board should decide to want to do this, we're going to come to you and say, look, we don't think we should agree to this point. I just want to share that with you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Constantine. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I guess I've got to disagree with Commissioner Norris, that, well, the heck with it, let's take our chances in court. I need to do a little math here and check the numbers because I -- I had come up with some different numbers. But, Commissioner Hancock, if we're talking that big of a differential, I share some of your concern there, but maybe that's something we could work on with Mr. Hubschman. I don't know, but some of the things we look at there as far as the park and the permitting and the fact that that's done by someone else, one of the things that concerns me the most is the throw-away expenses, the million dollars for the temporary perc ponds and, poof, it's gone and so are the ponds. That's a million dollars just thrown away. Mr. Bryant appears to be comfortable with the direction of this, not necessarily with the specifics, but with the direction of this settlement. Am I reading you wrong there or -- MR. BRYANT: No, Commissioner. I would relate to you that I am comfortable with getting this litigation out of our life and out of the board's life. I think the board wants that. I think that's a good thing. Right now, as I said, there is some fine-tuning matters, not only as to some of the language, but some other things that we would like to work out if the board should decide to do this. But, yes, I share that thought with you. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Olliff, you appear to be fairly comfortable -- very comfortable with this site in particular for a park. It meets the need we have been trying for years apparently to pursue. MR. OLLIFF: In terms of the park, yes. We're positive, but keep in mind, in terms of the numbers, we're a small dog in this whole picture -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Right. MR. OLLIFF: -- and -- and the utility issues are the ones that are probably driving this decision. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Oh, absolutely. And Mr. HcNees, your level of comfort with -- If this were able to go through and our numbers boil out, your level of comfort with this site to facilitate our needs? MR. HCNEES: Let me answer that as best I can. I'm very uncomfortable standing here without a solid recommendation for you. I don't like being in that position of not being able to say this is what we think should happen from the staff's standpoint. The two items we can't quantify as your utilities staff -- one is how badly needed is that East Naples Park and how much of a factor is that in this decision. Secondly, how willing are you as a board to direct us to roll the dice on the legal issues. Staff came to a position where if the costs of constructing these ponds and the hard costs of whatever litigation that we already owe were approximately break-even versus building a deep well and losing the lawsuits or our estimate of that is that was roughly a break-even for us, that we could support this. Operationally deep wells a lot easier to deal with than 100 acres of ponds. So that's sort of a liability for us, but given a break even, given -- which I think is a huge benefit as Mr. Bryant said, to get out of all these lawsuits at break-even where staff was willing to say, yes, this is a great deal. We are now between it looks like a million and maybe a million and a half dollars from break-even. Let's say between half a million and a million and a half somewhere away from break-even. Frankly, that's where the judgment call comes in and that question of how willing are you or are we willing to recommend rolling the dice, and I think that's a real dicey question, and I wish I had a good sold answer for you. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I think your point's well taken. My concern is that the numbers you've thrown out there scare me a little bit, and I'm not ready to go and do anything important, I mean, a million and a half or -- or more, but I like the direction we've headed in. Harry, you and Jim and everyone have done a good job in trying to package this and trying to make something that will work for everybody. So I don't know if it's appropriate to ask David and Mike and everyone to sit down -- MR. HUBSCHHAN: If I can just have a couple of minutes. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Before doing that, Harry, I agree. I think what you've put together is great, and if it yields you at least $1.5 million, then we may otherwise have to pay, but the thing to remember for this board is that, Mr. Bryant, we'd have to lose everything in order to get to -- you know, that we know that our exposure may be 1.1 million on this. We've admitted that in this forum, but to add another million and a half to that is, in essence, to say that each step of the way we are going to lose, and the final result will be some form of inverse condemnation charge to go beyond that 1.1 million. Is that your -- a fair assessment of what your -- your summary is on -- on the legal issues? MR. BRYANT: That's part of it, Commissioner. I'm not saying we're going to lose on every issue because we don't believe we will. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Right. MR. BRYANT: We never go into court believing we're going to lose. That's one of the positions we take. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And our record indicates that we don't. MR. BRYANT: I hate to lose. I like to win, and I like the board to win. We have to share those figures with you as a client. We have a duty and an ethical responsibility to share those with you, but I echo what Mr. HcNees said. If the numbers got better, it would be a lot easier for me to stand here and say I think you ought to do this, and I think it would be easier for them. That's why I thought that maybe the board would like us to go back and talk to Mr. Hubschman and Mr. Siesky again and see if they could crunch the numbers a little bit better. Maybe they could save some money here or there if the board should want that. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah. I -- I think today one of the things that's -- that I heard today that I hadn't heard before is this thing with the reject ponds which just suddenly dumped another $700,000 into this project, and when I add that to the 5.9 that we're talking about including settlement of the suits versus a second deep well which is only 5.2, you're right, Commissioner Hancock. There's 1.4 difference. That's a lot of money. MR. HCNEES: And we apologize for the lateness of that information. We learned that Friday ourselves. So we got it to you as quickly as we could. MR. HUBSCHHAN: If I could just have a few minutes. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Hubschman. MR. HUBSCHHAN: Thank you. Harrison Hubschman again. I'm just going to back up just for a second and point out that, you know, we're looking at -- that we tried to, you know, do the best we could in getting a tense program started for the county here. Our land is situated such that, you know, the pipeline costs are very small. We look at that as a big plus for this site as, you know, effluent storage for that use. In looking at some of the back material that was produced by Hole, Hontes, the cost for other sites is just really astronomical when you start looking at the piping cost, and if you're going to pipe it out that far, you may as well put in a deep well, you know, if you're going to pipe five miles, you know, run it -- pump it all the way back and have the cost of that pipeline, and, you know, deep well is the way to go if you're going to do that, but this site is close enough where it allows the tense system that you need. Now, as far as the price of the property is concerned, 34,000 an acre is what is the appraisal price, and that is the price that we have pegged as the sales price. We have two appraisals that meet that price. Mr. Olliff can correct me if I'm wrong because of my memory, but if he -- three years ago, they offered a million dollars cash and a piece of property valued at -- Do you remember, Tom? MR. OLLIFF: No. MR. HUBSCHHAN: No? My recollection is like 350,000 was the appraised value of that property over by 951. You're talking about approximately 34,000 an acre is what they offered three years ago for a park site. So here we are again offering him not the back land but the frontage for that price, and we're willing to risk the gamble of selling that to you now and the possibility of us not getting the permitting on the ponds means that you don't have to close on the back portion of the property which basically, you know, hurts us, you know. At the same time if we're looking at legal issue money, roughly a million one to a million two, and we have picked a value here of roughly 578,000 for that that we will accept and leave the -- and kill those issues, we get up roughly around $600,000 there also. We -- That 578,000, as David might be able to tell you, is basically -- most of it is cost of litigation that we've already expended. We're not really gaining anything -- you know, if we are gaining anything, it's very little as far as damages. The other thing I would urge you to do is not throw money away on temporary fixes like a million dollars for a pond, $3 million for deep wells for holes in the ground that may become useless somewhere down the line. I know they have -- probably have statistics on these, and I haven't heard about them yet, but I'm sure that will come out as to how reliable they are. But, you know, if they ever do plug up, that's a $3 million hole in the ground that's useless. We're talking about a permanent fix here, a piece of property that has value. We're talking about a park that has great value, not just as land, but as -- to the community that needs it right next door, and we're talking about a lot of tangible things here as far as a purchase and a settlement. We're talking about a lot of intangible things as far as doing, you know, deep wells and going on with litigation. that's about all I have to say. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Hubschman, Mr. Bryant has suggested that perhaps he and Mr. HcNees and your group would sit down and discuss these issues a little bit further in the next week or two. Are you willing to do that, or are simply you requesting that the board go ahead and make the decision today? MR. HUBSCHHAN: Well, I was hoping that the board could make a decision today but it's obvious that some of the numbers -- COHMISSIONER NORRIS: We'll be glad to do that. MR. HUBSCHHAN: Well, I know, but some of the numbers, I think, have been jumbled around. I'm hearing a million, two million six, and, you know, if you're going to do a reuse program, that million five roughly for the construction -- whether you do it on our property or whether you do it somewhere else, if you decide to go with reuse, you're going to have to spend that anyway, you know, so -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: That's a decision we'd have to make at some time, but I unfortunately have to look at what the end tax dollars are here. MR. HUBSCHMAN: I understand. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: And although the individual elements may have merit individually, when you put them together and you write the check, I need to be very concerned with that, and this deal we're making a concession or we're conceding, in essence, $2.6 million, 1.1 that Mr. Bryant has identified and 1.5 in additional costs with the perc ponds going this way instead of deep-well injection. So when it comes to the burden or -- that we all feel of how tax dollars are spent, that becomes a choking point, and I think as Commissioner Norris has identified and Mr. Bryant has, you know, if this number were to change and become more favorable, there might be a recommendation from our staff that -- that there -- they think rolling the dice would be a dangerous move compared to the deal, but we're not at that point right now. I'd say we may be close, but in my estimation we're not there today as it sits before us. MR. HUBSCHMAN: Okay. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: And if you're willing to work further with our staff, I'd be happy to make or second that motion or just make that as a board recommendation, but I think if we push for a decision today, we're not going to end up with -- with anything close to what you're hoping to end up with, and we're all going to be back in court. MR. HUBSCHMAN: Let me go back and just tell you the reject ponds that they've quoted at $700,000, Bobby has priced out at around $400,000 today. That's his -- what his estimate of building those reject ponds would be so there -- another $300,000 to be saved there. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: That's part of what we're asking. MR. HUBSCHMAN: Right. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Let's sit down and talk about these issues and get firmer numbers and come back and see -- MR. HUBSCHMAN: I'm going to tell you, when it comes right down to it, I mean, a deep well's cheap. It's cheap. It's intangible, and it's cheap. If you -- If you don't want to go reuse, then, you know, that's the way to go. It's just -- you know, if you're going to get rid of the water, get rid of the water, but you're never going to find a piece of land, whether it be our land or whether it be one of the other 14 other pieces that will compare to the -- to the cheapness of the deep well, but, again, you have those other considerations that I mentioned before as far as deep well, and I think our property is well suited for the purpose -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just a question. I don't know if I heard an answer to Commissioner Norris -- his initial -- initial question, and that is -- MR. HUBSCHMAN: Oh, I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- are you open to sitting down with staff again? There are a few items -- MR. HUBSCHMAN: The answer is I'm always open to talking, yes. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Okay. I know we all kind of looked at each other when there was slash pine estimated at 200,000. MR. HUBSCHMAN: No. I disagree with that number myself. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: If I could move this along, I'd make a motion we direct our staff to spend the next couple of weeks with Mr. Siesky and Mr. Hubschman and see if we can crunch these numbers a little bit. I think that heads us in a good direction, but we have to make it cost effective or it doesn't work. COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Second. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second. I just want to make a comment on the reuse versus deep well. I think this board generally has committed to the reuse, but, again, a phrase we heard earlier today, not at any price. So, you know, we think that we need our staff to sit down with you and give you -- MR. HUBSCHMAN: Well, we've sat with staff and worked on the numbers and worked on the contracts, and, you know, I don't know if a group of people -- you know, it's like I'm dealing for, you know, Highland Properties. I'm here -- I'm here to negotiate. Anything I say is binding, and I'm dealing with -- and I want to say this about the staff. They've been great. They've worked with us, and they've been honest and open with us and dealt with us in a very fair manner and -- COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Let us know if that's not the case. MR. HUBSCHMAN: Okay. No. They've been great, and I can -- and I think they're going to continue that, but I really would like one person in charge, you know, as far as negotiations. It's too hard to deal with three or four. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Congratulations, Mr. Bryant. MR. BRYANT: I'd only respond that it is a team event on this issue. I give the legal representation to the utilities department, and I suggest things that should be changed. They have the technical expertise. So in all due respect to Mr. Hubschman, I appreciate his comments. They were kind to us, but it really is a team event for us on this side. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I understand. We have a motion and a second to direct our staff to work further with Mr. Hubschman and his attorney and engineering company. Any further discussion? Call the question. All in favor please say aye. Opposed? There being none, motion passes 5-0. MR. HUBSCHMAN: Thank you. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Madam Chair, if I may, would it be appropriate to ask our staff to direct communication to Mr. Hubschman through Mr. Bryant? I'm sure that's already happening, but if Mr. Hubschman is looking for a point man, I think Mr. Bryant is the most logical one for that, and I'm sure there's things about parks and utilities he'd love to learn. MR. BRYANT: Thank you, Commissioner. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I think that's quite appropriate. MR. HUBSCHMAN: Thank you for your time. Item #8B5 RECOHMENDATION TO CONTINUE THE WEEKLY YARDWASTE COLLECTION PROGRAM - APPROVED CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. Next item on the agenda is item -- Geez. It's getting late -- 8(B)(5), a recommendation to continue the weekly yard waste collection program. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll make a motion we accept the recommendation of staff. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. MR. RUSSELL: For the record, David Russell. This recommendation is to continue the weekly yard waste -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Russell, we just got a motion and a second to continue. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: To approve. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: To continue the program. I'm sorry. To approve continuing the program. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: You've got to be quick. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Any discussion? All those in favor please say aye. Opposed? There being none, motion passes 5-0. Thank you for the excellent presentation. Item #886 REPORT ON ROYAL COVE SEWER ISSUES - PROPOSED SETTLEMENT REJECTED; STAFF TO PROCEED WITH NECESSARY WORK OF WETWELL; STAFF TO BRING BACK RESOLUTION TO ADOPT ASSESSMENT DISTRICT; AND NECESSARY BUDGET AMENDMENTS APPROVED Next item -- Who could ever say no? 8(B)(6) is a discussion of Royal Cove. Mr. Clemons. MR. CLEMONS: Let mine go that fast too if you want to. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yours is more complicated. MR. CLEMONS: Okay. Item 8(B)(6) is -- just a quick update for you on the Royal Cove sewer issues. The board's previously heard from us several times on this matter regarding this sewer system and the owner's intent to continue or to discontinue providing service. Mr. Weigel's going to hand you out some correspondence we received just this morning, I believe, from the owner, Mr. Vetter's, attorney. The board had told us to go ahead and pursue whatever means necessary to ensure sewer service continues in the short term and to look at the long term for this area also. Litigation with the owner is continuing in an effort to require the owner to provide or assist the county in providing service. At this point that will be provided through September 23, 1995. Our next hearing date in Judge Brousseau's court is September 21, 1995. At this point staff is proposing to go in and do a quick fix, simply something to ensure that the residents continue to have service. We're proposing to install a lift station structure, just the wet well portion of it, in the road right-of-way adjacent to the Royal Cove sewage treatment plant today. The cost on that is estimated to be approximately $35,000, and the work would be done by the underground contractor that we currently have on retainer. The item before you this morning or this afternoon is simply to get your permission to go ahead with that phase of this project until we see what happens in court on the 21st of this month. So we want to at least be able to tell the judge the steps that we have taken in order to alleviate the residents' concerns. David Weigel may have some additional comments for you from the county attorney's viewpoint on this. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Weigel. MR. WEIGEL: Thank you. You have before you the response to settlement negotiation with our office, the attorney for the owner of Royal Cove, and, quite frankly, a few of the considerations that they have proposed back to us were not part of the consideration that we were looking to at this point, included of which is number four on this -- on this letter which talks about the county waiving all frontage assessment fees and impact fees with respect to the lots, and there are two lots, number 27 and 28 subdivision that we CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Excuse me. I'm sorry. Go ahead. MR. WEIGEL: Okay -- which apparently will help to develop in the future, and he's looking for some future assistance in this regard, not withstanding that the property has been cited and is in litigation with the DEP and Collier County -- in fact, Collier County in two cases right now concerning the -- the promise with the property, provide the wastewater service to the customers within the subdivision and the fact that he wants to abandon it and has not sought to abandon it through the county's law -- the law that pertains to Collier County, eighty-eight four ninety-nine which requires permission and provision for what is to happen in the future if a particular premise is to be abandoned. So not withstanding there have been negotiations, this is the good thing, that there have been negotiations, albeit a little difficult with us to get response from Mr. Vetter. The injunctive lawsuit that we have coming up for second hearing on September 21, we will be in a position where we will either prevail or not prevail in regard to injunction continuing whether there's a settlement or not. That's a very basic statement, but the fact is that we believe the judge in circuit court want -- would only be looking for the county to do all things possible to resolve this outside of merely looking to the court for emergency relief. We have reviewed the private property issues concerning the placement of county facilities in right-of-way, and it would appear that the property -- potential for property damages in this case as opposed to the previous agenda item are relatively nominal or minimal; and, therefore, if the board should authorize staff -- utilities staff to go forward to make the capital improvements and order the equipment that would necessary to provide a fix for the subdivision, it may, in fact, ultimately assist us with our case on the 21st. If we were to reach settlement prior to the 21st, we would inform the judge, and the judge would let things go, or he would -- in other words, relieve -- release us all from the jurisdiction of this case or continue jurisdiction based on the premise of what we have attempted to do. The long and short of it is it looks like we're continuing to a hearing on the 21st, and to this point we do not see satisfactory response from Mr. Vetter in regard to the premises and its future. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hancock, you have a question? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I think it's important to state a couple of things. First of all, the short-term fix that Mr. Clemons has alluded to that was contained in a memo you received is, in essence, to construct a wet well which is the casing in which a pump is generally set into to create a pump station. In essence, it's a gravity collection and operates almost as a septic that would be pumped on a regular basis, probably at less cost, and we would have to charge the residents of Royal Cove for pumping it, but the charge would probably be less than what they're paying now for the service of a dilapidated plant. MR. CLEMONS: Well, he's proposing to raise that rate also in his letter so -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Right. Which brings me to one of the reasons why this agreement is unrealistic, and that is to increase the cost per month by one-third, I believe, on what they're -- they're paying about $60 a month now. To go to $80 a month for those residents per person per month so that he doesn't have to pay a cost to dismantle the plant that he's been collecting a fee on for several years, I think the judge would agree that Collier County not agreeing to that is by no means being unreasonable. In addition, item number four in this letter is ludicrous, that he expects the county to cover his frontage assessments or impact fees because he's failed to operate a plant adequately, that -- that's out there, and I commend him for being so bold. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Well, if you don't ask, you don't get. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah. Well, he's not going to get from where I sit on that. So I think our staff has taken a very aggressive stance to coming up with solutions that may be available. The cost of -- of putting this wet well in would be folded in the overall project cost of a single line if we have to construct one on that street. So, in essence, it's not money lost. MR. CLEHONS: Correct. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: We would prefer to do it in another way with the wet well down the street a little further to be cheaper, but, you know, these -- and I've already asked the question about trying to recoup some of these funds for Mr. Vetter that have to be expended, and Mr. Weigel and I discussed that probably more effort than would yield. So I, for one, am not interested in what he has presented as a settlement for items number three and four being unreasonable and would like to direct staff to continue with their efforts towards the hearing date on the 21st with, again, continuing to develop what options are available and what would be in the best interest of the residents in Royal Cove II. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: If that's a motion, this is a second. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Norris, you had a comment? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Yeah. I just had one quick question. Now I've got two. We were not going to direct you to actually put in the wet well today? MR. CLEHONS: Well, I'm asking for that direction. I need to give the contractor the go ahead. He's told me it would take him about two working weeks to get the material and ten days to install it, which will put us past that court date, but we can tell the judge what we're doing at that time. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. Mr. Weigel, the action that we -- it looks like we're going to take here, does that relieve Mr. Vetter again of his DEP fine responsibility? MR. WEIGEL: No. Absolutely not. DEP matters with him COHMISSIONER NORRIS: That's fine. MR. WEIGEL: As an addition for discussion, possibly an amendment to the resolution is the fact that in going forward -- with the county going forward for utilities and incurring these capital costs for a subdivision that's outside of the system at the present time, these costs will need to be -- come into reckoning to be taken care of at some point later on. It would appear that the county would want to direct staff to come back before the board and in a timely fashion -- that is, before the end of calendar year 1995, with a resolution of intent to establish an assessment district pursuant to Chapter 153, part two, Florida Statutes, which is the legislation that provides for assessment districts for this kind of system. Again, the property that we have out there -- we have people on a sewer system, and we have people that are on a septic tank system. The septic tank system people -- all of them possibly that don't want to join into a system right now, but the infrastructure is going to affect them all in a positive sense later on, and that would become part of the overall assessment project, I could assure you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hancock. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: We are going to have a -- obviously a later discussion if we travel down the road providing a sewer line there, and we'll save the specifics for the appropriate time. I, for now, would like to amend my motion as follows, to reject the proposed settlement as submitted to us for the reasons that -- numbers three and four are not in line with -- with -- with anything COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: With reality. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- and to direct staff to proceed with the necessary work to construct a wet well for relief of the Royal Cove II sewer situation temporarily. And, in addition, and Commissioner Norris, we were just talking about -- There was something else I'm supposed to add here. MR. WEIGEL: Direct staff to bring back a resolution -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: There you go. And I further direct staff to bring back a resolution to adopt an assessment district for Royal Cove II. MR. CLEMONS: And I would ask you also to approve any budget amendments that may be necessary to make this happen at this time. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah. I can't really include that in this -- Well, do you have budget amendments at this -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yes, you can. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Then I will also include in the motion the approval of the necessary budget amendments to complete the work. MR. CLEMONS: Thank you. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: The second accepts the -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Don't even try to restate that. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I won't. I won't. Rely on the court reporter to -- that she got it correctly. Is there further discussion on the motion? There being none, I'll call the question. All in favor please say aye. Opposed? There being none, motion passes 5-0. You have everything you need, Mr. Clemons, to complete this process between now and the 21st? MR. CLEMONS: Yes, ma'am. We'll go ahead and get started, and we'll keep track of all the costs encountered along the way for future reconciliation on all that. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: An important point to mention quickly is that if there is a settlement reached, the materials that we'd be purchasing would be stockpiled and then -- MR. CLEMONS: Right. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- used at a later date? MR. CLEMONS: Right. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: So we're not expending funds that can't be used at a -- MR. CLEMONS: There's no loss on this for us at this point at all. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: I like that. He didn't say stockpiled when he talked to me and said he was going to bone-yard it. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Bone-yard it? COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: He'll bone-yard it. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Let's take a break until quarter till 4:00. (A short break was held.) Item #8C1 RECOHMENDATION THAT THE BOARD OF COUNTY COHMISSIONERS CONFIRM THEIR PREVIOUS DIRECTION REGARDING THE INSTITUTION OF BEACH PARKING FEES FOR NON-COUNTY RESIDENTS FOR FY 1995-96 - STAFF DIRECTED TO LEAVE BUDGET AS IS CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Let's reconvene the Board of County Commission meeting for September the 12th, 1995. Next item on the agenda is item 8C(1), the discussion on beach parking fees. Mr. Olliff. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Could I just ask a question on this before we get started? It's my understanding that we have in the budgeting process established that we're going to charge beach parking fees. My remaining question was, what are we going to spend the money on. Is that what we're discussing today? Is that basically the -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I believe that is the discussion, though at the budget hearings on Wednesday evening, we were kind of at a 2-2 draw. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm sorry about that. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: ANd Commissioner Hancock motioned to withdraw the beach parking fee program temporarily from the budget, contemplating our hearing this executive summary on the 19th, but we're going to hear it today, and that's pretty much where it is. I don't -- I don't think there's been much dissension on this board, except for one person, as to whether we should or should not collect fees. The question has been, what do we do with the revenues after we collect it. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah. That's the way I've understood it, and since we're getting so long in our agenda today, I wish that -- I mean, my preference would be to ask our staff to answer that question, where are we going to -- where are they proposing that we spend the beach fees, not whether or not we're going to have beach fees because we've pretty much established that as far as I'm concerned. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Mr. Olliff, you can throw that one away. It sounds like there's -- Excuse me. It sounds like we've got maybe a five-minute discussion of where -- what we're going to do with these fees. Are we going to dedicate them this year? That might be difficult to do because most of the budget's already put together. But can we get consensus on this board to dedicate them to some capital projects in the future. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Not much dissension. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I am here. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Much. Twenty percent is not overwhelming; right? And -- and, anyway, so to me, the discussion is what do we do with the excess revenues? Can we dedicate them to capital? Should we dedicate them to capital expenditures, and is this board agreeing to do that? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Madam Chair, if I might, before we get to excess revenues, the bottom line is there is a cost to maintaining the beach parking areas. There's a cost to implementing fees and maintaining fees, and then there are revenues generated as a result of that. I think the adequate question is not just excess revenues, but where are those revenues spent; is that correct? COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's my question. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And there may very well be excess revenues, but my definition of excess revenues are those monies that exceed the cost of providing the beach parking fees. Is that a fair assessment? COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Providing beach parking -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Beach parking. Thank you. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- period. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. We've been providing beach parking out of the general fund for whatever source. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Correct. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Out of ad valorem taxes. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Out of -- Right. Out of ad valorem taxes. We are now considering instituting a parking fee to out-of-county res -- to out-of-county visitors of $3 per car per day, and the excess revenues are the monies generated that are not consumed in the collection of that $3. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Regardless -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: That's your definition. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: That's my interpretation of it. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Now, let's find out how much money we're going to get and what's the staff's recommendation on where it gets spent. Tom. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Short version. MR. OLLIFF: Very short version. If you'll flip over to page two of your executive summary, I think what we have tried to do there is to show you -- and, I mean, we included everything in terms of expenses associated with your beach parks and parking lots, and in total the county spends nearly $1.5 million in operating and capital costs associated with your beach park -- parking lots and beach-associated improvements this coming year in the City of Naples. Your beach parking fee revenues are estimated to generate $938,000. Now, the way I understand the issue today, it's simply ensuring that this $938,000 is spent only for beach-related issues. Now, should it be dedicated to a certain capital fund or not, that's another question, but I think if you'll look at the list, this board has committed in the way of capital improvements for beach parks $775,000 for next year, and I'll tell you in this past year, we spent more than that, and in the two years prior to that, you spent anywhere between half a million and $700,000. So consistently the board has told staff that beach parking lots and improvements at beach parks is a very, very high priority, and we have consistently brought to you budgets that would improve as much as we possibly can in increased parking. I'll also tell you that over the past three years -- and this is as far back as I could get these numbers -- we've added 100 parking spaces every year. So, I mean, we are aggressively trying to increase your beach parking program because we know it is a priority with you. In this particular case, you can look at this as if beach parking fees are, in fact, offsetting the cost of your capital improvements at your beach parks because all of this basically goes into general fund 306 which supports -- a large portion of that capital is general fund supported. So without trying to create budget issues at this point, what we're recommending to you is that you leave your budget the way it is, recognizing that you have a good history of making beach parking improvements and recognizing that the money that is collected will go into general fund, a large portion of which will help offset the capital cost there being supported by general fund dollars today, and I guess that's what's left of my presentation. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: If that satisfies the concern about where it's going to go, I think we beat this little issue to death in the past. I'll make a motion that we do just that -- COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: -- and go ahead and do it just like it is on page two. Is that what you're saying? MR. OLLIFF: That is. COMHISSIONER NORRIS: And this conforms with what we went through our budget process all year long. MR. OLLIFF: Yes, sir, it does. And the only other thing I would ask that you add to that is that you allow us to adjust the budget to allow for that payment to the City of Naples as is currently -- COMHISSIONER NORRIS: I'll amend the motion to include that. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And the second accepts. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: One -- one -- MR. DORRILL: Speakers too. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have speakers. Yeah. One question before we get to that. Your outline of expenses and revenues shows that, yes, we're spending $775,000 on capital, but $330,000 of that is coming from impact fee money which is already dedicated to parks projects in general. Okay. I just -- you know, there's an estimated half a million dollars that's going to come from beach parking this year after the capital expenditures, and in the years to come that number is going to go up, and there's some people who say that even that number is too high and others who say it's too low. We really don't know what the number is, and I've got some concerns that we don't have the history to really bank on these numbers. COMHISSIONER NORRIS: And I think that's probably been part of Commissioner Constantine's concern in the past, but this time next year we'll have that history, so we'll be in a better position to do something. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I think it's a valid point, and we've got to start somewhere, and this is the start. MR. OLLIFF: It is, and just so you know, the manager's already directed us a month ago to prepare for you a report about beach parking parks, what's out there in terms of options for expansions as well as boat ramps so that you can sort of give us direction about where we do we go from this point because we pretty much expanded all your parks as fully as we can under the permits that we have. So we'll need some direction to do that, but this board's always been good about supporting those projects as well because it's a community priority of beach parking. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I think you just answered my -- my next concern was that, where do we put any additional beach parking expansion. We don't have any. MR. OLLIFF: No, we don't. And the report that we're bringing to you we've been told not to restrict ourselves in terms of creative options, whether they be transporting options, whether they be -- We've had suggestions from the public that we ferry people to Barefoot. There's all sorts of options that we will actually bring to you to look at because -- COHMISSIONER NORRIS: High-speed monorails? Is that part of it? MR. OLLIFF: We haven't been that creative, but we are going to bring you some options to look at. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I guess -- you know, I'm going to still -- We've got a motion. We've got a second. I'm going to call the question. I'm just going to say that I'm still concerned that the excess revenues I would like to see go to the acquisition and expansion of additional beach parking and/or access, and I still feel pretty strongly about that because I see a point in time that there's just no more money available, and to acquire that is going to be very expensive. So I can sense the board -- it's going to pass three votes at least, so I'm not going to beat this issue to death. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: It is going to pass three votes, but I do want to take -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Then let's just do it. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: No. No. No. There's a point here that Commissioner Matthews says excess revenues. The reason I'm supporting this, because the revenue generated will offset the cost associated with beach parking. Now, if we collect more than $1.495 million and we want to -- and we want to dedicate that to capital improvement only, I have no problem with that. We have to see if it happens first. So I don't think we're that far apart on that, but I just want to make sure that -- the term "excess revenues" to me means anything over that 1.49 million. MR. OLLIFF: In fact, we can do that. If beach parking fee revenues throughout the season start to come in much greater than what we anticipated, we can certainly bring that back to the board as part of those options for what to do about beach parking improvements in the future too. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We'll certainly know a lot more about this when we get to line item budgets next June. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: We certainly will. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I will call the question. All those in favor please say aye. Opposed? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm sorry. I ayed at the wrong time. Let the record reflect mine was a nay. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Motion passes 3-2. MR. WEIGEL: Madam Chairman, thank you. You've taken care of the original budget question that was before you, and from our county attorney memo dating back to 1987 and for the imposition of a discriminatory beach parking lot fee, it is appropriate -- in fact, necessary -- for the board to make findings that the differentiated fee is based on a thorough examination of all relevant economic factors. I think you have had that before you today, and I want -- would appreciate the acknowledgement to the record that you have had factors placed before you by staff both here and in separate advertised budget meetings, and to implement the beach parking fee procedures will be necessary since I understand it will require the parking meters, that it will be necessary for the board to direct staff to come back with either an amended ordinance or an ordinance providing for enforcement of parking fees within the parks pursuant to the action that you've just taken which is this implementation, and within that ordinance or an ordinance and resolution combo which states the fees that have been developed today and which will identify the parks where they apply and the beach parking lots, will restate the findings that you are indicating today that you have made this decision upon. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Do you need this motion restated and recalled or what? MR. WEIGEL: Well, if you want -- You could either restate the motion and add to it that you are incorporating the findings provided by staff both here and at the prior budget meetings. That would -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We already voted on it. So do we need a reconsideration or -- MR. WEIGEL: Reconsideration would be the way to do it if you were to do that, but you could just by second motion indicate that you're adopting all the -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Rather than interfere with the -- MR. WEIGEL: -- and have -- and have reached after thorough examination all the relevant economic factors, have agreed upon this disparate fee procedure. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I'll make a motion that we enter into the record an official finding that after thorough examination of all the information that has been presented to us and the economic evaluations done by our staff that there is indeed justification to have a tiered rate structure. Is that good enough? Is that sufficient? MR. WEIGEL: That's fine. And then apart from that resolution, you can direct staff to bring back the appropriate resolution and ordinance. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: And authorize the resolution as well. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Second. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second to have findings in the record regarding beach -- discriminatory beach parking fees. Is that what we're talking about? MR. WEIGEL: That's true. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I think that was the word you used. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Tiered structure. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Tiered structure is within the motion. Either way it's the same thing. All those in favor please say aye. Opposed? Motion passes 4-1. MR. WEIGEL: Thank you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Then we are finished with that subject matter. MS. BILES: What's tomorrow night then? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Tomorrow night? Nothing. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Next week. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Wednesday night. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah. Next Wednesday we undo everything we just did. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Just kidding. Just kidding. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I sure hope not. MS. BILES: Next time we convince Tim. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We almost convinced him today. Item #8C2 RESOLUTION 95-519, AUTHORIZING CHARLES SCHWAB, INC. TO SELL THE NUHBER OF SHARES OF RALCORP HOLDINGS COHMON STOCK WHICH WILL APPROXIMATE THE SUM OF $500,000 ON BEHALF OF THE COUNTY - ADOPTED Next item on the agenda is item 8(C)(2). This is authorization to sell the common stock that we received. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Motion to approve. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second, another very brief presentation and an excellent one at that. Is there further discussion? All those in -- COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Only to reiterate our heart-felt thanks to the Sugden family for making that project possible as we did this morning. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yes. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. The second accepts that. Okay. All those in favor please say aye. Opposed? Motion passes 5-0. Thank you. Item #SD1 RESOLUTION 95-520, ADOPTING TERMS FOR THE MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL OF ECONOMIC ADVISORS - ADOPTED Next item on the agenda is -- COMHISSIONER NORRIS: 6(D) (2). CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: -- 6(D)(1) which is the terms for the council of economic advisors. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: 8(B)(1). CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: 8(B)(1). I'm sorry. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I pulled that off the agenda. I've answered my question since then. I'll make a motion to approve. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Second. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second to approve. Is there further discussion? All in favor please say aye. Opposed? Motion passes 5-0. Item #BE1 ALLOCATE $1,500,000 OF PREVIOUSLY COLLECTED 1991 CATEGORY B TOURIST DEVELOPMENT FUNDS FOR PROMOTION OF TWO SEPARATE ENTITIES OF THE COLLIER COUNTY TOURISH COHMITTEE FOR A TWO-YEAR PERIOD - APPROVED Next item is 8(E)(1) to allocate $1.5 million of previously collected 1991 category B tourist development funds. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: This is consistent with what was done with the regular, funds and with that in mind, I'll make a motion we approve the item. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second to approve the allocation of $1.5 million in 1991 collected category B tourist funds. All those in favor please say aye. Opposed? Motion passes 5-0. Item #8E2 RECOHMENDATION THAT THE BOARD OF COLLIER COUNTY COHMISSIONERS REVIEW A PILOT GAINSHARING PROGRAM FOR FISCAL YEAR 1996 - APPROVED AS AMENDED 8(E)(2), a recommendation that the Board of Collier County Commissioners review a pilot gainsharing program for fiscal year 1996. Mr. Smykowski. MR. SHYKOWSKI: Good afternoon. For the record, Michael Smykowski, acting budget director. Just to give you a quick background of what we have done previously in terms of performance measurements, in fiscal years prior to FY '95, departments of county managers agency monitored -- we monitored activity measures of workload indicators. These were used by the county manager to provide a snapshot kind of workload levels within the departments under his purview, and we're also using evaluating funding request during the budget process. While these provided a mechanism to monitor the volume of work being performed, they didn't address either time required to perform a task or qualitative aspects of the services rendered. As a result, in FY '95 the quality council consisting of the county manager, assistant county manager, and senior division staff members within the county manager's agency made a decision to begin a transition to the development of performance indicators within each department that would address both quality and the quantity. Following up on that, in the budget policy this year, the statement was included the department would be examined after track records is developed for performance reporting, and then as benchmarks for performance were developed, an analysis of output versus funding would be conducted to determine gainsharing. It's also important to note here the citizens productivity committee has also expressed interest in this, and that's a current task assignment of the productivity committee to assist in the development of what are called service efforts and accomplishments which are essentially performance measures and/or standards for government, and that's kind of how the government is changing across the country in terms of trying to develop standardized benchmarks and performance measurements for similar-type services to see how well given services provided compared to relevant jurisdictions. In FY '96 as part of the program review process this year, each department in the county manager's agency incorporated specific performance measures into their program budget packages that were reviewed and approved by the board. This provides a mechanism to evaluate the impact of the programs as well as a key in having benchmarks to enable us to compare our service accomplishments to similar Florida counties and/or other jurisdictions. The BCC expressed further interest in staff developing a gainsharing program. The county manager had indicated at that point that a pilot program would be developed. As part of the package here, we have a -- at least a draft proposal for your review and consideration. The pilot program participants are the facilities management department, the library department, the water operations department. In terms of gainsharing measurement on page five, the department performance will be measured against one or more of the following. Previous department performance, regional comparisons, national performance standards, and/or a gainsharing performance target. The reward criteria on page six would be meeting goals in the areas of efficiency of -- in terms of a unit cost for facilities management in terms of square footage maintained for the library, number of library materials circulated, and in the water department, cost per gallon of water produced. A key note there I highlight on the page, a footnote at the bottom is that current service standards would be maintained. In other words, we're not going to attempt to achieve a lower unit cost by cutting back on the current service standards that are provided to the public. I think that's an important component of this proposal. I'm going to let each individual department or division address the specific departments in terms of their gainsharing targets to be achieved and their prior -- and with their service standards that they will continue to maintain while attempting to lower their unit costs. On page ten of the package, the gainsharing reward options, the reward would be based on the actual unit cost, as previously noted for library materials circulated, gallon of water produced, square footage maintained, compared to a target unit cost, and that will be addressed by the division administrators. The proposed savings would be shared 50/50 between the department and the BCC with the department's share allocated 30 percent for employee cash bonuses with a maximum -- COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I'm sorry to interrupt you, but before I -- before you go any further, this is one of the questions I wanted to ask you. This gainsharing, 50 percent to the department and 50 percent for the BCC, is that just for a single fiscal year? It doesn't perpetuate into the future because of the same gain saving policy? MR. SHYKOWSKI: That's correct. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: It's designed by the year. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. MR. SHYKOWSKI: This would just be for the pilot program for FY '96. Again, the department's share would be allocated 30 percent to employee cash bonuses, a maximum of $2,000; a 10 percent to professional development, either training or continuing education; 10 percent to discretionary department purchases, and one note here is that in calculating, we would propose to bring a report back at the end of fiscal year '96 with a comparison of a -- of the actual unit cost achieved versus the target and show you how our -- how the departments fared in terms of achieving that goal, and at that point what costs would be incurred in terms of what the gainshare would actually be. At that point we would also adjust for attrition. Obviously we have factored in 3 percent attrition into the budget process, so that would be factored into the equation. Obviously if the department had 10 percent attrition, we're only going to give credit for the 7 because we were anticipating 3 percent up front. And with that, I'd like to turn it over first to Mr. Olliff to talk about the gainsharing targets to be achieved from the library department and/or the quality standards to be maintained. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just before I lose my thought, do we want to give credit for attrition? I mean, if some department has frequent turnover, congratulations, here's a bonus? MR. SMYKOWSKI: Entertaining productivity in terms of still producing -- In the library, for instance, if you're able to circulate the same number of materials by enhancing productivity and everyone working harder as opposed to filling all vacancies, I think, yes, you would want to do that. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah. In many gainsharing situations, the employees actually reorganize offices amongst themselves, and they might have somebody decide to leave the county's employ, and instead of replacing that employee, they amongst themselves say, no, we'll pick up what that person's work was doing, what they were doing. And, mind you, they only get the gain from having done that for one year because the following year is a brand new program so -- But once they make the commitment, I would presume -- and correct me -- if they elect to do that, we remove that body from the budget, not the money, but we remove the position. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: FTE. MR. DORRILL: In the subsequent year? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: In the subsequent year. MR. DORRILL: At your discretion, I've got just I guess three quick comments on this before we get into the individual department descriptions. It's a shame that it's a little late on a Tuesday afternoon, because this is a very cutting-edge proposal. To my knowledge, there's no one in local government in the state that is doing this type of real gainsharing performance, bonus-driven mechanism. It is, I think, frankly, attainable in the first year. It puts a huge burden on department directors in the second year to try and maintain minimum board-prescribed performance or productivity measures and continue to lower unit cost. And the only other comment is that as we get into this, part of the proposal is that for departments that are successful, that there would be performance bonuses at the end of the year for having lowered unit cost and maintained the board's service levels up to $2,000 per employee within that group or that team or that department that has attained this. And since this is a pilot project, that could be some sort of morale-related problem in the balance of the departments that are not participating, but we went into this saying that we would give you a pilot-related proposal. I think that it will be very interesting if the board elects to try this in the first year. I think it would be very, very difficult in subsequent years and a real challenge, and people are going to have to get very creative and work considerably harder in order to make these things equal. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let me just draw kind of a scenario, and help me with how this works. A couple of vacancies crop up with four months left in the fiscal year. The department bands together, struggles through those four months, and says, gosh, look, we saved "X" number of dollars, but we can't possibly do that any longer, and as of October 1, you get those two FTEs still in the budget yet they don't ever go ahead and fill it, so it's been budgeted again for the following year. They save a year's money theoretically knowing full well after that four months of the previous year that they can perform the job. I'm just -- How do we get beyond the abuses such as that? MR. DORRILL: I spent about an hour -- We had a task team put together. I spent an hour challenging them, frankly, on ways to cheat the system, and I think that one of the things that we focused on was an attrition factor because every department of any size -- and all of these departments are -- they're fairly large departments -- are going to have some attrition in the course of the year, that the problem is that what ultimately is going to affect them is the cost to maintain the service, and I don't know, frankly, the example that you gave could be attainable. I don't know if Mr. Jones could intentionally withhold replacing positions and still be able to meet the seven-day-a-week scheduling of the library and man the counters and restock the books that are there without incurring large expenses for overtime, and so we factored the 3 percent already out of any attrition that they -- that they may have. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Does it encourage -- I remember we went through -- not to pick on utilities, but we went through a thing with utilities two or three years ago where they asked for eight new positions that we argued over through every public hearing, and the final thing we did with utilities was said, oh, yeah, what about those eight positions, and they said, oh, well, I guess we don't need them. Does this in any way encourage departments to budget for positions they're not sure they really need? MR. DORRILL: Not in this first year. I think that that's why I said in the second year we're going to have to really take a hard look if this is going to be a multi-year project, to make sure that he's not asking for additional positions in effect -- and I'm not saying that he would -- to try and pad his staffing level knowing that he can hold off to mid year to filling those portions because he's, you know, struggling to get a little cushion there to have at the end of the year to show that he saved the unit cost because otherwise he's still -- and on the case of the water, I bet he's got ten different performance requirements that still have to be met, and if he starts experiencing problems with -- for example, his operating permits or operating reports to DEP are not scheduled within 15 days of the end of the month or he's beginning to have certain higher levels of contamination that caused problems, then he's cheated himself because he hasn't maintained his performance levels. He's still -- For example, he's got to install -- I forget -- 3.7 new water meters per crew per day, and so he can't -- he can't slack off on his performance side and still win, given the gain and the rules that we're going to force him to play under, but next year we'd have to watch his budget submittal and look at what he's projecting for new customers or new meters to try and reconcile, well, you know, you've been telling us all along, Mr. Newman, that you could install 3.7 new meters per day with the five crew people that you have and now you want to add two more crew people which you're only projecting -- and I'm saying it takes a lot of effort on the budget staff. It would take a lot of effort on my staff and yours and next year's budget, and that's why I want you to know a year in advance. You really have to hunker down here to make sure that the cost projections continue to equate to the performance measures. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: That was part of the difficulty in instituting a program like this in the first place, is that from a budget and management or management and budget, whichever one you want to put first, perspective, this program is fairly labor-intensive. But, again, I guess I had kind of envisioned smaller departments coming into this so we could monitor it a lot more closely and look for the pitfalls -- MR. SMYKOWSKI: Part of it too was departments with available performance measures that have a national standard comparison. Obviously we're in the evolution stage of going from activity measures to performance measures. So in some cases -- in a lot of cases, this year's budget is the first time they're actually measuring a new indicator, so there is no -- it's never been measured before, so we need to build that track history and use that. Then we have some prior year benchmarks upon which to base some gainsharing target in the future. In the case of like the library, there were norms that are consistently applied throughout libraries, not only in Florida, but across the country that allow us some reasonable means of comparison to see how we stack up versus comparable operations, not only in Florida, but, again, on a national basis. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hancock. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: As it is with most new programs, the more discussion we have, we'll probably figure out more questions and answers because we have no base line of experience in this. I personally am in favor of the public sector attempting to offer incentives to employees to work harder and smarter which has been the greatest criticism of local, state, and federal government out there, is the person that just has no incentive. They come in. They want to get their 20 years in and get their retirement and go home. I think we're trying to find a way to offer that incentive that goes beyond the people that are just personally dedicated and actually gets to that -- you know, that next layer. So I favor the effort, and I think we are going to have a lot of questions, but I think the one mitigating factor as we go through the next 12 months is if -- Let's take libraries, for instance. It seems to be doing very well, but Kandu gets phone calls, my office gets phone calls about extensive lines in the library. Then it comes time to gainshare, and we have more complaints than we've ever had in libraries, you know, I think there's going to be some mitigation at that point. MR. DORRILL: Your department directors are very concerned about that. For example, they're saying, well, gee, you know, we already think we're doing a great job. And a good case, just to point to a quick example, would be your facilities department. They maintain square footage owned and operated by the Board of County Commissioners currently for $1.50 per square foot. A survey of similar Florida counties says that they are spending on average $3.98 per square foot. So they're going to tell you we're doing twice as good as other counties. And the national standards is $1.72 a square foot, and so he's already saying, well, you know, how am I going to maintain our very high standards and go from, you know, $1.70 a square foot down to $1.60 a square foot in order to save money and split the COMHISSIONER NORRIS: He'll probably take their clocks away from them. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I think that's why they call it gainsharing though, and that's to encourage employees to work smarter. MR. DORRILL: Carrot and stick. Careful scheduling of personnel and overtime usage and still maintaining the preventative maintenance schedules or the minimum number of books that have to be circulated every day. If we can, let's move on. We'll have just a very brief description of the performance requirements by the three departments that are participating, and then we'll see what the board wants to do. MR. OLLIFF: Real quickly, I just -- I want to begin by telling you this is novel, and this is a pilot, and from your staff perspective there is some trepidation about our ability to hit some of these targets and also a fear that there are a lot of things that are outside of a manager's control as well, and we've had that discussion about we can't control certain things within our cost. There were certain things we don't, and we'll just have to sort of deal with this as a pilot program and see how it works. The other -- The other issue and you've alluded to it briefly is the fact that this program focuses primarily 100 percent on efficiency, and aside from efficiency, there's also effectiveness issues, and when we're dealing with our departments, the numbers that you see from the library, I would tell you almost flat-footed without having any other comparisons that you have the most efficient library system in the State of Florida bar none. There's nobody who hits the kind of numbers that your library system does, and there is a fear on our part that we may be focusing on the wrong thing. I mean, we may be focusing on efficiency when on the other hand there is a point where the community is not going to be happy with what you are providing them. I mean, how efficient can you be, how much blood can you get from the turnip before the public is still not happy with the quality of the service that you have. So what I wanted to show you real quickly is if you'll look at the library pilot performance gainsharing proposal page, the performance measures, if you will look at the comparisons, the column estimated '95 numbers, cost per circulation of Collier County is two forty per circulation. That's a -- That's a -- the best way to measure a library. How much does it cost me to circulate each individual item out of that library. If you look, you're already about 44 percent below similar counties and about 33 percent below the state mean comparisons. So on average what we're trying to show you here is you already have a very, very efficient library system, but that doesn't mean that we can't do better, and I think that's what the whole point of this program is. We have shot for a benchmark of $2.43, and I do need to point out that's an increase over what our current cost for circulation is. That's because as we went through the budget process, the board made some quality improvement decisions that would simply have an impact on the cost of what it costs us to circulate some material. We added some additional children's librarians. You also picked up the cost of the Immokalee library which was previously grant funded, and you increased the materials budget, and all of those things have an impact on our cost per circulation. The other thing that we want to point out to you is that there is a note just above the last page there. It says note, and we are making a commitment to you that we will not be successful in gainsharing at the cost of public quality. In other words, we -- you know, that is a fear, and we talked about that, that a manager could abuse this in order to hit your gainsharing targets. We're simply not going to start library service four days a week in order to be able to do that. You know, those are the ways that you can hit those gainsharings. So we're telling you is we're committing to you that we will maintain the same hours, qualities of materials, and qualities of service that you currently are providing the public so that the only way that we will achieve any efficiency is, one, through increased circulation; and, two, by us being smarter and driving our cost down. With that -- That is our target. We will circulate materials next year for you hopefully at $2.43 or better, and we will not do that at the cost of any quality, and we'll see how it goes. I think it is a very novel concept, and we will provide for you probably quarterly reports as to how we're doing in terms of hitting those targets. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Olliff. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Just while we're changing the guard here, Steve Hart, perk up and write a story about this. I think this is so exciting that Collier County is doing something this innovative. Don't miss it. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Camp. MR. CAMP: For the record, Skip Camp, your facilities management director. We're going to do four things to maintain the current level of service, our current response time, our current square footage that's being maintained and the quality which it's being maintained, our current preventative maintenance, and our current operating hours. The only thing I can tell you is I don't know what's going to happen this next year, but I've worked here for 14 and a half years, and the only thing I can promise you is that we're still going to be a quality service, and we'll do the best we can and see what happens. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. I think that's all anybody asks, is that we have our dedicated employees and they're very dedicated, do the best they can. If we can find some ways to save some dollars along the way, we want to share them with you. MR. NEWMAN: Commissioners, for the record, Mike Newman, your water director. Can I just say make a ditto to what these gentlemen said? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Ditto's fine but not a ditto-head. MR. NEWMAN: I too have been here for a long time, and my primary responsibilities are to protect the health and safety of the public and the customers of the county water-sewer district. We don't intend to degrade our service at all either. In fact, we're constantly doing everything we can to improve that and look for ways to protect the public's health and safety better than we have. Any savings that we reap from this program will come from increased productivity from our employees, and basically we're going to reiterate that to them, and it's basically in their hands, and we thank you very much for the opportunity to participate. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. MR. SMYKOWSKI: That concludes the staff presentation on this item. Obviously we brought this forward as a -- as a pilot program. We're looking for the board at least to endorse the concept if you're so inclined and give us that direction, and we'll work through it with you. Obviously from our standpoint I'm sure we'll find a few things that we can improve upon. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: What are you looking for, Mr. Smykowski? Direction to go forward with this program as presented? MR. SMYKOWSKI: Yes. To implement -- COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I'll make that motion. MR. SMYKOWSKI: -- the pilot program. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Second. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Second. Third. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second and a third. I have one question, and because of the size of these departments, it's not the most likely thing to happen, but I still have to ask the question, and that is, we are limiting the per person bonus to $2,000; correct? MR. SHYKOWSKI: That is correct. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: And if we have an employ who has a real brainstorm and the whole technology of what it is they're doing changes, it will -- COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I like the optimism. That's great. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah -- what happens to the -- if the bonus winds up being more than $2,000 per person when it's spread across them -- I accept the fact that that's a lot of people -- but what happens to the excess money? Does it go to the BCC, or does it go into one of these other -- MR. DORRILL: No. Under the rules it would accrue back to your benefit. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: It would come back to the BCC. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: General fund. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: To the county's fund. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: To the taxpayer's benefit. MR. DORRILL: Ultimately. But they get credit for the other money that is there as outlined by Mr. Smykowski. There will be additional opportunity for either tuition reimbursement or professional development in training and/or what are otherwise determined to be discretionary capital improvements that would not be approved in the normal budget request process. So they benefit through indirect ways, and they can benefit directly if they meet the targets and save the money. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: So if they meet these targets and they save some money -- MR. DORRILL: In excess of $2,000 would go back into the appropriate contingency fund and would be restricted from any other use. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. But they could take the other 20 percent, whatever that is, that doesn't have a cap on it and use it for professional development or use it to buy capital improvements -- MR. DORRILL: Subject to what I would expect them to do which is be legitimate and fruitful with that money and not be looking to buy everybody a color TV or things that are just outlandish. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Please. Please. Let's not -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Well, we would expect at least you to have to approve what they do with the money. MR. DORRILL: Absolutely, because our normal procedures would otherwise apply for discretionary purchases, professional development, and training. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Commissioner Norris. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Picking up on Commissioner Matthews' point, something I thought about a long time on this type of scenario where we're going to reward people actually for doing something that saves money. Let's say someone comes up with a proposal that actually saves or gathers a million dollars, for example, to the county's benefit, and it's a legitimate brand new idea. To give that employee $2,000 is almost an insult. I think that we -- we also should -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Insult me, John. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: -- a mechanism that on special cases that could be brought back before the board for review and perhaps a little augmentation over the $2,000. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Where there's an extreme savings created because of innovative -- COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Yeah. Some special cases. MR. SHYKOWSKI: Again, the basis of award would be on a unit cost. Obviously if a library where they're circulating a million copies, whether or not they're going to be able to be achieve a million dollar savings in a two and a half million dollar operation is I guess unlikely. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I'm just saying for the future, in case something comes up, somebody comes up with some idea that legitimately saved a large amount of money, I think we should have a process in there where we could maybe up the reward for that particular person. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Give him a year off with pay. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Didn't you make a motion? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Yes, I did. I'll incorporate that into my motion if you'll accept it. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'll accept that as part of my second or third. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: If he withdraws the second, then you can second it. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Would you like to accept it? COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I can live without it. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll amend the second. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have an amendment to the motion, and the second accepts the amendment. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I can -- You know, Pam asked Steve Hart to write the article tomorrow, and I can see the headline now, county departments to buy color TVs for all employees, and $2,000 an insult so -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Is that all he got out of this discussion? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I don't know. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Of course not. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I see his head going. If there's no further discussion, I'll call the question. All those in favor please say aye. Opposed? There being no opposition, motion passes 5-0. MR. SHYKOWSKI: Thank you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We'll be looking at this at -- what -- each quarter? Is that what we were hearing? MR. DORRILL: Quarter with the performance awards to be done at the conclusion of the year with those departments that are successful. Item #9A REPORT TO THE BOARD RE ISSUES OF COUNTY INVESTHENT POLICY INCLUDING CONTROL OF INVESTMENT PORTFOLIO - PRESENTED CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Sounds good. Next item on the agenda is item 9(A) in conjunction with 5(B), a report to the board regarding issues of the county investment policy including control of the investment portfolio and accompanied by a recommendation to adopt the revised investment policy. 6(B). I'm sorry. Well, who wants to start? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: 9(A). CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: 9(A) in conjunction with 6(B). MR. WEIGEL: 9(A) is prepared to start. I didn't know if the clerk was, in fact, in presentation when it was continued, if there's any preference there. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I'm sure he'll be here very quickly. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: He is here. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Here is here. Okay. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That was quick. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: You want to talk to us about 9(A), and then we'll get back to 6(B). MR. WEIGEL: Okay. Thank you. A few weeks ago the board directed staff, and specifically the county attorney office, to look into two matters concerning the board's Collier County investment policy. One of the matters concerned the question or authority or ability for investments of Collier County funds, particularly surplus funds, to be either invested directly by the clerk which is the standard policy which has been in place since 1987 or if, in fact, the authority existed for investments to be directed by an outside investment manager pursuant to board direction directing the clerk to make those investments. A second directive from the board was to prepare a request for qualifications for an outside investment manager or firm to come back to the board for its review to review all of the terms and potential costs. But the issue actually has gone-- gotten a little larger than that because of the fact that there is 1995 legislation that the -- both the staff and the clerk have brought to the attention of the board, and that 1995 legislation specifically in the form of section two eighteen four fifteen did provide that county and local governments shall by October 1st of this year have in -- have on line a policy that provides certain protections or guidelines or standards, and if the policy of the county either is not adopted or there is no policy or if the current on line policy does not contain those provisions or standards, then there is a provision in the new '95 legislation that might be characterized as a default provision that does specify specific investment vehicles that may be utilized for the -- for the funds that are subject to be invested. As an aside, the clerk has previously stated to the board that he is the lawful custodian of the county funds pursuant to Florida Constitution, and that is the case. One of the issues we've been researching high and low, mainly high, is whether it is -- the clerk can be merely a custodian or if, in fact, the clerk has the -- may have the direction from someone other than the board directly advising him and directing him or her to make the purchases and sales. But in regard to the policy itself, the board has had brought before it staff's recommendation for revised policy and has now had brought before it a clerk's revised policy, and my -- my first comments are really in that regard. The board really has before it two or three options in regard to the policy. The current policy adopted in 1987 and in place today upon the legal review appears to be and have been a very good policy. In fact, it meets nearly all of the precepts and requirements of the 1995 legislation which by its own language was adopted pursuant to some of the tumultuous financial occasions in local governments across the nation. So the first alternative that the board may wish to contemplate is whether it wishes to revise its current investment policy, tweak it slightly as it were, that it may meet the requirements of the 1995 legislation and to do so by October 1st of 1995, or secondly, it may authorize and adopt another policy that is proffered before it. There, again, have been two policies placed before it through its board meetings, one proposed by staff a few weeks ago and the more recent proposal of the clerk. A thorough review of each of those is necessary to see that they -- that they are in align with the 1995 requirements. I believe the clerk has stated in its executive summary that his does conform to the 1995 legislative requirements. I believe the county staff is prepared to provide further information in regard to the proposed policy, the recent staff proposed policy and how it complies with the 1995 legislative requirements. I will note for the board that a policy or various policy proposals may vary significantly although each of them may comply absolutely with the 1995 legislative standards. I'll next address the question about potential authority for someone other than the clerk to make the investments themselves. The board has heard of the case of Alachua County v. Powers, 1977 Supreme Court case which, in fact, addressed several specific elements of clerk's jurisdiction and power. Particularly the case stated specific findings that -- and I quote -- the clerk has investment discretion of county funds except for those surplus funds directed by resolution of the board to be invested pursuant to their directions, closed quote. Well, that's, of course, what we have in place at the present time with our 1987 ordinance and resolution that adopted our 1987 purchasing policy, that the policy was provided by the clerk's office at that time, was adopted by the board, and it has continued thereafter with the clerk administering for making purchases and sales of the securities and other funds that may legally be invested and sold. Well, again, in all our research, we found that the law is not clear as to whether a private investment firm or financial counselor hired by the board may direct the clerk's investment of surplus funds. Such an outside advisor could indirectly influence the clerk by making proposals to the board which, in turn, may direct the clerk. It's arguable that an outside investment advisor may direct the clerk's investments without the board as an intermediary if the board passes an ordinance or resolution delegating such authority to an advisor chosen by the board. I stated that it is arguable. There is no case law, and there is no specific statutory provision that says that it can be done or that it cannot. If we look to counties around us, we know that -- have found that Leon County has had just such a proposition in place for about two years now since 1993 where they, in fact, used an RFQ or RFP process and went out and hired an outside investment manager who directs the sale and purchase of surplus funds investments by the clerk who -- or controller, who is a custodian of funds, and that is undisputed. Also Brevard County has in its investment policy a provision providing where it may go out for RFP for an investment advisor. My research to date has not indicated that they have done so, but evidently they have put in place within their policy the ability to do so. If the county were to take the tact of going forward to put in place an outside investment advisor to direct the clerk to make the purchase and sales of surplus funds and other allowable securities or funding -- funds that the clerk holds as custodian, it may be subject to lawsuit, and clearly if the board were to take such action, it would need to provide for it by ordinance, by resolution, and be as specific as possible in the parameters that it wish to outline for just this procedure, but it's untested in court, and the board will need to weigh the risks and opportunities that that may place before it, and part of those risks and opportunities may be found through a -- going forward with the information that can be obtained in the RFP or RFQ process to make the fiscal comparisons that would be necessary to compare the service that the clerk provides as opposed to service provided by an outside investment manager working with the board. I come to my conclusions based upon a review of essentially all of the relevant statutes, not withstanding specifically one twenty-five o one, the Collier County -- well, it applies to Collier County, but it's the -- it's the powers and duties statute for county commissioners generally wherein it states that the enumeration of powers shall not be deemed exclusive or restrictive but shall be deemed to incorporate all implied powers necessary or incident to carrying out such powers enumerated including specifically authority to enter into contractual obligations, and I would presume that the board would be entering into a contractual obligation with an outside investment manager pursuant to the purchasing policy that would have adopted to go forward with that kind of fiscal arrangement. That pretty much summarizes my research and my report to you. What I will state, that there is a distinction to be made between bringing the current policy or a new policy on line prior to October 1st, 1995, and the secondary consideration of going to an outside investment manager. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. Do you have questions? Commissioner Norris. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I'm just going to ask a procedural question. Are we going to act on this issue and not hear the clerk's proposal, or what are we -- How are you going to -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We had a motion this morning to continue item 6(B) until we heard item 9(A). So I -- It's my belief that we would be in the end either adopting or not adopting the investment policy proposed to us. And in light of what -- Mr. Weigel has given us the report on the issues regarding the policy and the control of the investment portfolio, we would either give direction on that or not give direction on that. I mean, it's our choice. COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. All right. So the issue of an outside -- the selection of an outside money manager is not time-critical. What we have time-critical is the adoption of or modification of our current policy or adoption of a new policy before October the 1st to be able to comply with the 1995 law. I think that's what we need to take care of today. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: That's what I was hearing, and the RFP that we were discussing three or four weeks ago for issuance that the clerk's office and our purchasing office was going to put together to distribute, I presume that should be near completion? MR. DORRILL: That is at completion. I have not seen the final copy, but I know that it has been worked through, and it is about to go on the street subject to any final changes that it has. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: So we don't really need to act on that today? MR. DORRILL: No, sir. I think we've got the direction to proceed on that. At some point, if you determine that's going to be an element of your policy, then you would have to make the final selection in the contract negotiations. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Weigel, it's my understanding that there are two areas in our current policy which need to be modified or even added to make it comply, and all the others would be in compliance; is that correct? Do you have that information? MR. WEIGEL: I believe that is correct. One is the bid requirement which is listed as item number 12 in the new legislation showing 14 standards to be adopted, and I believe the other is internal controls if I recall correctly. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Number three, performance measurement and appropriate performance standards. MR. WEIGEL: Yeah. Now, there are internal controls, but it's more a question of format as opposed to them not being in existence at the present time, is my understanding. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Does the policy propose that we -- we're listening to a proposal on this morning -- does that surpass the legislation that was passed? MR. WEIGEL: I'd like to think I'm more the legal man than the money man as far as that goes, but it is -- it is within the standards of the 1995 legislation. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Does it surpass them? Does it go beyond what the legislature -- MR. WEIGEL: I understand your word, does it surpass. I don't think that's perhaps a correct type of description if it surpasses. The standards are there generally, and then even our own policy that we've had since 1987 is very specific in regard to identification of investment vehicles and maturity dates for certain types of those vehicles, and that's where you may find a distinction from one policy to another. Another question may come up, is that by the omission of a statement within a proposed policy of investment vehicles that may be utilized, one may infer that those vehicles may not be purchased and arguably not even held if they're in the current portfolio, and the clerk may have some discussion in regard -- in regard to his proposed policy, and I think the same kind of underlying assumption goes with the county's proposed policy, that if it wants to provide special exceptions or address conditions that exist with the current investment portfolio, it should do so. It should be specific rather than unspecific. It should be clear rather than omit something in that regard. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I think what we're hearing is that we have an investment policy that has been in place since 1987, and as I've been saying for some time, it's probably time to update it, and it's also -- it's in need of a couple of modifications here quickly to bring it up to the 1995 legislation standards. So I don't know that we need to discuss that much further, so I'll make a motion that that's what we do. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: That we adopt the policy presented to us earlier today. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll second the motion. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: That we keep our existing policy, but we're to modify it to bring it up to the requirements of the 1995 legislation. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I guess that was my question earlier and wanting to know if this existing policy exceeds the requirements of the legislation, and I don't know whether it does or not because I haven't seen the legislation, and I too am not an investment person, and I'm not an attorney. So I'm looking for somebody to tell me if it -- Do we need to essentially throw out the '87 one and adopt something new or -- MR. WEIGEL: Well, I -- I have not stated that, and I have the legislation before me, and the type of items or standards that have to by legislative fiat appear in a purchasing or an investment policy are such things as bid requirement, internal controls, reporting, alternative investment guidelines. Those are the last few, but they're all kind of the standard things, third-party custodial agreements, authorized investment institutions, and so it really boils down to really the definition or degree of limitation that one puts under these particular 14 guidelines, standards that are in there. So I'm really not qualified to say that -- I'm -- to restate your word, if one is -- I've forgotten the word you used. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Exceed. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Exceed. MR. WEIGEL: Exceeding. It probably in no sense exceed. It's just that it can limit -- The policy itself can limit or expand on maturity dates of investments or the number of particular vehicles that -- that -- for federal -- federally backed investments as an example or Fannie Maes and maturity dates. These things can be articulated in the policy as either available for purchase within the realm of things, always applying the prudent man rule, or they may be specifically omitted or proscribed within the policy, and so I feel a little ill at ease to try to say that the proposal from the clerk exceeds the guidelines. It does not. But there certainly are policy alternatives that could weigh in on -- in one policy and not be in another policy which are choices that would need to be made by you, and I really think that rather than the attorney telling you those things, your investment staff would be the ones to point out some of those differences a little better than I could. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Norris has made a motion that we update our 1987 policy; is that correct? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Our existing policy. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: -- our existing policy and merely insert whatever new requirements have been enacted by the legislature. We do not yet have a second for that and I -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Yes, we do. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I seconded that. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Oh, I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I wanted to make sure though -- Dwight, that's essentially what you gave us this morning, or am I mistaken? MR. BROCK: No. That is not what I gave you this morning. That is a policy that presently does not meet the standards of the legislature. The legislature -- and I'm reading from the House of Representatives Committee on governmental operations bill analysis and economic impact -- has 14 criteria which has to be addressed in the policy in order to allow the local government to set the policy itself as opposed to reverting back to the standards that are set forth in the statute. The requirements are, one, establishing the scope of the funds to be covered by the plan; establishing investment objectives; establishing performance measures; establishing standards of prudence and ethical standards; a listing of authorized investments, including recommending restrictions on investments and derivatives and reverse -- repurchase agreements; establishing maturity and liquidity requirements to assure obligations will be paid when due; establishing a portfolio composition commensurate with the nature and the size of the funds to be invested; providing for diversification of the portfolio to control risk of loss due to overconcentration of assets in one maturity issuer, instrument, dealer, or bank; specifying authorized investment situations in dealers; providing for third-party custodial agreements which shall include provisions for protection of money and security transferred pursuant to purchase or sale -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Dwight, I have -- are you almost to the end of that list? MR. BROCK: Yes. There's four more. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. I apologize. MR. BROCK: I mean, if no one wants to hear them, I don't need to go through them. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, I just wanted to ask a question of Commissioner Norris, if -- Maybe I missed this while I was out of the room, but I thought that the proposal that Mr. Brock has given us in his staff report could be viewed as accomplishing the same goal that you stated. So if there's a reason to reject his proposal and accept yours, I just would like it to be articulated clearly for me. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: It -- It does accomplish, I assume -- and I don't know that even our legal department has verified that or -- or -- to their satisfaction, but the clerk has to his satisfaction that it does meet the legal requirement, but that -- that satisfies that concern, but there's more concerns, and that is the investment policy contained therein. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I understand, and so there's something. Is it the -- Is it the duration of investments that bothers you about his proposed policy? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: In my opinion, why I would rather modify ours and -- and -- and, frankly, it needs some more modification done in the future. In my opinion, and this is my opinion only at this point, the clerk's proposal is a bit too restrictive for the way we have operated in the past. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Is the clerk's proposal -- I don't know who would answer this question for me. Is it what came out of his investment committee which included our chair? MR. BROCK: Yes, Commissioner, it is, in fact. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm going to withdraw my second for the time being because I'm not clear on a couple of things. Mr. Brock, can you -- I've heard some of them here, but can you differentiate the basic differences, the basic -- What's different about where you want to go and where you want to go? MR. BROCK: Commissioner, to be quite honest with you, I am not aware of what particular policy they're referring to. My staff went to the county manager's office -- I think it was either late last week or early this week and asked them for a copy of the investment policy that they were proposing, and we were advised that they didn't have one. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Norris, maybe you can answer that question then. What are you suggesting is different? I know some of what they've suggested is a little more restrictive, but what specifically are you suggesting that is different from what the clerk has proposed? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: A lot of it has to do with maturity dates. The clerk's policy limits the maturity length of instruments much more than we have used in the past, I believe. There are some instruments that are excluded from use that we have used in the past. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Like the CHOs. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Right. That -- That are in widespread use throughout municipal and county governments. MR. BROCK: Hay I speak to the maturity date? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Just a moment. Commissioner Hancock has a question. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I was -- I was going to express -- as I read through the policy, that's the only thing that stood out to me as a substantially different limiting factor, and I don't tend to know a tremendous amount about securities and investments, and I won't go down that road except that I have learned enough in the past few months to know that the way the market swings on certain instruments, if something goes out to seven or eight years but could easily rebound or typically rebound to much less than that without -- you know, barring unforeseen circumstances and so forth -- I'm just a little concerned that if we're going to go to this restrictive element, that we ought to save the $78,000 we paid to our in-house person and just dump our money in the state and be done with it because if we're going to spend money for someone to enforce a policy that is terribly restrictive and limits further the county's ability to increase earnings on those tax dollars, if we're going to go to that level, then we might as well just throw our money in with the state and be done with it. So if we're going to go that route, let's just be honest about it and go all the way and save the $78,000 we pay Mr. Kannengeiser. MR. BROCK: Commissioner, you've said that twice, and I don't mean to cut you off, but I read that article in the newspaper. You know, I think the general public and you need to be aware that Mr. Kannengeiser's salary is not $78,000. I think it's $42,600. That's a long ways from $78,000. But as to the investment maturity date, the government financial officers association has prepared and put together a model of what they would suggest to local governments in maturity dates, and the maturity recommendation of the government financial officers association is as follows. Entities should limit their maximum final stated maturities to five years unless the specific authority is given to exceed. Now, the reason the policy is written as restrictive as it is, is in an attempt to provide you, the Board of County Commissioners, with the control of preventing speculation. If you invest in a security beyond five years, in the way that our investment portfolio is dealt with, because we do not know the specific days or years when we're going to need funds, what you are, in effect, doing, in my opinion, is you're speculating on what interest rates are going to be in the future. That may or may not be true. But if, in fact, we determine that a particular need is going to exist -- for instance, seven years down the road or ten years down the road, based upon the stated policy of the GFOA, we can come back to the Board of County Commissioners giving you that control and ask you for authority to invest in an instrument down the road for when we're going to need the monies. Under those circumstances we're not speculating because we know at the time we buy it what we're going to be earning. We're not having to guess at what interest rates are going to be in the future. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You read there that unless specific authority is given. Is that also included in your -- MR. BROCK: The only way we can change from the policy that is in existence or has been proposed to you is to come back to the board and ask for that permission in the future. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So the opportunity is there if something outstanding comes about. MR. BROCK: That is correct. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Do you have a follow-up? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah, I did real quick. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Sorry about that. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: The $78,000 came from you, Brock, when you said the cost associated in your office with handling the county's investment, and you can discuss that with Mr. Hart all you want, but that was your cost. I referred to Mr. Kannengeiser because he's the only staff member you mentioned as a part of that. I'm sure there are other costs associated with, but that number came from you, sir, not from me, and I don't think Steve made it up, but I just want that clarified. I didn't pull it out of the air. MR. BROCK: And that is the total cost of doing everything with investments that I undertake and -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I understand that completely. MR. BROCK: -- a lot of that will not go away under any circumstances because we still have to record those. We have to still allocate the funds and all of those activities. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I understand. I just wanted to clarify that I heard that here from you so I -- MR. BROCK: I understand, and I knew what you were talking about. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. MR. BROCK: But, I mean, the way it was written, you know, I was paying someone $80,000 which is not true. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: He could use one like that. Commissioner Mac'Kie. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: As much respect as I have for your opinion, Commissioner Norris, and I do, and I trust that you do mine on legal matters, but, like you say to me often, but he's our county attorney, and we're going to take his advice. In this case I feel like he's our chief financial officer, and I'm going to take his advice. And if a motion is appropriate since there is not a second -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion on the floor. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But how long does it stay on the floor without a second? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I'll call for a second in a moment, and if we don't get one, then the motion is dead. The second has been withdrawn. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. Yeah. Well, let me just make a comment. First of all, we have financial people on our staff outside of the clerk's office. We also have a paid outside financial advisor that we are supposed to take advice from. We -- Another issue here is that it should be the Board of County Commissioners that sets this policy and not the clerk of court's office. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And we are being asked to set it today. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: No. No. No. No. Well, we're being asked to adopt his policy. That's much different than us setting our own policy. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: COHMISSIONER NORRIS: CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: second? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: The chair was on the committee. We have a motion -- No comment. We have a motion. Is there a Do we have a recommendation from our financial advisor based on the clerk's policy? Has -- Has -- I mean, if we're paying a financial advisor out there -- and, again, like you, Commissioner Hac'Kie, you know, Commissioner Norris has experience in this area, but do we -- Has anyone reviewed this that has the financial background? MR. DORRILL: The gentleman is here from Mr. Samet's firm. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: You've got to come to the microphone. MR. DORRILL: You need to be on the record. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Because if our financial advisor says there are some things I'd like to work out in this, then, you know, we pay him to be our advisor just as we pay the county attorney. I, like you, am in uncharted waters so -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Samet. MR. SAMET: I've just confirmed with Arthur Ziev with whom I work. We have not been specifically asked to review any specific policies, either proposed or the existing one at this point. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: So as much as I entrust our chairperson, it would make sense to me that -- Our financial advisor hasn't looked at this. So, you know, does -- does it kill us to wait one week and get a report from our financial advisor on whether this ties the hands of the county in an unfavorable position? And if it doesn't, then we're back where we are, and everything is fine and dandy. If it does, then at least we have some professional advice on the matter coming from an independent source. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Constantine. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm leaning toward giving the clerk the benefit of the doubt on the policy. They deal with this day in and day out; however, I have to agree that it is certainly not going to do any damage to take seven days and let our financial advisor look it over and have some sort of conversation with the clerk and come back, and if there's something wildly wrong, then seven days from now we'll know that and if -- I'm going to assume there isn't, but I don't think there's any problem waiting another week, is there, Mr. Brock? And then we'll get this thing settled once and for all. MR. BROCK: Commissioner, I don't have a problem with that at all. I'm presenting the policy for your consideration. I think that's all I'm doing, and, you know, whatever time you need to take to make a determination about policy is your business, and I accept that. The concern and the only concern I have is on October 1 if we don't have a policy in place, we revert back to those statutory provisions which are extremely restrictive on how we can handle the money of this county. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, that -- a seven-day delay will keep us within that October 1 window. One thing I think is important to remember, Mr. Brock and us are on the same team here. We sound as though we're being adversarial. I think we're both trying to play for the same team. We certainly should be, and I think he's trying his best to fulfill his role. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: No question. We have the clerk saying one thing and the commissioners saying another, and I say let's get an independent advisor that we hire to advise us on this matter, and that way we're all on the same page. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Samet, is seven days a reasonable amount of time for you to review that and have whatever conversations you need to have with Mr. Brock to report back to us next Tuesday? MR. SAMET: The firm will certainly try to do that if asked. MR. ZIEV: If I might just interject, my name is Arthur Ziev. I'm also with Raymond James and Associates. I'm vice president of public finance, and I think what we can do for you in this instance is to compare the clerk's proposed policies and the existing policies and sort of spell out what the differences are and sort of just advise the effect of those differences. But as was stated, I mean, they're clearly policy issues. They're not something that I think that we would come forward and say this is the -- We're not going to tell you which policy to accept or to use, but just to explain the differences, pros and cons, and then you as the policymakers make that decision. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Just a question. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Mac'Kie. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Is this something we've already paid you to do, or are we going to have to pay you by the hour to do this? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Samet, you had a -- MR. SAMET: I'm sorry. We've not been paid. We've not been asked to do it, so we've not been paid. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: So are you going to charge us to do this? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Oh, sure. MR. SAMET: The only charges that we can do are those that the finance committee or the board authorizes. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: I just want this board to be sure they understand. It's not like with the county attorney who's on a salary who we've already paid. These guys work by the hour, and I'm sure they're going to charge us for however many hours they spend to come up with these charts to put the -- here's what that one says, here's what this one says, it's more restrictive in this category, it's less restrictive in this category. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm sure they are, but we're talking about the future of a $200 million portfolio. So I don't suppose a few hourly charges are going to knock us out here. COMHISSIONER NORRIS: And every -- Don't forget that every tenth of a percent that we lose by restricting our investment policy is $200,000. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll make a motion we continue the item for seven days and -- COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Second. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- give Mr. Samet direction to review and be prepared to have a presentation for us next week. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I have -- I have one question. Mr. Samet, you've been our financial advisor for a while, and you recently went to work with Raymond James in the last couple of years? MR. SAMET: Three years ago. Three years ago. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Three years ago. And transferred your contract to them. MR. SAMET: Yes. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Have you done investment advice work for Collier County before? MR. SAMET: Only with regard to investment of bond proceeds with a notion of maximizing permitted earnings. The review would be done by those investment professionals within the firm that work with investments, and we would work with them, but the point I think we're making is to give independent advice if so asked. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll alter my motion to reflect Mr. Samet's firm as opposed to Mr. Samet specifically himself. MR. SAMET: Thank you, sir. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Does the second accept the amendment? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Yes. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second to continue this item for seven days and to direct Mr. Samet's firm, Raymond James and Company, to review and compare the two policies. If there's no further discussion, I'll call the question. All in favor please say aye. All opposed? Motion passes 5-0. MR. BROCK: Is that -- Are you continuing both items? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We just continued the investment policy. The other is a report on control of the investment portfolio. We've received the report. I don't know if there was any direction to do anything different. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: At this point we didn't make direction on that. We just received the report. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We just received the report. MR. BROCK: You haven't heard Mr. Weigel's perspective, legal perspective. I have for you, if you are interested, the clerk's legal counsel to provide for you the rest of the story as Paul Harvey says. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: As Paul Harvey says. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: As much as I'd love to listen to two attorneys argue, I'm going to personally pass on this one. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm going to -- As long as today has gone, I'm going to still suggest we hear it. The whole issue came about in that there was a disagreement between what we thought we could do and what the clerk thought could be done, and it's probably appropriate if there is some disagreement, that we hear both sides of that. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I can guess that our attorney has told us we can and Mr. Pires tells us we can't. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, I would like to hear, and I bet it's a little more complicated than that. I bet that Mr. Pires could tell us rather succinctly -- is he in the room -- where -- yeah -- where you disagree with Mr. Weigel, and I would also like to hear that. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Key words there, Tony, "rather succinctly." CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Can we do it succinctly and quickly? Because -- MR. PIRES: I will try to do it succinctly. If I recall, last time I was able to do it succinctly -- I think last time. The time before that, maybe not so. For the record, Anthony Pires, Junior, the attorney for the clerk of the circuit court. Mr. Weigel correctly stated the law as to the clerk's function under the Florida Constitution in article five and article eight. The clerk is the custodian of all the county funds. That is clear and unequivocal. As to Alachua County versus Powers, that is a Seminole case in the State of Florida, a 1977 Florida Supreme Court opinion that has not been receded from, withdrawn from, or modified since that time, and it is the opinion that guides the activities in this function. We question -- severely question and severely disagreed with the concept as articulated by Mr. Weigel where he stated that arguably an outside investor or someone outside the clerk's office has or can be delegated the authority by the Board of County Commissioners to direct the clerk to provide and perform investment functions. The discretion of the clerk of the investments -- discretion of the clerk as to the investments to be made is solely that of the clerk unless the Board of County Commissioners by appropriate resolution designates the investment place of surplus funds, and that's stated in Alachua County versus Powers at pages 39 and page 33. The Alachua County situation began -- the Board of County Commissioners in that case delegated to the business services department the authority to negotiate with banks. The deposit -- determination of who should be the depository. It sounds familiar. The board delegated their employees a function of the clerk. The clerk was criticized by the grand jury. The clerk went to court. The clerk's authority was upheld by the trial court. The trial court's order was upheld by the Florida Supreme Court. So we believe the situation is articulated, and by delegating to an outside person or entity outside the clerk's office is inappropriate and illegal. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So may I just -- may I just but in here to say, we remain where we started which is we're doing this request for qualifications. Hopefully the clerk and the board will agree on how to respond to that, and if we don't, then we're going to have this disagreement between Mr. Weigel's opinion and your opinion about whether or not we could go over the clerk's head and require an outside advisor despite -- over his objection. MR. PIRES: Yeah. But, in summary, I believe that that would result in usurpation of the clerk's authority, constitutional and statutory functions, and I don't think that would be taken lightly by the clerk. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And although this is by no means a reflection of Mr. Brock, if the clerk decides one day to lock himself in his office and drive $200 million into the ground, you're telling us this board can do nothing? MR. PIRES: I believe asking questions that are hypothetical and probably not something that's going to be rationally taken into account by the clerk or performed by the clerk -- I don't think it's appropriate to even -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Drive $10 million into the ground. We don't like -- We don't like the way in which the money is being invested, or if it's being invested in a way we feel is improper, you're telling us we have absolutely no authority whatsoever to direct that investment? MR. PIRES: No, sir. By appropriate resolution, this board can direct the clerk to make investments. I believe that was articulated by Mr. Weigel, by Mr. Brock, but this board does not have the authority to delegate to one of its employees or delegate to an outside investment manager, that authority to say, you, Mr. Smith, you tell the clerk where to invest the monies on a daily basis, an hourly basis, or minute basis. If this board wants to come back each week and say we want to adopt a resolution telling the clerk where to invest those funds this week or next week, they have that authority. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Or to say we're unhappy with what you did with that $10 million. Stop it right now. We could pass that resolution. MR. PIRES: That's correct. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So if he gets in a room and starts throwing money out the window -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: This isn't aimed at Mr. Brock. I'm just trying to define this because what I hear you saying is we can hire an advisor to tell us how to do it, and we can tell the clerk. MR. PIRES: Correct. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: But we can't hire an advisor to tell the clerk. MR. PIRES: That's correct. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: MR. PIRES: Yes, sir. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: That's right. That's it. That's it. Welcome to the law. Does that complete -- Thank you very much. Thank you. Succinct. Okay. We have heard the clerk's position in this. We're going to have to take a break. The court reporter has to relieve -- She's got her relief here, so let's take a five-minute break. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Can I do this before we go? Can I ask, is there any consideration being given to this agenda since we're still on the morning's agenda at this point and it's 5:30? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yes. We won't be taking lunch. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Lunch is -- Lunch is over. Five minutes. Let's come back at 25 of. Thank you. (A short break was held.) Item #9B REPORT TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS RE COLLIER COUNTY UTILITIES RATE REGULATION AUTHORITY JURISDICTIONAL ISSUES, IMPLEMENTATION PROCEDURES - STAFF TO SET PUBLIC HEARING DATE TO CONSIDER RESOLUTION/ORDINANCE TO RESCIND PRIOR BCC ACTION AND REPLAN AUTHORITY RE RATE REGULATION CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Let's reconvene the Board of County Commission meeting for September the 12th, 1995. Next item on the agenda is a report to the board regarding utilities rate regulation authority. Mr. Weigel. MR. WEIGEL: Yes. I provided in the agenda a report concerning a Collier County utility rate regulation authority and implementation procedures if the board wished to go forward to retain jurisdiction over the utilities within Collier County. I'll keep it brief. I think the report speaks pretty well to itself in regard to the procedures that are required as well as some aspects affecting current utilities within the county, specific utilities. I'll just stand by to answer any questions you may have. MR. DORRILL: You have some speakers. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: How many? MR. DORRILL: I have four. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Four? Commissioner Constantine. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just a couple of brief comments. Both Marco Island and Golden Gate have suffered through rather large rate increases on water and sewer several times over the past few years. I understand what the county's intent was in 1985 when they gave up the authority to regulate the rates. Obviously it wasn't appropriate if at that time they were also pursuing purchasing all the utilities for them to be regulating rates. However, since it's clear we're not going to do that for the time being with either Marco Island or Golden Gate and it's equally clear that neither one of those has been getting appropriate response from the Public Service Commission and God bless the Public Service Commission, but you've got five appointed people that are making 90,000 bucks a year who are dealing with every water and sewer company in the state and telephone company and so on, and every utility in the state's rates go through them. So they certainly have their plate full. And while I'm sure their intentions are the very best, they may not always give the attention to Marco Island and Golden Gate that those communities deserve. I won't make a motion until we get the speakers, but my suggestion will be that we direct the county attorney to advertise a public hearing to consider taking back the regulatory authority and to have both resolution and ordinance as necessary to rescind the prior BCC action. And then I understand there's a couple different formats we can do that with. We don't need to get into that today. I think just the general direction is probably what we need to decide today. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I won't second that motion until after we hear from the public speakers, but -- but I wonder if on the public hearing we need to advertise that -- that part of the proposal may be to form a -- a local utility rate commission or authority of some sort. Do we need to put that in the advertising? MR. WEIGEL: Well, I think that's probably appropriate. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. MR. WEIGEL: Usually for advertising purposes the more information the better beyond surplus. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The one other thing I will likely include in the motion I won't be making yet is when any of these utilities apply for rate increase to the Public Service Commission, there is a certain cost associated similar to when cable companies apply with us. It's my belief we're going to be able to do that a lot cheaper locally. But I've talked to Mr. Dotrill about it. We may most likely bring in an outside source. We don't have anybody on staff who can necessarily take the time and effort to do that. In time for that public hearing, we're going to need the information as far as what those costs would be and how those would be borne and so on. MR. WEIGEL: Commissioner, please note in Exhibit B as part of the agenda package which appears on page 5 are some notes that -- footnotes that carry over from the memo itself. One is that for those utilities which have been determined jurisdictionally to be -- to transverse county lines, be multi-county, there would appear to be a legal inability to reacquire jurisdiction over them for rate making and all other purposes. We -- there currently is a case on appeal at the present time from a determination of Public Service Commission that SSU is that type of utility. So if the board were to adopt the appropriate measures to retain jurisdiction, arguably it would be in conflict with the determination of Public Service Commission regarding SSU at the present time. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: So we might have to fight for the right to have Marco Island control? MR. WEIGEL: No. Well, you might fight for the right. But the fact is that there's a state jurisdictional entity that's claiming that it has the right, and it is so determined in its own procedures which are under appeal right now by several counties that feel affected in the wrong way for them. But it's in appeal, and the -- there's no way to say that the -- that the counties will necessarily prevail. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So we may not have control pending the outcome of that appeal. If the appeal comes in our favor, then we would be able to regain control. MR. WEIGEL: That's true. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: That's right. MR. WEIGEL: And I can't predict when the appeal decision will come down. But if the appeal decision came down and affirmed the jurisdictional finding of the Public Service Commission, no matter what the county did, it would not obtain jurisdiction over those utilities. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Based on the -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Com -- Commissioner Hancock. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I can't speak to how the Court legally will act, but based on the information I've received through the Florida Association of -- Association of Counties which is closely monitoring this and has, in fact, become a part of the process of the appeal, if the Court should decide to -- decide to use any form of logic, it -- it will be overturned because the interpretation for it -- for a utility extending from one county to another was -- was so liberal that if you had a -- if you set up a station in one county that tested the water from another county, you were connected because a truck went back and forth. That's how liberal the opinion is. So I hold out strong hopes that the Court will -- will decide in the favor of the appeal. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Well, I was hearing information even to the liberality of it that SSU, for instance, does its billing from somewhere in the central part of the state. And merely because they mail a bill from wherever it is to Marco Island, they're connected so -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: It wasn't limited to hard transmission lines is -- is the basis of the opinion the PSC rendered, so I think hopefully that's arguable. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I -- I just like your comment about relating law and logic. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Just in case the two should cross. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Bottom feeder. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: No offense to the attorneys. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Stop. MR. DORRILL: Speakers. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Speakers. MR. DORRILL: I'm not sure the first one is still here. Mr. Carsillo. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Gone. MR. DORRILL: Tracy Smith. Mr. Smith and then those Biles. MR. SMITH: Thank you. Good afternoon, Commissioners. My name is Tracy Smith. I'm with Southern States Utilities. My purpose here today is, of course, on this issue, and I did want to state that we agree with the staff evaluation of the -- of the current situation that, in fact, if you did take jurisdiction, it would not impact SSU. That -- that proceeding that recognize that we are very much like any other statewide utility in that we provide functionally related services across county lines was an ll-day process up in Tallahassee. It is under appeal. I agree with that. The second thing I would -- I would also mention is that a second law that comes into play here, our current filing with the Public Service Commission, that would not have any impact on whatever action you take here. That stays with the commission. Okay? I would also like to mention that we certainly acknowledge that our customers are impacted by the rate decisions that we have to make. The Public Service Commission in reviewing our filings, they have to meet the test that the cost that -- that we are proposing on customers reflects the cost of service. The county would have to take that same basis to determine any rates that we would set. Again, I will tell you that we are here for any questions if you have any afterwards. Okay? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. MR. SMITH: Thank you. MR. DORRILL: Those Biles and then Kjell Pettersen. MS. BILES: Yeah. Can I split mine to two minutes and three minutes because Kjell really has a very important appointment? I'd rather have Kjell speak first if that's all right. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: That's all right. MS. BILES: And then I'll come up be -- that will give you a chance to -- MR. DORRILL: Mr. Pettersen. MR. PETTERSEN: Thank you and good afternoon. My name is Kjell Pettersen, and I'm here as chairman of a concerned citizens group from Marco Island who opposes the steep rate increase sought by Southern State Utilities. My committee is made up of the presidents of Marco Island Taxpayers' Association, Marco Island Civic Association, Marco Island Condominium Association, Marco Island Condo Managers' Association, Marco Island Board of Realtors, Marco Island Chamber of Commerce, and a number of the most prominent community leaders on Marco Island who have asked me to -- to chair their committee. We represent we believe approximately 85 percent of Marco Island residents. The rate increase sought by SSU is unconscionable, and it's a further part of a pattern we saw most recently on Marco Island -- in Marco Island from SSU in 1992 and in Golden Gate from Florida City Water in 1993. After careful consideration, we believe that the only answer to this continuing problem is for Collier County to take regulatory jurisdiction over water utility rates. Without county jurisdiction, SSU and Florida City Water will undoubtedly continue to prevail in Public Service Commission. By its actions, SSU and Florida City Water is economically strangling our fellow Collier County residents. People on fixed incomes, young families, and those struggling to make a livelihood are severely hurt by the massive and unjustified increases by SSU and Florida City Water Company. Unfortunately, SSU and Florida does -- City Water Company have a history of seeking unjustifiable rate increases. In 1993 SSU received a huge increase effective -- effectively doubling average sewer and water bills both for Marco Island residents and for customers of the county system that purchases water and the waste water on the bulk sale arrangement. SSU is subjecting Marco Island to the highest 10 percent of all systems in Florida and likely among the highest in the United States. Golden Gate has the same problem, same experience. The average homeowner in Golden Gate in 1990 paid $360 per year for water and sewer -- water and sewer, waste water service. Today it's approaching $1,000. SSU has continually sought to increase rates by overstating its costs and understating its revenue. It is also using a bundling device in its application to increase its rates without justification. The net result is that Marco Island will be subsidizing residents of other counties to the tune of more than one million dollars a year. Rather than going through every number, let me just summarize the situation briefly. In its current application, SSU bundles Marco Island with a place called Burnt Store. They decided that Burnt Store should not pay its proper share, so they cut the requested Burnt Store rate and increased Marco Island's requested rate by $350,000. Marco Island should not be subsidizing Burnt Store. Waste water is an equally sad story. Marco Island is served by three sewer companies, a small one in Old Marco, SSU, and Collier County utilities. Collier County utilities sends its waste water to SSU waste water plant at a hefty price. In the past four years SSU has increased its sewer rates to Collier County utilities by 98 percent and is now seeking another increase. For waste water purposes Marco Island is not bundled with Burnt Store. It is thrown in with the rest of the state. To pay its own way Marco Island should furnish revenues of 3.6 million dollars a year. However, SSU demands that Marco Island furnishes another $870,000 to subsidize other non-Collier County communities. This is wrong. Obviously Marco Island should pay its own way, but there's no justification for us to subsidize almost -- for a subsidy of almost one and a half million dollars a year. The subsidy which is requested from the appointed officials of Public Service Commission is fully 23.9 percent more than they're legally required to support Marco Island's own costs. SSU is owned by Topeka Group which is wholly owned by Minnesota Power, a cot -- corporation based in Minnesota. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Go ahead and try to finish up. Try to finish up. MR. PETTERSEN: Okay. I'm going to -- can I finish up? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Sure. MS. BILES: And I'll finish the rest, Kjell. MR. PETTERSEN: In 1994 the shareholders of Minnesota Power earned 48 cents a share with 13 and a half million dollars from its water utility operation. This represents 23 percent to Minnesota Power's total earnings per share of 58 million dollars. Now Marco Island is faced with an out-of-state corporation seeking to increase its profits beyond a reasonable rate of return. Without county regulatory scrutiny of its rate increase application, SSU will undoubtedly prevail. It will not have the -- to answer for its inefficiency or waste. It will not have to justify its current operation. It will not have to explain its future plans. It will continue to simply service a profit center for the shareholders of Minnesota Power. And Marco Island will continue to serve as its money cow. The SSU steam roller must be stopped. Now, the question on the -- on the transfers, there is no continuity. Marco Island -- there's no continuity with other counties. And what they're talking about is Hernando County. In the 10 K report filed with the Security Exchange Commission in Washington for the -- for the year -- calendar year ending December 31, 1994, Minnesota Power stated that in April 1994 Hernando County board of commissioners passed a resolution to take over and take back the regulatory jurisdiction from the Public Service Commission. Couple of months later the Public Service Commission acknowledged that and sent the jurisdiction to them. SSU has appealed that, and that is still pending. Thank you very much for your time. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Pettersen. I'm '- I'm glad you -- you were able to wrap it up when you did. It's a very important issue, so I don't want to -- didn't want to interrupt you. Commissioner Hancock. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Just quickly, Mr. Gaston, I'm going to be attending a board of directors' meeting for the Florida Association -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: It's Pettersen. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Pettersen, I'm sorry -- for the Florida Association of Counties in October. Would you forward a copy of your notes to my office, please? MR. PETTERSEN: Yes. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Thank you. MR. DORRILL: And those Biles. MS. BILES: Fay Biles for the record, and I'm president of the Marco Island Taxpayers' Association. Most of my comments -- all of us got together and put together what Kjell has just given you. His whole world has been financial world. He's marvelous with financial records. He can go right down through the record and pick out all kinds of things. Some of the things that we intended to do was go back to Minnesota Power and Light and find out -- get all their reports and find out how much profit are they making from Marco Island and Golden -- well, Golden Gate is Florida City Waters. We also found out that they brag in their annual report that they're making a lot of money from Florida utility companies. When we tried to find out how much profit, that became a different matter. We do know, for example, that they tell us, well, they're -- they -- they're expensive. They've had to buy a lot of resources. They've had to put money into more resources. What -- what troubled us a little bit was the -- that -- the fact that they ended up paying eight million dollars for the Collier pits. Eight million dollars. Now, I think that's exorbitant. We were -- we thought four million was a lot when we heard that, and it ended up eight million. So we're wondering, you know, where is this profit, loss? How much profit can you make? We know that the PSC says they can make 12.5 percent profit. And I think that's legitimate, and they have to make a profit, of course. But we hate to see all of this money kind of as -- I feel that it's -- I think HITA feels that it's our water and yet all the profit's gone up to Minnesota. And it's kind of going out of state. But the committee has met around the clock literally. We have been meeting night and day many, many times, hours of the week to put together what Kjell has given you. And we'll be happy to give those notes to you, Commissioner Hancock. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Please do. MS. BILES: But we feel very strongly that both Golden Gate and Marco Island going together should have something to say about what's happening to us. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. MR. DORRILL: That's all. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: That's all the speakers? Commissioner Constantine. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You know, at the beginning of every calendar year I put together seven or eight or ten goals for the year. And among my top priorities for 1995 -- this -- this is being the first year we had the ability to take this back legally -- was to take back the regulatory authority. A couple of the statistics cited are very accurate. It's nearly 170 percent increase in the water, sewer package in the Golden Gate area in the last 5 years. And -- and when you start talking about people who are living on a fixed income and in -- in limited homes, 70,000, $80,000 homes, and that's a lot of money. When you're talking $360 versus nearly $1,000, it's a lot of money. And so without further ado, we've still got a lot of agenda left here. I'll make a motion that we set a date, we -- we direct our county attorney and county manager to set a date for a public hearing to consider a resolution and/or ordinance as necessary to rescind prior Board of County Commissioners action and reclaim the authority over rate regulation as legally possible. I'd suggest the framework for that -- and this will be open to debate the day of the hearing -- but is that we have a panel, expert panel of some sort, who will actually hear those rate hearings both from the public and from the utility and then we put an appeal process perhaps to this board but an appeal process into that. But those hearings can go three, four days and more. So obviously it's not workable to have the initial hearings in front of this board. But also -- also part of my motion, I would direct the manager to provide an outline of expense and the -- and review what we can expect as part of this process and contrast that with the expense currently undertaken by the petitioner or the utility when they go to the Public Service Commission. MR. DORRILL: In terms of -- COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Second. MR. DORRILL: -- a filing fee? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Correct. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Isn't there also a 4 percent franchise fee that's involved with the PSC -- COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I'm not sure. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: -- and the higher the rates, the more money they receive, so it behooves them to raise the rates? Commissioner -- Commissioner Hancock. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Point of information, I'm going to support the motion, but there's one thing that I would like to ask Mr. Weigel. One of the main reasons that we see rate increases based on going through the PSC of the magnitude we see is because they're allowed to subsidize poor operations elsewhere in the state with the revenue producers that may be local. If -- unless that is changed by our taking it back over, if they are still continued to allow or be allowed to subsidize other operations, whether the county controls it or the PSC, that to me is a critical element in our review. So I -- I -- I'm going to support the motion. But unless the legal action supports that the county itself can force upon a local provider that draws from this county and provides to this county that they have to contain their costs within and not subsidize other operations, we may be spinning our wheels so -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Right -- right now that is accurate for Southern States. It's not the case of Florida Cities. They -- they -- their rates currently are solely based on the Golden Gate operation. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. That was just a point of information and -- MR. WEIGEL: Yeah. And the distinction is it's provided statutorily that if there's a determination that a utility trans -- transverses county lines, ipso facto PSC has exclusive jurisdiction. So it's through this hearing -- well, not hearing process, appeal process, litigation process, the PSC has -- has come and made that determination which is under appeal right now. Incidently, Collier County is part of that appeal against the status quo obviously of the early determination. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Thank you, Mr. Weigel. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second. Is there further discussion? All those in favor please say aye. Opposed? Motion passes 5 to 0. MS. BILES: Thank you. Item #9C AUTHORIZATION FOR THE CHAIRMAN TO TRAVEL TO TAMPA, FL AND PARTICIPATE IN THE MEDIATION CONFERENCE FOR THE LITIGATION CASE OF GREAT MONUMENT CONSTRUCTION CO., V. BOARD OF COUNTY COHMISSIONERS FOR COLLIER COUNTY, CASE NO. 94-2928-CA-01-TB - APPROVED CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Next item on the agenda is 9-C. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Madam Chairman, if you'd give the particulars, I'll make the motion. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: The particulars are -- COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: For her to go to Tampa. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah. We're having a mediation conference with Great Monument Construction in Tampa this coming Friday, and Mike Necterline (phonetic) has invited me to attend that. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I will move approval of the associated expenses of the chairman going to Tampa for the Great Monument mediation hearing on -- what's the date? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: what it is? COMHISSIONER NORRIS: COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Friday. On Friday, September 167 I guess it's the 16th. Is that 15th. 15th, Friday, September 15. Second. COHHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm going to vote in favor of it. Can I ask a quick question? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Are you driving or flying? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Driving, yeah. $79.50. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Good question. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: If there's no further discussion, I'll call the question. All those in favor please say aye. Opposed? There being none, motion passes five to zero. That was a quickie. Item #10A RESOLUTION 95-521 APPOINTING ROSE ALBERTER AND REAPPOINTING DIANE GONZALEZ TO THE HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGICAL PRESERVATION BOARD - ADOPTED Next one is item 10-A, appointment of members to the Historical Archaeological Preservation Board. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Comment on this. One reappointment on here I have no disagreement with. I take a little concern that the recommendation is that the board direct staff to readvertise when we have two other people who apparently -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: This is the historical? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. I'm sorry. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- two other people who are apparently qualified. What we have tried to make a habit of doing is if people are eligible and qualified, we don't simply turn them down and say, we hope to get somebody better. We have made a habit of selecting from the pool we have. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: people has a degree in -- COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Not to mention one of these A degree. -- historical something or other. Preservation. So unless -- unless Mr. Bellows can offer some insight as to -- is there some reason that a recommendation couldn't be made of -- of one of these two individuals, or is there -- I'm just curious because one person has a degree in -- in the field. And although the experience may not be as relevant, she seems to be more qualified than most people that would sit on the committee. MR. BELLOWS: Yeah, I had a discussion with Art Lee, the chairman of the preservation board, and he determined that he was looking for practical working experience in public boards, and I think that was his reason. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'd like to move that we appoint Rose Alberter who's the person with the historic preservation degree in the citizen at large and Diane Gonzalez as a reappointment within the law category. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll second the motion. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second to appoint Rose Alberter and Diane Gonzalez, reappointment to the Historical Archaeological Preservation Board. Is there further discussion? All those in favor please say aye. Opposed? Motion passes 5 to 0. MS. FILSON: Thank you. Item #10B DISCUSSION RE APPOINTHENTS TO ADVISORY BOARDS - STAFF TO ADVERTISE FOR THREE SEATS ON THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COHMISSION CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Next item is item 10-B which is an add-on. Commissioner Constantine. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I had added that on. It's come to my attention by a couple of rather spirited phone calls that we have a technical flaw in our ad procedure for the planning commission seats. I was just going to suggest we might want to readvertise that to -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I had a similar phone call. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- alleviate any concerns. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah. I -- I don't see a problem with that. I had a similar phone call. What was it, Hiss Filson? It showed up in the paper on Friday, and they were due Monday? MS. FILSON: It was on the paper -- it was in the paper on Thursday. The deadline was on Friday. Hay I ask a question? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We actually -- we actually issued -- we didn't actually issue the thing until right up against the deadline. I'd just -- I'd make a motion that we just readvertise for that. We have three -- COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Three. MS. FILSON: Three. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- planning commission seats? MS. FILSON: Yes. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And -- and my -- it's not up for -- they weren't due for a couple of weeks anyway. But I know those expire October 1. So I thought if we could do that now instead of two weeks from now, maybe we can still come close to having them seated. MS. FILSON: You want me to advertise -- you want me to send a press release out with a deadline for two weeks? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just as long as there's ample time. I think we ended up pretty short before. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'll second the motion. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second. I just want to comment in defense of Miss Filson who handles this, the press release was prepared in ample time. It simply did not get in the paper in time. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah. It's not your fault, Sue. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: That's acceptable. We all know Hiss Filson would never make a mistake. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: She's perfect. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Well, she -- she more than -- she prepared it in more than ample time. But for one reason or another, it didn't get published. I'm going to call the question. All those in favor please say aye. Opposed? Motion passes 5 to 0. Item #12B1 ORDINANCE 95-47, RE PETITION PUD-95-4, HICHAEL R. FERNANDEZ, AICP, OF AGNOLI, BARBER & BRUNDAGE, INC. REPRESENTING PIPER BOULEVARD MEDICAL OFFIC CENTER INVESTORS, FOR A REZONE FROM RHF-16 TO PUD FOR PROPERTY LOCATED IHMEDIATELY EAST OF CYPRESS WAY EAST AND NORTH OF IHMOKALEE ROAD - ADOPTED COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: COHMISSIONER NORRIS: COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Wow, yeah. We're at pub -- at the public comment. public commenters? MR. DORRILL: No, ma'am. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. real quick. We're to the afternoon. We're down to lunch break, yeah. Okay. Lunch break. ll-A was withdrawn. Mr. Dotrill, do we have any I wanted to say that Item 12-B-l, petition PUD-95-4, Hichael Fernandez of Agnoli, Barber, and Brundage. Mr. Nino. MR. NINO: Ron -- Ron Nino, your current planning staff. Petition PUD-95-4 is a rezoning request to change a parcel of property fronting on Immokalee Road -- actually the Immokalee canal adjacent to the Palm River development that is currently zoned RHF-16. And this would have -- yes, Commissioner. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Nino, how many residential units would be deleted under this proposal? MR. NINO: 16 times 2.4, two and a half. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Thirty-six. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Have you -- have you had any letters of objection? MR. NINO: No letters of objection to this petition. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Have you had any letters of support from the surrounding community? MR. NINO: No letters of support, none. No communication for -- COHMISSIONER NORRIS: All right. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Any letters taking no opinion? MR. NINO: No. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Any strong no opinions out there? MR. NINO: No opinions. Let me say that the staff review indicates that the petition is entirely consistent with all elements of the Growth Management Plan. The -- one of the -- one of the benefits that will accrue to the county if this petition is approved is that the petitioner has agreed to convey 45 feet of right-of-way for the extension of Piper Boulevard from the westernmost to the easternmost part of this property -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: That's what we needed to hear, Ron. MR. NINO: -- at a price that they are paying for the property and to lease an additional 15 feet of right-of-way for $10. Planning commission -- COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Are there registered speakers on this, Mr. Dotrill? MR. NINO: Planning commission heard this petition and unanimously recommended its approval. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We read that. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah, we read that. Mr. Fernandez, do you have anything that you need to get on the record before we close the public hearing? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Nino, we're in the two-minute offense. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Minute by minute. MR. FERNANDEZ: No. We're fine. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Public speakers, Mr. Dorrill? MR. DORRILL: No, ma'am. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Move approval. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Close the public hearing. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second to approve PUD-95-4. All in favor please say aye. Opposed? Motion passes 5 to 0. Item #12C1 ORDINANCE 95-48, AMENDING ORDINANCE 88-87 TO CORRECT A SCRIVENER'S ERROR ON THE OFFICIAL ZONING ATLAS MAP NUMBER 9618N RE THE PINE RIDGE CENTER WEST PUD, LOCATED WEST OF 1-75 ON PINE RIDGE ROAD - ADOPTED Next item on the agenda is petition R-95-5, Dennis Portella representing Immokalee Habitat for Humanity. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's continued. MR. DORRILL: It's previously been continued to the 24th. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Oh, I'm sorry. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We're to the scrivener's error. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Item 12-C-1, an ordinance amending ordinance 88-87, correcting a scrivener's error. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Madam Chairman, if this is merely correcting a scrivener's error, if you want to close the public hearing, I'll be happy to make a motion to approve it. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: error? MR. REISCHL: Exactly. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Is there a motion? And I'll second it. It is merely fixing a scrivener's I'll close the public hearing. COHHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll make a motion to approve the item. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Second. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second to approve an amendment to ordinance 88-87. No further discussion? In all in favor please say aye. Opposed? Motion passes 5 to 0. Item #12C2 PETITION SNR-95-2, A RESOLUTION RENAMING A PORTION OF THE FORMER ALIGNMENT OF LOGAN BOULEVARD TO "LOGAN COURT", LOCATED OFF GREEN BOULEVARD, AND EAST OF SANTA BARBARA BOULEVARD - CONTINUED UNTIL AFTER READVERTISING Next item on the agenda -- MR. REISCHL: Just a note before you get to that, the reason that the next item was continued was not to shorten the agenda today. It was because the Daily News informed us that this item inadvertently did not make the advertising. So it has not been advertised. MR. DORRILL: We were -- we were advised of that after the start of the meeting. MR. REISCHL: Right. MR. DORRILL: So the petition with respect to Logan Court will need to be continued because -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: It needs to be continued now? MR. DORRILL: It was submitted on time and was not properly advertised. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Madam Chairman, motion to continue item 12-C-2 to the first available meeting after proper advertising. COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Second. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a -- COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second to continue petition SNR-95-2 to the first available meeting after proper advertising. All those in favor please say aye. Opposed? There being none, motion passes five to zero. Item #12C4 BUDGET AMENDMENT RESOLUTION 95-9, APPROVING AMENDMENTS TO THE FISCAL YEAR 1994-95 ADOPTED BUDGET - ADOPTED Next item on the agenda is -- let's see, 3's continued. -- 4, recommendation to adopt a resolution approving amendments to fiscal year '94, '95 adopted budget. Mr. Smykowski. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Good evening. For the record, Michael Smykowski, acting budget director. This is a public hearing to amend the '95 budget. Each of the 67 items that are included in the back-up have been approved by separate executive summary by the board. This is -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Madam Chairman, since these have all been previously approved by the board, if you'd be so kind as to close the public hearing, I'd be happy -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Speakers? Close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- to make a motion that we approve the item. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second to approve a resolution approving budget amendments for '94, '95. All those in favor please say aye. Opposed? Motion passes 5 to 0. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Thank you. Item #12C5 RESOLUTION 95-522, RE PETITION AV-95-005, JACK NOLD AS AGENT FOR OWNER, EAGLE CREEK PROPERTIES, INC., REQUESTING VACATION OF THE DRAINAGE EASEMENT LOCATED ON TRACT A, OF THE PLAT OF EAGLE CREEK COUNTRY CLUB - ADOPTED CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Next item's petition AV-95-005, Jack Nold as agent for the owner of Eagle Creek Properties. MR. HULLER: Hi. For the record, Russ Mullet with transportation services. Item 12-C-5 is a public hearing to consider vacation of a drainage easement. We're getting one back. How much do you want to hear? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Is this a swap? This is one of the swaps? MR. HULLER: Yeah. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's almost too much, Russ. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Speakers? MR. DORRILL: No, ma'am. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I'll close the public hearing. COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Motion to approve. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Motion and a second to approve petition AV-95-005. All those in favor please say aye. Opposed? Motion passes five to zero. Item #12C6 RESOLUTION 95-523, RE PETITION AV-95-004, TO VACATE A PORTION OF A 60 FOOT ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY KNOWN AS BAILEY LANE - ADOPTED; CLERK TO ADVERTISE NOTICE OF ADOPTION WITHIN 30 DAYS UPON RECEIPT OF TRANSPORTATION SERVICES OF PROOF OF COMPLIANCE FROM THE CITY Petition AV-95-004, to vacate a portion of a 60-foot road right-of-way known as Bailey Lane. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Uh-oh. MR. HULLER: Yes. This item I need to get something on the record. We need to have the direction of the clerk to advertise the adoption of the resolution within 30 days and record the resolution, proof of publication of notice of public hearing, and proof of publication and notice of adoption. That's upon receipt by -- from transportation services of proof of compliance with a stipulation made by the city, and that is -- is in the works. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What's going on here? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Question -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm about to probably -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: -- Commissioner Hancock. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm about to probably ask a question that will figure that out. This property's at the existing terminus of Bailey Lane; is that correct? MR. HULLER: Yes, sir. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Do any properties gain access from this roadway other than a single unified piece that -- that is on both sides and the end of the road? MR. DUANE: No, they do not, Commissioner. For the record, Robert Duane. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: So by vacating this easement, we're not affecting anyone other than the one property owner that's requesting it. MR. HULLER: I don't believe they're a property owner yet, but it's under contract. They will be the property owners, and it will affect no one's convenient access. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: So someone is consolidating more than one piece of property here? MR. DUANE: Yeah, you just re -- reviewed the zoning petition within the last few months. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. And this -- okay. I -- I remember this. Does that answer your question, Commissioner Constantine? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah, thank you very much. MR. DUANE: There is one other add-on I need to call to your attention. There's a requirement that the cul-de-sac be constructed prior to the recordation of the easement. Development services and I have agreed to some alternate language that we will make that a condition of the plat, and it will be constructed when we commence the improvements on the subdivision. There's no disagreement between staff and I on that. And there's no cul-de-sac there today. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah, it just dead ends, and people have created a T turnaround by themselves if I'm not mistaken. MR. DUANE: Exactly. Thank you. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Is this a public hearing? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yes, it is. Do we have speakers, Mr. Dotrill? MR. DORRILL: We have none. I have one question of staff. Is this in any way adjacent to the drainage easement that would be the west -- western terminus of Bailey Lane for access to what I would call the Gordon River canal? Would -- would we at some point -- would we ever need access to that section of that ditch or canal that runs north and south and is perpendicular to Bailey Lane? MR. HULLER: We received a letter of no objection from storm water management so -- MR. DUANE: We discharge into that canal, Mr. Manager, and we have a surface water permit from the district. MR. DORRILL: If there's a letter of no objection from the water management department, then that resolves the concern that I have. There are no other speakers. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Is there such a letter, Mr. Huller, of no objection? MR. HULLER: Right. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Have we received any letters of objection or any letters of any kind on this item? MR. HULLER: We've received letters of no objection from all pertinent utility companies, storm water management, utilities, planning, sheriff, FPL, UTS. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Any letters of objection? COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Objection is what he said. MR. HULLER: Yes. Objection came from Tom Kuck who's with project review. And he's addressed that stipulation and objection from the city of Naples subject to an agreement and approval of their -- of their plan which is -- is what we're holding up the recording of the resolution until that is -- is received. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Which is the language Mr. Duane referred to. MR. HULLER: Right. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: How does that affect what we're doing then today? I'm -- I'm -- I'm confused. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We're approving the petition subject to that? Is that what you're suggesting? MR. HULLER: Right, right. We will -- we will not record the resolution until such time as we receive the letter from -- from the city of Naples saying they approve the plans. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And presently what the letter from the city says is that the city presently operates a water main and low pressure force main within the right-of-way proposed for vacation and is reluctant to give up operational rights until an alternate solution and agreement has been reached. MR. DORRILL: By virtue of the fact that this is in the city's water franchise service area. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Right. So since this is subject to the ability to reach that agreement -- MR. DUANE: Commissioner, they're reviewing our -- our subdivision plat. They're a signature. They have to sign the plat, so -- and the plat's going to be before you within the next month or so. Thank you. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: It's a little backwards. It makes sense, so I'll -- if you'll close the public hearing -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Are there -- are there speakers, Mr. Dotrill? MR. DORRILL: No, ma'am. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I'll close the public hearing. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'll move approval. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Second. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Who can jump in first? We have a motion and a second to approve AV-95-004. All those in favor please say aye. Opposed? There being none, motion passes 5 to 0. Item #12C7 ORDINANCE 95-49 AMENDING COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE 93-72, ADOPTING THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION LAW OF 1974 - ADOPTED Item 12 -- is it C? I've lost track. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: 12-C-7. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: -- 12-C-7, an ordinance amending Collier County ordinance number 93-72, providing violation definition and sanctions for the board and its members. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You know, we're cruising along so nicely here, I hate to -- hate to get off track, but I actually have some questions on this. We -- over on page -- agenda item page 5 where the changes are -- and I'm reading up above where it says that it's still included -- it is included in the current even without any changes. It says the Board of County Commissioners and its members shall deal with the administrative services solely through the county administrator. And then the part we're adding in is that we'll be penalized by money, jail time, and possibly death. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Where appropriate. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: My only concern is -- is who's making the call, who's making the charge when you have that kind of penalty? Who charges Commission Gus, you've done this, who's done that because I use the Lely Barefoot Beach item, for example? Commissioner Hancock has tried, I've tried to come up with some alternatives, some ways to do that. That's not a policy item. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Uh-huh. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: But that's just trying to do good business on behalf of our constituents. And to sit down with constituents and sit down with county attorney staff and to sit down with park staff and sit down with transportation and anybody who's involved in that particular thing is not in a literal sense dealing strictly or solely through the county administrator, yet I don't think it's interfering. We're not telling -- telling anybody what to do. And I'm just a little concerned, does this end up causing more trouble than it's worth in the long run? COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Mr. Weigel -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I understand the intent. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah. Our ordinances are -- how would this ordinance be enforced I think is basically the question? MR. WEIGEL: Okay. Well, it'd be enforced by someone bringing an information to -- to the state attorney's office as one example. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: State attorney would have to agree to bring a charge. MR. WEIGEL: That's correct. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So I think that that's a sufficient safeguard that we don't have to worry about somebody just saying, I didn't like how you talked to him. I mean, the state attorney doesn't lightly decide to bring charges. MR. WEIGEL: No. This is identical language to what was in the prior county manager ordinance and was directed to be brought back in, in essence more of a -- kind of a public sign post that there is a law on the books and that the commission and everyone is aware of what the intent of it is. And there's never been a criminal penalty enforced or imposed in the -- in the past. But it was there for lo the many years prior to about a year and a half ago. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Norris. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I may -- may not be on the right page or something, but were you reading from page 5 of our agenda package, page 57 COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Uh-huh. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Item number 3 at line 107 COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I was reading item number 3, line 15, 16, 17, 18 in there, the Board of County Commissioners and its members down through the word administrator. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. And the -- the -- deal with the administrative services solely through the county administrator is what's giving you the problem? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, and that already exists. It's then that someone might interpret the fact that I called George Archibald and started asking questions about transportation or about drainage, someone might interpret that and suddenly I'm facing a fine and prison time. And -- and I understand, again, the intent is to make sure we don't interfere in the day-to-day operation. MR. DORRILL: I can at least give you my -- my interpretation of that. And I think as you have outlined your interest or concern as a county commissioner, if you went beyond that -- let's use the same example of Lely Barefoot Beach where prior board action has caused us to believe that a code enforcement item is in order as it pertains to the guard house. If a county commissioner were to individually intimidate or threaten an employee within the code enforcement department to prevent them from going about their duties to investigate or to pursue a code enforcement action in front of the Code Enforcement Board, at that point then you would have interfered in that individual's ability or you would have attempted to intimidate or harass that individual. And it's -- it is intended to protect that type of abuse of power if you will. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Can I -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And I understand the intent. My only concern is how is it interpreted then? I think we all understand the intent. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hac'Kie. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It's a -- it's a -- it's a useful and appropriate exercise to be figuring out what exactly -- how this ordinance would be interpreted. But it's important for us to focus on that the prohibited behavior is exact -- exactly the same as it has been since the ordinance existed. So the prohibited behavior, whatever it is, we should understand more clearly. But there's no change being offered in that today. All we're doing today is putting back in the penalty that was removed I guess a year or so ago. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That was removed by a majority of the Board of County Commissioners? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah, it was. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's a interesting concept. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I -- I understand Commissioner Constantine's concern. But the early part of paragraph 3 which is line 10 through 14 talks about no commissioner shall direct or request the appointment of a person to removal of and so forth and then goes into the portion Commissioner Constantine read about dealing solely through the county administrator. And then at the end it finishes up by saying either publicly or privately except for the purpose of inquiry and information. And ideally that's -- that's all we're doing is asking for information. I mean, we -- we ask for copies of PUDs. We've asked -- you know, we ask for information regarding an interpretation of the LDC. And, you know, we ask for information. I don't think any of us would want to go to a staff member and say, you do this or you do that other than to say, I'd like some information regarding this matter. And it's my understanding that's -- that's all that we've ever done, and that's what's been in the ordinance from the beginning. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Is the suggestion then unless there's a threat of a $500 fine and 60 days in jail that any one of us might cross that line? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's not my suggestion. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: That's not my suggestion. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What's the purpose of adding this then? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That it's -- well, I can only analogize it to my children. They -- they -- they need to know what the penalty is. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We're putting your kids in jail for 60 days? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, if they harass the manager's employees I guess. But it's important for the public to know that we do mean what we say even when we're telling ourselves how to behave, and I think that it's -- it's appropriate. It's an appropriate penalty. And I don't suggest anybody's been violating the ordinance, and I just think it's appropriate to put some teeth in it. MR. DORRILL: You have one speaker on this one. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: One speaker? Why don't we hear the speaker. MR. DORRILL: Ms. Fitch. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Who's been patiently waiting all day. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: She's waited all day. MS. FITCH: You might have known we would be here since this is one of our favorite subjects. And we appreciate -- Dorothy Fitch, Legal of Women Voters. We appreciate the fact that this is being brought up for consideration and hope you would all see that this may not affect you as a board. But think of some future boards or think of some past boards, in fact. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That made the point. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Think of some past boards, but they already had this wording, and it didn't make any difference. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Good point. MS. FITCH: Well, apparently it wasn't strong enough to go to the state attorney. We don't want to see any of you in jail, but this measure does teenforce what we consider a positive part of the overall county administrator's ordinance. And we hope you will agree to the practice of commun -- communicating and dealing with the staff through -- through the county manager except as you pointed out that it certainly does not interfere with the concept of the law just to request an item. But to try to influence the thinking of the staff is another matter we feel. And it could create a -- not only a bad atmosphere in the county but we feel disastrous effects among the employees themselves morale-wise, work scheduling, feelings of bias and jealousy, and many of the very things we're trying to avoid in order to keep an emotionally healthy workplace. So we would appreciate your joining together and reestablishing this good government practice. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hancock. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Question for Mr. Weigel. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you, Miss Fitch. I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: If -- if I make a repeated request for information from a -- an individual within the county and that individual's performance is in my opinion less than -- than adequate and I relay that information to the county manager, have I violated this section? MR. WEIGEL: I certainly don't think so. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Because that's the strongest situation which I can think of saying anything, and I just want to make sure that my -- my perception of what I was able to do -- I think that's an information transfer and not -- MR. WEIGEL: Yeah. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Now, if I say, I'm going to not vote to renew your contract if you don't fire this guy, then I'm in violation, but that's -- that's a different -- that's a different story. Okay. Thank you. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Good example. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I -- I have one question as to how we -- we construe this section also in that typically when we have public meetings we request various staff members to attend those meetings for information purposes. And I just want to verify that that is still a part of what we are allowed to do. And that is to ask Mr. Archibald and Mr. Boldt who I understand are going to be in Immokalee tomorrow night helping me explain the lack of drainage or flooding, whatever you want to call it, that that's still available to us to -- to ask for that. MR. DORRILL: I would say that you would need -- and this is very important. You would need to stop -- if you begin at that meeting and say, I'm going to have the road -- I'm going to tell Mr. Archibald that he's going to be out here tomorrow and he's going to be out here every day until I'm satisfied and we're going to take these culverts out, and then I would say you have gone beyond having staff people available to provide information. And in some instances there's -- there's a fine line there. The staff is real good to come back and tell me when they think that -- that any one or collectively you've stepped out of line. And then I usually come and talk to you about that. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. But -- but -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: If we call a week in advance and say, gee, George, I got a meeting in Immokalee. Can -- MR. DORRILL: My policy has always been that any division administrator and/or department director is available to attend and participate in meetings with you in the evening. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Provided it doesn't conflict with something else and we -- MR. DORRILL: Obviously. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah. MR. DORRILL: Or we can send someone else. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: MAdam Chairman, I'm comfortable if you'll close the public hearing. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have no further speakers, Mr. Dorrill? MR. DORRILL: No, ma'am. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I'll close the public hearing. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'd like to make a motion we approve the item. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second to approve an ordinance amending ordinance 93-72. All in favor please say aye. Opposed? There being none, motion passes five to zero. Item #13A2 RESOLUTIONS 95-524, 95-525, 95-526 AND 95-527, RE PETITIONS CU-95-7, CU-95-8, CU-95-9 AND CU-95-10, BILL HOOVER OF HOOVER PLANNING SHOPPE, REPRESENTING IHMOKALEE WATER AND SEWER DISTRICT, REQUESTING A CONDITIONAL USE PER SECTION 2.6.9.2 (ESSENTIAL SERVICES) FOR THE EXPANSION OF WASTEWATER AND WATER TREATMENT FACILITIES - ADOPTED Next item is 13-A-2, petition CU-95, et cetera, et cetera, represent -- Mr. Hoover representing the Immokalee water and sewer district. MR. REISCHL: I'm Fred Reischl, planning services. These are four separate conditional uses regarding four separate sites all on Immokalee water, sewer district property for improvements in existing service sites. The four sites are all within groundwater protection zones basically because the well heads are located on the sewer district property. The -- I received one phone call of no objection, and the planning commission recommended unanimous approval. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Dorrill, do we have speakers? MR. DORRILL: No, ma'am. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I'll close the public hearing. Are there questions or a motion? HR. WEIGEL: It will take four. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: MR. WEIGEL: Four. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: COHMISSIONER NORRIS: COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: recommendations. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: -- just -- we need four separate motions? MR. WEIGEL: Yes. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Yes. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. I'm sorry. said -- meant four votes. MR. WEIGEL: You need that too. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We need that too. to approve petition CU-95-7. We have a second. please say aye. Opposed? We need four for this? Conditional uses? I move approval of CU95-7 -- Second. -- subject to the staff's We have a motion and a second to I thought you Okay. Hotion All those in favor There being none, motion passes 5 to -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Madam Chairman -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: -- 0. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- motion to approve CU-95-8. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Second. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second to approve CU-95-8. All those in favor please say aye. Motion passes 5 to 0. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: CU95-9. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: COMHISSIONER NORRIS: COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Madam Chairman, motion to approve You're next. Second. There you go. We have a motion and a second to approve CU-95-9. All those in favor please say aye. Motion passes 5 to 0. Commissioner Norris, it's your turn. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Good. I'm excited. I'll make a motion that we approve CU-95-10. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It's a wave. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: -- to approve CU-95-10. All those in favor please say aye. Opposed? There being none, motion passes 5 to 0. Thank you. Item #13A3 RESOLUTION 95-528, RE PETITION CU-95-5, WILLA POPE JOY AND HERMAN SPOONER, TRUSTEES, REPRESENTING VERSIE SPOONER, REQUESTING CONDITIONAL USE 2.6.9.2 OF SECTION 2.6.9 (ESSENTIAL SERVICES) FOR A POST OFFICE, LOCATED EAST OF FIFTEENTH STREET NORTH (S.R. 29), NORTH OF IHMOKALEE DRIVE AND SOUTH OF LAKE TRAFFORD ROAD - ADOPTED Next item on the agenda is petition CU95-5, Willa Pope Joy and Herman Spooner, trustees. Go ahead. MR. MILK: For the record, Bryan Milk. I am presenting petition CU-95-5. The United States Postal Service is currently located at 109 North Third Street in Immokalee. They desire to relocate to the Spooner estate which is located on State Road 29 just north of Immokalee Road, south of Lake Trafford Road, and contiguous to State Road 29. The subject property is 1.7 acres in size and is between two zoning districts. Three quarters of the property, 1.2 acres, lies within the C-4 zoning district. .5 acres is currently zoned RSF-3. The property is 200 by 360 foot in depth. That 360 foot in depth also coincides with the commercial land use designation of the Immokalee area master plan. Therefore, the entire property is commercially designated on the master plan in this area. The reason for the conditional use is that in any residential zoning district of this nature a postal service requires an essential service conditional use. Therefore, the 110 feet of the easternmost portion of the property requires this hearing. On August 3 we had a public hearing at the planning commission. By a vote of seven to zero they voted to approve this unanimously. There were no letters or opposition, or no one spoke to or for, against this petition at the hearing. Staff recommends approval and would answer any questions at this time. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hancock. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: On the north side, the building looks fairly close to the property line there. I note that there is single-family zoning on the north side. MR. MILK: Yes, sir. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: How close is the nearest home? MR. MILK: That home is basically at a guesstimate 50 feet away from the property line to the -- COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: No letter of objection or objection from that -- that resident regarding that? MR. MILK: No. That's -- that's what I would call an estate property, probably three and a half, four acres in size. There is a pool on it. It's a single-family house. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. MR. MILK: No letters of opposition. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Does the petitioner need to get anything on the record? Mr. Dorrill, are there public speakers? MR. DORRILL: There are none. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I'll close the public hearing -- COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Motion to approve. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: -- if there's no further questions. COHHISSIONER HAC'KIE: Motion to approve. COHHISSIONER HANCOCK: I was going to ask if there's a gun shop within a thousand feet since it's a postal office. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Shhh. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Move approval of the item subject to the staff recommendations. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Just kidding. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion. Is there a second? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Second. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: We have a second motion actually. I already made the motion, but -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Oh, I'm sorry. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: -- I'll second it instead. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I didn't -- sorry. I didn't hear. approve petition CU-95-5. Opposed? Hotion passes 5 to 0. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No, I made the motion. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second to All those in favor please say aye. Item #13A4 RESOLUTION 95-529, RE PETITION V-95-11, MITCHELL B. THOMPSON, P.L.S., REPRESENTING GASTION, INC., FOR A VARIANCE FROM THE REQUIRED 15 FOOT LANDSCAPE BUFFER ALONG SANTA BARBARA BOULEVARD, FOR PROPERTY DESCRIBED AS COUNTRYSIDE AT BERKSHIRE LAKES, SECTION THREE - ADOPTED Petition V-95-11, Hitchell B. Thompson requesting a variance. Mr. Nino. MR. NINO: Yes. Madam Chairman, members of the board, Ron Nino, your current planning staff. The petition that's before you, I heard them whispering to Mr. Dotrill. MR. DORRILL: I was going to say the principals associated with this had -- had to leave, so my question of staff is going to be the typical. Have we had any letters of objection? What was the planning commission because in the event that a member of the county commission has a question, then we should probably continue this one because they had to leave. MR. NINO: If you're disposed to get this off your plate by approving it, then we should deal with it. But if you're thinking of denying it, you ought to continue it. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Well, the staff report says that the planning commission reviewed it and had a 7-0 recommendation of approval. MR. NINO: Correct. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And nobody spoke or communicated any objection. MR. NINO: Correct. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: So I don't see why we shouldn't hear it. MR. DORRILL: We have -- we have no speakers other than the two gentlemen who just had to leave unfortunately. MR. NINO: Yes. They were from Hiami. They had to leave. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Were they petitioners? MR. NINO: They were petitioners. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Okay. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Are there other questions? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Is a member of the board -- and I assume, Commissioner Constantine, are you familiar with this parcel and with the -- the plans that are proposed? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm familiar with the parcel. I'm familiar with the plans only through what's been presented to us here, but I'm comfortable with it. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Any speakers, Mr. Dorrill? MR. DORRILL: No, ma'am. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Close the public hearing. Is there a motion? COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: approve petition V95-11. Opposed? Motion passes five to zero. Move approval. Second. We have a motion and a second to All those in favor please say aye. Item #13A5 RESOLUTION 95-530, RE PETITION V-95-9,, MARK W. MINOR OF Q. GRADY MINOR & ASSOCIATES, P.A., REPRESENTING STERLING OAKS JOINT VENTURE, REQUESTING AN 8.5 FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE 20 FOOT REQUIREMENT FOR LOT 15, BLOCK E, STERLING OAKS - ADOPTED Next item is petition V-95-9 which is another variance. MR. REISCHL: Fred Reischl, planning services. This is a little bit of an unusual variance request. There's a requirement in the Sterling Oaks PUD that requires 20 feet of clear parking -- not a building setback but a parking setback from the property line to the garage. Because of the configuration -- because of the configuration of the lot on a bend in the road, it was not able to be safely engineered to allow a side-entry garage as the other homes along the street are. So they are proposing a front entry two-car garage which would allow eleven and a half feet between the garage and the property line and over twenty feet to the pavement. So they're still over 20 feet from pavement to the garage. There's no sidewalk on that side of the street, so there's no pedestrian traffic that will be impeded if the request is granted. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: So in summary, when they platted this, they made a mistake. MR. REISCHL: That could be said. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: That could be said. COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Just has. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: And in -- in your opinion there's really no other way to resolve this and maintain a buildable lot that's in character with the balancing properties? MR. REISCHL: That's the key, that it would be in character with the rest of the houses on the street. They're very similar houses. They have, I believe, three building styles that they build there. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: I don't particularly like using variances to correct platting mistakes, but I guess to maintain a consistency on the street and to avoid making an anomaly that could be considered a hardship -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: have any public speakers. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: COMHISSIONER NORRIS: CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: approve petition V-95-9. Opposed? Motion passes 5 to 0. Mr. Dotrill indicated we don't I will close the public hearing. Just keep going. Nevermind. Is there a motion? I'll move approval of the item. Second. We have a motion and a second to All in favor please say aye. Item #13A6 RESOLUTION 95-531, PETITION V-95-7, DAVID C. SNEED REPRESENTING MARVIN MONTGOMERY, REQUESTING A 17.5 FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE REQUIRED 50 FOOT SIDE YARD SETBACK FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 5445 SHIRLEY STREET - ADOPTED Next item on the agenda's petition V-95-7. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Are you in charge of variances? Is that how this works? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: David C. Sneed representing Marvin Montgomery. Mr. Reischl. MR. REISCHL: Fred Reischl, planning services. This variance -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: He's got a busy day. MR. REISCHL: -- is for a continuation of an existing building line along the south property line. The petitioner is proposing an addition that would continue the building line of this existing steel building which increases a encroachment because of the T shape of the building on the north property line for 20 feet along the property line. It creates a -- an encroachment. Except for this part of the T, there is 52 feet, 52 and a half feet setback. Fifty feet is required. So the variance basically is a request for along 20 feet of the property line in order to add this addition to an existing building and continue the current building line. I received one letter of -- or one phone call of no objection, and the planning commission recommended unanimous approval. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Speakers, Mr. Dorrill? MR. DORRILL: No, ma'am. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Questions? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Is there any identification of a hardship here? Is this just merely an expansion? Is there something forcing this -- this to occur? We had -- the reason is the board in the past has taken a position that variances will be approved based on -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Hardship. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- hardship. MR. REISCHL: Right. And -- and staff recommended denial. The planning commission -- because of the fact in the code that administrative approval for this type of variance for residential property, the planning commission recommended unanimous approval for this. Even though it's not residential, it's in the industrial district. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I -- I don't think I followed what you were talking about on the T-shaped portion up there. Isn't the addition to the building down below on the map there? MR. REISCHL: Right. This is an existing building. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Right. MR. REISCHL: But if this part of the T wasn't there, then there would be no variance required. This -- the total setback here and here is 52 and a half feet. Fifty feet is what's required. However, because of this little part of the T, that makes it non-conforming. And, therefore, by proposing an addition to the building, they are increasing -- COHMISSIONER NORRIS: It's not the addition itself then that's into the variance portion. It's the -- MR. REISCHL: That's an existing portion, exactly. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I got it. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Thank you. That's where I -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Now it makes sense. MR. REISCHL: Sorry. That was my explanation. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: No speakers? MR. DORRILL: No, ma'am. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I'll close the public hearing. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Motion to approve the item. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Motion and a second to approve. All those in favor please say aye. Opposed? There being none, motion passes five to zero. Item #13A8 RESOLUTION 95-532, PETITION CU-95-6, ROBERT F. ROGERS OF CUHMINGS AND LOCKWOOD, REPRESENTING THE SUNRISE ACADEMY PRIVATE SCHOOL, REQUESTING CONDITIONAL USE "1" OF THE "E" ZONING DISTRICT TO ALLOW FOR A CHURCH FOR PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF COUNTY BARN ROAD, APPROXIMATELY 300 FEET NORTH OF CREWS ROAD - ADOPTED Next item is petition CU-95-6, Robert F. Rogers of Cummings and Lockwood. Mr. Bellows. MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows of current planning staff. I'm presenting petition CU-95-6, Robert Rogers requesting conditional use 1 of the estates zoning district to allow for an 80-seat church. The subject, known as the Baker site, is located on the east side of County Barn Road. The proposed church will be held within an existing private school facility. Therefore, no new construction is proposed. The surrounding land uses include the Collier County fleet management facility to the south, County Barn Road and estates zoning to the west. There is also undeveloped lands to the north and west. The proposed church will generate approximately 200 trips on a Sunday. The ingress and egress is the existing driveway for the school. The Collier County Planning Commission heard and reviewed this petition on August 3 and recommended approval subject to attached stipulations. No letters for or against have been received. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Questions? MR. DORRILL: No speakers. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: No speakers? Close the public hearing. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Motion to approve the item. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Motion and a second to approve petition CU-95-6. All those in favor please say aye. Opposed? There being none, motion passes 5 to 0. Item #13A9 PETITION SV-95-3, HARK MINOR REPRESENTING GENERAL BUILDING CORPORATION REQUESTING A VARIANCE FROM THE REQUIRED ONE (1) DOUBLE FACED SIGN NOT TO EXCEED 32 SQUARE FEET TO ALLOW TWO (2) SINGLE FACED SIGNS NOT TO EXCEED 32 SQUARE FEET PER SIGN FOR A MODEL HOME LOCATED AT 6562 TRAIL BOULEVARD, IN PINE RIDGE SUBDIVISION - DENIED Next item, petition SV-95-3, HArk Hinor requesting General Building Corporation -- representing General Building Corporation in looking for a variance. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Didn't he just leave? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Good evening. Chahran Badamtchian from current planning. MR. DORRILL: We have an agent here, and you do have a speaker as well. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: SV-95-3 is the sign variance for a model home on North Tam -- actually it's not North Tamiami Trail. It's on North -- on Trail Boulevard which is across the street from Pelican Bay. Collier County Land Development Code allows one sign not to exceed 32 square feet. Double-sided signs are considered one sign. Applicant is requesting this variance in order to install two signs, according to their calculation, each one 32 square feet. However, they have built two fairly large walls with cascading water, Falling Waters feature, and they want to install those signs on those walls which, according to our sign code, we have to measure the entire wall as a sign. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Chahran, I'm -- I'm going to interrupt you because I've -- I have received phone calls on this. I drove by the other day. And in addition to two walls which -- and kind of a center sign in an island with two walls that have waterfalls, there was a large wooden sign, there were two small metal signs saying open house. This looks like a sign factory. Not only do I -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Political corner. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: You'd think a campaign's being run on this parcel. Not only do I not see a hardship for Falling Waters, there's -- a hardship is for the people that have to drive up and down Trail Boulevard. So if the petitioner wants to present something, great. But I'm -- you know, to make an exception based on a hardship here, I see no merit for that whatsoever. COMHISSIONER HAC'KIE: Ditto. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. -- MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Siesky is -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Chahran, do you need to get more on the -- on the record? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: No. Staff is recommending denial. There's no reason for this variance. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Siesky. MR. SIESKY: Thank you, Madam Chairman. I'd ask that the county manager pass out some photographs to you. These are the same photographs that I have on the board here. And my understanding of the sign ordinance -- and let's just start with its premise -- is there's a general finding that increased numbers of -- and sizes of signs as well as certain types of lighting distract the attention of motorists and pedestrians and interfere with traffic safety. The indiscriminate erection of signs degrades the aesthetic attractiveness of the natural and man-made attributes of the community and thereby undermines the economic value of tourism, visitation, and permanent economic growth. My understanding is you can have one sign that is either double sided or V-shaped and it can have 32 square feet. What you see -- excuse me. I'll get the other microphone. What you see is at Hawk's Ridge at the -- both the southern and northern entrance, there is a sign far in excess of 32 square feet that is, as I read the ordinance, illegal. At Royal Wood at the entrance, you have the typical entrance sign that says Royal Wood, but on top of it on each side there's a 32-square-foot sign for Paragon Homes model homes. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Siesky, I'm -- I'm going to interrupt you there for one reason. I'm going to turn your sign -- these pictures over to code enforcement -- MR. SIESKY: That's fine. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- and ask them to take a look at them because if something going on out there is illegal, we need to stop it. But that doesn't -- MR. DORRILL: I can tell you the develop -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- provide merit. MR. DORRILL: The developer in particular at Hawk's Ridge is notorious for this. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. MR. DORRILL: And I bet we go out twice a year to take -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: It -- it seems to me, too, that Wilshire Lakes was in asking for a variance to the sign ordinance -- MR. SIESKY: Commissioner, I asked -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: -- eighteen months ago. MR. SIESKY: -- Mr. Badamtchian about that issue, and he said that the only time that you prosecute for violation of a sign ordinance is when there's a complaint. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. MR. SIESKY: He also said there's never been -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Consider this a complaint on each one of these from me. MR. SIESKY: He said there's never been a sign variance issued for a residential area. But each one of these, as I read them, are illegal. And I think that if your mode of enforcement is only by complaint, that is improper. If you choose to enforce it equally against everyone, that would be fine. But as it stands right now, you're treating this developer differently unless you require all of these illegal signs to be removed. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'll consider your presentation a complaint, Mr. Siesky, and we will respond to it but -- MR. SIESKY: Well, you may not consider it a complaint because it is not a complaint. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. MR. SIESKY: I am not complaining against these signs. What I'm pointing out to you is you have existing violations which apparently are not aesthetic problems, which apparently are not traffic problems which belie the statement of the ordinance. That's the point I'm making. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Siesky, to get a variance, you need to have some sort of hardship. I haven't heard you describe anything even closely resembling a hardship. MR. SIESKY: Well, I don't agree with you, Commissioner. I don't think that is a requirement. I think that is one of the criteria that may be considered. The other criteria that may be considered is that a literal interpretation of the provisions of the code would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other property similarly situated -- and I think that's what -- one of the criteria here -- and the granting of the variance would be in harmony with the general intent and purpose of this code. The other thing I'd like to point out to you is not a sign that's up here but one of the photographs for you is for the American Homes model center at the corner of Golden Gate Parkway and 951 -- excuse me, Pine Ridge Road and 951. This is an entirely legal sign which to my mind is much more garish and distracting than any of these signs that you see here and the proposed sign for the Falling Waters model center. I would request that the county commission grant the variance, and I'm prepared to answer any questions. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: To -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Are there questions? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: To compare signs at the entrance of an entire subdivision with that of a single model home is probably not what I would call an even basis for comparison. Now, the one you have mentioned, the All American Homes sign, that's the one of the pictures you have that I think we're talking apples and apples. If there are sign violations out there that have not been reported, I for one am going to take those pictures and walk them to code enforcement and ask them to look at each one of them because if some member of our community -- COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Careful. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Could be -- could be a $500 fine. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Could put you in jail. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm going to walk them to the county manager's office and ask him if he would like code enforcement to go after that. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: You just avoided a $500 fine. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Six months in jail. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: But I think we're talking about a single model home here. And to use a -- an entire subdivision's apparent abuse of an ordinance to justify that this is no more improper to me is not an argument that I'm convinced. MR. SIESKY: What I'm suggesting to the commission is that the proposed sign will be less offensive than a 32-square-foot double-sided or V sign on the property that it's entitled to have. All we're asking is that you separate the two signs. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Does the property, in fact, have one sign now where it says Falling Waters? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: It's one double-faced sign. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: It does have one double-faced sign. MR. SIESKY: And it is smaller than 32 square feet. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: According to the code, that's considered one single sign. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: So how many more signs according to the code without a variance can the property have? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Just one sign per model home. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: How many more? COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Except for those little real estate ones that say open house. MR. SIESKY: And model -- and model home signs and flags and everything else. And if you look around the community, you'll see constant violations of the model home and flag sign. Even at some of these photographs that I have here, people were flying flags that say model home. If you look at your sign ordinance, all you -- all you can have is a flag that says -- that's a governmental flag or a religious flag or something like that. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Norris. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: The code allows you to have one double-faced sign that doesn't exceed 32 feet all together. MR. SIESKY: Yes. COMHISSIONER NORRIS: You're asking for 2 single-faced signs of 32 square feet each. Doesn't that double the allowable square feet? MR. SIESKY: No, the -- well, the copy would be 64 square feet either way. The double-faced sign and the V sign, the measurement, as I understand it from looking at the other sign, is each side is 32 square feet. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: According to the code if you have a double-sided sign we only measure one side -- COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Oh, okay. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: -- if both sides read the exact same thing. COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. The other question is if -- if someone holds up the corner convenience store and gets away with it, should we then excuse all future hold-up people? MR. SIESKY: Commissioner, I -- I don't agree that that would be a similar case here. As a matter of fact, I have a similar case here that I would be happy to cite you to. It's Ads In Motion Florida, Inc., versus City of Fort Lauderdale where the city passed an ordinance prohibiting what they called snipe signs. You have that in your ordinance, too, and I never knew what they were. They are signs that you pull on a -- behind a cart on a trailer or put on your vehicle. They only chose to prosecute one person, and they had an excuse that everybody else just -- they weren't selling advertising. They were just putting advertising on their vehicles because they were out and about in taxis and everything. The Court said that that was an improper and selective enforcement and refused to enforce it against that person. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I will point out that we are not prosecuting your case here. We're just merely ruling on a variance request. MR. SIESKY: That's absolutely true. I was just commenting upon your analogy to the corner convenience store. COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Thank you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: That's fine. Anything more you need to get on the record, Chahran? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Just that once they attach those signs to those walls, we have to measure the entire wall as a sign. And that will exceed the 32 square feet per sign that they are saying. It will be probably close to 80 or 90 square feet per sign. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Are these the waterfalls on the side? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Correct. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: So instead of having it where it's in the center island now, you want to put it out on the waterfalls? MR. SIESKY: Right. It would be further back from the road and I think, in my opinion, less noticeable. But that's just my opinion. The existing sign is my estimate of about 16 square feet on a side. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Dotrill, are there speakers? MR. DORRILL: There's one. Ms. Barker. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Bless me. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Bless you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Bless you. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Sally, I might not make the 7:30 meeting tonight. MS. BARKER: Well, you might. I know you've had an awfully long day, so I'll try to keep this as short as possible. I brought some maps along to show you -- give you a little better idea of where this model is in Pine Ridge, by the way, folks. For the record, my name is Sally Barker. I'm a 15-year resident of Pine Ridge. I saw that map in your executive summary. It's a hoot. It's a wonderful depiction of Pelican Bay, but they've managed to make Pine Ridge completely disappear, poof, vanished, gone. Hey, Jeff Lidel's (phonetic) been trying to do that for years. Anyway, I wanted to say that -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: It's always a pleasure to have you here, Sally. I just want you to know that. MS. BARKER: I not only object to the sign variance that they are asking for, I object to the Falling Waters sign that's already there. Now, I wouldn't have any problem if they had a sign up that said model home by General Building Corporation because that's a pretty standard, straightforward model home sign. Falling Waters is not the name of the builder. I mean, it's the name -- and it's not even the name of this alleged model. It's the name of a subdivision, and that sign they have up there now is intended to advertise, market, and sell a subdivision and a multi-family subdivision which to my mind is a blatant commercial use of a single-family residential lot which is what we have along Trail Boulevard. Those are single-family residential lots. And most of them are occupied. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Could I ask this? I think that argument has a lot of merit. I was wondering how is it -- what's the argument that allows us to have given a permit for this sign in the first place? MR. MULHERE: Well, first of all, that's an issue that we're looking at. And, in fact, we will be bringing back some language to clarify the current language within the Land Development Code relative to models and how and when they're permitted. However, the current code simply says a model home is permitted in any residential zoning district. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No. What about the sign, though? How can the sign not say -- it seems to me it should say model home. MR. MULHERE: Well, the argument -- when the time came -- when the -- when the time came for both the -- the temporary use permit and the building permit, we were told it was a single-family home. And, in fact, it's permitted as a single-family home even though it's being marketed or arguably marketed as a -- MS. BARKER: Multi-family. MR. MULHERE: -- multi-family condominium. And the sign -- there is a company called Falling Waters Development Corporation. And the question that we asked the representatives who were pulling the permit was, what is your intention? And their intention repeated to us was that we will build this product anywhere in Collier County anywhere anybody wants it. MS. BARKER: Yeah, right. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So if I own a -- if I own a lot in Pine Ridge and I -- and I love this unit, they'd build this for me -- MR. MULHERE: That -- that's correct. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- according to what they've told you. MS. BARKER: Commissioner Constantine, this unit is 29 feet wide, 74 feet long. Those two 74-foot-long side walls don't have any windows. MR. MULHERE: Not -- not -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: With two separate one-car garages. MS. BARKER: Yeah. They look like outhouses. MR. MULHERE: And not to get off the issue of the variance, I do want you to know that we are looking at that language to -- to bring back something that -- that -- I don't have the language in front of me right now, but we're -- we're suggesting something that simply says, within a single-family residential zoning district, you can only -- it is in -- a model is intended to market the same products that are permitted in that district. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: We could probably -- and we're probably getting off of -- of just the variance request today, and -- and, you know, all we're being asked to do is either approve or deny a variance. And I'm ready to do just that. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Well, Miss Barker, do you have more to say? MS. BARKER: Well, I just wanted to make one point. And that is if they are -- continue to keep that Falling Waters sign, I don't see anything that would prevent another developer from coming along, buying up a lot on Trail Boulevard, throwing up some kind of structure, calling it a model, and then emblazing, you know, their wall with their sign. You know, eventually we could have walls all along Trail Boulevard for Orange Tree, Berkshire Lakes, Eagle's Nest, you name it. And that's going to be a -- a lovely site for the tourists as they come out of the Ritz-Carlton and toodle (sic) down 41 towards town. So, you know, this issue has got to be dealt with, and I know we have talked with development services at some length about this. And we know Mr. Hulhere is trying to deal with it, and we hope they can. And that's basically all I wanted to say. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. Only speaker, Mr. Dorrill? MR. DORRILL: That's all. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I'll close the public hearing. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm going to make a motion to deny on the following criteria: That there are no special conditions or circumstances or no conditions or circumstances peculiar to the land or structure, that granting this would allow a special privilege to the owner, that a variance is not required to make possible the reasonable use of the land, and that granting this variance will not be in keeping with the general intent and purpose of the land development -- COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Second. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well done. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Motion and a second. Is there further discussion? All in favor please say aye. Opposed? Motion passes 5 to 0. Item #13A10 PETITION V-95-13, PETER R. COMEAU OF U.S. HOME CORPORATION, REPRESENTING ROBERT H. LINDSAY, REQUESTING A 3.9 FOOT AFTER THE FACT VARIANCE FROM THE REQUIRED 10 FOOT REAR YARD ACCESSORY STRUCTURE SETBACK, FOR PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF LELY ISLAND CIRCLE - DENIED Next item on the agenda is petition V-95-13, Mr. Peter Comeau of U.S. Homes asking for an after-the-fact variance. Mr. Bellows. MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows, current planning staff. Robert Lindsay is requesting a 3.9-foot after-the-fact variance from the required 10-foot rear yard setback for accessory structures to 6.1 feet. The subject site is located on the north side of Lely Island Circle within the Lely Resort PUD. Petitioner states that the encroachment resulted from an oversight in fitting the pool enclosure along the rear -- radius of the rear lot line. It's staff's opinion that a conforming structure could have been built. But considering the fact that the rear yard adjacent property is a golf driving range that staff is of the opinion that no hardship would result from the approval of this variance. Since staff is constrained from recommending approval based on lack of land-related hardship, it should be noted that the staff's usual concerns regarding site distance and -- and the safety from adjoining properties is not a concern. Therefore, staff is recommending -- or the Collier County Planning Commission reviewed this on October -- August 17, and they recommended approval by a five-to-zero vote. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: What is staff recommending on it? MR. BELLOWS: Staff had recommended denial during the planning commission, and planning commission recommended -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Based on -- MR. BELLOWS: Based on the fact that they determined that there was a land-related hardship based on the fact of the radius of the curve in the back. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Questions, Mr. -- Commissioner Norris. COMHISSIONER NORRIS: This is U.S. Homes; right? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah. MR. BELLOWS: Yes. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: But the guy who owns the house -- COMHISSIONER NORRIS: I question how a big company like U.S. Homes can make a silly mistake like this. And I'm really questioning it's a mistake at all. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Is this a model, Mr. Bellows? MR. BELLOWS: No. COMHISSIONER NORRIS: This is built to -- for -- for a customer? MR. BELLOWS: I believe it was relayed to me that it was for a customer and it was the pool enclosure that was the problem, not the home that they were building. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Is the home completed? MR. BELLOWS: Yes. The pool enclosure's in. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: How did it get by the spot survey? MR. BELLOWS: Spot survey picked it up. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: So it's not completed then. MR. DORRILL: It is. It's after the fact is my understanding. MR. BELLOWS: It's after the fact. They -- they caught it at spot survey time for the pool enclosure, not for the house. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Did they give them a CO? MR. BELLOWS: For the house they have a CO. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Oh. MR. BELLOWS: Pool is a separate permit separate from the house. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Gotcha. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Is there some sort of penalty here that goes along with this if we approve the variance? MR. DORRILL: They have -- they have already paid the cost to process the variance, but there is no -- MR. BELLOWS: They doubled the fee, so it's $850. COMHISSIONER NORRIS: This -- the drawings that we have in our material really don't show me a good enough detail to know how much of this -- MR. BELLOWS: They started out conforming on the -- the west side of the site. And as the radius curved -- this is the golf driving range -- it slowly encroached to 6.1 feet. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: So how much of the pool enclosure is in the encroachment? MR. BELLOWS: It starts right about here which is approximately five feet and then all the way out to the remainder of the width of the house or the width of the pool enclosure. COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Does -- is this -- MR. BELLOWS: About 35 feet. COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Is this pool deck now? Are we talking the -- the pool itself into that encroachment? MR. BELLOWS: Just the deck and the screen enclosure. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Could I -- MR. BELLOWS: The house is conforming. It meets all setbacks. It's just the pool enclosure. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Has -- has U.S. Homes sold this house to these people already, or is it still waiting to be conveyed from U.S. Homes to the eventual owner? MR. BELLOWS: I don't have that information. MR. DORRILL: The owner is shown on the petition as Mr. Lindsay through his agent in this case who's U.S. Homes who obviously built the house. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I see. MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. I think the -- U.S. Homes made the error, so they were acting as agents to correct it. But the owner is Mr. Lindsay. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: So what happens if we -- if we don't approve this variance? I mean, they -- they have to take -- they have to move the cage and take up that part of the deck? MR. BELLOWS: That's correct. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Other than the fact that it already exists, what's the land-related hardship? None I presume. MR. BELLOWS: Staff's determination, there was none. Planning commission determined because it abutted a golf driving range there was no significant impact on the adjacent property to the rear and that the radius and the curve was such that it made it difficult for them to fit the pool enclosure on. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Once -- once more for clarification, if they go in there and saw off the pool deck, do they still have deck before they get to the pool? I mean, there's -- will there still be walking deck room out there? MR. BELLOWS: I don't have plans to show where the lip of the pool is. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: We don't have that in our material? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Are there any representatives here from U.S. Homes? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: No. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Do we want to continue this, or do we want to deny it or approve it? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I don't have the desire to continue it. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Dorrill, are there speakers? MR. DORRILL: No, ma'am. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I certainly don't want to do something that hurts the purchaser of a home because U.S. Home made a mistake. But by the same token, if we develop a pattern of, yeah, if you build four feet into a setback and you realize that, golly, you know, just come before the board and we'll -- we'll say it's okay. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I'm going to close the public hearing if there's further discussion or a motion. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Motion to deny. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have -- MR. WEIGEL: Would you put some findings with the motion, please? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We need -- okay. Commissioner Norris, do you want to make some findings with your motion? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Norris, do you also have any suggested remedy or just -- COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Saw it off. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- let them do it? Okay. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We've been threatening to do this for three years. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I'll make a motion to deny based on the findings that there is no land-related hardship. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And the second amends. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Second amends? Further discussion? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm going to -- I'm going to oppose it because I can't think of any way to -- to solve the problem. And you're right. U.S. Homes, if they screwed it up, they're the ones who ought to be penalized. They have paid $1,000 almost for the fee. And I guess that might be a sufficient penalty. I'm troubled by it. But the only way that they could avoid just tearing it down is to get part of the golf course deeded to them. And my goodness, that would be so complicated because of the ownership. So I think that we're penalizing an innocent party, so I'm going to oppose the motion. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Any other comments? Call the question. All those in favor of the motion which is to deny the variance please say aye. Opposed? Motion passes four to one with Commissioner Mac'Kie being in the opposition. Yeah, I realize we're probably penalizing an innocent person, but it's about time the county told the builders to take notice. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: If we carried that logic out, every builder who ever builds a home ultimately would be penalizing the owner. Item #13All RESOLUTION 95-533, RE PETITION V-95-12, JAMES H. BOSWELL, II REQUESTING A 5 FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE REQUIRED FRONT SETBACK OF 25 FEET TO 20 FEET AND A 5 FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE REQUIRED REAR SETBACK OF 25 FEET TO 20 FEET FOR PROPERTY DESCRIBED AS A PORTION OF LOT 16, BLOCK "F" AND A PORTION OF LOT 11, BLOCK "H", REPLAT OF UNIT NO. 3, LITTLE HICKORY SHORES - ADOPTED CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Next item on the agenda is petition V-95-12, James M. Boswell the Second requesting a five-foot variance. MR. REISCHL: Fred Reischl, planning services -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Reischl. MR. REISCHL: -- once again. I'd like to -- Mr. Boswell asked me to explain that he has a sick child and was here for a little bit but was unable to be here. This is an unusual -- unusually shaped lot in Little Hickory Shores. Because of the configuration of the lot, the buildable area, as you can see either here or in your packet, is a small triangular shaped area. And the petitioner is requesting a five-foot variance from the rear setback and from the front setback to a setback for each front and rear of 20 feet. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The request really is just to make this odd-shaped lot usable. MR. REISCHL: It -- well, it -- technically it is usable now for about a 1,500-square-foot house. I received four letters of objection from the neighbors who said it wouldn't be consistent with the neighborhood. However, Mr. Boswell wants to build a 2,000-foot -- square-foot house which would be more consistent with the neighborhood if this variance is granted. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So the -- I'm sorry. I need to understand. The neighbors who objected would be happier with the variance than without the variance? I don't understand the objection. MR. REISCHL: As I understand their objection, I believe that they would be happier with a larger house because they were saying that the lot is too small to build a house on which that's why Mr. Boswell -- or a house that's comparable with the neighbors. That's why Mr. Boswell's requesting the variance. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Reischl, there are some real tiny lots on one side and some real big lots on the other, so I'm wondering who we're being consistent with because it appears to me on the real tiny lots that 1,500 square feet would be big. MR. REISCHL: Right. Well, those tiny lots -- I believe there was an interpretation a few years ago that those are buildable for boat docks only, and a boat dock would be allowed to be built there without a principal structure. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. So those are not -- MR. REISCHL: And that's what it's platted for. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Those are not going to contain structures. MR. REISCHL: Those aren't house lots. Those are boat dock-only lots. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. MR. REISCHL: And one other thing that I wanted to bring up, because of the wording in the resolution -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: They are tiny. MR. REISCHL: -- and the fact that the resolution references this exhibit, on the west end of the lot, you can see where the 20-foot setback line goes straight but because the curve of the lot over here just -- so there's a consistency when he comes in -- if this variance is granted and he comes in for his building permit, that that line is the setback line that he's requesting. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Reischl, I have a question here. The small lots that you're talking about on the exhibit on page 4 are bracketed I assume because they're all under similar development requirements. MR. REISCHL: Those are blocks. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Those are blocks? MR. REISCHL: Blocks as in lot and block. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Oh, okay. MR. REISCHL: One was like block H, and the other is block F. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: The reason I ask is because his lot is in the same block as proposed boat docks. MR. REISCHL: Right. It was created -- in order to make the lot larger, it would -- he took and got a lot line adjustment, took one of the boat dock lots and added it to his lot additionally. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Come on. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: So he got a residential lot. He bought a boat dock lot and now wants to build a house on the two of them. MR. REISCHL: Well, the house won't even fit -- this is the boat dock lot over here. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Right. MR. REISCHL: So basically that's just his front and rear yard setback. That's unusable for building structure. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: If he had not -- MR. REISCHL: It just adds to his lot area. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: If he had not purchased the boat dock lot, he would have even less room on which to build on that residential lot; is that correct? MR. REISCHL: Probably because he'd have a seven and a half foot side yard setback on that still. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I don't really see a problem with what he's trying to do here. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I just wanted to make sure we weren't being finagled, that somebody wasn't taking boat dock lots and trying to turn them into house lots. You know, I just saw that line and thought if we're being duped, I'd at least like to know. MR. REISCHL: No. That was done through a lot line adjustment through the county. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: It is getting late. MR. REISCHL: And that procedure was completed I believe earlier this year. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: So in your opinion the objections are in favor of issuing the variance so that he can build a house comparable with what else is on the block. MR. REISCHL: That was, right, the main objection from the people. There was also -- they were saying that it would have a negative impact on the neighborhood safety because it's on a corner. By building out into the front yard setback, it would impede the safety of traffic along the curve. I've been out on the street several times, and the speed limit's 30 miles an hour. There's approximately 10 or 12 houses south of that on a cul-de-sac. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. MR. REISCHL: Staff recommended approval, and the planning commission agreed. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Speakers, Mr. Dotrill? MR. DORRILL: No, ma'am. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Madam Chairman, I'll make a motion to approve the item recognizing that there are special conditions, particularly the unusual shape of the lot. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I'll second. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And that the variance will be in harmony with the general intent and the purpose of the Land Development Code. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: That's a mouthful. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a second. Thank you. We have a motion. Thank you. We have a motion and a second -- second jumped in there before the motion was finished. But if there's no further discussion, I'll call the motion. All in favor please say aye. Opposed? Motion passes 5 to 0. Item #1382 RESOLUTION 95-534, RE PETITION CU-94-4, RONALD J. LAFLEHME, REPRESENTING JAMES BILLIE, REQUESTING AN EXTENSION OF A CONDITIONAL USE "23" IN THE "A" AGRICULTURAL ZONING DISTRICT TO ALLOW FOR A MUSEUM AND INDIAN CULTURAL FACILITY, FOR PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF U.S. 41 AND APPROXIMATELY 3 MILES EAST OF THE PORT OF THE ISLES - ADOPTED Is that it? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: One to go. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Which one? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: B-2. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: B-2. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: B-2. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: CU-94-4. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Move approval. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I've got that as continued. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Is this public hearing closed? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I've got that one continued. That concludes -- that concludes our agenda for the day. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I don't have that one continued. MR. DORRILL: I didn't have B-2 continued. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I do not either. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: What? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I appreciate your efforts, Madam Chairman. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Is this public hearing closed? MR. DORRILL: This was for Mr. Billie's Indian culture facility. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I don't have that. MR. HULHERE: I'm sorry. I thought that was continued. Is it not? COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I don't think so. MR. DORRILL: B-2 is not continued. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Darn. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Hulhere, this is merely -- MR. HULHERE: I'm confused. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Continuation? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- merely -- this is merely a -- a -- MR. HULHERE: It's an extension of a conditional use. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- extension of a continued (sic) use that was already granted? MR. HULHERE: That is correct. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Is there a motion? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Hotion to approve. Second. Let me close the public hearing. Motion to approve. Second. We have a motion and a second to approve petition CU-94-4, an extension of conditional use 23. those in favor please say aye. Opposed? All Motion passes 5 to O. That concludes the day's agenda. We are at communications. Commissioner -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm willing to wrestle any commissioner that has communications at this hour. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner -- Commissioner Norris? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: With that threat, I will decline. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hancock? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'll decline. That could be interpreted as harassment with two members of the board. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll leave you and John alone. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hac'Kie? COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No, ma'am. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Constantine? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I don't have anything either. Mr. Dotrill? MR. DORRILL: Not I. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Weigel? MR. WEIGEL: No, thank you. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Miss Filson? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Miss Filson, we're finished? We're adjourned. ***** Commissioner Hancock moved, seconded by Commissioner Norris, and carried 5/0, that the following items under the consent agenda be approved and/or adopted, excepted Item #16A1 (Commissioner Hac'Kie abstained): ***** Item #16A1 FINAL PLAT OF "WALDEN SHORES" - WITH CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT See Pages O. R. Book Pages Item #16A2a RESOLUTION 95-491 RE LIEN RESOLUTION FOR COMPLIANCE SERVICES CASE NO. 41212-028; OWNER OF RECORD - DOUGLAS L. & SANDRA CARTER See Pages Item #16A2b - Withdrawn Item #16A2c RESOLUTION 95-492 RE LIEN RESOLUTION FOR COMPLIANCE SERVICES CASE NO. 50516-035; OWNER OF RECORD - DANIEL & GISELA CASTRO See Pages Item #16A2d RESOLUTION 95-493 RE LIEN RESOLUTION FOR COMPLIANCE SERVICES CASE NO. 50519-019; OWNER OF RECORD - THOMAS D. & ROBERT A. SAYLOR See Pages Item #16A2e RESOLUTION 95-494 RE LIEN RESOLUTION FOR COMPLIANCE SERVICES CASE NO. 50609-016; OWNER OF RECORD - HON REVE HOLDINGS, INC. See Pages Item #16A3 RECORD FINAL PLAT OF "SILVER LAKES PHASE TWO-B" - WITH LETTER OF CREDIT AND CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT See Pages O. R. Book Pages Item #16A4 ACCEPTANCE OF WATER FACILITIES FOR NAPLES TOMATO GROWERS - WITH LETTER OF CREDIT See Pages O. R. Book Pages Item #16A5 ACCEPTANCE OF WATER FACILITIES FOR STONEBRIDGE MAINTENANCE FACILITY - SUBJECT TO STIPULATIONS AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY O. R. Book Pages Item #16A6 ACCEPTANCE OF WATER AND SEWER FACILITIES FOR THE ORCHARDS, PHASE TWO - SUBJECT TO STIPULATIONS AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY O. R. Book Pages Item #16A7 WATER AND SEWER FACILITIES ACCEPTANCE FOR PELICAN MARSH, UNIT 6, PHASE 2 - SUBJECT TO STIPULATIONS AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY O. R. Book Pages Item #16A8 WATER AND SEWER FACILITIES ACCEPTACE FOR PELICAN MARSH, UNIT 9 - SUBJECT TO STIPULATIONS AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY See Pages O. R. Book Pages Item #16A9 RESOLUTION 95-495 THROUGH RESOLUTION 95-514 RE WAIVER OF ROAD IMPACT FEES, LIBRARY SYSTEM IMPACT FEES, PARKS AND RECREATIONAL FACILITY IMPACT FEES, EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES SYSTEM IMPACT FEES, AD EDUCATION FACILITY SYSTEM IMPACT FEES FOR TWENTY (20) SINGLE FAMILY HOUSES TO BE BUILT BY IHMOKALEE HABITAT FOR HUMANITY, INC. ON LOTS 1 THROUGH 20, HIGHLANDS HABITAT SUBDIVISION, IHHMOKALEE See Pages Item #16A10 RESOLUTION 95-515 RE ROADWAY, DRAINAGE, WATER AND SEWER IHPROVEHENTS FOR THE FINAL PLAT OF "THE VERANDAS AT TIGER ISLAND UNIT ONE" See Pages Item #16All RESOLUTION 95-516 RE ROADWAY, DRAINAGE, WATER AND SEWER IHPROVEHENTS FOR THE FINAL PLAT OF "LELY BAREFOOT BEACH UNIT FOUR" See Pages Item #16B1 PETITION AV95-015, BLAIR FOLEY AS AGENT FOR OWNER, VINEYARDS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, REQUESTING VACATION OF A UTILITY EASEMENT LOCATED ON TRACT CH, OF THE PLAT OF VINEYARDS UNIT ONE, AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 14, PAGES 67-74, AND AS RECORDED IN OFFICIAL RECORD BOOK 1318, PAGE 2070, OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA - WITH QUITCLAIM DEED AND REPLACEMENT EASEMENT See Pages Item #1682 A_MENDHENT NO. 1 TO THE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEHENT WITH COASTAL ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS, INC., TO PROVIDE PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING AND SURVEYING SERVICES NECESSARY IN PERFORMANCE OF ANNUAL MONITORING REQUIREMENTS FOR THE MARCO ISLAND BEACH RENOURISHENT PROJECT See Pages Item #1683 WORK ORDER #CEC-8-S WITH COASTAL ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS, INC., IN THE A_MOUNT $24,680.00 TO PERFORM PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYING SERVICES FOR THE WIGGINS PASS MAINTENANCE DREDGING PROJECT See Pages Item #1684 INITIATE WORK ORDERS UNDER THE ANNUAL SURVEYING SERVICES CONTRACT TO DOCUMENT PEAK STORHWATER ELEVATIONS IN VARIOUS PARTS OF THE COUNTY CAUSED BY TROPICAL STORM "JERRY" Item #1685 AWARD BID #95-2395 TO MITCHELL & STARKE CONSTRUCTION IN THE AMOUNT OF $174,022.00 TO CONSTRUCT A DISINFECTION FACILITY UPGRADE FOR SOUTH COUNTY REGIONAL WASTEWATER TREATEHENT FACILITY Item #16C1 TRANSFER OF FUNDS FROM ONE COST CENTER WITHIN THE LIBRARY BUDGET TO ANOTHER COST CENTER WITHIN THE LIBRARY BUDGET Item #16C2 INCREASE THE DOLLAR AMOUNT FOR CONTRACT #94-2199 FOR THE PARKS AND RECREATION LEISURE LINE PUBLICATION - IN THE A~OUNT OF $5,500.00 Item #16C3 CONVEYANCE OF A LAND INTEREST FROM THE EAST NAPLES CIVIC ASSOCIATION FOR USE AS A NEIGHBORHOOD PARK - WITH WARRANTY DEED See Pages Item #16D1 CHAIRPERSON TO EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COHMISSIONERS AND FOCUS See Pages Item #16D2 - moved to Item #SD1 Item #16D3 REPORT CONCERNING THE SALE AND TRANSFER OF ITEMS ASSOCIATED WITH THE COUNTY AUCTION OF JULY 29, 1995 - AS INDICATED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Item #16D4 AMENDMENT TO THE LEASE WITH OPTION TO PURCHASE AGREEMENT BETWEEN LEASE RESOURCE, INC. AND COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT AND AUTHORIZE THE CHAIRMAN TO EXECUTE THE AMENDMENT See Pages Item #16D5 BOARD OF COUNTY COHMISSIONERS TO BECOME A SPONSOR OF THE NAPLES FREE-NET - WITH CONTRIBUTION IN THE A~OUNT OF $1,2000.00 Item #16D6 WORK ORDER FOR THE FIRST PHASE OF A WORK ORDER FOR ARCHITECTURAL SERVICES FOR THE EXPANSION OF THE THE TAX COLLECTOR'S OFFICE See Pages Item #16El BUDGET AMENDMENTS 95-490, 95-491, 95-492, 95-497, 95-498, 95-502, 95-503, 95-504, 95-512 AND 95-513 Item #16G1 MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE - FILED AND/OR REFERRED The following miscellaneous correspondence as presented by the Board of County Commissioners has bewen directed to the various departments as indicated: There being no further business for the Good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by Order of the Chair at 7:15 p.m. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS CONTROL BETTYE J. MATTHEWS, CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK These minutes approved by the Board on as presented or as corrected TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF DONOVAN COURT REPORTING BY: Barbara A. Donovan, Christine E. Whitfield, and Shelly Semmler