BCC Minutes 12/20/1994 RREGULAR MEETING OF DECEMBER 20, 1994,
OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COHMISSIONERS
LET IT BE REHEHBERED, that the Board of County Commissioners in
and for the County of Collier, and also acting as the Board of Zoning
Appeals and as the governing board(s) of such special districts as
have been created according to law and having conducted business
herein, met on this date at 9:12 a.m. In REGULAR SESSION in Building
"F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following
CHAIRMAN:
VICE-CHAIRMAN:
members present:
ALSO PRESENT:
Timothy J. Constantine
Bettye J. Hatthews
John C. Norris
Pam Hac'Kie
Timothy Hancock
Neil Dotrill, County Hanager
Ken Cuyler, County Attorney
David Weigel, Assistant County Attorney
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Hi, and welcome to the Tuesday,
December 20, 1994, meeting of the Board of County Commissioners.
Mr. Dorrill, if you'd be so kind as to lead us in an
invocation and in the pledge to the flag.
MR. DORRILL: Heavenly Father, we thank you at what will
be the start of the holiday week, and we thank you and give thanks for
what the holidays mean to a variety of religious faiths and beliefs.
We thank you for this time to be able to spend with our families and
enjoy some time off from -- from work. We ask that you bless us,
bless our families during this holiday season.
Father, as we draw to the end of the year, we also give
thanks for all the goodness within Collier County and the many
improvements and accomplishments of this, the county commission. We
give thanks for the hard working professional and support staff of
county government. And we also give thanks for the citizens of this
county.
We'd ask that you bless us all and watch over us in the
coming year and also that you bless our time here together this
morning. We pray these things in Your Son's holy name. Amen.
(The pledge of allegiance was said.)
Item #2A
AGENDA AND CONSENT AGENDA - APPROVED WITH CHANGES
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: I understand we have only one
change to the agenda and a couple of staff communications.
MR. DORRILL: Yes, sir. Good morning, Commissioners.
On behalf of the staff, we do wish you all a very happy holiday season
and hope you enjoy next week off, and we'll see you here in two weeks.
We have only one change to the agenda this morning, and
that's as a result of a bid protest. We are going to withdraw item
16-E-5 which is the county's annual agreement for auctioneer
services. That will be rescheduled as a result of an evaluation of
the bid protest at the next appropriate meeting.
The communication items are a reminder to me at the conclusion of
your regular meeting today. I also want to remind you and those who
are watching that the county commission will have a workshop following
the regular agenda today at which time we're going to be discussing a
number of effluent and water reuse items, but that will follow the
regular meeting today. And that's all that we have, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Thank you. Mr. Cuyler, any changes?
MR. CUYLER: No, sir, no other changes.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE:
COMMISSIONER NORRIS:
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE:
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK:
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE:
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE:
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE:
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS:
in the afternoon.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK:
Commissioner Norris?
Nothing further.
Commissioner Hancock?
Nothing.
Commissioner Mac'Kie?
Nothing.
Commissioner Matthews?
I have one item, communications
Deja vue.
COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: Yeah, deja vue. Communications in the
afternoon. I just wanted to see if we could entertain the idea of
having a workshop on BCC policy on January 5 in the morning, and
we'll talk about that later today. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: And with that we'll take a motion to
approve the agenda and consent agenda as amended.
COMHISSIONER NORRIS:
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE:
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK:
COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS:
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE:
pair of seconds.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK:
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE:
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE:
Anyone opposed?
Motion carries 5-0.
So moved.
So moved.
Second.
Second.
There's a motion -- a pair of motions and a
Two pair.
Full house.
All those in favor of the motion state aye.
Item #4A1
PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING THE WEEK OF DECEMBER 26 - 30, 1994, AS THE
FLORIDA WORKOUT WEEK - ADOPTED
Proclamations, service awards, Florida Workout Week, Commissioner
Hancock.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Do we have someone here representing the
Florida Workout Group? If I could ask you to come on up here, and if
you'll stand right down here and face the camera, your 15 minutes of
fame are on their way.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Face both cameras, A1 Perkins sporting a
camera today.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: If I could just ask you to stand here and
turn around and face the audience.
Whereas, amateur and professional sports have served for
centuries to bring out in our youth the high ideals of sportsmanship,
fair play, hard work, and disciplined personal achievement; and
Whereas, the sports of tumbling and trampoline and other
acrobatic-related activities have provided the opportunity for the
development of positive international understanding by the bringing of
athletes, coaches, and teachers with many nations and cultures
together; and
Whereas, the Florida Workout has served to foster said
international understanding in the above-listed attributes by
providing the youth and teachers of many states and nations a positive
learning and teaching opportunity; and
Whereas, the Florida Workout, its officers and volunteers have
worked tirelessly each year giving unstingingly -- unstintingly, excuse
me, of their personal resources and time to establish this annual event
promoting these high ideals; and
Whereas, the Florida Workout provides this opportunity
for this positive experience in the city of Naples annually between
December 26 and December 30 for young people, teachers, and coaches
regardless of color, race, creed, nationality, or affiliation.
Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that the week of December 26
through 30, 1994, be designated as The Florida Workout Week.
Done and ordered this 20th day of December, 1994.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: We need a motion.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Thank you.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And I would like to make a motion to
approve the resolution as read.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I'll second.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Second.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: There's a motion and a second. All those
in favor of the motion state aye.
Motion -- wasn't quite sure there. Motion carries 5-0.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: We're a little bit disjointed this
morning.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: All fuzzy in the holiday season.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well --
Item #4B
EMPLOYEE SERVICE AWARDS - PRESENTED
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Next item, we have two service awards this
morning. Each of these employees have been with us for five years.
Jerre Salmon has been with risk management for five years and Brad
Bailey with parks and recreation for five years. And we have
certificates and pins for each.
Thank you very much.
COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: Thank you so much.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thank you. Merry Christmas to you.
COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Congratulations.
Item #4C1
FORMAL INTRODUCTION OF REPRESENTATIVE RALPH LIVINGSTON
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Also this morning, Collier is -- is
somewhat unique in that under the realignment that was done a couple of
years ago for state representatives, we had our area carved up a little
bit, and we have three people who represent our area. And some see
that as a disadvantage. Frankly, I see it --
COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: Four.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Four. You're right. Sorry. I'm
forgetting part of the rural area.
Frankly, I see it as an advantage to have more than one person
focusing on our area. And we have one of those with us this morning,
Representative Ralph Livingston, who would like to say a few words and
just have a formal introduction and hello to the board and to the
community.
REPRESENTATIVE LIVINGSTON: Good morning, Mr. Chairman and
Commissioners. It's a pleasure to be here. You've already given half
my speech.
I'm pleased to have with me today my legislative assistant, L. S.
Robinson. And during the campaign I said I was going to have the very
best staff, and I do. Porter Goss's loss is my gain, so I have -- also
have an excellent secretary and a new office, and I'm very much looking
forward to being one of your representatives.
And as you said or I said, district 75 has been kind of carved up.
It's unique in that even though I only have four precincts, the
importance of my presence in Collier County is even greater because we
have all of U.S. 41 going down to Vanderbilt Beach Road. And, of
course, we have the unique situation where we have south Lee and north
Collier County growing together in very intermesh fashion.
And as we get involved in the need to develop our
intergovernmental coordination element of our comprehensive plans, we
perhaps have more responsibility to have good working intergovernmental
coordination elements even more than other areas. And so I'm anxious
and excited to get to work and help communicate and facilitate this
process. We, of course, have three big projects in district 75. We
have a new university which has just as much importance to people here
in Collier County as Lee County. We have -- in addition to our airport
which in many ways is giving us a whole brand new airport with a 12,000
foot runway and capabilities that no other airport in Florida will
have, and then we have more mundane but very important improvements to
U.S. 41. And I will be very soon meeting with Florida Department of
Transportation officials, and I assure you that I will be one of the
squeaky wheels to see if we can get six laning of 41 done in a timely
fashion.
As I said before, we have a new office in district 75.
We're just 17 miles north of the county line, and I certainly invite
you to communicate with us and see us in our office. Or if you'd like
for me to come down here, I'm just a phone call away, and we will
respond.
I know that you're interested in lobbying efforts in Tallahassee.
And how ever you want to do this, you can be assured that lobbying in
your behalf is part of my job. I consider that part of my job.
And so when any of you are planning trips to Tallahassee, I
certainly want you to let me know that you're coming and what issues
you're working on, who you want to see, and you have my complete
cooperation to try to assist you in any way we can.
And it's a pleasure to be here, and I'm looking forward
to the next two years. Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Thank you. Commissioner Hancock?
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: I want to -- Mr. Livingston and I
both share a designation as certified planners. And hopefully between
the two of us I look forward to bringing an increased focus to
northern Collier County and the Bonita Springs area. And we'll be
talking with your office to set up regularly scheduled meetings and
see if we can't -- can't draw the two counties together in more ways
than one.
REPRESENTATIVE LIVINGSTON: Yes, and I'm sure you're
aware that the district 3 commissioner in Lee County is also a
planner, and we have a lot of planning projects on the ground. In
fact, this is one of the main reasons why --
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: We could be trouble, Ralph.
There's a proliferation of planners running around.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Almost as many planners as
attorneys.
REPRESENTATIVE LIVINGSTON: One of the main reasons why
I selected the community affairs committee --
COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: Well, you're certainly going to
need a CPA to overlook the cost of all this planning.
REPRESENTATIVE LIVINGSTON: I'm also on the higher
education committee, so I'm anxious to get to work.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Again, thank you, Ralph.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Thanks. He's got some plum
assignments. I believe he got all four that he requested for the --
his committee assignments, and so we should be well represented.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Good news.
Item #5
BUDGET AMENDMENTS - NONE
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: With that we move onto the budget
amendments. Mr. Smykowski.
MR. DORRILL: And there are none --
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: There are none.
MR. DORRILL: -- this morning, Mr. Chairman.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Hallelujah.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Guess no motion's necessary
there.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: I like the way this meeting's
going already.
Item #8C1
RESOLUTION 94-848 ADPOPTING THE COLLIER COUNTY PARKS AND RECREATION
FACILITIES LICENSE AND FEE FOLICY AND SUPERSEDING COUNTY RESOLUTION
94-24 - ADOPTED
8-C-1, recommendation BCC approve a resolution adopting
the Collier County parks and rec. facilities license and fee policy
superseding the old one. Good morning.
MR. BRINKMAN: Good morning. I've Steve Brinkman, your
parks and recreation director, and it's my pleasure to be here and go
over some new changes in our fees resolution.
Some time ago the commission directed us to establish a
new fee for profit groups so that they can come in and use our fields
and our buildings for tournaments, shows, and special events. And
this fee resolution change will allow for that.
The fee resolution change will also allow for -- it
provides some changes in the way that we charge summer rates at the
pool so that we can actually charge a sales tax and round off the
fee. We get a large number of people using the pool in the
summertime, and this will allow us to -- to charge a fee and not have
to add an odd sales tax amount on to that fee. The new fees for the
profit groups are on pages 3, 4, and 5 of your ordinance. They deal
with new fees for indoor, outdoor facilities, and for athletic fields.
The changes in the pool ordinance is on page 12. And again, that
changes what was the old summer fee. It reduces that fee by 6 percent
and then allows us to charge the tax and get back up to that fee.
Now, that -- by doing that, it will enable us to serve -- get folks
into the pool a great deal quicker. The negative effect of that is
that there will be a slight increase in revenue loss because if we were
charging $1.50 before and adding on the tax, we would have had a little
bit more money. This way we're actually charging $1.41, adding tax
onto it, and actually collecting $1.50. So there will be a slight
decrease in revenue.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: One question, Mr. Brinkman. The
changes were made under the summer fees but not under the winter
fees. Is --
MR. BRINKMAN: And that's because the summertime is the
most hectic where we have 200 people in line waiting to get into the
pool. In the wintertime there is really no hurry and the folks
normally can come up to the window and be charged the normal fee, and
we have plenty of time to add on that sales tax. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Okay.
MR. BRINKMAN: If there is any other questions I can --
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Hancock?
COHHISSIONER HANCOCK: There was a -- a time in which
state softball tournaments used county parks, and I do know a practice
at that point was to cover the cost of the field so that the athletes
didn't have to bear that cost. They were charged two or three dollars
for the parents to watch the game.
Now, I know we have a county policy that says no admission shall
be charged. If they've rented all four softball fields out in a
complex and want to charge an admission to cover solely the cost of the
fields for that, do we have any possible way in this that they can do
that? It's just a way to reduce the cost to the individual player.
And if I remember correctly, those tournaments brought in a number,
dozens of hotel nights because the kids traveled from all over the
state with their parents. So I saw it as a benefit to the community,
and I -- but I don't see a vehicle for that happening.
MR. BRINKMAN: Yeah. This will only restrict groups that are
profit-making groups from charging an admission fee. We can still --
we do have tournaments that we co-sponsor with a number of non-profit
groups. And they are allowed to charge an admission fee to get into
the park.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. So as long as they're not for profit
and they work with you on a co-sponsorship -- MR. BRINKMAN: Yes.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- then they should be able to use
admission fees to defray the cost of the field rentals?
MR. BRINKMAN: Yes, because the school district does that from
time to time when they have some of their tournaments where they bring
in teams from the outside.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Because as you can guess, we have a
lot of softball talent in this town. MR. BRINKMAN: That's true.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Don't be bragging like that, Tim.
Mr. Cuyler?
MR. CUYLER: Mr. Chairman, I just -- I just want to point out that
the strike-through, underlined format is for the benefit of the board
to review this. This will be cleaned up obviously and put in a
straight form of text.
MR. DORRILL: Mr. Chairman, there are no speakers. In fact, the
only speakers I have thus far are on the Naples Park drainage item
today.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: One question, Mr. Brinkman. Does this in
any way affect the summer program for children, fees and so on?
MR. BRINKMAN: No, sir. The -- most of these fees
relate to facilities, the facilities at the park. There -- there are
some -- there is one program fee increase in here, and that is for
adults -- adult softball. There is a $20 participant fee now, and
we're raising that to 22 so just a $2 increase.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: I hadn't seen it in there, but why I asked
is earlier in the year there was a question about the discrepancy
between the rural part of the county's cost for the program and the
urban part of the county's cost for the program. We don't need to get
into that today, but I wanted to make sure that was coming back at some
point to us.
MR. BRINKMAN: Yes, sir, it will.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Great. If there's nothing else,
do we have a motion?
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Motion to approve.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: There is a motion from
Commissioner Norris, a second from Commissioner Hancock. Any further
discussion?
Seeing none, all those in favor of the motion state aye.
Anyone opposed?
Motion carries 5-0.
Item #8C2
AGREEMENT TO PURCHASE A FIVE ACRE TRACT AND APPROVE BUDGET AMENDMENT
ALLOWING FOR DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF ADDITIONAL AMENITIES WITHIN THE
PARK FACILITIES' FIRST PHASE OF THE GOLDEN GATE ESTATES COHMUNITY PARK
- STAFF RECOHMENDATION APPROVED
Item 8-C-2, recommendation BCC consider the cost and
environmental constraints associated with a proposed -- thank you --
easement access to the Golden Gate Estates Community Park.
MR. OLLIFF: Good morning. For the record, Tom Olliff,
your public services administrator.
What I've just handed out just for reference purposes as
we talk about this estates park is a preliminary sort of site plan for
you to orient you to where are the major facilities here including the
schools, some of the tracts of property that we may be talking about
this morning.
As you're aware, the county's in the process of
attempting to build a community park in the estates, and it is
adjacent to land owned by the Collier County Public School System.
Where you see Big Cypress Elementary School on that site map is the
location of that elementary school.
The board members that were here previously know the
difficulty that we had in trying to locate property for this
particular park in the estates without driving through residential
neighborhoods. In order to find property and having a major impact on
those neighborhoods, it was very difficult to come up with a tract.
We were extremely happy to find one that was adjacent to a school that
seemed to offer some utility in terms of those school children, use of
school properties for recreational facilities as well.
When that property was originally purchased, we had
anticipated being able to do a joint access right on the left-hand
side of Big Cypress Elementary School as you see their entrance road
there similar to joint accesses that we have at the Vineyards
Elementary School and Vineyards Community Park. Or there's a similar
arrangement at Naples Park Elementary School with some recreational
facilities there.
Unfortunately because of the specific way that this is
designed, it is a very narrow entrance road. It is where they bring
both their bus traffic as well as their parent pick-up traffic through
that one single roadway. Due to the amount of traffic that is on
Golden Gate Boulevard itself, the joint access just simply wasn't able
to be done. We went through probably three different actual on-paper
designs of it, and in each case there was just no simple way for us to
be able to ensure safety of both the children at the school and
traffic merging on to -- to Golden Gate Boulevard.
On October 11 as a result the board was presented with a
couple of options for alternative entrances. This was after staff had
gone out and solicited those property owners that you see as tract 96,
97, 112. And, in fact, we actually went further to the west two more
tracts to talk to property owners to see if they were willing to
either sell the property or provide an access easement that we could
use to get to the park.
The responses that we got were two. Tract 97 submitted
to us that they would be willing to provide an -- to sell an
easement. And tract 96, the owner was willing to sell us the 5 acres
there.
Of those two options, the easement had more wetland
impact but was significantly less expensive by about $46,000. The
five-acre tract we thought was less impacted by wetland. But again,
it was more expensive. And based on that information the board
directed staff to go back and look at the easement because of the cost
savings involved but contingent upon the permitting requirements.
We're now standing here in front of you knowing what
those permitting requirements are. And attached to your executive
summary was a cost break-out of three different options that were
there, the easement versus the five-acre purchase. And on that you'll
see that the easement is still the cheaper of the options in terms of
construction. However, it's only $6,000 cheaper, and the 5 acres nets
the county roughly 4 acres of usable land for an additional $6,000.
And given the balance in cost and the additional utility of the
five-acre site, we felt obligated to come back to the board and make a
recommendation that rather than pursue the easement that we purchase
that five-acre site. That's the first of primarily three major
recommendations being made here this morning.
In addition, it was determined that during the site
design process the project, as you'll recall, was divided into a phase
1 and a phase 2 project primarily because of population in that area
and because of available revenues in impact fees.
When they were doing the actual site design, it was
determined that it makes a lot more financial sense to do all of your
site work at one time; in other words, to do your water management at
one time, to do your underground utilities work at one time. And so
that's what the current plan is, to do that because it is the most
efficient way to construct this two-phase park.
However, when you do that it takes money out of your
phase 1 budget, and it results in our not being able to build as many
recreational facilities as we had originally intended.
What we're here proposing to the board instead is that
we supplement this phase 1 project by $500,000, and that will allow us
to build facilities that were originally intended in phase 1,
primarily the two major facilities that the public wants and desires.
On your site plan, if you'll look almost right in the middle of the
page there's a basketball pavilion. That is a covered structure that
is similar to Marco Island. It's a covered basketball court which was
the number one requested item primarily of the school and the children
there so that they can use that covered while it's hot during the day
and for all sorts of covered recreation kind of uses.
In addition, it's real difficult to see, but if you'll
look right at -- at the two home plates there on the softball little
league fields, there is small building there called a concession
building. That little square is -- is typical of a softball field
concession stand and scorer's building. But it is important to this
facility because it includes the only restrooms on this facility in
phase 1 which is an important amenity for any community park.
We're not increasing the total scope of this project or
the total budget of this project. What we're here recommending is a
timing issue. If it makes more sense to do some of the site work and
utilities now and you want to cut a ribbon on a park that has a
reasonable number of facilities on it, we simply want to take some of
the money from phase 2 and move it up into phase 1.
The funds are available, and I think your fiscal impact
statement points out that we had an additional $400,000 in revenue
realized in impact fees in this particular fund over what we had
budgeted. So we can actually accomplish this without impacting any
other projects you have budgeted for this fiscal year.
Lastly -- and I never like standing here talking about
this, but the schedule's actually slipped on this project, and I need
to make the board aware of that. The project has slipped primarily
for three major reasons: One, we lost two months trying to do a joint
access design. We then lost an additional two months on that project
trying to contact these property owners, get return information from
them, sit down and negotiate purchase agreements with them. And
finally, since October once the board decided on the easement, we had
spent the better part of two months trying to chase down what the
environmental permitting conditions were going to be.
We now have those on hand, and we're standing here back
in front of you six months later. So unfortunately, I think this
project has gone from what was going to be a July, August time frame
of 1995 to now we're talking about a January 1996 time frame.
I do need to tell you that we are doing everything we
can to condense this because we know that the public really wants this
park out there. The original engineering estimate that was provided
after all these changes was a May of 1996 time frame. And we've been
working with them over the last two weeks to crush everything we can
out of that project even on our side, the bidding processes and
everything that we can do to try and get -- our goal was to try and
get it still in 1995. The best we were able to do is January of
1996.
With those three recommendations, we think we can get
this project on track and get the community out there to see some dirt
being turned and get this project moving. And with that I'm available
for any questions, and I'd certainly like to get the board to approve
that staff recommendation.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Two quick questions. When was --
when is or was phase 2 scheduled to happen? When do you anticipate
that being necessary?
MR. OLLIFF: We had anticipated phase 2 planning
beginning this year and then construction following. Primarily the
major facility in phase 2 was that community center. That is a
million dollar facility generally speaking. And the parks and rec.
advisory board is having some discussions about that community center,
and I think they may want to come back here and make some alternative
recommendations. But the plan was to begin that this year.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Second question, throughout the
discussions on this park there has been some concern on the part of
residents in the area about one particular thing. And something you
just said I'm afraid will reinvent that rumor, so I need to you
clarify this.
You mentioned the children from the school using the
covered basketball courts during the day, so on. There is some
concern that in some way the park will be closed to the public during
school hours. I don't think that's the case, but I would appreciate
it if you'd say that on the record just to clarify that one more
time.
MR. OLLIFF: On the record, this park will be open to
the public the same hours that every other community park is. A great
example is East Naples Community Park right next to Avalon School.
The school children use the park during the day, but so does the
public. And that's the same thing that we intend here.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Thanks. Commissioner Matthews?
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I'm -- I'm happy to see this is
-- this is really coming forward, and I'm sorry -- I think it's
almost a year late is what I'm -- what I'm hearing now. But these
ball fields and the future soccer field that are on the school's
portion of this part, the school's five-acre portion -- MR. OLLIFF: Yes, ma'am.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: -- what's the estimated cost of
those fields?
MR. OLLIFF: The two fields are actually in existence
today. They're not great fields, but they are -- they would be pretty
much practice-type fields. We may do some minor upgrades to those.
The football, soccer field is one that would be constructed.
Generally when we build those with lights, our cost is a quarter of a
million dollars, 250,000.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Do we have a commitment from the
school board that this is going to be park land and with a joint use?
MR. OLLIFF: We -- we have an existing and has been for
a long time a joint use agreement. That joint use agreement doesn't
provide a fixed long-term commitment. And I think the county
attorney's office has suggested and we agree and that's probably why
you see a site plan pretty much like it is where no hard structures or
physical buildings are located on school property, that if we are
going to make those kind of investments on school property that we
ought to either amend the agreement or have a specific agreement in
this case that would provide us a perpetual recreational easement on
this land.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Uh-huh.
MR. OLLIFF: And as we -- if we're going to make
substantial investments on that, we will be back in front of you
requesting some sort of a recreation easement that would run in
perpetuity with the land.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: So we have other recreational
properties, recreational money invested in school properties at which
the taxpayers' money is essentially at risk because the school board
could say, hey, we need the property. Move your -- your field. And I
guess my point is we've got Commissioner Hancock who has said that he
wants to work with the school board. This might be a very good issue
to start out on in that we need to safeguard the taxpayers' park and
recreation money.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I am currently setting up
meetings -- meeting with the chairman of the school board for right
after the holidays to get that process started, so I'd be happy to
take that on as a first item.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Good, good. I'd like to see
that because it's -- it's -- it's a little bothersome to invest a half
a million dollars in building soccer fields for the school board three
years from now to say, gee, the school is overcrowded. We need the
land.
MR. OLLIFF: It's -- the school board's usually been
very good about working with us. But I agree. As we move on and
we're putting more and more of these joint use kind of proposals
together -- we were in front of the board just within the last six
months with an idea that conceptually has been approved to upgrade
most of the middle schools in this area so that they become public
park type facilities after school. And that will require a fairly
major financial commitment. And before we do that, we would like to
get that resolved and properly present those easement issues to the
board.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Okay.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Other questions on this?
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Only one other question. I note
on here that you have noted that the GAC advisory, land trust
advisory, committee has now recommended it has only $26,000 available
to fund this project where I think a month ago or two months ago there
was 50,000. They were going to buy the land. And they've made some
other commitments with their money?
MR. OLLIFF: I believe so. They have recommended to the
board 26,100 towards whichever of the two options the board decides to
go with. So they are helping with the financing of that. They had, I
believe, $140,000 uncommitted available, but I do think that they have
some other things on their plate that they may want to use those funds
for.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Okay.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Hancock?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: First question I'm going to steal
from the gentleman to my right. You mentioned a community center, but
I see a recreation center. Are they one in the same? MR. OLLIFF: Yes, sir.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Secondly, what is the
possibility -- and I just would ask you to discuss this for the
record. What is the possibility of working with Big Cypress
Elementary and utilizing the existing bus loop as a construction
access so we can get the construction of the park started before the
-- the -- the proposed either easement or access will be? Is there a
chance that we could get an agreement from them that we could utilize
that and that the engineer could work out -- I mean, obviously we
could connect straight to First Avenue Southwest and come in off of
First Avenue Southwest for construction, and that would get the park
started a little bit earlier. Is there a possibility of working that
out with them?
MR. OLLIFF: There probably is. I believe -- we're not
even final design or bid phase yet.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay.
MR. OLLIFF: So I think that we can probably either --
we can pursue both of those tracts simultaneously. But I believe we
will be able to close on the five-acre purchase and have that
available to us as an access right in time for us to go ahead and --
and let a construction contract.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Let me ask then if that is
not the case that we do pursue that -- that bus drive to -- so that we
don't slow the construction schedule down.
Secondly and lastly, if we are to come in, you have an
-- an -- an access shown on the easement parcel on tract 97. MR. OLLIFF: Yes.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: If this board should decide to
purchase tract 96, that would require, as far as I can see, a
reconfiguration of the parking area -- MR. OLLIFF: Yes.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: -- for a new access. I assume
that's been taken into consideration. There's no additional charge
we're looking at design for that?
MR. OLLIFF: Correct.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: If -- are there any speakers on
this, Mr. Dorrill?
MR. DORRILL: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Did you have any?
COMHISSIONER NORRIS: No.
COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: I'd like to make a motion that
we approve the recommendation that we have been offered from the parks
and recreation board and the parks and recreation department and go
with the five-acre parcel.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: I'll second that.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: There's a motion by Commissioner
Matthews, a second by Commissioner Hancock. Any further discussion?
MR. CUYLER: Mr. Chairman, that includes all of the
recommendations, the seven recommendations of staff.
COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: I'm sorry. The seven
recommendations that we advance the $500,000, yeah, the whole thing.
MR. CUYLER: Correct.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'll second.
COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: Got a motion and a second.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: There is a motion and a second.
All those in favor of the motion state aye. Anyone opposed?
Motion carries 5-0. Thanks, Tom.
Item #SF1
LEASE FOR AN EHS STATION WITH THE NORTH NAPLES FIRE DISTRICT -
IHMOKALEE ROAD - APPROVED WITH STIPULATIONS
Item 8-C -- I'm sorry, 8-F-l, recommendation to approve
a lease for an EHS station with the North Naples Fire District. Ms.
Flagg, good morning.
MS. FLAGG: Good morning, Commissioners. Diane Flagg
representing the EHS department.
If I may, county attorney is distributing a revised
exhibit. The lease that you see in front of you remained the same.
But pursuant to yesterday's meeting with the fire commissioners, the
exhibits have changed on the reverse of the lease.
Just to give you a little historica -- historical data,
in Hay the Board of County Commissioners approved the use of the
property in Pelican Bay by the North Naples Fire Department for
building of a fire station. In return the county commissioners asked
that the North Naples Fire Department in the event that the EHS
department had need of an existing property that they also be allowed
to use that.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: There's a very loud piano teacher
upstairs.
MS. FLAGG: As a result, the EHS department approached
the North Naples Fire Department and negotiated a lease that's almost
identical to the lease that the North Naples Fire Department
negotiated with the county commissioners back in Hay.
And if I could draw your attention to Exhibits A, B, and
C on the reverse of the lease, yesterday's meeting, the fire
commissioners determined that use of the property would be better
served by on Exhibit A using the east side of the property as opposed
to the west side.
On the second exhibit, Exhibit B, where it shows
property, this is just showing the footprint of the property as it's
laid out with its setbacks.
And Exhibit C pursuant to yesterday's meeting shows you
the changes that were made by the fire commission yesterday where the
building of an addition on the west side of the property has been
moved to showing a leased area on the east side of the property for
the building of an EHS station.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Hiss Flagg, will that station
comply with all setbacks? And obviously we've seen this before, and
we've looked at the proximity of the -- to St. Honica's Church next
door.
MS. FLAGG: Right.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I assume we're going to be
building closer to St. Honica's now?
MS. FLAGG: Right. What -- on the -- on the original
proposal it did not require a variance to the setback requirements.
It was recognized by the fire commissioners that in building the
addition on the east side of the property that it -- we will be back
before you to request a variance to the setback requirements.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. So we will have at a later
date an opportunity to look at the specific site plans for that
expansion --
MS. FLAGG: Yes, sir.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: -- and how they interplay with
the adjoining property?
MS. FLAGG: Uh-huh.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Other questions for Miss Flagg?
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: The -- excuse me, Mr. Chairman.
Yeah, I do.
The variance that we'll be looking for is not a
particular onerous one. I mean, it's a fairly normal variance
request?
MS. FLAGG: No, ma'am. The property where the -- the
area that we will be utilizing actually is right next to a parking lot
of the St. Monica's Church. So it's not something like we're building
it next to somebody's residential home.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: That's what my question is, that
the variance you'll be looking for is not one that we're likely to not
accept and -- and -- and give you. MS. FLAGG: Right.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Not that we would prejudge.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Not that we're -- no, we won't
prejudge. But there are other variances similar to this request that
have been before these boards before. MS. FLAGG: Yes, yes.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: And granted.
MS. FLAGG: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: In essence, Bettye, it sounds
pretty good.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I just wanted to make -- make
sure that we're not going to be -- that we're not going to approve a
lease today and then, you know, three months from now have a variance
come before us and say, oh, jeez.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Mr. Cuyler, I assume we can make
the lease subject to the approval of the variance? MR. CUYLER: You can, yes.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Is that acceptable, Miss Flagg?
I don't think one without the other is any good.
MS. FLAGG: Right. The -- the fire commission indicated
that if the variance is not approved that the lease is null and void.
MR. CUYLER: I think that language may be in the lease.
If it's not, we'll put it in the lease.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Mr. Dotrill, do we have any
public speakers on this item? MR. DORRILL: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: We'll be happy to entertain a
motion.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Chairman, I move that we --
that we approve staff's recommendation regarding the lease.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: With the note that it is null and
void should the variance be denied?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: So amended.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Is there a second? There is a
motion by Commissioner Hancock, a second by Commissioner Mac'Kie.
further discussion?
Seeing none, all those in favor of the motion please
state aye.
Anyone opposed?
Motion carries 5-0.
MS. FLAGG: Thank you, Commissioners.
Any
Item #SG1
REQUEST FOR CONCEPTUAL AAPROVAL OF PROJECT COST ALLOCATION METHOD FOR
NAPLES PARK DRAINAGE PROJECT - STAFF TO PROCEED WITH ASSESSMENT
METHODOLOGY THRU HSTBU
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Thanks. Next item is 8-G-l,
request for conceptual approval of project cost and allocation method
for Naples Park drainage project. Sue?
Good morning, Mr. Boldt. How are you?
MR. BOLDT: Good morning. For the record, I'm John
Boldt, your storm water management director. And I'm here this
morning to discuss with you some funding options for the Naples Park
drainage project.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Mr. Boldt --
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: A seasonal tie you're wearing, by
the way.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yes.
MR. BOLDT: Thank you.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Mr. Boldt?
MR. BOLDT: Yes, ma'am.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Is there something like that
that's available for the public to be able to see as well, or could we
turn that somehow? I just hate it that we can see and they can't.
MR. BOLDT: I can turn it and see if we can all look at
it at the same time here.
COHHISSIONER HAC'KIE: If you guys are familiar with it
already then --
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Just a suggestion that we put it
roughly where Mr. Lorenz is sitting at a right angle and perhaps then
the audience and us can see it.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And maybe that we use that
overhead business that we've spent a lot of money to add on in here in
the future.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: We don't have it yet.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: When is our new communications
stuff going in?
MR. DORRILL: One thing at a time, Commissioner. We've
just got your offices finished.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We want everything.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: We want more.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: We want it all, and we want it
now.
COHHISSIONER MAC'KIE: We want it now.
MR. DORRILL: We do have a final budget. We reviewed
that recently with the chairman. We hope to do that probably the end
of the first quarter.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: As long as we've got a pause in
the action, Merry Christmas, Mary and Bob. How are you? John?
MR. BOLDT: Just as a refresher, I'm going to review
real quickly what's proposed in the Naples Park drainage project, this
being U.S. 41, Vanderbilt Beach Drive. Naples Park covers the bulk of
the map. The proposal is to enclose the big ditch between 91st and
92nd Avenue that originates in Vanderbilt Lagoon and runs easterly
between those two streets to Eighth Street and also to enclose the
large ditch that's along the east side of Eighth Street from the
center part of the park south. And then drainage is basically over on
the west side going north across lllth Avenue into the Cocohatchee
River.
This is what has been proposed over the years to enclose
is those two systems in addition to which what's considered the
primary system is the replacement of some culverts underneath
Vanderbilt Drive at eight different locations that have rusted and
they're undersized and need replacing. So the total primary system is
the 91st, 92nd, and Eighth Street and those culverts under Vanderbilt
Drive.
Basic reasons for this is both health reasons, have an
opened ditch, safety reasons particularly along Eighth Street where
there's a bike path right adjacent to the ditch. There's an erosion
problem between 91st and 92nd on that ditch back there because of its
size and the sandy conditions. And it's just to upgrade the park in
its entirety if we could eliminate those unsightly ditches that are so
visible in the areas of the park.
We have in hand at this point in time all the easements
we need to construct the project. We have the environmental permits
both from water management district and DEP. We have the engineering
construction plans on hand and also the bidding documents. The only
thing we lack is the funding. And your policy is that a project of
this type would be funded by either special assessment or taxing
districts initiated by a property owner or petition signed by 50
percent of the benefitted property owners.
And the petition circulators have indicated that they
need to be able to tell the signers of these proposed petitions how
much the project's going to cost individual property owners before
they can get the signers to sign the petitions.
So at a previous meeting you directed me to update the
cost of the construction and propose a methodology of spreading the
cost or allocating the cost among the benefitted property owners.
The primary system was originally estimated to cost
about 3.3 million dollars by the firm of Agnoli, Barber, and Brundage
back in 1988. In allowing for average inflation of around 3 percent,
I've updated those costs to about 3.8 million dollars.
So I'm going to recommend to you today that the cost
allocation be done by a special assessment methodology based on
contribution of storm water run-off to the system and also by either
direct or indirect benefits that are received by the improvements.
Storm water run-off in this case is a function of both the parcel size
and the intensity of the land use. And I propose that there are
basically seven different land use areas here starting with the bulk
of the park, which is the area included in the green area, and a strip
along here would be the primary -- primary benefactors of the
project.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: What did you call that area, Mr.
Boldt? I'm sorry.
MR. BOLDT: This is the balance of the park. There's
about --
COHHISSIONER HAC'KIE: So it's like the first, second,
third, fourth, fifth line down on your chart.
MR. BOLDT: Yes. Perhaps I ought to follow my own
chart --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Well, I'm just trying to get --
MR. BOLDT: -- and go down from top to bottom. Okay.
The first benefact area I have is the Pavilion Shopping Center which
is at the intersection of 41 and Vanderbilt Beach Drive. It's a large
commercial area, lots of parking areas and roof areas is one benefit
area.
The other is ares -- excuse me, multi-family area, the
Pavilion Club down there just north of that.
The third is the frontage along U.S. 41. There's
commercial frontage basically all along U.S. 41 along the east side of
the park and also along the south side of lllth Avenue up in this
area. This is all zoned commercial and will be no doubt commercial
use.
Also as another benefiting area I recommend that those
areas that directly abut the proposed open drain that's going to be
enclosed between 91st and 92nd which is this orange area and in the
row of lots along Eighth Street on either side that directly abut the
drain be another benefacting area.
The balance of the lots is shown in green. That's the
vast majority of them.
Another category would be the Beach Walk project which
is south of Naples Park. It was constructed back in the middle
eighties. It has its own water management system, retention lakes,
all interconnected and discharged by a pipe down in the northwest part
of the project through a structure that limits their discharge. And
it comes into the project right at the lower terminal.
The other very large contributor of run-off to this
whole system is the some 20 miles of roads or streets and avenues in
Naples Park. There are 60-foot right-of-ways that are owned by the
county and are county maintained throughout the whole area that
contribute greatly to the run-off.
So with the size then being a factor, I'll refer you now
to my chart. The table summarizes then again these land use areas,
the seven of them, showing the total acreage involved which totals up
to some 878 acres, the typical number of lots in each of these areas.
Basically the commercial frontage along 41, there's some 372 lots
there. They're very small lots like 25 feet wide and 100 foot deep.
And obviously most of those parcels have multiple lots, but they total
about 372.
The number of lots along -- abutting the 91st and 92nd
Avenue and Eighth Street ditches totals 186, and then the balance of
the lots is roughly three -- thirty-four hundred lots.
Run-off then being a factor of acreage or size and also
of intensity of land use which is from acceptable engineering manuals
a factor called a run-off factor. It's basically the percentage
run-off you can expect from a parcel of land based on the amount of
parking areas, roofs, or the grassy areas and so on. And those range
from the heavy commercial areas like at the Pavilion, say, eight
tenths or about 80 percent run-off, multi-family area of six tenths,
the commercial, seven tenths, the lots and the residential areas
around three tenths, Beach Walk because of its limiting factor -- they
have their own storm water retention area and a discharge structure
that limits discharge -- at two tenths and then county road
right-of-ways because of the paved areas and shoulders at seven
tenths.
A benefit factor I've introduced into here based on who
directly or indirectly benefits the bulk of the benefit factor I have
just a one factor. I feel like there's a justification that the
people that live directly on the 91st and 92nd and Eighth Street
ditches would benefit by a one and a half factor because of the fact
that they have it on their property, it's directly in their yards, and
they benefit from that. And the other benefit factor is a factor of
two tenths again for Beach Walk because they have a modern designed
storm water retention system that limits discharge and outlets at the
lower end of the project.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Mr. Boldt?
MR. BOLDT: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Are those factors -- is that
similarly based on an engineering standard or just sort of a -- MR. BOLDT: The -- the run-off intensity land factors
very definitely are. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yes.
MR. BOLDT: I can tell you all sorts of engineering
manuals that do that.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yes, sir.
MR. BOLDT: The benefit factor is my best judgment, what
I felt it should be.
So the total contribution of -- factor which is a
combination of the acreage times the run-off factor times the benefit
factor yields this column, column number 6, which my multiplication
totals 353. And so then for each of these areas their percentage
would be 5.6 percent, 2.6 percent, and so on with the bulk of it being
the balance of the lots in Naples Park at 46 percent of the
contribution and 33 percent for the county road right-of-ways totaling
100 percent.
If you take those percentages times the 3.832 million
dollars, about 3.8 million dollars, you would have the Pavilion then
contributing of that amount about $215,000, the Pavilion Club about
102,000, the commercial frontage along U.S. 41 and lllth like 315,000,
those properties directly abutting the ditches 130,000. The bulk of
the area, the balance of Naples Park, is a million, say, seven hundred
and sixty-six thousand; Beach Walk at about 25,000. And then the
county road right-of-way's contribution is a million two hundred and
seventy-nine thousand.
Just to give you kind of a scale, the average cost per
acre you can see is in column number 9; runs anywhere from $430 an
acre for Beach Walk all the way up to the heavy commercial areas like
eighty-six hundred dollars per acre.
When you look at those properties, the lots, the
residential lots, and the commercial frontage along 41, just dividing
out the number of lots into the dollars, you come up with an average
cost of $847 for the commercial properties. And these are these
25-foot wide, 100-foot deep parcels. Those properties abutting the
ditch would be $700 per lot. And these, again, are approximately 50
foot wide by 135-foot deep lots. And then the bulk of them in the
balance of the park would be $515.
When you spread that cost out over a period of time, I
selected 7 percent and applied an interest factor of 7 -- 7 years and
7 percent. If we're to spread the cost over that period of time, that
breaks down the average cost per year here in this column number 11
for the commercial frontage at $157, those abutting, 130, and the
balance at around $100 per year. And then the cost per month you can
see is in the range of 8 to $13.
So that's basically how the -- the cost was split out.
And I remind you again that the county contribution then would be the
million two hundred and seventy-nine thousand dollars which at this
point in time, you know, is a contribution for those 20 miles of
roadways. It's not currently funded in any of our -- any of our
budgets.
So the recommendation then I have is in order -- the
people have an opportunity to circulate a petition and speak with some
certainty of what the cost is going to be, that we accept the
methodology similar to this, and that the cost would be in the
approximate range that we've seen here based on an engineer's cost
estimate which will vary depending on what's the actual bids. And
there will be some other further refinements when we get down actually
counting the exact number of lots. There's going to be some fine
tuning, but it ought to be very close to the range that we have here.
And this will be the figure then that the people could use when
they're talking with those that would be the signers.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I have a couple of questions. I
don't know if it's appropriate to ask Mr. Boldt. May I?
What's the genesis or where did the board adopt this
policy -- thank you -- of petitions being required?
MR. BOLDT: It goes back in quite a long history when we
did our master plan development. And we also were in the midst of a
rate study for a storm water utility. These were all the options that
came out. And of the two options for creating special assessment
districts or taxing districts, the board has the option to create
these districts on their own initiative by your own majority vote or
by requiring a petition signed by 50 percent of the property owners.
In this particular area just as an example, Naples Park
and this whole area has around 3,400 parcels, total parcels all
together. Typically speaking you have a Mr. and Mrs. ownership, that
kind of offset by some corporations or some -- you know, have some
trusts and estates. Just say it's an average of two. So that means
we have about 6,800 property owners in an area like this.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Excuse me just a minute, Mr.
Boldt. Can you pull that microphone up just a little bit because some
of the folks are indicating they can't hear you?
MR. BOLDT: Okay. Why don't I just go back to this
one.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That works better.
MR. BOLDT: So if that's -- there's 6,800 property
owners. The 50 percent rule then would require about 3,400 signatures
in an area such as we have here. And obviously, you know, you won't
find a lot of people in Beach Walk, for instance, who would want to
sign the petition. You don't need 50 percent from Beach Walk. The 50
percent of signatures can come from anywhere in the park. They could
come from all on one street or just anywhere just as long as they
total up to 50 percent.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But in the direct benefitted --
the -- the -- the area that's getting the 1.5 benefit factor, there
are -- I just want to be sure if I'm -- I'm getting this right. There
are 186 lots. And assuming there's two owners per -- under the Mr.
and Mrs. scenario, we've got about 350 signatures coming out of the
directly benefitted lots, and we need 6,400?
MR. BOLDT: That's pretty good numbers, right.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. I just want to be sure I'm
getting the math right. And let me be sure, too -- and maybe this is
a county attorney question -- that the ordinance does permit the board
to adopt the resolution to -- to impose this tax without petition.
Petition is just an option.
MR. CUYLER: Correct.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay.
MR. CUYLER: One of the two options.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Hancock?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: First of all, Mr. Boldt, just so
-- for everyone's understanding, we basically have a three-part
system here. We have Eighth Street which consists of a break point.
We have two segments on Eighth Street. We have a portion that flows
to the north, a portion that flows to the south. MR. BOLDT: Correct.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: The ditch between 91st and 92nd
is actually the final conveyance for the entire southern portion of
Naples Park for the most part.
MR. BOLDT: For all this area right in here. That's
true.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: So we have there a little bit of
a domino effect. If we don't fix 91st and 92nd, then doing the south
portion of Eighth doesn't do us much good, does it?
MR. BOLDT: You could not make an improvement here
without making the improvement here also.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Beach Walk which would
contribute to the system although it has an existing sufficient water
management system, their outfall is down on this end?
MR. BOLDT: It's way down in the northwest corner.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Down in that end?
MR. BOLDT: It comes into the open ditch just east of
Vanderbilt Drive.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Do we have a breakdown of
costs per segment of this project? Or do we have an overall cost
only?
MR. BOLDT: I can give you an overall cost. The
breakdown's available. I don't have it even with me today
unfortunately.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: We do have that if we need it.
MR. BOLDT: Yes, we can break it down by segment.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Did you have more of your
presentation?
MR. BOLDT: No. Just one final reminder, just in case I
forget that tomorrow night at 5:05 we also will be before you again on
the second of two public hearings for the moratorium extension which
is kind of tied in with keeping the environmental permit for this
project alive.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Norris, and then we
have five public speakers.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Boldt, over the last couple of
years the board has moved toward a -- perhaps an informal policy of
having these taxing districts set up and having the affected property
owners fund their drainage improvements. With that policy in mind,
how does this one-third contribution by the county fit into that
policy? How can you justify --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Right.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: -- that the county should
participate when on the one hand we say that -- that in all other
areas that -- that the homeowners must fund it themselves?
MR. BOLDT: Well, in just that -- in this particular
case when we're talking about property owners and contribution of
run-off, the county, in fact, owns those 20 miles of roadways,
maintains them, and they have the -- they're contributing that much
run-off to it. And the total impact on the project, you know, the
area they control is one-third of the contribution.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. Now, there are a number of
other older communities, areas, around the county that have similar
situations. They have old drainage systems that don't work very well,
and they have periodic flooding and so forth very similar to this.
Now, in the past we have talked about asking those
people to fund those improvements alone without county participation.
And what I'm trying to get to is if we have the county participate in
this particular project, what's the difference between this one and
any number of other ones that are out there including the one that's
on our agenda yet today?
MR. BOLDT: Well, I guess one of the concepts is the
difference between a taxing district which is based on ad valorem
values of property and my concept of the special assessment which is
contribution to run-off and benefit received. Even in this particular
instance if you were to use a taxing district, you have two parcels
side by side. One has a -- is vacant. One has a home. One has a
value of, say, 25,000. One's 125,000. They contribute about the same
amount of run-off because of size, and yet you're going to talk from a
taxing district a great difference in the millage.
In my concept of the special assessment, the county
contributes to the run-off. They're a factor there. If it was done
on a taxing district on millage, there is no value placed on those
roads. The county's not paying taxes on it, not assessed for it.
in those cases, you know, they would not be liable for it.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: But -- let me ask the question in
a different way. In any number of these other communities that have
the similar situation, does this same principle apply that the county
owns right-of-way and, therefore, should contribute to these other
districts as well?
MR. BOLDT: In my professional judgment based on my
experience both here and in another state where these sorts of
methodologies were applied, I would think it would be logical we would
say even in a taxing district that the county would be liable for a
certain percentage of the cost of a project. At that point that's not
your policy, but that would be my recommendation.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Let's go to our public speakers,
and I understand we have five, and then let's -- we'll try to bring
this all to question and closing at the end.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, I just wasn't sure. I
never got an answer to Commissioner Norris's question about whether or
not this is the way it's been done in the past. Can somebody tell us
that?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: There's a certain knowledge on
this project that -- that I've gained over the last few months. The
ditch between 91st and 92nd where there are fences on private
property, those fences are no longer standing vertically. There has
been a constant maintenance problem in that area, and that is a county
drainage easement. That has got to be fixed. And it's not operating
what I would consider reasonably well.
So I think if we were to back off this and say the
county has no responsibility for cost on this project whatsoever, I
think we're absolving ourselves of -- of a true responsibility of
what's going on between 91st and 92nd.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: I agree. Let's go to our public
speakers, and then we'll try to bring our own questions at the end.
MS. EDWARDS: First speaker is Alan Newman.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: He'll be followed by --
MS. EDWARDS: He is followed by Doug McGilvra.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Good morning.
MR. NEWMAN: Good morning, Commissioners. My name's
Alan Newman, 639 94th Avenue North.
The drainage ditch doesn't affect my home at all. In
fact, I don't even see it. I don't pay attention to it, but I feel in
my heart that I should be liable for part of it. Maybe the county
doesn't feel like they should be liable, but I think everybody is --
should be liable for a part of it.
It will not only improve the park aesthetics, but it
will also get a safety factor in there that I -- we definitely need.
I've only lived there two years. And I see kids playing around in
that water. And I'm just waiting for one of them to be drowned or get
sick, malaria or whatever, you know. It's -- it's -- it's a dangerous
factor. I've never seen an open sewer or a ditch like that. It looks
like a sewer. You got algae growing on it. They got snakes crawling
through it. And I think in my part that I would like to see something
done with it even if it does cost me. I don't see it in my property.
I'm not flooded, but I feel liable for it. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Thank you, Mr. Newman.
Mr. McGilvra will be followed by --
MS. EDWARDS: Gene Pistori.
MR. MCGILVRA: Good morning, Commissioners. My name is
Douglas McGilvra. I live in Naples Park, and I'm the president of the
Property Owners of Naples Park.
Naples Park is an old community, platted in the 1950s.
Growth of the park in the early years gave us the inadequate storm
drainage system we have today. Little or nothing has been done to
repair the system except an occasional surface cleaning and periodic
spraying of herbicides and mosquito-killing chemicals. The major
drainage ditches run along Eighth Avenue from 91st Avenue to lllth
Avenue and between the homes on 91st and 92nd Street from Eighth
Street to Vanderbilt Drive as John has pointed out.
The Naples Park major outflow ditches are very close to
homes on Eighth Street and pass through the backyard of areas of homes
located on 91st and 92nd Avenues. Vermin abound along these fetid
ditches, and mosquitos have perfect breeding grounds. The ditches are
not dry, and algae along with other stagnant water growths have great
places to live.
Wide open filthy ditches running through a neighborhood
of over 3,400 homes is repugnant and reminds one of third world
conditions. The Eighth Street ditch is about 1.2 miles long, and the
ditch between the properties on 91st Avenue and 92nd Avenue is about
eighth tenths of a mile long. These ditches so close to where
children play and wait for school buses are time bombs waiting to go
off. As time patches -- passes, these ditches are getting wider. The
sides are getting steeper and the ditches edging closer to adjacent
properties.
The character of Naples Park is changing. Younger
families with children are replacing older property owners. As this
change continues, the probability of accidents occurring because of
the existing open ditches will increase.
While only a minority of property owners are either
having flooding problems or losing land by erosion, many others are
disgusted by this site and potential hazards that the drainage dishes
-- ditches present.
The present ditch system is inadequate to prevent
flooding for the current county requirement of a ten-year storm
event. I've since been informed that we now have a 25-year storm
event criteria.
We have been lucky so far this year but had flooding
conditions in 1992 and in 1988. Even small storms can fill the
ditches to the brim. Water depths of five feet are just plain
dangerous with children playing by these ditches that run past their
homes and yards.
The engineering study presented by Mr. Boldt pipes and
covers the ditches eliminating all of the problems spoken about. We
hope you agree with the methodology and agree to the county's
contribution to help Naples Park with its storm water drainage
system.
Since the problems discussed affect only a minority of
the property owners in Naples Park, we ask that the Board of
Commissioners, Board of County Commissioners, due to health, safety,
and welfare concerns, use their power to create the necessary
improvement district instead of requiring a 50 plus 1 percent plus 1
vote from all the property owners in the areas involved. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Thank you.
Hiss Pistori, and she'll be followed by '-
MS. EDWARDS: Vera FitzGerald.
MS. PISTORI: Okay. My name is Gene Pistori. I live in
Naples Park, and I've been living here for a few years.
Now, the ditch along Eighth Street North from 91st
Avenue to lllth Avenue is a health hazard to children who play in it
and adults. It is dirty with scum, algae, weeds, and a dumping ground
for cans, bottles, and other litter. It is a breeder of mosquitos,
flies, and other insects. The canal on 92nd Avenue has eroded away
backyards of people who live on 92nd Avenue which could be a safety
hazard at some point in the future. Who is going to pay for these
damages? Right now it's their yards. Pretty soon it'll be their
homes.
Now, Mr. Norris is -- asked about the cost of the
county. Now, from what I hear and I've been told from our president
of PONP, the county cost is approximately $10,000 a year to put
poisons in these canals, poisons, and the children play in it. It's
cost $10,000 a year. That's a lot of money. That could be
eliminated.
Not only could that be eliminated, but the poisons that
are put in there are going into our ocean, our Gulf. That also could
be eliminated if these ditches are closed.
The -- okay. The canals of 92nd and -- 92nd Avenue
Street and Eighth Street have become a very dangerous situation. I've
asked many children playing in it -- in that filthy water to get out
or they will get sick. Some listen. Some don't. We must cover these
two dangerous filthy canals. Please do it now.
We will not get 50 percent plus 1 on our -- in our
community. There are too many people living out of states. There are
too many rentals. We will not ever be able to get the 50 plus 1. We
need your help. You are the only ones that can do it. Please help
us. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Thank you.
Ms. FitzGerald will be followed by --
MS. EDWARDS: Manning Flaum who will be followed by Jack
Pointer.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Thank you.
MS. FITZGERALD: I want to send you around some pictures
of the flooding that's -- that's happened in Naples Park over the
years. I'm just showing you 1992 flood and 1993 flood. I don't have
any of the 1988 flood, the 1989 flood, the 1990 flood, et cetera, et
cetera. But it happens every time it rains just a little bit more
than an inch. We start this flooding. And the reason, of course, we
have such serious flooding is because the 8th Street is inadequate as
John Boldt has told you.
The orange ones were taken by Dick Wood who
unfortunately couldn't be here because he and his family are off
cruising for Christmas.
The -- you'll see that there's homes being flooded out.
Cars were racing down the road, and they created a wake that washed
into people's homes. People were standing out there knee deep begging
these people, please go home. Get off the streets. You're causing
the flood to get even worse. I would think that those people would
have a very good ground for a lawsuit.
The maintenance, as people have already told you,
consists of spraying with pesticides. Once they ran a bulldozer down
the 91st, 92nd ditch to clear out some junk, and that really did a
number on the banks. After that it started to erode big time.
Of course, then the county allowed the Pavilion Club to
dump along with the Pavilion Shopping Center into it. This is why the
county has some responsibility. It isn't just the Naples Park
drainage system. It's a whole area that's draining into our system.
But we're still willing to pay to pipe to an adequate size.
And I don't live anywhere near 91st and 92nd. The only
way I impact the drainage is the stuff that goes down the hill into
the Gulf way up in the northwest corner, but I'm willing to pay my
share.
People talk about safety on Eighth Street. In 1992 an
eight-foot alligator decided to take up residence at 107th. This is
where the kids are always playing with those little inflatables. And
thank God they decided to harass Huscovies that day, and the county
came out and hauled off the alligator.
And again, I think and I feel that we really deserve a
little return on our 40 years of paying tax. Since the maintenance
consisted of $10,000 worth of blowing pesticides and herbicides, I
really think we deserve a little return on all that 40 years of tax
money which we have not had much of.
They have -- this 51 percent that John Boldt has brought
up, that is a total and absolute impossibility. Just imagine trying
to walk up and down 20 some miles of streets trying to find people in
3,400 homes. It's impossible. I mean, we'd need a small army, and
we're not an ant hill. We're just people, and we don't have an army
to sort of blitz this. And it isn't a question of just going down
once. We'd have to go back and go back and go back. And then all of
a sudden spring would come, and they'd all leave which -- and they've
done it now already for Christmas because I started to do a survey
that I promised I would do. But, oh, just like Dick Wood off
cruising, the other half I think went up north on -- on -- to visit
their family.
So one of the things I want to ask this county
commission is, Mr. Chairman, would you accept a survey, a telephone
survey, a verifiable telephone survey, in lieu of these signatures?
We know the people want it. When I published the Naples Park
Community News in the first of December, I had all kinds of phone
calls coming in on my answering machine. And we know the people want
it.
When John Boldt's department sent out the survey, he got
-- now, John will have to correct me because I'm not just sure of my
absolute facts, but I think he got a return of about 25 percent. And
most of them were for it. Well -- they weren't?
MR. BOLDT: No.
MS. FITZGERALD: My facts are not correct. I'm sorry.
I was going to say the 25 percent of the people that vote -- well, if
I was running for office and 25 percent of the people voted, I
wouldn't go and say, hey, that election is null and void because 75
percent didn't bother but -- so would you take a telephone survey in
lieu of it? Or I would really rather you just did it by fiat.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Mr. Weigel, I don't believe we
have the authority to take that in lieu of signatures, do we? MR. WEIGEL: You do.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Do we?
MR. WEIGEL: You do.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: We can take a telephone survey
and count that as --
MR. WEIGEL: Well, you can -- you can review and give
whatever credence to facts or materials that are provided you. I
thought your question was concerning the 50 plus 1 or the board acting
without the 50 percent plus 1.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Right. The telephone survey
would not count as 50 plus 1, though. We could use that as input and
then make our decision. But that would not count.
MR. WEIGEL: That's absolutely correct.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Okay. Thank you.
MS. FITZGERALD: Well, we hope you will do it without
needing a petition. We can't give you one.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Could I ask what does your button
say?
MS. FITZGERALD: Pardon?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: What does your button say?
MS. FITZGERALD: It -- I hope it's right side up. It
says PONP, Property Owners of Naples Park.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Oh, thank you. I'm new.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Affectionately called PONP.
MS. EDWARDS: Manning Flaum.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: I'm sorry? One more time.
MS. EDWARDS: Manning and I believe it's Flaum.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Followed by Jack Pointer?
MS. EDWARDS: That's correct.
MR. FLAUM: My name is Manning Flaum. Appreciate being
here this morning.
I bought a house in Naples Park in 1989, and I saw the
ditches. They're not near my home at all. They do not affect my
property at all. But they were an eyesore and a blight on the
community at that time which has only increased in the five years that
I've been here.
I was told at that time that they were in the process --
that the county was in the process of alleviating this situation by
putting these ditches in -- in pipes and taking care of the problem.
As a citizen of this community, I feel that the county
has a great responsibility in this problem. I mean, this is a -- a --
a prime community, a prime part of this area, and a great contributor
to the county in general.
Now, the people that live in Naples Park are -- well,
for the sake of a better word, I'll say middle or lower middle class
working people. There are a great number of these people that are
struggling just to make their house payments let alone adding an
assessment of five or seven hundred dollars. They are not going to
voluntarily place -- place this additional yoke around their neck. I
do not think that you would ever and certainly not in -- in recent --
in -- in current times get a 50 plus 1 percent approval of this
project. Primarily I mentioned that the financial -- the economic
conditions of the community.
The second is that there are so few that are directly
affected. The rest of the community is not. These people would say
like I could say. My property is not affected by these ditches. Why
should I pay $700 to alleviate somebody else's problem? Now, I know
that's a narrow view, but there would be a lot of this taken into
consideration.
So I would request that the county take the
responsibility of this project, accept their responsibility for their
part of it, and pass the necessary legislation or whatever it might
take to move this project forward and not have me come up here in
another five years and make this same speech. I thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Thank you.
Mr. Pointer. And Mr. Pointer is the final speaker?
MS. EDWARDS: Yes, he is.
MR. POINTER: Good morning, Commissioners. My name is
Jack Pointer. I am here representing Willoughby Acres.
Some several years ago in 1992 Willoughby Acres went
through this same thing, and we had similar ditches to our friends in
Naples Park, and they were closed. It took us 15 years to get 50
percent plus 1 signatures because so many people owned the land up in
Ohio and other places that were not here, not available. Once the 50
percent plus 1 was in, it took a couple of years to get the ditches
closed, and they were taken care of.
What I want to do is to express Willoughby Acres'
support for Naples Park in having the county pay its fair share for
the closing of these ditches because the county did indeed help
Willoughby Acres. They supplied the fill dirt that was necessary.
They supplied the engineering, and they supplied other services that
we did not directly pay. It was paid -- it was done by Mr. Archibald
who did a very fine job for us and helped us in the years not only of
getting the signatures but also in getting the entire ditch -- ditches
covered and paid for.
Certainly there was a considerable number of dollars --
I think it was eight or nine hundred dollars per lot, and we charged
everybody exactly the same. It mattered no difference whether they
were on a corner or whether they were in the middle of the block.
Everybody paid that eight or nine hundred dollars. But the county did
the engineering work. The county provided that service. The county
provided the fill. And so they did indeed help us in a manner, and we
would like you to help Naples Park in a fair manner from the entire
county. Thank you very much.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Pointer, Mr. Pointer, can I
ask you a couple questions? MR. POINTER: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: You say you represented --
representing today Willoughby Acres. MR. POINTER: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Did you mean officially you're
representing the homeowners' association?
MR. POINTER: Yes, sir. I am -- my official title is
the governmental affairs committee. I am the governmental affairs. I
sit here. And we have for a number of years supported Naples Park.
I've attended many meetings at Naples Park. And, of course, at the
time that they were coming back and forth, we did too. And so this is
a continuing thing, sir.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Refresh my memory on that
Willoughby Acres project. The county did or did not contribute cash
money?
MR. POINTER: They did not contribute any cash, but they
provided services in lieu of cash. All of the fill I believe Mr.
Archibald supplied. I know he did all the engineering through his
department. I believe at that time there was different
responsibilities but very, very appreciative that Willoughby Acres was
of the county for what they did because I'm -- I don't know what the
percentage would be, but I'm sure it was 15, 20 percent. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Thank you.
MR. POINTER: Thank you very much, sir.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Matthews?
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Mr. Pointer, come back.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Popular man, Jack.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: The Willoughby Acres project
that was eight or nine hundred dollars per lot -- MR. POINTER: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: -- that was partially shared
with the Turnbury people too. They paid some smaller portion. But my
question is this: That project that covered the ditches in Willoughby
Acres, didn't that also include pathways along Lakeland?
MR. POINTER: We had pathways put in at a cost of
$75,000 on Lakeland and Euclid Avenue, ma'am. And that was paid for
in addition to, but it was an additional price of $75,000 on top of
the ditch closing.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: But it was enclosed in the eight
or nine hundred dollars per lot? MR. POINTER: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: And weren't street lights also
put into that too?
MR. POINTER: That is a --
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: A modest amount?
MR. POINTER: That is a coming factor, ma'am, and it has
not yet been accomplished.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: It's not yet happened?
MR. POINTER: Not yet.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I knew you were getting street
lights.
MR. POINTER: That is right.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: But I thought they were already
in.
MR. POINTER: There was a defined area, not only
Willoughby Acres. Turnbury was included; Heritage was included; and
several of the acreages, the five-acre and the ten-acre parcels. It
was presumed that they were going to use Euclid Avenue and Lakeland
Avenue as a entrance and egress. And, therefore, they received a
charge on the assumption I think it was two and a half lots per acre.
They were charged accordingly. So somebody that owned 5 acres would
be presumed to have whatever that is, 12 lots times that number.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Whatever it works out to.
MR. POINTER: And so the county made a contribution.
Then a couple of challenges took place afterwards, after the amount of
money was determined. And one or two of them got out of paying all
together. And the county picked up that particular portion. Mr.
Archibald could tell you that. But we certainly -- without the
county's help and without the transportation department who were then
the engineers, it was just one of those factors that made it happen.
COHHISSIONER MATTHEWS: Okay. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Hancock?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Couple of points that I feel are
important in this project. If none of you have had the opportunity to
visit the canal between 91st and 92nd and --
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Oh, yes, I have.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And this is not a -- I'm not
pointing fingers at Mr. Archibald. The truth is that there's just
simply some erosion back there that in my opinion is detrimental to
the property owners along that canal. It's something that if we did
nothing today this county would have to step up and do something about
in the future. There's a definite cost associated with that.
I am looking at -- and I'm not one to go out and spend
county taxpayer dollars simply because something's in my district.
But the bottom line is that ditch is a problem. It's been a problem.
It will continue to be a problem and will have to be addressed
physically and financially by this board at some time.
I'm looking at that 1.3 million dollars sitting in there
as if not in whole, in part contribution to the correction of an
existing problem that is our responsibility.
Beyond that, we talked about Willoughby receiving the
benefit of engineering on the part of Mr. Archibald. Naples Park has
already paid for the engineering of this project through an assessment
done a number of years ago. The residents taxed themselves and paid
for the engineering. They've set the stage for us to act upon it.
With the significant amount of absentee owners in Naples
Park, there's no question in my mind that Mr. Pointer's 15 years would
be minuscule compared to the time it would take to track down and
obtain 50 percent plus 1 on signatures. And the simple reason is an
absentee owner many times doesn't see it, doesn't want it, doesn't
care about it. And it's not fair to unduly burden the residents out
there with the flooding problem because of that.
I guess in essence I've made my -- my pitch from the
pulpit. I think we do have a responsibility here both financially and
a responsibility to get the ball rolling for Naples Park. That's
personally how I feel, and I'll -- I'll leave it to the board to -- to
make a decision today. But I did want to at least have my input on
that.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Mr. Chairman?
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Hac'Kie?
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Perhaps I've misunderstood. I've
assumed that the assessment methodology anticipated for this was an
HSTU. Is that wrong? Is that what we expect to adopt? I don't know
who to direct that question to.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Mr. Boldt?
MR. BOLDT: I don't profess to be an authority on it,
but there's a definite difference between special assessment and an
HSTU. TU is a taxing unit based on ad valorem millage. Special
assessment can be done by acreage, front foot, whatever methodology
you come up with. And this was my methodology for special
assessments.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Not for HST -- this, in fact, was
to be a special assessment, not an HSTU. Does that make sense, Mr.
Weigel? Is that something we can do?
MR. WEIGEL: Well, it does make sense in the sense that
there is flexibility for the board to even adopt what is called an
MSTBU that incorporates both taxing and assessment types of
methodology. And typically the ad valorem elements of an MSTBU come
in on the front end of a project, engineering, soft costs as they call
that.
And the methodology of the assessment of property based
upon direct and indirect benefits comes to the latter part of the
project and the hard costs, construction costs, and is typically
configured out ahead of time so that the board and the public, the
affected public, know the breakdown of the costs and the types of
assessments that would occur to them whether it's ad valorem or a
special assessment.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But my -- my -- my position on
this is going to be that the county -- that we ought to undertake this
responsibility without requiring the 50 percent petition. But I'm
confused -- I also don't want to give this particular neighborhood a
benefit that's separate or better than what we've given other
neighborhoods. And I'm confused. We have this County Barn Road
district coming up. We heard that Willoughby Acres -- that the county
roads were not assessed in that particular situation. And I just need
that bit of information. Is it normal for the county roads to be
assessed or not? Is that our policy or not? CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Mr. Boldt?
MR. BOLDT: Unfortunately we don't really have a lot of
precedent. These projects you talked about are the only ones in my
knowledge in 12 years here that we've had anything similar to it where
the decision on how we create a project by petition or by board
initiative, whether it's special assessment or taxing district or the
county contributes or does not contribute as we're suggesting today.
There really has been very little precedent. And that's why I guess
we're asking for the -- that kind of policy decision to be made.
You're going to face it again on -- on discussion with
County Barn. We're working real hard in the whole Lely basin area in
East Naples, a very large project that's starting to come together.
The funding decisions have not been made there. The magnitude of the
numbers is much greater. You're talking about signatures down there
of maybe 10,000 people which is just astronomical. But the dollars
are large also. And so, you know, this is a situation where we really
need some clear decisions made on.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Norris?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, what is really clear here is
that for years and years these ditches have been a major problem.
They're ugly to begin with. But more than that, they're a health and
a safety problem. And I agree with Commissioner Hac'Kie that we
probably should go ahead and take that responsibility on as the county
commission to get this ball rolling here.
My concern is still one of consistency here. The
Willoughby Acres project, as we've heard earlier, was not done the
same way. The county contributed some help through fill and some
engineering services and other services but didn't contribute a third
of the money.
We're going to be asked today to look at another area
Mr. Boldt just mentioned much larger and that if you'll look, you will
see that. You'll see also that it's done as a taxing unit and it's
done strictly on ad valorem tax with no contribution whatsoever by the
county. And, you know, that's just not consistent.
If we're going to start doing these drainage
improvements around the county -- and I think we should -- we need to
set a policy that we're going to use consistently with all of them
unless there's some extenuating circumstances on one of these projects
that comes up that dictates a variance from our particular policy.
But we've got -- we've got two projects on today's agenda that are --
that are directly opposed to each other on this particular policy.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Matthews?
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Mr. Boldt, the 20 miles of
roadway that you were discussing earlier, which roads are they?
MR. BOLDT: That's all the avenues and all the streets
in Naples Park.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: So it's all the internal roads?
MR. BOLDT: Yes. In addition to that, for what it's
worth, the ditches between 91st and 92nd also is a 30-foot
right-of-way that the county owns in those backyards that I also
included in that acreage because it's owned by the county.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I understand that. I -- I think
I'm -- I'm getting a little bit concerned as well about the taxpayers
at large sharing in the benefit for this 20 miles of roadway. If you
had told me it was Vanderbilt Beach Road, Vanderbilt Drive, lllth, or
even 41, I could -- I could say, well, yeah, there's a benefit for the
public at large. But for those internal streets and avenues, 95
percent of the use, 99 percent of the use is the people who live
within the park.
And I'm a little bit concerned about this same -- same
concept of the -- the public taxpayer sharing in the -- in the cost of
this at least to the tune of one-third. I'm -- I'm -- I'm not
comfortable with that. But I too believe that we need to get this
project off center and get it moving. At this point I think I'm not
sure who's -- who's going to pay what price, but I think I'm --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Isn't that always the problem?
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Well, yeah, it is always the
problem, and perhaps the drainage ditch really is -- the drainage
ditch between 91st and 92nd really is a -- a county responsibility.
And perhaps we should share in the cost of fixing that.
But as far as sharing in the cost of all the 168 acres
that makes up the internal roadways, I'm not -- I'm not sure about
that. Again, County Barn, we're handling it differently. Willoughby
Acres, while we did some -- you know, did the engineering, provided
the fill dirt, and so forth, we could do some of that here as well as
take on the 91st, 92nd Street ditch. I've -- I've just got some
problems with all the roadways, but I do think we ought to get it off
base and form the HSTU and get it moving.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: We have two distinct questions
here as part of the overall topic, and that is whether or not we
require the 50 percent plus 1 or go forward on our own; and then
secondary, what the county share should be if we go forward.
If the project moves forward -- of those two questions
-- we seem to have a number of different combinations here. But if
the project moves forward, I think the county should share -- and
perhaps not to the tune that's outlined in our package -- but should
share in some way and for three different reasons:
One being the Willoughby Acres precedent. If we
assisted there, we should be assisting elsewhere.
Two is Mr. Boldt's explanation that the county does
cause some of this run-off. We actually own property that affects
this and so on. So we should take responsibility for that.
And third, there are a few -- and there aren't that
many, but there are a few communities that were developed in our
county long before the standards that are required today were
required. And I think we owe it to those communities to still hold
them in the same high regard those communities that have been
developed since and were forced to put in on their own because of our
requirements. We need to make sure that the entire county is treated
the same way.
However, I'm concerned -- Mr. Flaum pointed out that
many of the people who live in Naples Park are middle class or lower
middle class very much like my community of Golden Gate where people
are in sixty and seventy and eighty thousand dollar homes and they are
living check to check and struggling to get by to pay their home
payments and pay for groceries and just pay the basics. And while for
the members of the board that may not be easy to grasp --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Oh, it's easy.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: -- I have any number of people in
Golden Gate, and I'm sure the situation is the same --
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: That's incredibly easy to grasp.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: No, I don't think it is, and I
mean that in a literal sense. They're not worried about paying cable
TV. They're not worried about VCR. They're trying to pay for their
house payment, and they're not sure month to month whether or not
they're going to pay it. And I don't think any of us have that worry
every month. I know my mortgage is going to be paid every month. But
there are many people who aren't sure as they go through the 12 months
of the year that they're going to have enough money to do that every
single month, and they struggle with that.
And so I'm concerned that without them going ahead and
saying, yes, we want this that we're putting an additional burden --
the numbers we have here are several hundred dollars. And if the
county does not participate or participates less, it's even more. And
so I'm concerned for us to go ahead and say, yes, let's do that if 25
percent of the respondents, not even a majority of those, wanted this
taxing area.
So to take people who are struggling now and say, even
though you don't want it, we're going to put an additional burden on
you, I'm not comfortable doing that. And I'd prefer to try to educate
that area and make sure that we have a majority of the people that
want to do that. And at that point I think the county should share in
the cost.
Commissioner Mac'Kie?
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Help me with -- with whether or
not this is an appropriate motion. But I'd like to move that the
county proceed with an assessment methodology without use of the
petition process but that the assessment methodology be an HSTBU as
described by Mr. Weigel as opposed to a special assessment.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: And what would the county's
participation be?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Well, as -- that is the process
-- as defined by its benefit. I think that the HSTBU is the right
policy for the county to adopt as the methodology for these -- for
these in the future. And it would result in the county's portion
being significantly less than a third.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: What I -- and again, I don't want
to hold up that motion. It seems that there seems to be some
formative agreement for at least a majority of the board that -- that
this board take action and not require the petition method. I may be
incorrect in that read, but I believe from your comments I've
understood that. And one, I'm grateful for that. It seems the crux
right now is 1.3 million dollars. Is it fair? Is it not? And how do
we justify what -- what is a fair share for the county?
Unfortunately your -- your motion I -- I like. I'm just
not so sure it guarantees we're going to address this finally in the
-- in the coming month or six weeks because we're still -- we've been
asked today to adopt a methodology. We would, in fact, have to refuse
the methodology as is. And then I assume your motion is proposing a
-- a new methodology by which the residents' share would in all
likelihood would be increased and the county's would be decreased.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Yes, that is my proposal and that
the -- the methodology, the calculations be brought back in front of
us but that we -- that we not adopt the proposed methodology.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Then may I ask a question of Mr.
Archibald in the interim that may help me come to some conclusion?
Mr. Archibald, you're very familiar with the -- the
drainage ditch between 91st and 92nd. From the residents I've met
with, you -- you've had the joy of romping in that area a number of
times.
MR. ARCHIBALD: Uh-huh. Yes, I have.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: What would you express the
current condition of that ditch to be? And -- and furthermore, I'm
asking for an opinion which is always a dangerous position for you but
asking for an opinion as to what the county's responsibilities are for
the future maintenance of that area.
MR. ARCHIBALD: I think the board should look at it from
two standpoints. One standpoint is what is the county's
responsibility from a capacity standpoint. The other is what is the
county's responsibility from an aesthetic standpoint. And I think
both of those issues need to be addressed because, in fact, the county
has a responsibility to maintain a drainage thoroughfare through that
area. But, in fact, the existing ditch that's there may, in fact,
provide the capacity, but it doesn't provide the aesthetics or it
adversely impacts on adjacent properties. So part of what we're
looking at creates value for the adjacent properties in addition to
serving for the capacity needs.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Let me -- and you've hit on
something. As much as I'd like to say, you know, that we're concerned
about aesthetics, the truth is I'm concerned about moving the water
out of Naples Park. When the folks who bought along 91st and 92nd
bought their homes, there was a ditch there. I don't think there was
any reason to assume there's a guarantee that that would be closed
some day. There was a ditch there when they bought it.
If we can move the volume of water necessary without
enclosing it at the same time making sure we stop the erosion that is
going on, are we going to see a cost reduction in the overall
project?
MR. ARCHIBALD: You could, and that's one thing that
staff has looked at as far as taking a look at a phased approach in
addressing the capacity problems recognizing that the weak links in
the system that currently exist on Eighth and between 91st and 92nd is
not necessarily the ditch that people are concerned about. It's the
crossings underneath the road. Those are the weak links so that you
could not only address this project in phases; but obviously as has
been addressed today, it can be handled either as an assessment or a
taxing district or a combination of both of those.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Do you see a way in which to
reduce or stop the erosion on 91st and 92nd that the residents are
concerned with?
MR. ARCHIBALD: One way to address that would be to
install riprap. At the very southern end of this outfall system the
county has gone ahead and built a crossdrain to handle the future
volume of outfall.
As part of that work the Department of Environmental
Regulation had required us to go ahead and provide riprap. Some
residents liked the idea. Others did not.
But there are other solutions to stabilize the bank or
to provide some aesthetic improvement for that at the same time
recognizing that our people are having to maintain that each and every
year. Many owners respect that ditch and maintain it themselves.
Others use it as a dump. And obviously by improving that would, in
fact, reduce our maintenance long term. So there's a series of issues
that could be addressed through a -- again, an MSTBU.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Is there a second to the motion
that's on the floor right now?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: If I could clarify the motion and
possibly may include an amendment?
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS:
you don't mind.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK:
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS:
is proposed for four laning.
four laned also?
I've got one more question if
Okay.
Mr. Archibald, Vanderbilt Drive
That portion of it, is that going to be
MR. ARCHIBALD: No. The four laning concept is between
lllth at the south end and Bonita Beach Road at the north end.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Okay. So there's --
MR. ARCHIBALD: There's no proposed --
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: So the portion to the west of
Naples Park is not planned for four laning.
MR. ARCHIBALD: No, it is not.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Ever?
MR. ARCHIBALD: Not in any of the comprehensive plans
that I've seen.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Okay. Because that was one of
my questions. If we're going to be four laning that portion of
Vanderbilt Beach Drive, it seems that's the optimal time to adjust the
culverts.
MR. ARCHIBALD: Again, the issue of the roads is also
one that has to be defined. In fact, if you find out that the
property owners are -- in fact, have the primary rights to that road
and are the primary benefitters and that that cost would end up having
to be carried by them, then, in fact, that type of methodology may
increase what residents have to ultimately pay.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Can we try to shape this into
something acceptable for a second?
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: My question for Miss Mac'Kie,
your motion is to recommend that MSTBU be the -- the funding mechanism
for the improvements.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: (Commissioner Mac'Kie nodded
head.)
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: And that by board action that
means the residents would not have to obtain a petition drive.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: (Commissioner Mac'Kie nodded
head.)
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Secondly, we're going to have to
see some new numbers as a final approval for the project; is that
correct?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: And with that Mr. Archibald could
bring forth some potential cost saving measures for the 91st, 92nd
ditch other than closing it in that might reduce the overall tax
impact or overall impact to the residents? Is -- is that a fair
statement?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Absolutely, yes.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Do we have anyone -- Doug, as I
guess as a representative of PONP, does this sound like a reasonable
approach in your -- your opinion?
MR. MCGILVRA: Would you restate it, please?
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Mr. McGilvra, we need you to come
up to the podium anyway.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: And I may be paraphrasing Miss
Mac'Kie's motion.
COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Correct.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: But her motion is we -- we
establish an HSTBU as the funding mechanism, in other words, this
board establish it, the petition drive is no longer necessary, that
it's going to be funded through an HSTBU.
The HSTBU will then require that staff do a new benefit
proportionality study, you know, assigning, you know, a benefit factor
to each property similar to this in the process looking at potential
redesigns that may be cost savings factors and reduce the county's
overall expenditure in this project. Is that a correct assumption?
COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Absolutely. My assumption in
proposing this motion is that the county would take the responsibility
to set up the mechanism for the tax to be imposed without requiring a
50 percent petition or anything like that but that the methodology --
instead of a special assessment which is what Mr. Boldt has charted
out for us that the methodology be based on the benefit to the
particular property owners.
And there are a multiplicity of ways to do that, but we
would get, I assume, a proposal from our staff so that -- the net
effect being, to be real frank about it, my goal being that the county
not bear one-third of the cost because I don't think that's fair since
what we're talking about for county roadways is those internal
neighborhood roads.
So my goal is for the county to impose the tax but not
to pay as much as it would under the proposal Mr. Boldt has brought
forth, just to state it real plainly.
MR. MCGILVRA: Doug McGilvra again for the record. And
this would also assume a reduction in the total overall cost by an
analysis done by Mr. Boldt.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Hopefully.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: That would be something that I
would work on very hard over the next few weeks with Mr. Archibald to
try and reduce the overall project costs so that we're not, in fact,
increasing the individual assessments by much at all, if anything.
MR. MCGILVRA: I understand you to say then you would go
along with a vote on your own behalf with the idea that we would
reduce -- be able to reduce the cost to the county by means of cost
reduction process between the gentlemen involved here.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: That would be the goal, Mr.
McGilvra. We can't guarantee it, but that would be the goal.
MR. MCGILVRA: I would think that that would be
acceptable. Sounds good to me.
MS. PISTORI: May I, please? I didn't use all of my
time.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: We're not -- no, we're not going
to reopen the floor to statements. Everyone had their five minutes.
If you don't use the five minutes, you don't get to come back and make
up the time you didn't use.
Is there a second to the motion?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'll second the motion.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Other discussion on the motion?
Again, I'm going to vote against it because there are a
number of people who live in the community who I think cannot handle
or are going to have difficulty handling a several hundred dollar or
more burden, financial burden. And I can't in good conscience do that
without their asking to have that put upon themselves. Commissioner Norris?
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Let me make sure that I understand
what I'm voting on here. We're going to vote today simply on
establishing the HSTBU. We're -- we have not agreed on any costs or
allocations at this point.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Correct.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Would it be appropriate to give
staff direction in this motion or after the motion on exactly what to
bring back to us to look at?
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Our attorney.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Mr. Cuyler?
MR. CUYLER: The answer to the second one, as best you
can. The answer to the first -- the first point you brought up,
you're only doing conceptually at this point. Obviously you'll have
public hearings, and they'll be advertised, and the public will attend
those.
With regard to direction to staff, you know, if you can
give them direction, fine. If you can't, they can provide options to
you as best they can.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Before we finish this item, I'd
like to give staff clear direction on what they're supposed to bring
back to us in a few weeks, whenever it's to be.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Why don't we vote on the
conceptual approval, and then we'll give them clear direction. All
those in favor of the motion state aye.
All those opposed?
Commissioner Constantine opposed, motion carries 4-1.
Do you want to try to clarify that?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yes. As far as direction is
concerned, I'll throw some things on the table, and then let's bat it
around quickly and move onto the next item. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Thank you.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: My first concern is that we don't
assess a Cadillac system when a Chevy will do. In other words, let's
get the water moving and get the drainage problem solved. If it
includes closure as the best and most feasible method, fine. If it's
riprapping fine, but the goal being to get the drainage done and to
reduce or eliminate the erosion on 91st and 92nd. That to me has got
to be one goal of the project. I don't see another way other than
closure on Eighth. You know, Mr. Archibald, you can help me again
with that also but --
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: I think the object here is to get
the most capacity with the lowest cost and obviously no future --
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Can I try to summarize, please,
what I would like to see direction? And if everybody agrees, then
we'll be done. Number one, remove the county's responsibility from
the cost allocation methodology; number two, however, include county
responsibility for that portion of the costs that would be deemed as
ditch maintenance. We -- we -- we are responsible for maintaining
that ditch, and it has eroded back into people's backyards, so that
should be included; number three, try to reduce costs as previously
discussed here; and number four, to try to estimate how much we can
provide in the in kind services as was done in the Willoughby Acres
project.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: I'm not sure on number one
because if we're going to talk about a benefit unit, the county is
going to have some benefit here. So I'm not sure that that was the
intention of the motion, though I voted against it, so perhaps someone
else can clarify it.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Well --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I can't agree with number one. I
can say reduce. I'll agree to reduce the county responsibility to
that allocation which is fair in the benefit unit. But to say remove
I think assumes that there is no benefit to the county. In my vote
that's incorrect. I think we do have a benefit.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Just so we get consensus, is that
what you understood?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Yes, with Mr. Hancock's.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Is that what you understood?
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Well, no, I agree with Mr.
Norris. I don't think that the -- that the taxpayers should be
assuming the benefit for the internal avenues and streets. The ditch,
yes, I think that we have a responsibility.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, that's part of an HSBU is
looking at what the benefit to the county is. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Right.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I don't think the county, quote,
unquote, has a benefit on the internal streets and roads.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But that would be --
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: The ditch, yes.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But that would be -- that is what
an HSTBU does, is it -- I would just like to give staff the
flexibility --
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Bring back some options.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- to make a case for what --
what should the county's assessment be based on what is the county's
benefit. I don't want to tell them the county has no benefit starting
right now, we start with that assumption.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Mr. Boldt, I suspect you can come
back with more than one option for us and several scenarios? MR. BOLDT: (Mr. Boldt nodded head.)
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: But I would -- I would like to
see whatever he comes back with comparable to what we've done in the
past.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Right.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I mean, if -- if we haven't
assumed benefit for internal streets and roads, then we shouldn't
start that now.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: That should certainly be one of
the options we'll look at. We'll take a ten-minute break.
(A short break was held.)
Item #9A
RESOLUTION 94-849 AUTHORIZING THE HOUSING FINANCE AUTHORITY OF LEON
COUNTY TO ISSUE SINGLE FAMILY MORTGAGE REVENUE BONDS IN COOPERATION
WITH THE COLLIER COUNTY HOUSING FINANCE AUTHORITY AND AUTHORIZING THE
LEON AUTHORITY TO OPERATE IN COLLIER COUNTY FOR THIS PROGRAM AND THE
COLLIER AUTHORITY TO ENTER INTO AN INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT WITH LEON
AUTHORITY FOR THESE PURPOSES - ADOPTED
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Hi. We're back. The next item
on the agenda is 9-A, authorization for the Housing Finance Authority
of Leon County.
MR. CUYLER: Mr. Chairman, we coordinate with Mr.
Pickworth who's counsel for the Housing Finance Authority and placed
this on the agenda, go over the paperwork, but Mr. Pickworth wants to
make a presentation to you on this.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Good morning, Mr. Pickworth.
MR. PICKWORTH: Good morning, Commissioners. For the
record, I'm Don Pickworth. I represent the Housing Finance
Authority.
We've been before you on similar items like this
before. But just to refresh you for a moment, the Housing Finance
Authority was created by the county commission 15 years ago for the
purpose of exercising the tax exempt financing power that it has to
issue bonds to assist in housing programs. We do both multi-family
and single-family programs.
What's before you today is a -- a single-family
program. By that I mean there will be a bond issue done which will
create a pool of money. Lending institutions that wish to participate
in the program will pay a commitment fee and will commit to
participate in the program up to an amount that they believe they can
originate mortgages for.
The reason we do it the way we're doing which is to
jointly participate with other counties is in the past we have not
historically had a large call for this kind of money here in Collier
County, at least not a sufficient amount to -- to issue bonds on our
own. You can reduce your issuance costs by pooling in with a group of
counties. And the county we're going in with is the Leon County
Housing Finance Authority which is doing a 50 or 60 million dollar
issue, and there's going to be quite a few different counties in the
state participating in that issue. And we're one of them.
From a process standpoint, in order for our authority to
do that, the law requires that an interlocal agreement be entered into
which authorizes the Leon County authority to issue its bonds on
behalf of, if you will, the Collier authority. And we as an authority
do not have the power to enter into an interlocal agreement. We need
your permission to do that.
So essentially from a strict process standpoint, what we
are asking you for today is two things: One is an approval for the
issuance of bonds because while we hold the various formal hearings
called Tefra hearings, you as the governing body of the county must
also approve the issuance of the bonds. And secondly, we need your
authorization to enter into an interlocal agreement with the Leon
County authority. And in your agenda package we provided a -- a
resolution which does that. So you simply have to move to adopt the
resolution which will take care of that.
If I could, Mr. Chairman, just beg your indulgence for
one more moment, I would like to just very briefly tell you a little
bit about the single-family mortgage program we're about to enter
into. We're pretty excited about this because we've -- we've -- we're
working with the Raymond James Group which is putting together this
program. And in a moment I'll introduce Phil Harloff from Raymond
James.
To tell you just a little about it, we've been a little
disappointed in the last three or four years with these programs
because we have had relatively low participating lender interest and
-- which means a relatively low number of mortgages being put out.
And we've been looking for a program that will interest some more
people and -- and a program that wouldn't have some of the problems
the others had which kept the interest low. And we think we've got
that, and we think we're going to have a lot more lender interest out
there which obviously the lender interest is because the lenders know
that they've got folks out there who want to come in and borrow money
under this program.
And so we're kind of excited about it. We think we're
going to be able to do a lot more mortgages off of this program than
we've done on some of the ones in the last few years.
And so that's -- and in a moment I want Mr. Harloff to
tell you just a little about it. Mr. Mihalic here is also here to
answer questions because what we're doing marries in very well with
some programs the county has in -- in -- in -- in assisting people
with down payment assistance and some of those things because one of
the biggest problems, as you know, in a lot of these programs is
people have a difficulty with the initial down payment assistance.
So with that let me just briefly tell you just a couple
just basics about the program. As you know, single-family programs
that -- have to follow federal tax guidelines for the bonds to be tax
exempt, and these require that your participants be first-time home
buyers meaning can't have owned a home within three years, and they
have to meet income limitations. Maximum income in target area -- in
-- in -- in non-target areas is 44,000 for a single -- for a one- and
two-family household, 51,000 for three or more in targeted areas. And
we have a couple targeted areas here in Collier County, a couple of
census tracts out in Immokalee and one in the city of Naples. And
what they do is they give you a little more leeway. You can have some
higher income limits in those areas to promote the program a little
more.
The programs have maximum purchase price limitations of
104,000 for new homes, 118,000 for existing homes. In targeted areas
those limits are a little bit higher.
So that's essentially the -- what the program is, and if
I could just take one more minute and ask Mr. Harloff to tell you a
little bit about this particular program and a couple of its features
and why we -- why we think we're going to generate a lot more service
to county citizens. And then at the conclusion I will simply ask that
you adopt the resolution. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Thank you.
Mr. Harloff?
MR. HARLOFF: Thank you, Don. My name is Phil Harloff.
I'm with Raymond James, an investment banking firm located in St.
Petersburg, Florida. We are happy to be able to present this program
to you and work with Collier County along with approximately five to
eight other counties. And I think that when we started and looked at
Collier County, we had heard some of the problems with origination and
some of the problems of getting lender interest. Well, I can tell you
that I have sent out over 23 program invitations. I have spoken to
many lenders. And I'm anticipating from original lender interest --
that includes mortgage companies and banks -- approximately 12 --
actually 12 million dollars of interest for this county. That's for
first-time home buyers. We're very pleasantly surprised with how much
interest I've had so far. We probably will end up with more, but we
-- the allocation we'll be looking to get is 12 million because until
January we can't actually ask for commitment fees.
The features in this program that make it different than
other bond programs and make it, we think, more attractive and also
work very well with some of the affordable housing things that Greg is
trying to do for the county is the fact that within this program is
actually built a down payment assistance piece so that it's a grant
actually so that the piece within it allows borrowers who a lot of
times aren't able to get into the program and maybe Greg's programs
cannot reach can reach for down payment assistance in the program
which no other program has at this point in time. So that's a unique
feature that we find.
The other thing is one of the problems --
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: How is that -- how are those --
MR. HARLOFF: How you do it is we sell premium bonds
that are actually billed within the pricing, so you still have a
below-market interest rate, not a -- not a -- you can either do it --
we can totally be a below-market interest rate, or you can have a
below-market interest rate with up to about 3 percent down payment
assistance.
We found -- this program is done -- has been done
throughout the country and is also being done in Manatee County, and
the lenders in particular like the feature of down payment assistance
because they find that probably on a ratio of nine to one people want
down payment assistance or that's the missing piece that they need
especially on this single-family new money type and people that are
trying to qualify for this program.
The other feature is a feature that we have whereby some
of the problems in the past in these programs have been you set a low
interest rate for 30 years. And for some reason the interest rates
drop, and you aren't able to originate loans. And, therefore, you're
stuck with the program that cannot originate loans. You have lenders
who are now upset because they've put up this 50 basis point
commitment fee.
Within our program we have a feature we call a reset
feature. It actually allows you every six months to reset the rate
but only downward, not upward, so you take advantage. If there is a
problem in the market where the rates have gone down, you drop down.
You stay within the market, and you're able to continue the program.
So you don't run the risk that you've had in the past in some of these
programs, particularly in '91, '92. Had a lot of problem in those
years.
And at the same time if rates are to go up, you're set
at a rate that'll allow you a bigger spread, and you have much more
opportunity to service people at a lower rate.
So we consider the down payment assistance and the reset
features the key items besides the normal lower interest rates as
reasons why this is a better program and why I think it's really going
to work well in Collier County. And I think, you know, that's the
simple --
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: If I can be so bold as to try to
sum this up, the item we have before us in essence provides a greater
opportunity for participation and does that at a lower finance cost.
MR. HARLOFF: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: And requires no money from us.
MR. HARLOFF: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Perfect.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a
motion that we approve the issuance of the bond and that we adopt the
resolution and authorize the Collier County Housing Authority to enter
into interlocal agreement with Leon County.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'll second that lengthy motion.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: There is a motion and a second.
All those in favor of the motion please state aye.
Anyone opposed?
Motion carries 4-0, Commissioner Matthews --
MR. HARLOFF: Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: -- unable to attend.
Thank you.
Item #10A
DISCUSSION OF THE BEACH MANAGEMENT PLAN AND DIRECTION TO STAFF -
COMMISSIONER NORRIS TO REPRESENT BCC AND WORK WITH STATE AGENCIES
It takes us on to BCC 10-A, discussion of beach
management plan and direction to the staff. Commissioner Norris?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. About
ten days ago the county commission went on a nice hamburger outing to
Tigertail Beach to look at the condition of the beach and the lack of
maintenance thereof. What I'd like to do today is to try to talk a
little bit about our beach management plan that we have submitted but
we have not been able to receive approval of.
And I'd like to maybe get a quick staff update on the
status of that beach management plan and -- and see if we can get the
county commission involved in maybe moving that management plan
forward so that we can do some maintenance down there on that beach.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Commissioner Norris, submit it to
DCA? Is that where it goes? Where -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: DEP.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: DEP?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I believe, Mr. Huber, are you here
to speak on that?
MR. HUBER: Yes, sir. My name's Harry Huber
representing office of capital projects. If I may, as part of a --
you know, an update in status, I've got some handouts for you. I
don't know if you received in your package the memo I submitted to Mr.
Hargett, but it pretty much states the objective, and it's a
chronology and a current status, so I'll hand those out.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I don't have that so --
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: I'll just hand the rest out if
you want.
MR. HUBER: Just -- just to summarize, the handout that
I just passed out includes the memo to Mr. Hargett which, like I said,
indicates the objective. And as you can see with the chronology,
we've been working on this the better part of a year now since our --
the adoption of the resolution back last April. And then we've
submitted -- we've gotten responses from state lands requesting
additional information approximately four times now, and it just seems
like we're not getting anywhere.
And I think at least in my mind the original intent was
to -- and also included in this package is a sample agreement which is
what we're striving for. And in that agreement there's a provision
that once the state lands enters into an agreement with the county,
then you would prepare the plan, and that would be subject naturally
to public hearings and additional input.
So it seems like when I submitted the original request
for consideration, then it comes back, and it seems like they're
asking information relative to the preparation of the plan rather than
actually entering into an agreement which then has the provision for
adopting a management plan.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Norris, do you want
to kind of take the bull by the horns here and perhaps make some
contact directly yourself with the parks -- state parks people and see
if we can move this along?
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: What I'd like to do is rather than
have one commissioner operating unilaterally, I'd like to have
direction or authorization from the full commission to do just that,
to -- to find out what we can do as a commission to move along the
progress here for our beach management plan. So if we could perhaps
have a motion to that effect or something, that I think would be the
most effective.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Any objection to that?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: None whatsoever.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Any objection to that?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: No. I'd be, in fact, happy to
make a motion that we direct Commissioner Norris to begin working with
the state agencies and possibly to engage our state legislators in
assistance in that in dealing with the matters such as runnels and
vegetation and all that good staff. I'll be happy to make a motion
that he represent us on that -- on that behalf. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: There is a motion and a second.
Any further discussion on that?
Seeing none, all those in favor of the motion state
aye.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS:
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE:
Norris tackle the state.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS:
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE:
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE:
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS:
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE:
5-O.
I don't know the motion so --
The motion is to let Commissioner
For what?
Beaches.
General purposes.
Oh, great.
Beach management.
Hotion carries
HR. DORRILL: As -- as a starting point on that, you
know, the former DNR required us to have a beach management plan for
Lely Barefoot Beach preserve that has worked very, very well. And I
don't know what their reluctance is to have the same type of thing as
you've explained it to me. But it would seem that's a good starting
point is the fact that we already have a beach management plan at the
north end of the county, and you're just asking to have something
similar for the south end of the county.
Item #10B
RESOLUTION 94-850 APPROVING THE FINAL LOBBYING PROPOSAL - ADOPTED
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Item 10-B, recommendation to
approve final lobbying proposal. Commissioner Matthews?
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Yeah. Back just in time;
right?
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Perfect timing.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I think most of you are very
familiar with what we've been talking about doing. It's establishing
a -- a group of county commissioners between Charlotte, Lee, and
Collier County to visit Tallahassee on a weekly basis rotating around
the counties and to try to bring to the legislature in Tallahassee as
much information regarding southwest Florida and our -- our respective
counties as we can.
The information that I put together has in it some
reasons that we ought to do this. One reason that's not listed in
here that's very beneficial as Mr. Norris will find out and I have
found out in working with the Marco Island thing is simply knowing
names and faces of administrative staff is going to go a long way in
-- in aiding all the counties.
The cost of the program is just under $15,000 for a
4-month period, January through the end of April. It may or may not
be a full four months. It will vary according to -- to the
legislative schedule that they finally put out. And I think that's
due out next week. So the cost of this is roughly $5,000 per county.
The apartment that I've located, certainly it's not the
only one in Tallahassee. It happens to be one that I did locate.
It's in a corporate apartment structure fully furnished. Includes
cable, telephone, garbage pick-up, linen service, and maid service
once a week. So I think all of -- all of our needs would be cared
for. All we'd have to do is bring ourselves, our clothes, and our
food. Yeah.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I think this is a great idea, and
I'm curious what -- what would the cost be of a professional lobbyist
for the three counties?
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I really don't know. I know Lee
County has one, and I don't --
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE:
about $30,000.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE:
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK:
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE:
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS:
Somewhere in the neighborhood of
So significantly more.
Plus sacrificing our reputation.
Yeah, there's that.
Plus -- plus from -- from having
-- from having worked with the FAC now for a couple of years and I
think Commissioner Hancock saw a little bit of this when he was there
earlier this month that county commissioners, they get listened to.
And -- and a lobbyist, they do a good job, but you may hire a -- a
lobbyist who you want to handle a county issue and he's also handling
a city. We're going to have one issue before the legislature this
year dealing with involuntary --
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Annexation.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Right. And I can assure you the
Florida League of Cities is going to support that and the Florida
Association of Counties is opposed to it. If -- if we happen to hire
a lobbyist who also has some cities, where are we, you know? So we --
I just think we're -- we're much better off trying -- making an
attempt at doing this and learning the ropes ourselves and -- and
doing it.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: The participation from Lee and --
and Charlotte, I know Charlotte had a couple of questions but --
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Yeah, Charlotte's had some
questions on it. Lee County, I presented the idea before the county
commission last Wednesday. And Lee County had voted both a resolution
and the funding to go forward with the project.
Charlotte County is wishing to workshop it. It's my
understanding they're going to have Representative Peoples at the
workshop with them to try to determine what the best method for doing
this is. And it's my understanding -- my understanding -- I haven't
talked with Mr. Peoples -- but it's my understanding that he -- he
supports this. I talked with Butt Saunders last night in great length
about it. He's supportive of it. I just think that we probably ought
to go forward with it.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I couldn't agree with you more,
Ms. Matthews, and I will make a motion that we -- that we approve the
lobbying proposal conditioned on the -- as long as the other two
counties join with us.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Yeah. We have one county
definitely with us. And if per chance Charlotte County should choose
not to do this, I would -- I would not be opposed to move a little
further north and talk to Sarasota County as well.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I will second Commissioner
Norris's motion and also thank you for your work on this.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: We have a motion and a second.
All those in favor of the motion please state aye.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I have one --
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Motion carries 5-0. She has a
question on her own project.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Well, I'm just asking does the
motion include a resolution and the budget amendments? Or are we --
are we going to have to bring this back two, three weeks from now for
budget amendments?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Can we do it?
MR. CUYLER: I would -- I would say yes conditioned on
the third county participating. If there's a problem with that, it's
going to have to come back to the board.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Okay.
Item #11A
BOARD OF COUNTY COHMISSIONERS TO FUND THE PURCHASE OF HODULAR FURNITURE
FOR THE CLERK OF COURTS' FINANCE AND INTERNAL AUDIT DEPARTMENTS -
APPROVED
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: With that we move on to 11, other
constitutional officers. Recommendation BCC fund the purchase of
modular furniture for the clerk of courts' finance and internal audit
departments. Hi.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Chairman, if I might, this is
a request that -- a routine request that we have to approve for
another constitutional officer to -- to buy furniture that they feel
is necessary for their operation. So I'll make a motion that we
approve that.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I'll second.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Do we have any speakers on this
item?
MR. DORRILL: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Miss Hankins, thank you very much
for that presentation.
MS. HANKINS: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: All those in -- all those in
favor of the motion state aye.
Anyone opposed?
Motion carries 5-0.
Let's try to do a little bit of this.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: He pays our bills. How could we
tell him no?
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah, be nice to him.
MR. BROCK: Commissioners, I'd like thank you very much
for the expeditious manner in which you dealt with that. Very much
appreciate it.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Thanks a lot.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: You're welcome.
Item #12B1
ORDINANCE 94-64 RE PETITION PUD-94-1 ROBERT L. DUANE OF HOLE, HONTES 7
ASSOCIATES, INC. REPRESENTING AYRES PARTNERSHIP, REQUESTING A REZONE
FROM A TO PUD TO BE KNOWN AS SIERRA MEADOWS ON THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF
COUNTY ROAD 951 AND RATTLESNAKE HAMMOCK ROAD - ADOPTED
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Twelve --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: She's a little upset about the
time she spent working on that presentation.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: 12-B-l, petition PUD-94-1, Bob
Duane of Hole, Hontes representing Ayres Partnership. Mr. Nino, good morning.
MR. NINO: Good morning, Commissioners. Ron Nino for
the record. Seasons greetings to you all.
The proposed Sierra Meadows PUD is located at the
southwest corner of Rattlesnake Hammock Road and C.R. 951 comprised of
approximately 91 acres. The proposed Sierra Meadows project is bound
on the south side by the Lely Resort development. It's contiguous to
the entire south limit of the proposed Sierra Meadows PUD. To the
north and to the east, the land is very sparsely developed. It's
zoned agricultural. And to the west, the land is similarly zoned
agricultural so that you basically have a property that is totally
circumscribed with agricultural zoning with the exception of the Lely
development.
Along the south boundary of the Sierra Meadows, we have
an elementary school. We have a tract of land that is allocated for
cultural purposes. And slightly to the -- and immediately to the west
of that is the existing campus of the Edison Community College.
Sierra Meadows is located in part in an activity
center. Of the 91 acres, 36.2 acres of Sierra Meadows lies within the
activity center designation at the intersection of 95 and -- 951 and
Rattlesnake Hammock.
Of the 36.2 acres that lies within the activity center,
this developer proposes to utilize twenty-six and a half acres of that
activity center for purposes of commercial development. And the PUD
proposes a commercial development not to exceed 160,000 square feet.
The balance of that land will be used for residential
within the activity center and qualifies for 16 dwelling units per
acre for that residential land that lies within the activity center.
And then there is a substantial portion which is allocated as a
preserve area.
The PUD also proposes 508 dwelling units on the balance
of the land. And the balance of the land lies within the one-mile
circle of activity centers that qualifies that land for an additional
three dwelling units per acre. The land is also located on -- has
frontage on -- on two or more arterial roads which qualifies the land
for an additional acre -- I mean an additional dwelling unit.
Interconnection is provided, so there is no loss of density. And the
bottom line is that the sixty some acres of the land qualifies at
eight dwelling units per acre. And about 3.6 or 7 -- 9.7 acres
qualifies at 16 dwelling units per acre.
The bottom line is that when you apply the density
rating system, this developer could have asked for 624 dwelling
units. He's asking for 508 dwelling units. Clearly the request is
consistent with future land use element of the growth management
plan.
Let me say that staff's concern with respect to the
commercial allocation was one that suggested that commercial
development ought to -- ought not be too intrusive on the potential
cultural center that is going to develop to the south of this
project. We -- we -- we -- we thought that activities that -- that
had a characteristic of a lot of outdoor storage or used automobile
sales or even a new car automobile sales, we thought -- we concluded
was not quite appropriate for that area and that generally the
intensity of land uses should be limited to C-3.
We had many discussions with the developer's
representatives because the original PUD did include a number of uses
that fell within the C-4 category. And they have voluntarily amended
their PUD to generally keep the tone consistent with the C-3 uses.
The future land use element of the growth management
plan, as you know, gives us no direction in terms of the type of
intensity. That's -- that's a decision that you have to make after
hearing the facts.
We concluded that -- that the activity center
designation met the base requirements of the future land use element
in that a market study was submitted which justified the additional
allocation of commercial land. And we concluded that commercial
development at this quadrant was compatible with its surrounding
environment.
Therefore, the two elements that are required to justify
commercial allocation were satisfied, and we concluded that all of the
land uses, both the commercial and the residential, is consistent with
the land use element of the future -- of the growth management plan.
The PUD has been structured to include all of the
development commitments that staff raised to ensure that levels of
service were satisfied and that code requirements were satisfied.
Based on that fact we conclude that the proposal that's before you is
consistent with all elements of the growth management plan.
Indeed in regards to the open space element, you might
appreciate the fact that this PUD by virtue of the abundance of
environmental conditions that impact the site, basically wetland
conditions, that this developer is forced to -- to part with about
forty and a half percent of the land for open space purposes, clearly
in excess of that required for mixed use developments in the future
land use plan which is only thirty percent.
The -- the residential units proposed in this PUD will
be both single-family and multiple-family. However, I need to -- I
need to have you appreciate that this PUD has a relatively small
amount of land that they can actually develop for residential
purposes. And given the number of units that they're requesting and
the amount of land they have to locate it on, that if they're going to
come anywhere near achieving those numbers of units, they will have to
develop the land with predominantly multi-family type residential
uses.
The -- the standards proposed for commercial and
residential development we are confident and satisfied are comparable
to the standards that we would -- that are in conventional zoning
districts.
The planning commission heard this petition on November
3 and by a vote of eight to zero unanimously recommended its
approval. There were no written or verbal communications received in
opposition to this petition.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Questions, Commissioner Norris?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I have a couple of questions for
the petitioner, petitioner's representative.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Why don't we -- do you have a
question for staff?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Nino, does the activity
center extend beyond the property to the east? In other words, is the
ag. parcel east -- on the eastern side of this -- this piece eligible
for a request of up to seven units an acre?
MR. NINO: Thirteen hundred -- thirty-one hundred and
eighty-seven acres -- I mean lineal feet.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: So thirty-one hundred feet?
MR. NINO: Thirty-one hundred lineal feet. Yes, it
would --
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay.
MR. NINO: -- because it extends a mile.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Mr. Varnadoe or Mr. Duane, do you
have a presentation? Or are you primarily here for the purpose of
answering questions?
MR. VARNADOE: Whatever the board's delight is. Do you
just to want do questions, Mr. Norris? Mr. Norris just wants to beat
on me now.
I'd like to say -- for the record, George Varnadoe --
that we have worked with staff. And I like Mr. Nino's euphemism for
extracting everything he wants out of you by telling you voluntarily
I've agreed to -- to the standards that he -- he has requested.
But it is a -- you can see on the board the -- the
project is a multi-use project, lots of open space. We do back up to
the north of Lely, the cultural center, the Edison Community College,
proposed church, and the elementary school. We do have a letter of no
opposition from the proposed church. We think we are extremely
compatible with those uses. We think the community college and the
cultural center both will have a demand both for neighborhood
commercial but also for moderate-priced housing that we will fulfill
on this -- on this piece of property. So we think we are a very
compatible use. But I won't go into more than that since Mr. Norris
had questions for me.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Varnadoe, looking through
section 4 of the permitted uses, a couple of them I have a concern
about. That would be -- permitted use number 7 is automotive
services, supplies, and gasoline station with primary emphasis on sale
of automotive parts and their installation but not unrelated repairs
which may include a car wash. That sounds like a bit -- it could
potentially be a bit more intensive than what I had envisioned this
project. Would the petitioner have any objection to deleting that?
MR. VARNADOE: Yes, sir. We think that there is a need
for -- for that type of use. We worked long and hard with staff to
make sure we didn't end up with a -- an auto parts or a very intensive
use, that the -- if you're focusing on the car wash, it's only as an
ancillary use to a Mobil mini mart or thing of that nature. It can't
be a freestanding car wash. The emphasis was on -- on -- we thought
at this location you probably are going to have a need for a service
station, to use a generic term, and that an associated car wash with a
drive-through with that would not be unacceptable which is why it's
worded as it is.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. Would that car wash then be
one of those little enclosed facilities like you see at -- at, for
example, the Mobil mini marts? Is that what's envisioned here?
MR. VARNADOE: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. Then the permitted use
number 8 does say automotive repair, services, and parking.
MR. VARNADOE: Yes, sir. ANd let me -- we're in these
generic classification codes which are -- are tough to deal with, and
I did bring my book so I could look at those. And we have -- that --
that whole group of group 75 is automobile repair, services, and
parking. The three that we have picked out are passenger car rental
which is seventy-five fourteen, passenger car leasing which is
seventy-five fifteen. And then seventy-five -- COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Twenty-one.
MR. VARNADOE: -- twenty-one is automobile parking so
that none of those have anything to do with automobile repair or
service. They just happen to fall within that large group.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Just happen to be services.
MR. VARNADOE: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. That's fine then. And then
number 9 then is building materials, hardware, and garden supplies
with outdoor storage. The outdoor storage gives me some concern. But
this group fifty-two hundreds, the eleven, thirty-one, and fifty-one
of those, is that one of these large places like a Home Depot or
Scotty's or -- or something to that effect?
MR. VARNADOE: Well, that -- unfortunately that group
does include that whole generic classification. Our thought in
including the -- the -- the -- you know, it's paint, glass, and
wallpaper stores, hardware stores. Our thought was if someone wanted
to have a small hardware store type of operation or that kind of
general supply type store that a lot of these places now are going to
the small attached -- I don't want to call it a nursery but garden
supply along with some hanging plants. And that was why we had the
standards in there at the end of that section on the outdoor storage
that -- that said it was limited only to that type of use; that is,
the -- the outside storage shall not constitute the principal use of
property but may be permitted in conjunction with an anchor tenant
provided outside storage of goods are only related to garden supplies
and limited to a maximum heighth of 20 feet.
In looking at that further in talking to the project
sponsor, we'd also be willing to limit that to a thousand square feet
in the entire commercial. But what we would like to do is have the
person have the opportunity to have with the garden supply some
outdoor sales if that would satisfy you, Mr. Norris.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Limit it to a thousand square
feet?
MR. VARNADOE: Of outside storage which is only limited
to garden products if you would.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: And it would only be in
conjunction with an anchor tenant I believe I heard you say?
MR. VARNADOE: Yes. That's in section 6.5. We'll just
add a limitation of a thousand square feet maximum.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. The one element of this
proposal, though -- this is fine, and I appreciate your help on
those. The one element that does give me concern is the 508 units.
We -- we -- we don't have in our plan four laning for that stretch of
Rattlesnake Hammock. That is a pretty small road out there, and I
don't know when -- I don't know that we even have that on the ten-year
plan to do that. Would -- would the petitioner be able to go forward
with this proposal with a smaller number of units, say four and a
quarter, four hundred and twenty-five units?
MR. VARNADOE: Let me -- let me address that. You know,
we're at, I think, 7.9 units an acre at the present time which in this
county is getting to be a -- a fairly intense use as far as density
but in overall context is really a medium density project.
As we say, we think the market there and we think there
will be a market not only for the -- the institutional uses but also
for staff working at the Lely -- in the Lely Resort area for a
moderate -- and I use that word as a generic term; I'm not talking
about low income qualified housing -- but a moderate-priced housing.
And I think to achieve that kind of use you need that medium density
where you can go with the garden-type apartments.
Frankly, in trying to achieve the eight units an acre,
we were in hopes that we would be able to reclaim some of the preserve
area some of which is upland that -- that we're not able to use now
because it once had the dreaded red-cockaded woodpecker in it.
But in dealing with the state agencies it now appears
that we are not going to be able to get out of keeping that in
preserve and a fairly perpetual nature so that -- that normally I
would sit here and try to argue that no, sir, we can't because we need
that density. But because of that, I am able accede to your request
to reduce it to 425 units.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Because the woodpeckers won't let
you use it anyway; right?
MR. VARNADOE: Yes, sir. Frankly to cut through, yes,
sir.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, I think a potential for a
woodpecker to come in there is a lot more important -- MR. VARNADOE: Than having people?
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Is that all, Commissioner
Norris?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: That's all.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Hancock?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Varnadoe, I -- I -- with the
-- the net density -- and now that you're down to 425, I had you at
But that drops. The net density's down around, I guess, 17
19.7.
now.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS:
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK:
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS:
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK:
a calculator up here.
Sixteen and a half.
Sixteen and a half?
I've just calculated it.
Okay. There's someone else with
MR. VARNADOE: And there is a qualification -- there's a
qualification that -- your staff picked up on that right away.
There's a qualification that these parcels are limited to 16 units an
acre --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Uh-huh.
MR. VARNADOE: -- this parcel to 12 thinking the density
as it goes this way may be a little bit less. So they kept us to 12
over here to keep -- so we'd be fairly comparable with the densities
going to the west.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Was there an increase in buffer
requirement above what the LDC requires on that eastern property line
-- or western property line, excuse me?
MR. VARNADOE: No, sir, because we have a -- you know,
it's a -- a fairly small tract. And thinking that they're not going
to be pushing theirs to the -- to the Rattlesnake Hammock as much as
we are, we don't have any choice because of the wetlands configuration
there.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Thank you.
MR. VARNADOE: If we increased much there, Mr. Hancock,
we're going to be with a non-usable parcel, frankly.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I was just looking at the net
density. And I'm glad to see the reduction in net density over there
because you're going to be adjacent to possibly seven units or
something in that line.
MR. VARNADOE: Seven or eight units.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Matthews?
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: That seven or eight units is
over on the -- over on the western side, that light green area?
MR. VARNADOE: Yes, ma'am, right in there.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: They have the potential to
request up to seven units an acre, I believe.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Okay. Because when we -- well,
I got sixteen and a half units per acre on net density for the
developable residential area. And if they build consistently
throughout the available 25.7 acres, what is 16.5 units per acre going
to give you?
MR. VARNADOE: It's going to give us 400 units more or
less.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Four hundred and twenty-five. I
mean, that's -- that's where I got it from. I mean --
MR. VARNADOE: I'm sorry. I misunderstood you.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: What kind of building is it
going to look like? I mean, is it definitely going to be a condo?
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Fifty feet high?
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Of -- of -- of what height?
MR. NINO: It's definitely going to be something
multiple-family.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: They're limited to 25 feet in
height.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Fifty on some.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: And that's what? Four? Four
stories?
MR. VARNADOE: Yes, ma'am. In the initial layouts --
and Mr. Duane can go into this in more depth if we need to. In the
initial layouts we worked with, you can still do that at two story,
the garden-type apartments. Some of those now, you know, depending
upon what you want for a look, you may be going three or four
stories. But right now we frankly don't see the market out there for
-- for anything more than the walk-up, two-story type of use. Now,
in the future that might change.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Yeah. I -- I understand the
market's going to eventually drive what actually goes on the
property. I'm just a little bit curious that sixteen and a half units
per acre over twenty-five acres average, what are we looking at? Are
we looking at eight-unit, two-story apartments or twelve-unit,
three-story apartments or just an idea?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Can I -- can I just say -- I
think it's important from a legal perspective that we know that what
we're -- what we're permitting is 50-foot high 4-story buildings if
that's what they choose to build. You know, what they -- what they
have in mind today might not be what they --
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: What they actually do.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- actually do. And we need to
keep in mind that what we're permitting is a 50-story building --
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Fifty foot.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm sorry, 50-foot building,
4-story.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Got excited there, didn't you,
George? Going to get 50 stories out of this one.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. We'll take it. So that
they could reach this. They wouldn't be asking for -- for density if
they didn't think there was some possibility that they were going to
get there.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I -- I agree that that is
something to look at down the road. And where it concerns -- that may
concern me, on the internal three sections next to the commercial
tract --
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Uh-huh.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- whether they're four stories
tall, they're going to impact each other and not much of anyone else.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: That I don't have as much a
concern with as I do that little corner piece, and Mr. Varnadoe has
said they've gone to a 12-unit net per acre on that piece? MR. NINO: Yes.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: What about -- again, we still
have to look at if we have a 50-foot height over there also so we can
still go to 4 -- 4 stories next to a 7-unit per acre which typically
is going to be at the most 2 stories. The height compatibility there
is where -- what Hiss Hac'Kie's brought up where the issue comes to --
comes home to roost. We're going to have two-story buildings next to
potentially four on that tract, and I just -- that is a -- to me a
compatibility concern.
MR. VARNADOE: And I -- and I don't -- frankly, you
know, on that size tract of 5.3 acres, limiting that to 2- or 3-story
-- 3-story gives us a little more flexibility -- would not be of
grave concern.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: That would help me in the
compatibility with adjacent property certainly. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: He too.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Mr. Dorrill, do we have any
public speakers?
MR. VARNADOE: Three stories or thirty-five feet? I
mean thirty-five feet --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: No more -- you're not going to
get 4 stories out of 35 feet unless you're running it through a very
individual class.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Probably have some midgets.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Mr. Dorrill, again, do we have
any public speakers on this?
MR. DORRILL: There are none.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: I'm sorry?
MR. DORRILL: There are none.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Thank you. We'll close the
public hearing at this point, although the board can still ask
whatever questions they need to ask.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Thank you. I just -- a question
for Mr. Nino. You said that the commercial uses are analogous to C-3
did I understand?
MR. NINO: Yes.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Are there any on this list -- I
don't have a book here to make a comparison. Are there any here that
are not in C-3 that are perhaps in C-4 or 57 I just want to identify
those.
MR. NINO: I believe we negotiated all of the C-4 uses
out of the document.
MR. VARNADOE: That I think that automotive repair group
we're talking about, Ms. Hac'Kie, not to intercede, which was the car
leasing, car rental, and auto parking, may be a -- may be a C-4. I'm
not -- I wouldn't want to be held to swear to that, but that's the --
the only one I recall that -- that was left in there out of that group
that usually falls in a C-4 category, and they were thought very
benign.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And -- and out of that -- I
thought that that looked like a C-4. But as you've natrowed it down
to just the three groups that are basically parking and leasing, it
didn't seem to trouble me. But that is the one that made me wonder.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: If -- and I don't know if there's
any more questions of Mr. Varnadoe. I think with a 35-foot limitation
on the residential tract A and the western boundary and the balance of
the suggestions -- I'm sorry, Commissioner Norris. Did you have
Some '-
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Yes. Is the public hearing
closed?
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Yes, it is.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Why don't I leave the motion to
Commissioner Norris. He seems to have a checklist.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I have a checklist. I'd like to
make a motion that we approve this project with the stipulations --
the additional stipulations that outdoor storage in conjunction with a
-- with an anchor tenant would be limited to a thousand feet -- a
thousand square feet; residential units would be limited to 425 total;
and residential building heights in residential tract A would be
limited to 35 feet.
Was there any other -- did -- did any other board member
have a stipulation?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'll second that motion.
MR. NINO: May I bring to your attention Mr. Duane
advised me after the staff report was completed and your executive
summary was received that the number -- a number change was effected
in the amount of conservation area, two acres. However, that change
threw a whole bunch of other numbers off. So I need you to agree that
there will be some number massaging in this PUD document.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I'll add to my motion that we
accept also the current changes in the -- the dimensions of the
project.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'll amend my second
accordingly.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Those changes, though, are just
acreages moving backwards and -- MR. NINO: Yes, exactly.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: And it doesn't affect the upper
limitation.
MR. NINO: It was only a two-acre -- it was only a
two-acre variance.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: We have a motion from
Commissioner Norris and a second from Commissioner Hancock.
Commissioner Hac'Kie, question?
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I just need to understand that
there's more preserve or less preserve.
MR. NINO: Less preserve.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Less preserve.
MR. NINO: By two acres.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And that's based on some more
current evaluation?
MR. DUANE: For the record, Robert Duane. The staff
requested that the berm be increased from 20 to 25 feet, so that had
the effect of taking some area out of the conservation area. It
doesn't really give us any more usable land area.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: God forbid.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: If there's no further discussion,
all those in favor of the motion state aye.
Anyone opposed?
Motion carries 5-0.
Item #12C1
ORDINANCE 94-65 AMENDING ORDINANCE 86-40 TO REDEFINE THE BOUNDARIES OF
THE NORTH NAPLES ROADWAY MUNICIPAL SERVICE TAXING AND BENEFIT UNIT -
ADOPTED
Let's do 12-C-1, and then we'll take a lunch.
Recommendation to approve an ordinance amending ordinance number
86-40. Before we go to lunch, we'll also do the Marco lighting
district item which will be --
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Mr. Chairman --
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Well, let's just finish item 12
then because that will only leave one other. Mr. Archibald.
MR. ARCHIBALD: Board members, agenda item 12-C-1 is a
public hearing to consider an ordinance amending ordinance 86-40 which
addresses a change in boundaries for the North Naples roadway
municipal service taxing and benefit unit. The proposed amendment to
the existing ordinance is one that was directed by the board on the
26th of April. And that direction in -- reduces the boundary as
outlined in your agenda item. In terms of total acreage, it reduces
the area from about 3,200 acres to a taxing district of about 1,900
acres.
That does or fulfills two primary purposes of the board,
I believe. One was to go ahead and exclude from the district improved
properties that were subject to a unfair taxation if, in fact, the
board would want to consider in the future a taxing district
approach.
And two, it isolates the northern area. And the
northern area, as defined in your agenda package, consists of
primarily the north-south roadway from Bonita Beach Road south
approximately three miles and the east-west roadway approximately two
miles. And that serves the purposes of encouraging the development
community in that particular area to be able to put together a package
consistent with their approved PUDs to construct segments of
Livingston Road at their cost to support their projects.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Archibald, does this ordinance
accurately reflect then the direction that the board gave in April on
this subject?
MR. VARNADOE: Yes, it does.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Do we have any public speakers on
the item?
MR. DORRILL: Mr. I believe it's Oehlers is here I would
presume only to answer questions if you had them. He is one of the
original initiating residents who I believe lived within Imperial Golf
Estates.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Do you have a presentation, or
are you here primarily to answer questions or as I always say -- MR. OEHLERS: Well, I have a couple of items I'd like to
address.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: By all means.
MR. OEHLERS: One, I'd like to thank the board --
Herbert Oehlers, 2095 Imperial Circle, phase 5, Imperial Golf
Estates.
I'd like to thank the board and Mr. Archibald for their
consideration in this matter. Those that were here before realized
the taxing problems that we faced up there in our -- in our small
area, phase 5, which was the 80 acres against the 3,200 acres which we
were paying one quarter of the taxes of this project.
There is an item in here that was also mentioned at that
time which has not been addressed. And that's an item that was under
our original ordinance, 87-55, which states no more than one half of
the hundred and fifty dwelling units be permitted to be constructed
prior to completion of Livingston Road and after that all the
construction traffic will go through Livingston Road.
This really creates, not particularly for me, although
I'm a homeowner and property owner back there, but for the future
property owners, we are probably now about 25 percent built out back
there, and construction is proceeding rather rapidly. Some of the new
owners I'm sure don't even know that this stipulation is in there
because I didn't even know about being in this MSTU when I bought the
property, was not informed of it and also of certain stipulations.
I think this creates a hardship on us owners back there
of not being able to have our project fully developed. And the
completion of Livingston Road in that section at the present time is I
don't know where. It's not in your five- or ten-year plan now I don't
believe. Mr. Archibald can address that. And if you could tell me
where we're going with that, I'd appreciate it.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Real quickly, how long has it
taken for you to get to a 25 percent build-out in phase 5 time
span-wise?
MR. OEHLERS: Well, I was probably the fifth home back
there in 1991 when I built, so about two years. But it -- the
building has increased, escalated at the present time. I can't give
you the exact numbers, but it's about a 25 percent -- I'd say 25 to 30
percent build-out then.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: So we could be looking at a 50
percent number within 3, 4 years? Is that reasonable?
MR. OEHLERS: I would think so. I think that would be
very reasonable.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Archibald, what does that do
to our construction schedule versus people being able to build on
their lots?
MR. ARCHIBALD: Again, the ordinance that's before you
today takes Imperial unit 5 out of the taxing district, and it serves
two purposes as outlined. It removes them from the concern of being
taxed. But it also does something else, and that is it removes that
project from having access to the future Livingston Road.
So from a staff standpoint, our interpretation is that
the criteria for build-out was related to the connection to Livingston
Road. If we take away the connection to Livingston Road, then, in
fact, there's no longer a requirement of the 50 percent build-out
scenario for homes in that particular area. To qualify that, it would
be appropriate for the staff or for subsequent homeowners to bring the
ordinance back to the board for amendment.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: And you would support that
amendment? You would be supportive of that amendment, Mr. Archibald?
MR. ARCHIBALD: Yes, we would be.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Does that answer your question?
MR. OEHLERS: Yes, it does. I thought we'd have to
amend the ordinance, but I just wanted to know the disposition.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: You want to make sure you have a
little support for that, huh?
MR. OEHLERS: It's always nice to have support.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yes, we know that.
MR. OEHLERS: There was one other item that was related
indirectly or directly to this that I brought up at that time, and
that was the fact of those PUDs up there being zoned as agricultural
land and not paying any taxes toward this project during this period
of time and at which time I was informed and the board was informed
that they couldn't have another taxing district or a different type of
taxing district for that because there was no room on the computer in
the tax department.
And at that time Mr. Saunders recommended that the tax
department be given additional funds to enlarge their computer system
so that they could make a taxing district to take those under
consideration. I don't know how you do things down here, but I never
could consider a guy with an approved PUD having a farm land taxation
for two or three years where he pays no taxes for a lot of the
projects in the area and sits on it. It -- I don't know if that's
been addressed by the board or anyone since that time. But it was
supposed to be looked into, and I suppose it died there.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: No, it didn't.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: It didn't die there.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: It did not. We looked into it,
and we're taking care of it.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Thank you for the optimism
there.
MR. OEHLERS: Well, I hadn't heard anything, and I
realized the squeaky wheel gets greased.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: The letter just must have missed
your house.
MR. OEHLERS: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Mr. Dorrill, do we have any other
public speakers?
MR. DORRILL: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: We will close the public
hearing. Other questions for our staff, or is there a motion?
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Chairman, I'll make a motion
that we approve this amendment to this ordinance. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second that.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Motion from Commissioner Norris,
second from Commissioner Hancock to approve the item. All those in
favor please state aye.
Anyone opposed?
Motion carries by unanimous claim.
Item #12C2
ORDINANCES 94-66, 94-67 AND 94-68, CREATING HUNICIPAL SERVICE TAXING
DISTRICTS FOR THE COUNTY BARN ROAD DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS - ADOPTED
We'll -- I've been instructed there are some folks here
for these items, so we'll finish 12-2, and then 3 and 4 go together
anyway.
12-2, recommendation to approve and adopt three separate
ordinances creating municipal service taxing districts for the County
Barn Road drainage improvements.
Mr. Archibald?
MR. ARCHIBALD: Board members, agenda item 12-C-2 is,
again, a public hearing to consider the creation of three separate
taxing districts by ordinance. Again, this particular agenda item was
a result of a board action on 1 Hay of '94 and 11 October of '94 where
your staff has gone ahead and included the design of a outfall canal
as part of the four laning improvements to County Barn. And as a
result, the issue before the board today is whether or not the board
wishes to consider the creation of taxing districts to help subsidize
the cost of that outfall project and, in fact, include that as part of
the future construction of County Barn Road.
Relative to that, staff has gone ahead and identified
and prepared ordinances that reflect boundaries for three different
areas. And it is recommended by staff that in lieu of the petition
procedure, in lieu of an assessment concept that's previously been
discussed that the board consider creating by ordinance these taxing
districts and during the budget process in 1995 for the year 1995, '96
consider implementing some level of taxation to recoup or to be able
to subsidize the cost of the drainage improvements recognizing that
the three districts being proposed would benefit to different levels.
And accordingly, the staff will be coming back to the board in 1995
most likely with recommendations for millage levels, different millage
levels for each separate district.
With that I'll be happy to address any questions in
regards to either the four laning of County Barn Road or the proposed
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Questions for Mr. Archibald?
Commissioner Norris?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I don't really have a question for
Mr. Archibald. This -- this is the one we briefly discussed during
our earlier agenda item in Naples Park, and here we get into the
consistency issue. If you'll notice that this one is -- is done on a
-- a taxing basis with no proposal whatsoever to have the county
involved in and participating in the funding. And that's just not
consistent, and that was the point I was trying to bring up this
morning is that we need as a board to decide which way we're going to
go on these things because there are a number of these issues that
we'll see over the years in all parts of our county. Anyplace that's
-- that's 15, 20 years old or older is going to have these kind of
problems involved in it. And we need to have a -- a consistent policy
that we're going to apply to all of them.
Now, we saw one earlier this morning that was structured
one way with one-third county participation and funding. And then we
have this one which has no county participation and funding. And so
that's the decision we need to make at some point.
Now, I don't have any objection to establishing these
boundaries today. But the funding question when it comes back, we're
going to need to -- to make these decisions.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I believe there was a definite
thumbs down in the one-third funding sharing option for the county on
that. So that may be an apples and oranges issue.
For this one I agree. We need to be consistent. And if
the proposal here is to set up an MSTBU in which any benefit the
county realizes from these improvements is shared by the county, then
I think we are being consistent. If we have property within these
three areas or we have roadways within threes three areas that realize
a benefit but yet we are not paying a share of that, then I think
we're doing something wrong there.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Mr. Archibald?
MR. ARCHIBALD: If I could, what staff has done with the
expectations that we -- we're creating a mechanism to implement a tax
in 1995 for 1996 really so that in 1995 we'll be taking a look at that
relationship between what we're going to be asking each district to
pay and also how the road project itself may share in those costs.
Your page 4 and attachment 2 that we had included gives
the board some idea of how that may be considered in the future year.
And part of that scenario was, in fact, to recognize that there is a
countywide benefit. Also there's a benefit in regards to
incorporating a water management project within a road project from a
bidding standpoint.
Based upon that, again, I think the staff does recognize
that when this is brought back that there will be some sharing of
those costs and that that would be part of the final action of the
board in -- next year relative to setting a millage for these
districts if, in fact, a millage is set.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Norris, I think you
hit it on the button. We need to establish the districts, but I think
as -- as Mr. Archibald just said, when it comes back, we need to make
sure we're being consistent throughout. We have one public speaker.
MR. DORRILL: Mr. McGilvra.
COMHISSIONER NORRIS: While Mr. McGilvra's coming up,
let me just ask Mr. Archibald one quick question. If we establish
these districts today, do we in the future have an option on whether
we're going to go through taxation or -- or an assessment?
MR. ARCHIBALD: No. The way these districts have been
established are based upon taking advantage of the mechanism in place,
that is, your property appraiser and your tax collector. And as a
result, they're only allocated as taxing districts.
I need to also make two comments after the speaker.
MR. MCGILVRA: Thank you. Doug McGilvra. I just want
to bring up one point on page 4, and George has already alluded to it
that there is an option 2 if you'll read it. Three district MSTU with
Collier County participation with a subsidy of 25 percent. Collier
County donates two hundred fifty six thousand two hundred and fifty
some dollars. So this is also being considered apparently in this
thing unless he's talking only about option 1. And I assume you're
speaking about both options, George.
MR. ARCHIBALD: Yes, I am. And again, this information
was simply provided to give the board some idea of how the mechanism
may be applied in 1995. The actual amount obviously will be
determined by the board. But some of the factors that will be
considered will be how the drainage outfall assists either in the
construction or the ultimate water management system for the roadway.
If, in fact, we can show some benefit, then that benefit would be
reflected here.
MR. MCGILVRA: So I think, Mr. Norris, Mr. Hancock,
you're both exactly right. You have to look at this thing. There is
a lot going on in that regard.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Saying the same thing two
different ways.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Matthews?
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: What we -- what we discussed
this morning and what we did, if I remember right, with Naples Park is
we established an MSTUBU --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: TBU.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: -- which can -- has an ad
valorem concept and an assessment concept. What we're being offered
here is strictly an MSTU which is only ad valorem.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Correct, but as I heard Mr.
Archibald state, there will be some folding in of -- in other words,
the county's going to be paying a portion of these costs through the
road projects. And in essence, it may be a different mechanism but a
very similar situation in which the county benefit is paid for up
front.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Is that correct, Mr. Archibald?
MR. ARCHIBALD: What your staff would be coming back to
the board with and most likely recommending to the board would be the
total cost of the water management element and how that total cost
reflected on road benefits and what that would reflect in terms of
dollars. And that dollar subsidy would be recommended by staff and
the remaining amount divided between the three districts being
considered today.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: With that I'd like to make a
motion -- CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Hang on. I need to close the
public hearing, and then you can make a motion.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. I'd like to make a motion
that -- I'll wait till Mr. Archibald makes two more points for it, and
then I'll make a motion.
MR. ARCHIBALD: I apologize. Just one note that we had
to correct. One of the legal descriptions on page 18 where we're
talking about section 4 on the west half, we need to add three words
to that to indicate the west half north of State Road 84 right-of-way,
the reason being is that there's a small little sliver of property
south of there that should not be included.
The other's on page 14, and I make reference to a letter
from Mr. Frank Ross and some residents of the Riviera Colony Golf
Estates. They could not be here today. They asked me to teenforce
their request to be excluded from the district or, as Mr. Ross
outlined in his letter, if they're included, then there should be an
inclusion all the way across the Lake Champagne development.
Staff has reviewed that letter, has responded to that
letter. Our recommendation would be to leave the district intact as
being recommended based upon two criteria: One is that the benefit to
those lot owners that have adjacent property to the existing ditch
would be a reduction in the cost of closing that ditch system in
during some future improvement; and two, the area that was suggested
for inclusion, we would recommend that continue to be excluded
because, in fact, they have a drainage system different than the other
locations. And that doesn't create a potential for future
improvements or a potential for a benefit.
Accordingly, staff would recommend only that one change
to the ordinance on page 18.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Hancock?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Is it safe?
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: I think so.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. I would like to make a
motion the Board of County Commissioners adopt the three ordinances
contained in the staff report as written.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Mr. Weigel's telling us it best
be done in three separate motions.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: We have three ordinances.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. I'll make a motion that
the Board of County Commissioners adopt the ordinance entitled the
County Barn Road side drainage improvement MSTU number 1. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: There's a motion and a second.
Seeing no discussion, all those in favor of the motion state aye.
Anyone opposed?
Motion carries 5-0.
Commissioner Hancock?
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Motion that the Board of County
Commissioners adopt the ordinance entitled the County Barn Road side
drainage improvement MSTU number 2. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: There is a motion and a second.
All those in favor of the motion be so kind as to utter the word aye.
Anyone opposed?
Motion carries 5-0.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Third motion that the Board of
County Commissioners adopt the ordinance entitled the County Barn Road
side drainage improvement MSTU number 3. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: There is a motion, and there is a
second. All those in favor of that motion please state the word aye.
Anyone opposed?
Thank you. Motion carries 5-0.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I need a clarification on the
difference between stating and uttering the word aye.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK:
stating.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE:
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE:
however, with muttering.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK:
Uttering is much slower than
Ah.
Neither should be confused,
That's a lot up here.
Item #12C3
ORDINANCE 94-69, REMOVING MARCO ISLAND FROM THE COUNTY-WIDE STREET
LIGHTING DISTRICT AND PROVIDING FOR THE MARCO ISLAND STREET LIGHTING
DISTRICT (COMPANION TO ITEM #12C4) - ADOPTED
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Item 12-C-3, and we'll have a
companion item 4. That is the public hearing to consider the
consolidated street lighting district ordinance.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Let me just see if I can summarize
this one real quick, Mr. Chairman.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Please, I'm getting --
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Five and you're out of here for
the rest of the day.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: The three elder commissioners
will remember this one from last year. Historically all the lighting
districts in the county have been separate.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Are we going to get your
completely unbiased view on this?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Yes, you are. My completely
unbiased view on this is that the staff asked to consolidate these to
save some administrative costs about a year or so ago and consolidate
all the lighting districts into one. Pelican Bay was excluded because
of their unique situation. Marco Island was included, although it was
my understanding that they were not to be included last year, but they
did get so. I brought this back to correct that this time.
The justification is that for one thing, Marco Island
has its power from another company. They have it from Lee County
Electric Co-op, not FP & L. And the other thing is that of all the
lighting districts -- there were thirty some odd of them; I believe
almost forty of them -- and the millage was relatively stable through
the consolidation. But when you consolidated Marco, their millage
went up 2.3 times I believe it was which seems to be a bit unfair.
Even though it's a tiny amount of money, it's the principle of it. So
I've brought this forward to get Marco back as an independent lighting
district.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Mr. Archibald, can you give us a
little bit of an explanation here? I know you have a different
recommendation.
MR. ARCHIBALD: Board members, agenda item 12-C-3 will
be the public hearing to amend the existing consolidated lighting
district. So your first recommended action by the staff would be to
approve a ordinance amending ordinance 72-1 that, in fact, takes Marco
or repeals that district, takes that out of the consolidated
district.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: The -- just to put this in
perspective, that 2.3 times is actually about 10 bucks a household, so
we're not looking at a lot of money. But how does that impact the
other areas? And we had talked about this down on Marco last week
when I met with some of those folks. But the overall impact to the
rest of the lighting district will be what?
MR. ARCHIBALD: The millage will actually go up a very
small amount, about six hundredths. In terms of real dollars, you're
talking about a increase for a typical hundred thousand dollar taxed
home of about eight dollars. The actual millage increase that I've
computed for next year based upon some assumptions on growth would be
an increased millage from .112 to .176. Again, we're talking about
going from $11 to about $18.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: By taking Marco out we're going
to do that to everyone else?
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Sure, because Marco's so low.
MR. ARCHIBALD: Yes.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: I'm -- I'm not sure I'm
comfortable with that now. I was under the impression it was much
less. If -- if $10 offends the people on Marco, I think $8 is going
to offend other people around the county equally as much.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And what's the reason why Marco
should be separate, I mean, other than they have a separate utility
provider?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: This was -- well, these districts
have always been separated, and each one stood alone. Now, to
consolidate, their millage is going to go up 2.3 times. It did this
last year when they were included.
Mr. Archibald, let's go back to two years ago when these
were all separated. Then last year or a year ago when we consolidated
all the lighting districts, isn't it -- doesn't it follow then that
every district except Marco had their millage go down?
MR. ARCHIBALD: Yes. If you look on --
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: So they'll be just going back to
what they were before the consolidation in effect.
MR. ARCHIBALD: Keeping in mind that historically the
policy has been one that whenever the isolated millage, the isolated
district millages, become within a quarter of a mill of the
consolidated street lighting district, then typically the staff each
year consolidates those. We were doing exactly that in this case.
The only inconsistency as outlined on page 2 is that in
one case, in the case of Marco Island, that consolidation ended up
doubling their millage rate. But keep in mind also that the value of
Marco represents approximately 50 percent or more of the entire value
of the consolidated street lighting district. So when you take that
out and their rate is lowered, that will, in fact, increase the rate
of the remaining consolidated district.
MR. DORRILL: Let me see if I can provide a little
further history. Historically the county subdivision regulations
required either the developer to install street lights within
residential subdivisions as part of the subdivision commitments or an
alternative for the developer to come in and petition the board to
create a residential street lighting district and have the residents
pay for the street lights as homes were constructed. And that is
still a mechanism that is available.
Because we had thirty some odd different districts, once
the lights were installed and built and paid for, the capital cost to
install the poles and the light fixtures for purposes of
administration, we began to consolidate the districts.
In an effort to do that what is now two years ago, we
created what has been a tax equity or a tax fairness situation on
Marco. And I think their contention -- and you may hear from Dr.
Biles -- is should the residents on Marco Island pay $8 more per
house to in effect provide a portion of the administrative costs for
the Pinewoods street light in front of the county manager's home and
other similar residential areas.
Street lighting on arterial highways, for example,
Airport Road, are paid for through the road and bridge budget. This
is only to provide for residential or subdivision street lighting
either at the discretion of the developer or residents who have
petitioned the board.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Mr. Archibald, how many districts
were there before we consolidated?
MR. ARCHIBALD: I've got a listing. I don't have a
number. Approximately 30.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: That's fine. And under
consolidation, there are now how many?
MR. ARCHIBALD: Currently there are two, the countywide
and Pelican Bay.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Okay. And that was done to
consolidate the administrative costs primarily and countywide to set
up a system that is obviously not only administratively more efficient
but if you have one thing to do instead of -- COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thirty.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: -- thirty, then it's more
effective.
I guess when we -- I spoke with the people from Marco
last week. The indication to me was that this would have almost no
impact by removing them. It would have almost no impact on the other
areas. And now I'm told the impact will be almost identical to what
consolidation would do. So I guess the argument goes either way.
And with that, I kind of feel we have to have a sense of
community. There are areas of the community that are less able to
provide for themselves because of the values than others, but we all
deserve the same level of service on some basic safety items like
lighting. And so I guess I'm concerned there. If the cost is going
to be -- the increased cost to everyone else is going to be roughly
equivalent to what the increased cost would be to Marco, it seems like
it's not fair to turn that burden around and say, we don't deserve it,
but everyone else does.
Commissioner Mac'Kie?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: How are the coastal areas in the
city of Naples, for example, treated? Are they a part of the one
master lighting district?
MR. ARCHIBALD: The city currently does not have street
lighting.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: So -- but -- but -- so that's not
-- what I'm trying to find out is property values on Marco are very
high. Property values on the coastal part of Collier County are also
very high. Are the city of Naples residents also paying in this
district?
MR. ARCHIBALD: No. Again, the consolidated countywide
district would only represent those subdivisions which implemented
street lighting, so it does not include the entire urban area or does
not include the entire county.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: We have public speakers on this?
MR. DORRILL: Dr. Biles, and then following her I have,
I believe, Robert Duklauer.
MS. BILES: Duklauer, Duklauer.
MR. DORRILL: Duklauer.
MS. BILES: Yes. First of all, thank you -- Fay Biles,
president of the Marco Island Taxpayers' Association. Thank you for
taking this now because now we can go back home and go to our big
workshop we're having on water conservation this afternoon two to
four.
First of all, Marco Island's been paying for its own
lighting separate from the county from its very beginning. As you
know, we asked during the budget workshops and the hearings that we
not be included in the consolidated lighting district. At that time
we analyzed the costs, and it was triple our costs.
And, as you know, in the very beginning Florida Power
and Light was not interested in Marco Island. It had to be Lee County
Electric that took on Marco Island, and I must say they haven't
changed their rates in 13 years. So we're -- we're -- we're doing
well.
We can say a great deal about this, and I know time is
of the essence. We have done an intensive analysis, and so I'll limit
my comments to that. The analysis that you have before you does not
appropriately portray the potential fiscal impact. It deals with
electric bills, not the actual budget, but still shows us that this
time at least doubled.
A glaring example of what can happen is demonstrated by
analyzing what would have happened in 1993, '94 if the countywide
ordinance were in effect. Our analysis indicates that the countywide
millage would have been .2004 which means that the cost to Marco
Island would have quadrupled, four times what it was before.
I must also point out that the millage rate does not
reflect the full monetary impact. Under the countywide arrangement,
Marco pays over half of the dollars but uses only one fourth. We use
only one fourth of that electric bill for lighting in the county.
That's half.
Therefore, we just cannot endorse any ordinance that
permits inequities of this magnitude to be imposed on Marco Island
taxpayers. So we ask again that the commission please take us out of
this consolidated lighting district.
It's being considered in our master plan. We've looked
at it very carefully in our visions committee. We need many more
lights on Marco Island. There's no doubt about it. And in our
visions workshop last week -- or two weeks ago, rather, at almost
every table people were saying, we need more street lights on our
streets. And it means that we're going to be building -- we're going
to be putting up a lot more lights. And we're willing to pay for our
own and put those lights up as needed. But we just don't feel that we
can say double, triple, or quadrupling our costs is fair.
Bob, you may want to -- Bob Duklauer's our kind of
in-house analyst. And we have gone over this extensively. There are
some discrepancies on this that you have before you, but we won't go
into that at this point but they're wrong. There's something wrong
here.
MR. DUKLAUER: Robert Duklauer, D-u-k-l-a-u-e-r. Good
morning.
I guess what this all comes down to is, as you probably
are aware of, when you consolidate Marco with the rest of the county
in electric bills, you're paying proportionate to the taxable value,
and that's -- that's the final analysis.
In 1993, '94 we had about 75 percent of the total
taxable value. That's what aggravated the ratio. It brought us --
you know, if we weren't consolidated, our millage rate would have been
close to four times what it actually was.
In 1994, '95 currently for some reason -- I don't know
why -- the taxable value of the county increased tremendously. So it
reduced the inequity to some degree to the point that currently we are
paying 2.3 times -- not less than 2.3 because it's a projection, but
it cannot be less than 2.3 times that which it would have been had we
been alone.
If in the future you get another surge in taxable values
as we had on Marco a few years ago, we'll wind up paying, you know, 75
percent of the electric bill for the county. And I just don't think
it's proper to have a formula in place that can permit that -- these
wide swings.
Basically that's what it all comes down to. And because
the $10 a household strikes you as being low, I would agree with you,
but I don't think that's the criteria to make a determination.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Thank you.
MR. DUKLAUER: I mean, it's almost like saying if you
live next to the substation, you can get a preferential rate, you
know, for -- for electricity. It just doesn't -- the thinking doesn't
follow.
But to repeat my main point, the bill is going to be
proportionate to taxable value. If either the county or the -- or
Marco begins to increase tremendously relative to the other, you're
going to get a tremendous inequity. Thank you.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm not sure where the balance of
the board sits on this, but my whole idea of consolidation was that
everyone -- a couple people may have to pay a dollar more here or
there and a couple people a dollar less but overall there's a -- a
reduction countywide.
A -- you know, a double the cost, you know, doubling
someone's -- you know, what they're paying for a service when the
service isn't changing, I would not have consolidated them in the
first place. I may have left them out initially until the rest of the
system caught up and got to a size at which drawing them in did not
increase their costs dramatically.
So in my essence we -- we need to go back and do what
should have been done initially which was if we're going to double or
triple their costs, maybe then it's not right to consolidate them in
the balance at this time. That's -- that's my opinion, and now I'll
leave that on the table for a motion.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Again, I think the doubling is
misleading when we're talking about $4, $8, $10. You know, you can
say, gosh, that's 100 percent increase, and that would sound even
better than doubling. But the fact is, it is not a heavy impact. The
idea of consolidating is to try to put everyone under one roof and try
to work as a whole community, not to single out those areas and -- and
say, you know, some areas may have to pay more than others so they
don't have to.
If you go back to the $8 on average more per household,
if you separate the two, then -- and I'm doing math quick in my head.
But it appears we're not saving any money over where we were a year
ago when we consolidated.
So the whole -- the purpose of the whole project is lost
if we then start partitioning out who can consolidate and who can't.
I think when you talk about consolidation just by its nature, some
people do have to see an increase and -- but an increase of eight
bucks is not overwhelming.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I -- I have to agree with
Commissioner Constantine. Frankly, I'm -- part of my district has
extremely high property values and carries a great deal of the burden
for a great many of the services provided by this county in a
disproportionate manner. And that's unfortunately how government has
operated.
This is one where people on Marco Island were able to
identify here's how much we used to pay. Here's how much we pay now.
Are we getting anything more for it? And unfortunately the answer was
no. But that's -- that's how property taxes work, frankly.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, let me try to frame the
issue one more time. I don't think I did a good job of it before.
Previously everybody paid their own. They were in
separate districts. Everybody paid their own. Last -- this last year
they were consolidated into one group. All of those except for Marco
saw their bills go down because Marco was subsidizing them.
Now, if -- if we take Marco back out, those properties
will pay more. That's correct. But it will be what they were paying
two years ago approximately.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: So what was the purpose of
consolidating?
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: The purpose of the consolidating
was to -- to -- for the convenience of the staff and to save about
$30,000 worth of administrative costs. If it's going to cause this
type of inequity, perhaps we should just de-consolidate everything and
go back to the way it was.
But, you know, you keep making the point that -- that
everyone but Marco will have to pay more this year. Yes, but it will
be what they were paying two years ago approximately. They've had a
break for this past year because Marco was subsidizing them.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Matthews?
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Actually, Commissioner Norris,
the rate for countywide will go down approximately 1.29 mills or .0129
mills, and that's what the consolidation saved in administrative
costs. In 1993, '94 the countywide taxing district was .1889. Mr.
Archibald's proposing that it go to .176. And the difference there is
the thirty or forty thousand dollars saved in administration costs.
I -- I agree that we did something here that adversely
affected a small group of people. And we've -- we've got an
opportunity to rectify that. And if we go from two taxing districts
to three taxing districts, the cost of administrating a third taxing
district will be shifted to that taxing district, and they will be
paying the administrative costs. They -- they choose to take that on,
so I say let them.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: That's a 50 percent increase in
the number of taxing districts. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Yes, it is.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, in any case, to bring this
to a close --
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: I'll close the public hearing.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: You'll close the public hearing.
I will make a motion that we approve the ordinance removing Marco
Island from the countywide -- countywide street lighting district.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: There is a motion from
Commissioner Norris, second by Commissioner Hancock. All those in
favor of the motion be so kind as to state the word aye. All those opposed?
Motion carries 3-2, Commissioner Hac'Kie and
Commissioner Constantine opposed.
Item #12C4
ORDINANCE 94-70, CREATING THE MARCO ISLAND STREET LIGHTING MUNICIPAL
SERVICE TAXING UNIT LOCATED IN COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA COMPANION TO
ITEM #12C3) - ADOPTED
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I also will make a motion --
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: We'll close the public hearing on
item 12-C-4.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Chairman, I'll make a motion
to create the ordinance that creates the new Marco Island street
lighting municipal service taxing unit.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Second.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: There is a motion by Commissioner
Norris, a second by Commissioner Matthews to pass item 12-C-4.
those in favor of that motion be so kind as to state aye.
Anyone opposed?
Motion carries 3-2, again, in a surprise move,
Commissioner Constantine, Commissioner Mac'Kie opposed.
We'll take an hour for lunch. We'll come back, finish
up the board of zoning appeals, and then have our workshop.
(A lunch break was taken at 1 p.m.)
All
Item #13A1
RESOLUTION 94-851, RE PETITION FDPO-94-5, HR. ROBERT S. COLLINS,
REQUESTING A 3.8 FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM BASE FLOOD ELEVATION OF
12 FEET NGVD FOR A TRAFFIC CONTROL GUARD HOUSE ON PROPERTY DESCRIBED AS
CONKLIN POINT - ADOPTED
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: 13A(1), petition FDPO-94-5,
Mr. Robert S. Collins, 3.8-foot variance.
MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows with the
Current Planning Staff presenting petition FDPO-94-5. Mr. Robert
Collins requesting a 3.8-foot variance required from the minimum base
flood elevation of 12 feet for a traffic-control guardhouse with a
bathroom facility on property located in Conklin Point. Proposed
construction of the finished floor of the guardhouse will be below the
required elevation and will match existing elevation of the road.
The variance is necessary due to the site constraints of
the traffic median width and the close proximity to the entrance
bridge. The site is located in areas vulnerable to tropical storms
and higher as defined by the storm surge control model according to
the Collier County Emergency Management Department. The proposed
guardhouse is similar to the many pool cabanas that have been granted
variances in the past.
The guardhouse will be manned 24 hours a day but not
when a threat of flooding is imminent; therefore, there's low
potential for danger to life. Since the proposed guardhouse is
located within the median entrance and near the entrance bridge, it is
virtually impossible to construct the guardhouse at the required
elevation; therefore, staff recommends that the Board of Zoning
Appeals approve petition FDPO-94-5. Any questions?
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Hac'Kie.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Just -- I'm sorry I can't figure
this out, but from the site maps that are attached I can't tell where
exactly is this guardhouse. Is it -- I mean, the print so tiny I just
can't read it. Is it at the main entrance to the development?
MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. I have a larger map if you want to
look at it.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's okay. If it's at the main
entrance, I can grasp that.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I think it's here. (indicating)
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah. That's there, and on this
one it's here.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Let the record reflect it's here.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: There and here.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And I assume none of the guards
will be living in this little guardhouse.
MR. BELLOWS: No.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: There are no public speakers.
Does the petitioner wish to make any sort of presentation? Are they
even present? You don't have to.
UNKNOWN VOICE: I have nothing to say unless you have a
question.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: If there are no questions, we'll
close the public hearing.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I'll move for approval.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: There's a motion from
Commissioner Hac'Kie, a second from Commissioner Hancock.
All those in favor of the motion, please state aye.
Anyone opposed?
Motion carries 5-0.
Item #14
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' COMMUNICATIONS
Item 14, BCC communications. Commissioner Matthews, you
had an item for workshop January 5 meeting.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Yeah. I wanted to ask if this
board would entertain a workshop on January the 5th in the morning,
the purpose of which to go over policies and to have an update from
the county manager and the county attorney as to what their abilities
are under the different ordinances that do exist for the benefit of
the two new county commissioners so that we can get a better grasp of
what we're doing and to examine the workshop concept to see if we want
to have more workshops and try to prioritize some workshops that we --
we see the workshops that we think we need to see rather than citizens
coming forward and saying, "We think you need one," and that kind of
thing.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Would you have any objection to
just putting that on the agenda as an item as opposed to a separate
workshop.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I think so because I think the
idea would be to have a public workshop, though it would be a
round-table discussion between the seven of us where we can just sit
down. We're all at -- all sitting at a table looking each other in
the face and talking about what it is we need to do, and I see it
lasting a couple of hours.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Is this a step in the direction
of I guess starting to find out what each other's thoughts and
opinions are and ideas before we end up in a meeting in which we have
to vote on them? Is that the --
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: No. The idea is not to workshop
any agendas. I for one don't believe in that, but I think what the
idea is is to look at these massive and very expensive projects that
are coming our way where we hear some information and we're saying,
"Oh, geez, you know, this is a lot of money." It's 12, 15 $20
million or more and we're looking for more information. And I've
heard a lot in the last three weeks about "I need more information,"
and the idea is to bring these workshops forward on our schedule the
way that we prefer to have them come forward so that if we have
questions developed from the information given to us, that we can get
those questions answered rather than listen to information here on a
Tuesday morning and say, "Geez, we don't have enough. We want to
continue the item," and they get continued, and then maybe they get
continued again only because information has come up in the interim
that doesn't really answer the question because there's more
questions.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Maybe I'm misunderstanding or not
fully grasping what you're saying when you said, "I envision it
lasting a couple of hours," because the initial suggestion was to go
over the roles of the county attorney and county manager, and I'm not
sure what we're discussing for two hours, I guess.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Well, for two hours would be a
listing of the types of workshops that one or more of the five of us
feel that we need more information on trying to prioritize those and
get a schedule going so that we can begin to seek the information that
we all feel we need and we're never quite sure that we've got what we
need.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: And, again, I'm -- So you're
saying if I want to research activity centers and have a workshop on
them, that January 5 is when I would bring that out and we can begin
to schedule them in advance?
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Yeah. Uh-huh.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: In other words, a little
brain-storm session will be suited -- COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: A little brain-storming session.
That's all.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- For outcoming problems so that
we can schedule the appropriate workshops to get the right
information.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: That's exactly what it is.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner MAc'Kie.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Same thing. I was just going to
say sort of akin to what we're doing this afternoon with this
particular part of the water issue that I keep saying I want a water
workshop on a more global scale, and one of the things I would bring
up is that I'd want us to discuss water workshop. I'd want us to
discuss, even though you guys are sick of it, what are the procedures
-- you know, what are we required to do in a meeting versus what
could we do in some more efficient manner, what are the policies and
procedures of the board. I just think it would be a nice
brain-storming idea.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Let me make two suggestions.
One, we're going to have a fifth Tuesday in January. It might be
appropriate because I think this falls into strategic planning. We're
trying to lay out a plan long-term of what are the issues we want to
get into and whatnot. That may be a more appropriate forum than --
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Well, I don't personally think
that it's strategic planning if we're just sitting around
brain-storming how we want to operate our own policies. And I don't
know about you, but in the two years that I've been here, and I'm sure
for the two new guys that are sitting here, I'm constantly discovering
policies that have become available somehow but I didn't know they
existed until we just get them. I'd kind of just like to get all this
stuff laid out so that we know --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm comfortable with -- There are
some things that I want to put on the table, and maybe I need to ask
questions how to do it, and the date you're talking about might be
good for that. And I think if there's anything to be scheduled there,
it will be formed on the fifth. I'm supportive of an -- just an open
session, if you will, on that date to put these things on the table
and see what the balance of the board thinks about them and whether I
should take my ball and go home or whether we could play.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Let me make the second of my
suggestions, and I'm not sure why we would schedule that first,
particularly since all seven of us need to be here anyway. That might
better be scheduled later in the day as the last item so at least the
public can get their items heard and then we do our items at the
conclusion.
COHHISSIONER MATTHEWS: Well, the public would certainly
be at any workshop.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Oh, obviously you're welcome to
participate, but just the regular agenda items, I think rather than
have those float for an unknown period of time.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I for one feel that the
situation that we are sitting in as we are talking right now in a dias
situation is not really conducive to sitting around the table and
brain-storming. It's just not.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Right. And my suggestion is, on
that Tuesday, if you think it's very important that we do it that
soon, that's fine, and we can do it that day, but let's not interrupt
our regularly-scheduled agenda which we do for the public and for all
the public issues that come before us. And if you want to move to a
different area for the workshop, let's do that at the conclusion of
the meeting rather than the beginning for --
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I don't understand why Thursday,
January 5, would interfere with a regular meeting.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK:
Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE:
regular meeting.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS:
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE:
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE:
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS:
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE:
It's a Thursday, not a Tuesday,
I thought you said before our
No. No. No.
No.
I'm sorry.
Thursday, January 5.
It's no problem whatsoever then.
I thought you said at the beginning of our regular meeting.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: No. No. January 5, 9 a.m. And
hopefully we'll have a conference room that we can sit around the
table at and invite the press to come.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK:
motion to schedule that?
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE:
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK:
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS:
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE:
up -- COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS:
Mr. Chairman, does it require a
No.
Okay.
We'll just do so.
I have one item I wanted to bring
Hr. Dotrill.
HR. DORRILL: I'll wait.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: -- One item I wanted to bring up
under BCC communications. Last week we declared vacant a slot on
EPTAB because a particular person had been unable to attend because of
personal circumstances repeatedly. The circumstances were certainly
worthwhile; however, the purpose of those groups are to get the input
from the individuals. We have a member of the TDC who has missed
three out of the last four meetings who has -- over the past year has
missed a number of meetings, and it seems if we're going to be
consistent it would probably be appropriate to discuss vacating that
position. If that person is not going to be able to fill their role
on the TDC and be at the meetings, then we probably should have a
different person doing that.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Who is that?
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I don't know.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Joe Frenny from the Ritz-Carlton.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: So would we need to put that on
the agenda for the next meeting?
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Yeah. And I just want to bring
that to your attention. We need to put that on as a regular agenda
item.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Why don't we -- Why don't we ask
Mrs. Filson to make a phone call to Mr. Frenny and ask him if he's
going to be able to attend. And if he indicates that his attendance
will be similar in the future to the past, then perhaps we should do
that.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Let's put it on for an agenda
item and do exactly that, give him an opportunity to respond and '-
MS. FILSON: Okay. I think within the last two weeks
someone else asked me to call someone to give them the opportunity to
submit a letter of resignation also. That person did verbally resign;
however, I have never received the letter. So I went ahead and
advertised for that position, and I don't know if you want me to
extend the same courtesy to Mr. Frenny.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I would like to ask him -- before
his resignation, I'd like to ask him if he can continue to serve or if
he sees a continuing problem. MS. FILSON: Okay.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: And what concerns me is -- I hope
we can get a full explanation because what concerns me is we just
reappointed him three months ago and he hasn't attended a TDC meeting
since.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I think we need to look at that.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Yeah. We need to talk to him,
find out what it is, but let's put that on for an item in the
meantime.
MS. FILSON: Okay. Do you want it on for the third?
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Yes. John, anything under BCC?
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: No.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Nothing more.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Staff communications.
Item #15
STAFF COMMUNICATIONS
MR. DORRILL: The chairman had asked me recently to look
at the board's public petition policy and see whether or not it could
be revised and/or improved upon. The public petition policy was
written in 1984, has never been amended. But specifically the chairman
and I had suggested -- asked if we could put some qualifying
requirements in there to keep repeat-type issues from resurfacing
under the public petition practice, and we have done that, but I
thought I would at least mention it here today to see whether other
board members are interested in looking at the public petition policy
to see whether you think it warrants some amendments, and the chairman
had suggested that I just bring that up to see whether there were
others.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: By way of explanation, once in a
while the public petition process gets abused. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Yes, it does.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: And we have the same issue come
back to us time and time and time again. So we just may want to look
at putting some time limit on specific issues returning to us.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: So we only hear them once a year
instead of twice a year.
MR. DORRILL: Well, it would give the county manager the
ability administratively to say, well, I'm sorry, but this was
discussed at the board meeting of August the 9th, and currently the
policy would not allow for a reconsideration or rehearing of this
particular item and --
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Why don't we put that on the
agenda for the fifth?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And I think the key discussion
there is time frame.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Uh-huh.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yes, I think that's something
worth pursuing.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: You had one other item?
MR. DORRILL: Yes, sir. Late yesterday afternoon, the
city manager called my office with a desire to have a joint workshop
with the County Commission to discuss the second Gordon River bridge
project. I did not speak to Dr. Woodruff, but he seemed to be a
little panicked over a date. He had suggested I believe the 12th, and
I think the 12th is the same day that you're meeting with the Lee
County Commission, and he wants to try to do it within that same week.
My concern was that in addition to your regular meeting, then you'd
have three meetings that week if you also had a joint meeting.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Do we have any idea of what the
substance of the request is? They've already approved the concept.
We've already approved to put it on the ballot. And I'm not sure at
this point -- we're not going to have information of any substance
back to us.
MR. DORRILL: That was my initial impression, but he
asked that I mention it here today. It seems to me that in February
is our next scheduled City/County meeting, and I would suggest to him
unless you have a concern that this might make an excellent topic for
a joint City/County workshop.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Hac'kie.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Could I just try to get some more
information before we make a decision on whether or not we will or
won't meet with him?
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I mean, that -- I think what I'd
like to have is a proposed agenda from Dr. Woodruff as to what the
discussion would be about.
MR. DORRILL: Okay. Do you have a problem if I at least
relate to him that we wouldn't necessarily want to have three meetings
in one week if we've already considered the Lee --
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: No. I would say that's probably
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: You would have my blessing.
Relate that.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Anything else?
MR. DORRILL: I'll try and follow up with him, but,
Commissioner, if you want to speak to the mayor as well and see what
items that they'd like to talk to. No, sir, I'm done.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE:
MR. CUYLER: Nothing.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE:
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE:
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS:
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE:
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE:
MS. FILSON: You may.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE:
a good night.
Mr. Cuyler.
Water.
That will be in the workshop.
Water.
That's what I'm saying.
Ms. Filson, may we be excused?
Merry Christmas to all and to all
***** Commissioner Norris moved, seconded by Commissioner Matthews
and carried unanimously, that the following items under the Consent
Agenda be approved and/or adopted: *****
Item #16A1
ACCEPTANCE OF WATER FACILITIES FOR VINEYARDS COMMUNITY PARK - WITH
STIPULATIONS
Item #16A2
ACCEPTANCE OF ALTERNATE MAINTENANCE SECURITY FOR "PARK PLACE WEST" AND
AUTHORIZATION TO ENTER INTO A MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT WITH THE NEW
DEVELOPER
See Pages
Item #16A3
FINAL PLAT OF "KENSINGTON PARK PHASE THREE" AND ACCEPTANCE OF
CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT
See Pages
Item #16A4
RESOLUTION 94-834, AUTHORIZING RECORDING OF THE FINAL PLAT OF "GRAND
ISLE AT PELICAN MARSH" - SUBJECT TO STIPULATIONS AND CONSTRUCTION AND
MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT
See Pages
Item #16C1 - Deleted
Item #16C2
BUDGET AMENDMENT RECOGNIZING CARRY FORWARD WITHIN FUND 130 GOLDEN GATE
COMMUNITY CENTER - IN THE AMOUNT OF $95,385
Item #16C3
ACCEPTANCE OF LIBRARY LONG RANGE PLAN, IN ORDER TO QUALIFY FOR FY 1995
LIBRARY OPERATING GRANT (STATE AID TO LIBRARIES)
See Pages
Item #16D1
FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT LOAD CONTROL AGREEMENTS
See Pages
Item #16El - Deleted
Item #16E2
BID #94-2301 AWARDED TO FAULKNER PLASTICS TO SUPPLY SECURITY GLASS AND
BID #94-2302 AWARDED TO SEWELL DOOR CONTROL & GLASS CORPORATION TO
INSTALL SAID SECURITY GLASS IN THE MAIN JAIL - BID #94-2301 IN THE
AMOUNT OF $16,282.35 AND BID #94-2302 IN THE AMOUNT OF $38,000.00
Item #16E3
BID #94-2299 TO HYDROLOGIC FLORIDA, INC. FOR OPERATIONAL AND ANALYTICAL
SERVICES FOR THE IHMOKALEE JAIL CENTER WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT - IN
THE ESTIMATED AMOUNT OF LESS THAN $15,000.00 PER YEAR
Item #16E4
FIRST AMENDMENT TO LEASE AGREEMENT BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY AND
REPRESENTATIVE LUIS E. ROJAS FOR THE CONTINUED USE OF OFFICE SPACE
WITHIN THE ADMINISTRATION BUILDING
See Pages
Item #16E5 - Withdrawn
Item #16G1
CONTRACT WITH THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION TO
MONITOR GROUND WATER QUALITY NOT TO EXCEED $9,000 FOR FY 94/95
See Pages
Item #1662
BID #94-2258 FOR LEACHATE HAULING FOR THE NAPLES AND IHMOKALEE
LANDFILLS - AWARDED TO SLUDGE MANAGEMENT CORPORATION AT $14.29 PER
1,000 GALLONS
Item #16H1
TEN PERCENT DESIGN CHANGE ORDER AUTHORITY FOR RATTLESNAKE-HAMMOCK ROAD
FOUR-LANING IMPROVEMENTS, CIE PROJECT NO. 017 - REINSTATED
Item #16H2
STIPULATED ORDER FOR DEFENDANT'S ATTORNEY FEES AND COSTS FOR PARCEL
NOS. 118 AND T-231, COLLIER COUNTY V. ENDLESS SUHMER R.V., LTD., ET
AL., CASE NO. 92-2547-CA-01-TB, EMINENT DOMAIN CASE FOR RADIO ROAD
PHASE I ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY DRAINAGE, UTILITY AND MAINTENANCE EASEMENTS
IN THE AMOUNT OF $35,186.25 TO BE DEPOSITED IN THE REGISTRY OF THE
COURT ON OR BEFORE 12/31/94
Item #16H3
FUNDING SOURCE FOR THE SANTA BARBARA 16" WATER MAIN - APPROVED
Item #16H4
ADDITIONAL SERVICES FOR HOLE, HONTES AND ASSOCIATES FOR THE NORTH
NAPLES ROADWAY MUNICIPAL SERVICES TAXING AND BENEFIT UNIT IN THE AMOUNT
OF $87,401 (LIVINGSTON ROAD PROJECT)
Item #16H5
BID NO. 94-2295 REJECTED AND STAFF TO REVISE THE BID SHEET AND REISSUE
THE BID INVITATION
Item #16H6
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH HUHISTON AND MOORE ENGINEERS TO
PROVIDE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES RELATED TO THE DESIGN, PERMITTING AND
CONSTRUCTION OF A SEGMENTED BREAKWATER SYSTEM FOR THE MARCO ISLAND
BEACH RENOURISHHENT PROJECT
See Pages
Item #16H7
THIRD AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT, A FOURTH AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT AND A
FIFTH AMENDMENT TO LEASE AGREEMENT PROVIDING FOR AN EXTENSION TO
COMPLETE THE SHERIFF'S OFFICE MULTIPURPOSE TRAINING FACILITY AND
GRANTING ADDITIONAL FUNDS FOR THE PROJECT'S COMPLETION
See Pages
Item #16H8
APPROVAL TO PLACE A BRIEFING RELATIVE TO THE APPLCIATION FOR STATE
FUNDING ASSISTANCE FOR THE COLLIER COUNTY BEACH RESTORATION PROJECT ON
THE AGENDA OF THE COLLIER COUNTY LEGISLATIVE DELEGATION PUBLIC HEARING
SCHEDULED FOR JANUARY 20, 1995
Item #16H9
CHAIRMAN AUTHORIZED TO EXECUTE A WORK ORDER UNDER THE ANNUAL AGREEHENT
FOR PROFESSIONAL ARCHITECTURAL SERVICES WITH BARANY, SCHHITT, WEAVER
AND PARTNERS IN THE AMOUNT OF $14,000
See Pages
Item #16H10
CHAIRMAN AUTHORIZED TO EXECUTE A WORK ORDER UNDER THE ANNUAL AGREEMENT
FOR PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING SERVICES WITH WILKISON & ASSOCIATES IN THE
AMOUNT OF $35,900
See Pages
Item #16J
MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE - FILED AND/OR REFERRED
The following miscellaneous correspondence as presented by the
Board of County Commissioners was filed and/or referred to the various
departments at indicated:
Item #16J1
CERTIFICATES OF CORRECTION AS PRESENTED BY THE PROPERTY APPRAISER
1994 TANGIBLE PERSONAL PROPERTY
NOS. DATE
1994-92/1994-101 11/22/94 - 12/2/94
Item #16J2
76 - 77
80 - 85
87 - 94
1994 TAX ROLL
11/30/94 - 12/2/94
12/02/94 - 12/8/94
12/08/94 - 12/9/94
SATISFACTION OF LIENS FOR SERVICES OF THE PUBLIC DEFENDER
See Pages
Item #16K1
RFP #94-2294 FOR THE PROVISION OF COURT APPOINTED LEGAL SERVICES -
AWARDED TO FAERBER & HISSAM AND BURZYNSKI & PFEUFFER RESPECTIVELY
Item #16L1
RESOLUTION 94-835 APPROVING THE SATISFACTION OF LIEN FOR ACCOUNT NO.
61609 FOR THE 1992 SOLID WASTE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL SERVICES SPECIAL
ASSESSMENT LIEN THAT WAS PLACE AGAINST THE PROPERTY IN ERROR
See Pages
Item #16L2
RESOLUTION 94-836 APPROVING THE SATISFACTION OF LIEN FOR ACCOUNT NO.
24950 FOR THE 1992 SOLID WASTE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL SERVICES SPECIAL
ASSESSMENT LIEN THAT WAS PLACE AGAINST THE PROPERTY IN ERROR
See Pages
Item #16L3
RESOLUTION 94-837 APPROVING THE SATISFACTION OF LIEN FOR ACCOUNT NO.
107000 FOR THE 1992 SOLID WASTE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL SERVICES
SPECIAL ASSESSMENT LIEN THAT WAS PLACE AGAINST THE PROPERTY IN ERROR
See Pages
Item #16L4
RESOLUTION 94-838 APPROVING THE SATISFACTION OF LIEN FOR ACCOUNT NO.
73600 FOR THE 1991 SOLID WASTE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL SERVICES SPECIAL
ASSESSMENT LIEN THAT WAS PLACE AGAINST THE PROPERTY IN ERROR
See Pages
Item #16L5
RESOLUTION 94-839 APPROVING THE SATISFACTION OF LIEN FOR ACCOUNT NO.
5458 FOR THE 1993 SOLID WASTE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL SERVICES SPECIAL
ASSESSMENT LIEN THAT WAS PLACE AGAINST THE PROPERTY IN ERROR
See Pages
Item #16L6
RESOLUTION 94-840 APPROVING THE SATISFACTION OF LIEN FOR ACCOUNT NO.
178 FOR THE 1993 SOLID WASTE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL SERVICES SPECIAL
ASSESSMENT LIEN THAT WAS PLACE AGAINST THE PROPERTY IN ERROR
See Pages
Item #16L7
RESOLUTION 94-841 APPROVING THE SATISFACTION OF LIEN FOR ACCOUNT NO.
1478 FOR THE 1993 SOLID WASTE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL SERVICES SPECIAL
ASSESSMENT LIEN THAT WAS PLACE AGAINST THE PROPERTY IN ERROR
See Pages
Item #16L8
RESOLUTION 94-842 APPROVING THE SATISFACTION OF LIEN FOR ACCOUNT NO.
437 FOR THE 1993 SOLID WASTE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL SERVICES SPECIAL
ASSESSMENT LIEN THAT WAS PLACE AGAINST THE PROPERTY IN ERROR
See Pages
Item #16L9
RESOLUTION 94-843 APPROVING THE SATISFACTION OF LIEN FOR ACCOUNT NO.
440 FOR THE 1993 SOLID WASTE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL SERVICES SPECIAL
ASSESSMENT LIEN THAT WAS PLACE AGAINST THE PROPERTY IN ERROR
See Pages
Item #16L10
RESOLUTION 94-844 APPROVING THE SATISFACTION OF LIEN FOR ACCOUNT NO.
5649 FOR THE 1993 SOLID WASTE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL SERVICES SPECIAL
ASSESSMENT LIEN THAT WAS PLACE AGAINST THE PROPERTY IN ERROR
See Pages
Item #16Lll
RESOLUTION 94-845 APPROVING THE SATISFACTION OF LIEN FOR ACCOUNT NO.
2354 FOR THE 1993 SOLID WASTE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL SERVICES SPECIAL
ASSESSMENT LIEN THAT WAS PLACE AGAINST THE PROPERTY IN ERROR
See Pages
Item #16L12
RESOLUTION 94-846 APPROVING THE SATISFACTION OF LIEN FOR ACCOUNT NO.
21319 FOR THE 1993 SOLID WASTE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL SERVICES SPECIAL
ASSESSMENT LIEN THAT WAS PLACE AGAINST THE PROPERTY IN ERROR
See Pages
Item #16L13
RESOLUTION 94-847 APPROVING THE SATISFACTION OF LIEN FOR ACCOUNT NO.
306021 FOR THE 1993 SOLID WASTE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL SERVICES
SPECIAL ASSESSMENT LIEN THAT WAS PLACE AGAINST THE PROPERTY IN ERROR
See Pages
Item #16L14
APPROVAL OF FAITHFUL PERFORMANCE BONDS OF THREE COLLIER COUNTY MOSQUITO
CONTROL DISTRICT COHMISSIONERS; FRANCIS BLANCHARD, ROBERT GEROY AND
JEANNE BROOKER PURSUANT TO SECTIONS 388.131 & 137.04, FLORIDA STATUTES
See Pages
AT THIS TIME THE BOARD OF COUNTY COHMISSIONERS ADJOURNED
THE REGULAR MEETING AND WENT INTO WORKSHOP SESSION
Items #SD1, #SH1 & #8H2
PRESENTATION OF SOUTH COUNTY REGIONAL WASTEWATER MASTER PLAN UPDATE;
STAFF REPORT ON EFFLUENT MANAGEMENT SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE NORTH
COUNTY REGIONAL WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITY; AND STAFF REPORT ON
EFFLUENT MANAGEMENT OPTIONS FOR THE SOUTH COUNTY REGIONAL WASTEWATER
TREATMENT FACILITY
Now, we'll convene the session for our workshop on water
issues. As is the general practice of workshops, this will be for the
discussion of the board and staff, not generally open to public
comment, and we are not taking any formal action today, though we
might set some general direction I guess but no formal or binding
action taking place in the workshop format.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Don't we have a couple of items
that we have postponed until today?
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: In a workshop we don't take --
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: We don't take action in
workshops.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: But just for my education -- I'm
not trying to argue, but don't Hi and H2 and D1, we won't vote on
those today?
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: How do those items read?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Presentation of the wastewater --
South County Regional Wastewater master plan update. Staff report on
effluent management system improvements for the north facility.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: My point just being that those
read as update and reports. We don't have to vote on those.
MR. HCNEES: Mr. Chairman --
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Mr. HcNees.
MR. HCNEES: -- Hike HcNees from the Utilities Division.
There are what could be regular agenda decision items that have been
grouped here as this workshop. I guess I'll leave it to the board.
There are items that we would prefer to walk away with the board
approval. I don't know if it's feasible for you to continue in
regular session.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Mr. Cuyler, can you give me a
hand here?
MR. CUYLER: Hike, is there anything that needs to be
handled today that can't be put on another agenda that you're running
up against a serious problem?
MR. HCNEES: Nothing that can't, but our preference
would be, given a week delay, that we in a couple of our areas get a
decision.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Educate us. Tell us the reason.
They haven't been properly advertised perhaps?
MR. CUYLER: Well, the only concern I have is that, yes,
they're on the regular agenda and they have been on the regular
agenda, and you could have taken action then. This latest
advertisement indicates that they'll be heard at the workshop at the
end of the regular agenda. If you're serious about taking a vote,
what I'd probably -- if you really want to do that, I'd just leave
your regular meeting open and have the workshop meeting and leave your
meeting open if you're interested.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: While that might be more
convenient, I'm not sure I'm comfortable doing that because it's been
advertised as a workshop. I don't know that anybody is going to come
in and argue those anyway, but if it's been advertised as a workshop,
I'd rather not take that chance and have someone come back January 3
and say, "Gosh, you guys voted and I went to Boise, Idaho, because I
thought it was going to be a workshop."
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Hay I make another request about
the workshop? I had, frankly, hoped that it would be a part of our
regular agenda, we would be able to vote today, and I'm sorry that I
didn't understand that because I had asked for some of these items to
be continued until today's meeting not realizing that if they were
quote, unquote, workshops you couldn't vote on them. But I'd be
particularly troubled if we can't vote and we can't hear from the
public, and there are some experts out here who I'd like to get to
talk to us today.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I would think we'll hear from
the public.
MR. DORRILL: For clarification, I'll take
responsibility for perhaps misperceiving the intent. The strategic
planning the other day -- workshop to me means at the end of the
regular meeting and we will have a great deal of question and answer
posed by the board. Public in that context does not refer to
consultants who have prepared master plans or updates on effluent
agreements, and I'm fully intending that Mr. Missimer and Mr. Taylor
and others are going to participate as part of that. We typically
don't allow or we historically do not allow members of the public at
large to have a public hearing and allow them to speak or give their
position on something but it's --
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Those two things go hand in hand
in that we don't -- if we're not going to take public input, we
probably shouldn't be voting.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Agree.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: But the idea of a workshop in
general, maybe this is something we need to talk about during that
Thursday meeting.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thursday.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: The idea of a workshop in general
is to give the board a chance to let their hair down and dive into an
issue but not to get back and forth into public comment and question
and so on and so forth.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Should at least be able to get
some feel from the board as to direction or thoughts or something
along those lines.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Not terribly efficient but --
MR. CUYLER: If you want to put it on your next agenda,
you can vote then. And obviously if you want to direct staff to do
something, you can do that.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Just kind of a novel concept, but
why won't we move on with the workshop as was scheduled and stop
discussing this because otherwise we could spend another half-hour not
doing a damn thing so --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Fine. We're not going to do a
damn thing anyway probably.
MR. MCNEES: I guess that's my cue. Mr. Chairman, Mike
McNees, Utilities Division, we have been to you with two or three
different items in the last couple of months for some capital projects
operational decisions on our waste water system, and as we're
discussing right now, you've asked us to take a step back and perhaps
provide for you some better background information and put some of
these decisions into a better context. I don't know that we're
prepared today to conduct a full-blown water resource education and
workshop session, but we are hopefully going to provide a good context
from which you can consider the issues that we're facing with our
waste water, primarily effluent and how we got to where we are today
and get some direction from you in that regard.
The order of our presentation today will be that, first,
I'm going to give you a -- what I'll call a state of the plan
presentation which will be relatively brief. It will tell you who has
been responsible for what part of our planning and what plans have
brought us to the stage where we are today and what the status of
those plans is. There seems to be a lot of concern that nobody is
doing certain levels of planning or that certain information isn't
available. I think maybe after I present that to you, you'll have a
little bit better feel for what planning is taking place, and if you
feel like there's a gap, then direct us to address it.
Following that, Mr. Taylor from Hole, Hontes is going to
give you a sort of a water resource overview of what the big picture
water issues are and eventually walk you into what are our effluent
issues and what our preliminary recommendations have been and how we
have arrived where we are today in terms of making effluent decisions
both at our North County and our South County Regional Waste Water
Plants.
We will then go into the specific discussions of those
two plants and the agenda items that were on your agenda for today so
that you'll understand what it is that we're asking you for and
hopefully understand what your concerns or questions are so that we
can answer them apparently before we come back to get those final
decisions.
Finally we are going to present to you the updated South
County Waste Water master plan, make a brief staff presentation on
that and then ask that you accept it. We're not asking that it be
adopted in its entirety, and we'll explain that to you at the time.
In terms of --
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Did you say "and finally we'll do
the master plan"e
MR. HCNEES: Yes.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: And will this be the last item
you were planning on discussing?
MR. HCNEES: That was our plan, but that's sure
flexible.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Is there any chance we could
shuffle that a little bit?
MR. HCNEES: Absolutely.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Any objection to shuffling that?
I've got a couple of issues in here I want to be sure and highlight --
MR. HCNEES: Absolutely.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: -- And, frankly, my dad is coming
in toward the end of the day. So if we drag for two hours, I may
disappear at the very end so --
MR. HCNEES: Well, let me -- I'll do my planning
overview, and then when we get to that piece of it, we'll talk about
that, and then we'll move on to Mr. Taylor's presentation. That will
work out fine. However you want to do it.
In terms of overall water resource planning, I'm sure
that y'all understand that the primary regulatory agency that we deal
with is the South Florida Water Management District. You may or may
not be aware of this document. I know that some of you are, which is
recently released and is, as I understand it, soon to be adopted by
the governing board, and it's called the lower west coast water supply
plan. And what this plan is about is addressing water resource needs
for the lower west coast through the year 2010. And the reason I
bring that up is there seems to be some concern that long-term water
resource planning is not taking place because the Utilities Division
is not doing it, and I want to point out that it is the jurisdiction
of and the responsibility of the Water Management District to propose
and to study these issues and that they are doing that, and they have
issued the study that their board is about to adopt. I can tell you
that at a staff level, we have a member of our staff who's involved in
different ways with the Water Management District, staying informed
and staying in tune with what their proposals are and how they will
affect your water utility which is the County Water Sewer District,
and I start with that document as the -- sort of the big picture water
plan, and I think it's good that you're having a meeting with both the
Big Cypress Basin Board and the Water Management District Board here.
I believe that's in March, and you'll be able then to address what
long-term questions and concerns that you have either about their
report or about their recommendation or about the thoroughness of
their planning, and you'll be able to address those types of issues
with them directly. I think that will be a very valuable workshop.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Can I ask you a question, Mike?
And if you don't mind, I probably will ask a lot so I can be sure I
understand. What you're saying is, from a resource point of view,
it's not the county's responsibility to plan. It's somebody else's
jurisdiction. We would be overlapping another -- you know, I'm not
trying to be smart about this. I just mean I don't want us to be
doing somebody else's job.
MR. MCNEES: I think I'd answer that two ways. I tend
to agree with -- well, I think the concept of what you're saying. I
think it's absolutely the county's responsibility and your utilities
responsibility to know that what they are doing meets our needs and
covers our citizens appropriately. I also agree that it would be
redundant and probably not cost-effective for us to attempt at a
county staff level to duplicate work that they're already doing. So
there's a -- I don't think we conduct the responsibility, but I don't
necessarily say that means we have to spend money doing what they're
already doing. I don't know if that answers --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It does. And can you see to it
that we get a copy of that lower west coast whatever it is?
MR. MCNEES: Yes, ma'am. I'm sure they'll be happy to
provide some more copies. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thanks.
MR. MCNEES: In your terms of your County Water Sewer
District and the water utility which is what -- my responsibility as
utilities administrator, we have a couple of planning documents that
I'm going to explain to you, the first being what was called at the
time the phase two water master plan for western Collier County. This
is a plan that was developed in the 1985 1986 time frame. That plan
brought us from what was then a four million gallon per day production
capacity water system through to what we have today which is a 24
million gallon per day capacity system. This plan proposed what is
now the North Regional Water Treatment Plant. It proposed the supply
options for serving that water treatment plant and, in fact, continues
to recommend capital projects in terms of distribution and
transmission through the year 2005. So even though this plan is still
active and there are still a number of projects it recommends we
haven't completed, it is -- for the most part, it has served its
purpose. It has brought us to where we are today what we are
proposing for fiscal '95. It's something you approved as part of the
budget that a water master plan for your water sewer district update
be prepared, and we will be going out for proposals within the next
couple of months for that document. Now, the purpose of that document
will be to study the resource issues, the capital project construction
issues, the population estimates for your water sewer district and the
growth issues and make sure that from a water supply and production
standpoint youwre able to meet the needs of the customers. Yes,
mawam.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Just from -- but for it being for
a smaller geographic area than the one you just showed us that the
district did, are there other differences? I mean, it sounds like --
MR. MCNEES: Districts work is essentially
resource-intensive, where is the water and in what volume and how
should it be managed. You're utility district master plan is what
I'll call for capital-intensive, where will the population be, what
volume of water will we need to serve that population, how will we
produce it and how will we transmit it to those people.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's the one we want, and
that's the one that you've already started on and expect to have --
MR. MCNEES: We have not yet issued the RFP for that.
You will see probably a request for your approval issue within a
couple of months.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: How long does something like that
take?
MR. MCNEES: I expect it will take six months to a year.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: To get it out or --
MR. MCNEES: The consultants are nodding, so, yeah, I
expect six months to a year.
MR. DORRILL: Total to go through both the selection
process and the contract negotiation and then to undertake the work
itself.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. McNees -- I'm sorry. I'll
interject here if I may. Do we typically find that the same
consultants that do the water use study are the same consultants that
bid on the extension of those systems? In other words, I know Wilson,
Miller or Hole, Hontes are going to be in the vying for that project.
I just -- I don't know if there are any -- you know, any planning out
there that isn't tied to the engineering design that comes down the
road. There just seems to be a public faith problem.
MR. HCNEES: I expect when it comes to the water master
plan update, we'll get pretty much all of those firms and many, many,
many more proposing to provide that service, and that's a decision the
board will have to make. They will probably -- some may even come in
as joint ventures with other national firms, and so I can't really --
I think probably everyone will -- would like to have that work and it
will be up to you all to tell us --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: It was just an experience
question, not really pointing a finger, but just wanting to know if
typically it is the same firms in those.
MR. HCNEES: I'm not sure --
MR. DORRILL: The answer by and large is yes for work
that entails particular transmission or collection mains, pump
station, lift stations. When you get into larger issues like well
field expansion, plant construction or expansion, then you will see
local firms either coming in as a subconsultant to a large national
firm or in joint venture with a larger CH2H Hill or Boyle or CDH-type
firm.
MR. MCNEES: The other piece of the water planning
picture, you've already gotten a jump on -- I'll call it the supply
issue. You authorized a number of months ago that the firm of
Missimer International be engaged to begin the study of what I'll call
the next level of our water supply beyond our current well fields, and
they are currently engaged in drilling test wells and conducting
investigation because we're essentially going to be in a position
where our north plant is going to need expansion very soon and we need
the water to supply that.
They are currently engaged in the study of where the
next 12 to 30 million gallons of water in Collier County will come
from. And if you have any particular questions as we go through this
workshop about where that's leading us or what the status of that is,
Mr. Missimer is here today and will be happy to answer any questions
on that.
But in terms of water planning, I hope that gives you at
least a general idea of how we got where we are and where we are in
the planning process. We're at I'll call somewhat of a pause in the
planning process as we regroup having completed the plans that we
began in the mid '80s, and now we begin to look forward. Are there
any other questions about the water planning?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Just one thing that I'd like to
see incorporated into it is -- sounds like -- I forgot the name of it,
but the existing plan that we're now going to update has programs in
it that have not been implemented, that maybe an appropriate thing to
do in this plan is to put some checkpoints for review and, you know,
see how we're doing.
MR. MCNEES: That's probably appropriate. And when I
said, "have not been implemented," most of them are because they're
not scheduled for the next -- the plan has projects in it all the way
through the year 2005.
Now, what will be appropriate to do is look at, are
those still appropriate based on the population patterns and based on
where development is located, and there are a lot of assumptions made
about those items when the plans are developed, and we need to find
out if the patterns have held true as assumed or what we need to
change. Those issues will be even more true with the next couple
items I'm going to talk to you about.
Let's move over to the waste water side to get us a
little more closely to what we're here operationally to deal with
today. The document I'm holding is the South County sewer master
plan. This is the document that led the county commissioners and
county staff through the grant process, the construction process, and
the collection system process that eventually became your South
Regional Waste Water Collection and Treatment System that built the
East and South County Collection System. It built the plant that now
we call the South County Plant, some people call it the Lely Plant,
and brought us to the point where we are today at the south end of the
county and it deals with -- the plan talks about long-term effluent
options. It has recommendations for long-term effluent. You'll find
the words "deep-well injection" in this plan, and it talks about the
different issues involved with that.
Now, this plan having been written in May 1986 was at
the point a couple of years ago of where it needed to be updated just
like we're about to do with the water plan.
As Commissioner Constantine mentioned, one of the items
on your agenda today is the update of that South County Regional Waste
Water plan, and we as a staff have some concerns about some of the
items in that update, and Mr. Clemons is going to make a little
presentation on that in just a minute, and we'll get to the specifics
of that plan.
From the North County standpoint, we have another master
plan that's the North County Sewer master plan which is more current
which was developed in 1989 which led us to the expansion that is
currently ongoing at the North County Regional Waste Water Plant, and
we're here today to talk about another plan that was developed in
conjunction with that expansion which is the effluent disposal means
for that plant which is a much simpler issue and I think one that
you're going to be happy with regarding some decisions that you need
to make at the North Plant, and we'll get to that probably last today
in our discussion which will be your adoption of the effluent master
plan for the North County Water Plant, and that essentially concludes
my overview and I'll -- I guess at this point turn the floor over to
Mr. Clemons for any questions that you might have.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Matthews.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I have one question following up
on Commissioner Hancock's comment about the engineering firm's
preparing the master plan and doing the bidding on the capital
infrastructure. If we were to consider limiting the people who may
bid or to exclude the company that does the master plan from the
bidding process, I know we have a very -- a relatively small group of
good engineering firms that we can draw expertise on. I guess the
question becomes, would we seriously injure our ability to produce the
best infrastructure for the least cost?
MR. MCNEES: My opinion would be no. I can tell you
that from the financial standpoint you exclude your financial advisor
from doing specific work on bond issues, and I feel like this is
analogous to that, and I don't know that -- that firms would then
decide which work was more important to them, did they want to do our
master-planning work or did they want to do the actual projects. I
think that's entirely fair.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: And the reason for asking that
was not to point a finger, but working within a consulting firm for
five years, I always found it interesting that we would do a regional
plan and then bid on the work that followed up after the plan, and I
always wondered if that lended itself to an opportunity for someone to
design a system that benefitted them in the bidding process or to make
recommendations that benefitted them, and you're never going to have a
perfect system, but, you know, I just -- I was just -- it just seemed
kind of strange to me and, like you said, there's probably three or
maybe four local firms that have the expertise and size to handle
something like that and it reduces our pool, but I do know I've had a
lot of comments from a lot of people that were interested in that
topic, and I just thought I'd put it out.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Well, you know, we can carry
that even one step further. Often as with the 800-megahertz system,
we hired a firm to help us write the RFP and that -- you know -- that
can really come back and haunt you, the firm that writes the RFP also
bids on producing the system.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: This is probably not something we
can by any means solve today.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Yeah. We're not going to solve
it today.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I apologize for even bringing it
up but --
MR. DORRILL: The answer though is yes because the board
has previously indicated that if you want to be the independent
financial advisor to this county, you may, but when you do and if
you're selected, then you preclude yourself from ever doing bond
underwriting because you can't be recommending a refinancing and then
bidding to do the refinancing in the underwriting of that bond issue.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I know we're talking engineering
versus financing which engineering is supposed to be a lot more solid
and concrete than financing is but --
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: It's also an art though.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: There's more than one way to skin
a cat. That's for sure.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Just I -- Go ahead.
MR. MCNEES: The direct answer to your question which
was, would that cause us somehow to be less cost-effective or -- my
opinion is, no, it would not. It would not cost you more money to do
that.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I just want to recap. You said
we've got a lower west coast plan. We've got the county utility plan
that we're going to be updating in the next year or so. And we've got
the South County and the North County Plant. That's what we presently
have?
MR. MCNEES: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Did I leave anything out?
MR. MCNEES: In terms of formal master planning, I would
say, yes, that's correct.
MR. DORRILL: ANd the North and South County Plants are
waste water and effluent reuse, and then the update plan that Mike
alluded to would be for future raw water that becomes your potable
drinking water master plan.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So that update is going to be one
aspect of water, not all? It's going to be the potable water issue,
not waste water, and potable and --
MR. DORRILL: The reason for that is the county's
potable -- the county's raw water and potable water treatment
distribution pumping systems are inter-connected and the source of raw
water is the same whether it goes to the North County Plant or the
South County Plant. The waste water and sewage and effluent systems
are totally detached and separate from one another, and so we do
different master planning issues for waste water because of the way
that the plants are and the way that the effluent distribution systems
are. They're not inter-connected.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: But what we may eventually
decide to do with our effluent and the possible reuse of it will
certainly affect eventually how much potable water we're going to have
to produce.
MR. DORRILL: Yes. And could even conceivably include
other utilities to also include perhaps the City of Naples at some
point, especially if you get into issues like deep wells, and I think
before you make any final, final decisions you would want to know what
is the City doing and could we joint-venture with the City on
something.
MR. HCNEES: And you will hear about some of the
possible interconnection between the North and the South Waste Water
and/or effluent systems before the day is over today.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: So in terms of is there what I --
See, what I've been thinking of when I say a county water master plan,
it didn't in my mind separate potable water, tense water, waste water.
So we don't currently have budgeted a plan for those integrated
aspects of water issues. We have currently budgeted a plan for
potable water.
MR. DORRILL: Correct. And we have -- we either have
under contract or have just completed the separate waste water plants.
We're anticipating doing a potable drinking water plan, and we have
just completed and you'll receive today the testimony on the waste
water side for both the North County and the South County.
MR. HCNEES: Commissioner, I think it would be fair to
point out here the fact that there are separate plans doesn't
necessarily mean they're developed in a vacuum. The demand
projections that you'll see in your eventual water master plan will
consider where we're headed with tense and will consider what the
effluent demand is or the irrigation demand, how much of that will be
met with effluent. So each of these isn't developed in a vacuum.
They are certainly -- The information in each is key to the
development of the other, and that's part of the staff to make sure
those things happen.
With that, I'll refer you to what is item 8D(1) in your
agenda today which is the update of the South County master plan, and
I'm going to turn the floor over to Tim Clemons, our waste water
director who is going to present that to you.
MR. CLEHONS: Good afternoon. I'm Tim Clemons, waste
water director. I would like to take a few minutes of your time if I
can and go over this item. Item 8D(1) this afternoon is the
presentation of the South County Regional Waste Water master plan
update. The original master plan for the south service area of the
county was prepared in 1986, and then in 1992 the board authorized the
engineering firm of Halcolm Perney, Inc., (phonetic) to provide an
update of this '86 plan. The scope of this work is shown in your
executive summary and included reviewing waste water flow projections,
reviewing infill areas throughout the south service area, reviewing
facility siting which several of you have already seen that chapter,
reviewing treatment capacity alternatives, reviewing effluent disposal
alternatives which is one of the options or one of the items we're
talking about today and then to review potential private utility
acquisition throughout the south end of the county.
I would like to take just a couple of minutes of your
time and go through the -- did each of you get a master plan? We
tried to provide one for everybody. Section one or chapter one is
just an update, the project background. Interrupt anytime, please, if
you have any questions, and let me try to answer them at that point.
And it just gives you a background on what was being looked at and
then a little brief summation of what each of the items were to be
reviewed.
Item two is just an introduction into this particular
master plan update. Item three got into the current infrastructure,
and in it you'll see the various maps and system layout for waste
water transmission lines, master pump stations. It has flow
projections through the year 2010, and it shows you some of the
various population projections out through the year 2010 and projected
flows. And that was -- that's part of the planning for your waste
water treatment systems, collection systems and so forth in the south
end of the county. And then it -- The last page of section three is a
schematic just showing the waste water treatment plant and then the
various master pump stations and lines that run out from it.
Section four goes into dealing with what's termed as
infill areas. These infill areas are recommended subregional force
mains and lines to be extended that run off of the existing master
plan system, and then it goes on to identify some of the infill areas
within the south service area. It shows five of them specifically,
the city gate, Golden Gate, Health Park area, Sherwood Park area,
Barefoot Bay River Bend area, the industrial park area, northeast
corner of North Road and Airport Road, and shows an optional Isles of
Capri, Marco Shores Country Club area, and it's got just again in that
chapter maps showing you where those infill areas are. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Excuse me. Mr. Clemons.
MR. DORRILL: This is an important area though that we
shouldn't just skip over because these are burgeoning areas that are
potential new developments that have come on line since the last
master plan, and this is where it's showing you that at some point you
may see, either this year or next year, separate engineering
agreements for capital improvement projects and budgets saying we're
moving ahead because this was part of the master plan update and we
think that we need to run a sewer force main to the city gate
industrial complex there at the intersection of 1-75 and 951.
MR. CLEMONS: We'll look for some direction on that also
because it changes a little bit, the velocity we've worked on up to
this point.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: What is that? You said that in
the executive summary that you don't like --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm stuck in the same place
because it appears to me you're recommending against a subregional
approach of connecting the infill areas which seems to me would be a
part of a long-term goal of the county. So I'm a little confused
there.
MR. CLEMONS: That's part of the direction we'll seek
from you today. Up to this point, the way we've done our master plan
lines and so forth is when an area gets built out -- in other words,
they go in and many times will start with package plants or will do a
variety of different things. When the growth has occurred, we've gone
in and then put master pump stations in. We've put in the main
transmission lines, and they've been required then to connect to the
county system, dismantle the package plants and remove them.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So after the fact instead of
ahead of time.
MR. CLEMONS: Yes. And the reason that we object or
that the waste water staff objects to the ahead-of-time scenario is
that quite often these major lines get built. They're put in the
ground. Master pump stations may be constructed that may sit idle for
a number of years that by the time they come on line or get used,
warranties are gone, equipment has sat for a number of years in some
cases and may need replacing before it's ever been used. So from a
staff waste water maintenance perspective, it makes no sense to us to
do a lot of that stuff way up front for maybe one developer or even
two that may then sit idle for, you know, a long period of time.
MR. MCNEES: Mr. Chairman, if I may add to that, so that
you understand, this isn't something that we're recommending against
at the whim of the operations folks. This sort of a change would be a
chance to previous board directional policy whereby -- and if you want
us to move in that direction, that's something we can certainly do.
But in the past, the utilities division hasn't looked and said, here's
an area that probably could develop if we build a system, put it in in
advance and then provide that as a spur or a mechanism for those
properties to develop either more quickly or more inexpensively.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: What is the rationale that the
consultant had for recommending that we do it ahead of time?
MR. MCNEES: I honestly don't know what -- I can't speak
for the consultant. We weren't able to get them here today. I think
they were, to some degree, directed by county staff by Utilities
Administration at that time to proceed in that direction and that, in
our opinion, was inconsistent with what the board's policies and
directions were at that time.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: When would that direction have
been given?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah.
MR. MCNEES: Two years ago.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: So under the prior
administration? Under the prior -- MR. MCNEES: Yes.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: -- Administrator?
MR. CLEMONS: Yes, ma'am.
MR. MCNEES: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Is it better for the community as
a whole to have individual package plants operating for periods of ten
years or so. Is it better both environmentally and community-wide to
have the -- if not the pump stations -- I understand warranties on
pump stations, but transmission lines when they're not used, I don't
know whether they go bad. They may need to be flushed. They may need
MR. CLEMONS: The only thing that would go bad then is
the gasket material inside. You could have leaks. You know, dry
line, the gaskets tend to dry rot. It's rubber. They tend to dry
rot.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: But the report does recommend
that you don't begin putting those lines in place until the infill
area begins developing. Isn't that correct? I mean, it's not putting
it in place for an area of vacant land but an area that's beginning to
develop?
MR. CLEMONS: That's what this recommends.
COHHISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay.
MR. HCNEES: Commissioner, if I frame the discussion
just a little bit, at the extremes the decision is easy. If someone
wants to build a huge development a couple of blocks from one of our
lines, it would be better for the water sewer district to maybe front
the money and build a one-block line and connect them. If someone is
way out on the edges and it would cost us $10 million to get there in
advance, that's easy too. Let them build a package plant, and if it's
going to be ten years until we get there, that's fine.
Where the trick comes in and where we really need your
direction is on the margins. When it gets to be a close call, what is
the impetus going to be. Is it going to be the utilities
responsibility in cases where there is a permitted development in
place and where we could get there to put the force main in and spur
that development and provide that system, or is it going to continue
to be the developer's responsibility to provide either the cost to
bring that line to him either through assessment or through some
mutual agreement, or is it going to be his responsibility to provide
interim treatment until the utility gets there, until they've paid
enough impact fees or whatever the mechanism would be for the utility
to get there. I have to tell you, sitting in the administrator's
office, this is one of the trickiest areas to deal with, and so the
more direction you can give me on how you feel like we should approach
these questions, the better off we'll be, and it is a very difficult
question.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: What alternatives are available?
Because the one that intrigued me -- Well, two comments. One is, yes,
a developer fronts it, but we all know who pays for it. It isn't ever
the developer. It's the person who buys the house. And, secondly,
what was the alternative you described about waiting until enough
impact fees have been collected to --
MR. HCNEES: Well, if -- Maybe I can give you an
example. If I answer your question, tell me. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Please.
MR. HCNEES: We have a number of property owners along
Pine Ridge Road out in the vicinity of 1-75 who would like to see a
sewer force main because there's been quite a bit of development out
there that, as I understand it, has been delayed somewhat because
that's not available. Now, we're encouraging those property owners to
talk to each other about the concept of an assessment district where
they would share the cost of getting that force main out there.
They're beginning to take a stance, and I expect some of you have
probably already heard from them -- if you haven't, you will soon --
that they have developable property there, and it's the county's
responsibility as either an economic development engine or as a
utility provider to get that sewer force main to them so that they can
go ahead and develop their property. And it would be your staff's
suggestion that your policy in the past has been that's the
appropriate type of project for an assessment district. Where those
individuals are going to benefit directly from the sewer line, they
should pay to bring it out there.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Would that then reduce their
impact fees upon development?
MR. MCNEES: No, it would not. The impact fee would go
still for the plant and the transmission system, and we would consider
then them building their own force main to get to their development as
something that would then be assessable separate from the impact fee.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: I keep hearing the building of
lines spurs development. If we build the lines, what we're saying is,
"Here's your green light. Build at will," and I don't want to be
characterized that way because that simply isn't what I'm talking
about. I'm just trying to understand the fundamental difference
between the consultant's recommendation and staff's.
MR. MCNEES: And I don't -- When I use the term"spur the
development," I use that term because when the developers talk to me,
it's in terms of build that force main so that I can develop my
property. So that's not -- those aren't my words.
MR. CLEMONS: And that just is some of the rationale why
strictly from an operational viewpoint we do not recommend going ahead
with that.
MR. MCNEES: In terms of the decision today or the
direction today, what we're suggesting is the master plan identifies
specific force mains. It says you will build these, and what we're
suggesting is that that not be adopted as part of the board's formal
policy so they don't become an automatic part of the capital budget.
What we would otherwise recommend is, as it becomes feasible or
appropriate to consider each of them, that they be considered in turn
in terms of who should pay for them and how they should be developed.
That would be your staff's recommendation.
COMHISSIONER NORRIS: You're saying look at them on an
individual basis as they become somewhat necessary?
MR. MCNEES: As they become feasible and necessary and
that they not become a part of your formal plan.
MR. CLEMONS: If you adopt it the way it is today, then
everybody that ever picks up this document will say you've got to
build that one, you know, that you agreed to it. We've heard that.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: From a day-to-day perspective as
you are -- how does this -- this is an example of something that
worries me, and that is where staff gets the idea that the board's
policy is "A" and then they go about enforcing it. So if, in fact,
our policy is going to be as it has been in the past, the effect of
that on your day-to-day decisions as people come in and want to get
permits is we aren't going to provide you lines. If you want to
develop there, go build a site plant. Is that --
MR. MCNEES: Right. Staff's position is if you want to
develop in a place where we don't provide service, either you bring
our service to you or you put in interim service of your own.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: So if that's our policy, we'll
never build another line in the county. MR. MCNEES: No. That's not true.
MR. CLEMONS: No. No. There are master plan lines
still in here. These infill areas would be what I would term a
submaster plan. They're an offshoot of those big lines.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. So we're only talking
about the submaster plan.
MR. CLEMONS: They're not main transmission lines.
They're actually to specific properties or along a specific corridor.
MR. HCNEES: It's a daily or weekly occurrence that we
say to someone we are not at your property. If you want service, you
have to extend to get to your property and they do it. So it's not --
they don't stop.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: It seems to -- It seems to me it
boils down to the question of, if someone wants to develop, are they
responsible themselves for trying to bring utilities there, or do we
want to be responsible for doing that for them, and it seems to me in
the past we've put that responsibility on them and properly so.
MR. HCNEES: I hate to use a cliche. It's not November
anymore, but this is sort of a growth pays for growth issue if I can
boil it down to that, at least from the staff point of view. Now, you
may have a developer builder who doesn't feel that way, but that would
be your staff's point of view.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And I'm not trying to make a
statement other than that. I just want to understand our policy.
MR. HCNEES: In terms of today, I'll repeat. All we're
saying is we don't think it's appropriate that these specific
subregional, quote, unquote, force mains be included as part of your
adopted plan and that you be adopting that because what that means is
you're going to start seeing them in your capital budget, and we're
going to start building them because that would be part of the plan.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: While we're not going to take a
formal vote today, it may be helpful on some of these bigger items to
get a consensus so at least you all know where -- staff knows where
the board is headed. Is that basic policy okay with you, Commissioner
Hac'Kie?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: If I understand it, that -- and I
wish I had a map. I probably do in this book -- that there is a
master grid of lines that the county does see as its responsibility to
have in place, and thereafter developers can extend those to their own
particular property.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: That's correct.
MR. CLEHONS: It is in there.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And we base those lines on
existing population and future growth so that there will be enough
customers to serve it, so forth, so on. MR. CLEHONS: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Are you okay with that?
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I'm okay with that.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah. I'm okay.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: We've got I believe three so it
doesn't matter. Mr. Clemons, moving on.
MR. CLEMONS: Okay. Section five. Section five deals
and ties in somewhat with section six, and it deals with future flow
projections. Again, it takes you out quite a few years even through
on page 5-2 the year 2025 for the population and flow projection for
the south service area, and that's primarily all it deals with is the
flow projections for the south service area.
As I said, section six is one that several of you have
looked at in detail over the past year or year and a half, and that
deals with treatment plant alternatives. It looked at some of the
siting areas, looked at a lot of the issues that we've discussed on
and off over the past couple of years with the South County Sewage
Treatment Plant and whether we expand it there or move it or expand it
elsewhere. So thatws a section that at least three of you have
probably seen all of it you care to.
And then section seven deals with private utility
acquisition in the south service area and looked at --
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Iwm going to have a couple of
questions. Iwll let you finish, but I have just one quick question.
This plan was put together, assembled when? MR. CLEMONS: Started in 1992.
CHAIRNLAN CONSTANTINE: Okay. And then completed in
August of last year?
MR. CLEMONS: I think so. Yes, Commissioner, completed
August of last year.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: August of w93 it was completed
or just past August?
MR. CLEMONS: No. August of '93. I don't think we saw
it until around the final -- until after the first of the year '94,
but it was completed around August of '93. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Slow typing.
MR. MCNEES: The final draft copies, the first we ever
saw them was either March --
MR. CLEMONS: I think it was February --
MR. MCNEES: -- Or April of this year not long after I
arrived at utilities.
MR. CLEMONS: -- Of '94 that we saw them.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And you did -- Did that
consultant have to appear before the board at some point and make the
presentation? I mean, did we get our money's worth out of these
people? Did they show up and talk to us about it?
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: This is it.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: This is it?
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: This is it.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's infuriating, frankly.
MR. CLEMONS: Section seven again deals with --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Go to hell.
MR. CLEMONS: I'm sorry.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Go ahead, Mr. Clemons.
MR. CLEMONS: -- Private utility acquisitions within the
south service area and looked at primarily three of them, Marco
system, the Golden Gate system, and the Rookery Bay system, and went
into a little bit of a look at what physically consisted in those
areas and then made a recommendation in the back as to what the board
may want to consider in the future as far as the purchase of those
systems.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: I have some concerns with that,
and this was the item I wanted to get, be sure and get to today, and
that's why I asked the timing of that study as well. The
recommendation in here in reference to the Golden Gate city utility I
have a number of concerns with. And the reason I asked the timing is
it appears a lot of the information in here is dated. It gives us the
number of ERU's served in 1989 which now is five, going on six years
ago. In the same area, it tells us the present waste water plant does
not have sufficient capacity for current load during the peak wet
season flows. Not only has it exceeded that, they've been here and
got their conditional use and been approved for expansion.
MR. CLEMONS: Well, your staff will recommend also in
the final recommendation on your summary we didn't feel like this
acquisition section belonged in your master plan. We thought that was
something that you as a board would want to and should look at as a
separate issue aside from this document completely.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: I just wanted to hit a couple of
highlights on this, and that is, I don't want to reinvent the wheel on
this acquisition thing. We've -- prior to when any of us were on the
board and once since then, we've looked at these issues and just a
couple of numbers to throw out. In -- I think it was maybe three
years, maybe two and a half years ago, the Golden Gate city utility
was looked at Florida cities water and projected the increases
according to -- since 1990 this coming year will be the third increase
Florida cities has asked for in their rates for coming up on a
five-year span. And using that historical data as well as the old,
projected what rates they would be charging and then projected the
county's rates, of course, are lower for both water and waste water.
We projected that out over 20 years. In 20 years' time at the
county's rates, you could save approximately $5,000. Unfortunately the
hook-up cost would be about $7,000 if we were to buy and build out
this system. So the -- over a 20-year span, you're still going to be
out $2,000 if you're a customer of the utility.
There's a couple of comments in here that add to that.
In scenario two on page -- section seven, page nine, B, it talks about
the buy-out cost would need to be passed along to the existing
customers in the form of an assessment or an incremental rate
adjustment, and the next line it says, "it may .... and I underlined
the word "may ...... be possible for the county to acquire the system
and not exceed the existing rate structure." So I read that it may be
necessary that we exceed the current rate structure. So there's no
guarantees actually.
MR. CLEMONS: I don't believe that this consultant went
that deep into that to actually analyze that. I think they did more
of a cursory look on that issue.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: And I'll get to the next couple
of points. With item C, the county could expand that sewer system to
unsewered areas via a large special assessment district. I noted read
the word "taxed." And item E, what disadvantage problems could be
corrected with funding from small assessment districts. Again tax.
So I just want to make sure we don't -- I don't think we need to
rehash that whole thing of acquisition again. It seems contrary to
where we've been headed the last couple of years.
MR. MCNEES: Mr. Chairman, for the benefit of the new
commissioners, maybe two strategic planning or maybe three strategic
planning meetings ago when the issue of utility acquisitions and
private utilities came up, it was the board's opinion that you
preferred instead of pursuing the acquisition route, that you consider
the concept of bringing rate regulation back under county control, and
those are diametrically opposite issues, and you are currently
operating -- I think you directed the attorney to study that issue and
that would be your position.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: I was going to bring that up. If
I recollect, it was 1986 we gave up the choice, gave that to the PSC,
and we had a five-year window in which we could retake that authority,
and then the following five years we could not. So it was either '95
or '96 we'll have an opportunity to take back the ability to control
local private rates, and I think that's what we were pursuing.
MR. MCNEES: That would be the further reason why staff
is recommending this not be included in your master plan.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Well, that's cautionary based on
whatever happens in the legislature this year because if SSU is
successful --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: It may be a moot point if they
are.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: -- We won't have the opportunity
at all.
MR. MCNEES: But either way, we're recommending that
that not be included as a portion of your adopted master plan.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: So your recommendation again is
not to include that section in the master plan?
MR. CLEMONS: We recommend not including section four on
infill areas or section seven on acquisitions as part of this adopted
plan. And the infill area situation we looked at case by case as it
comes in, and the acquisitions would be something you would want to
pursue under a totally different guise at another time.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: It appears we have a general
consensus on the infill areas, and it also appears we have a general
consensus -- I'm not real excited about acquisitions either. So if we
don't include these here, at least you'll know a general direction
where to head.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: A quick question for Mr. McNees.
Based on what the consultant has recommended for the master plan and
not the subregional but the regional master plan, are you comfortable
in the pursuit of that and the ability of this county to fund that
master plan?
MR. MCNEES: Yes. Good answer, Mike.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I have -- I'm sorry.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Mac'Kie.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, I have -- I have just one
other more general question too. When the county commissions a study
like this, it is not unusual that it doesn't come in front of the
board? I mean, the date says August of '93 and it doesn't come to the
board until December of '94?
MR. HCNEES: I'll address that, Commissioner. That's
highly unusual.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I hope so.
MR. DORRILL: We thought, frankly, that this -- and I
don't mind saying it's a rather poor piece of work -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It looks it to me.
MR. DORRILL: -- That seemed to go in those two areas
diametrically opposed to not only your staff's recommendation but what
the previously-expressed policies of this board had been and so that
there would be no confusion and we have not developed nor are we
working on infill projects nor are we working nor have we ever worked
to negotiate or even attempt to negotiate the sale of private
utilities, and we thought that it was good to sort of bring this --
close this chapter today and make sure that your and this board's
desire were other than what we've just said and then move forward from
there.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Is the process -- Is the more
normal process that if we have paid for a study, we'll hear about it
when it's completed and --
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Actually hear from the people
that do it.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Actually maybe hear from the
consultant we gave the money to?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Has Malcolm Perney (phonetic)
done well by us in the past or -- MR. DORRILL: To my knowledge, this is the only project
that they have done for us.
MR. CLEMONS: They did a small study at the South Plant
as it related to odor, health, and safety just before this, and those
were the only two things they've done for us.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Did they show up for that one?
MR. CLEMONS: Yes, ma'am, they did. And I did finally
make contact with them, but they were unable to be here.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: To tell you the truth, with the
beating we gave them last time they were here, that's probably why
they're not here today.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Do they know how much we paid
them?
MR. MCNEES: In fairness to Malcolm Perney, part of the
question here, they moved and we weren't able to locate them I don't
think in time to give them warning we were going to be here today.
You know, they may have --
MR. CLEMONS: I know that's funny, but I did have a lot
of trouble reaching them by phone because numbers had changed and
offices were moved.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I mean, they have a client and
they didn't notify us they were moving? MR. CLEMONS: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And how much did we pay them?
MR. MCNEES: $169,870.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Oooh. That's a big black mark.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: That's a big number.
CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: We can discuss the policy of
consultants happily sometime soon. Mr. Clemons, thank you for that
report.
MR. CLEMONS: Thank you, and we just wanted to get this
in here today as part of what you're getting ready to hear.
MR. MCNEES: Mr. Chairman, with that we'll move on.
I'll turn the floor over to Tom Taylor from Hole, Montes and
Associates. And following Mr. Taylor will be Saadeh Shebani
(phonetic) representing Hazen and Sawyer, the two consulting firms
that one is senior at each of your plant expansion projects, one in
the north and one in the south. Mr. Taylor is going to start with an
overall overview -- an overview of some of the water resource issues.
Tom.
MR. TAYLOR: Where would you like us to set up the
presentation board?
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: We had something set up earlier
today just behind you that the audience could see as well as
ourselves.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: And, Tom, you may want to be
careful what you say is audible to our stenographer so you might want
to grab that microphone over there.
MR. TAYLOR: I'll have someone else do the flipping of
the charts here so I should be okay.
MR. DORRILL: Tom, it might be better if you'll stand
over here, and that way Jerry can get a fairly good angle of it, at
least what the flip charts are going to show.
The staff has concluded its consultant bashing for the
afternoon too. You'll have some presentations that we otherwise do
think is pretty good work, but we're done consultant-bashing.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I make no promises.
MR. TAYLOR: I hope that -- that last discussion was a
point for the local consultants on master planning but --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No kidding.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Where are these people out of
anyway?
MR. TAYLOR: My name is Tom Taylor. I'm vice president
and principal with Hole, Montes and Associates. We've been before you
a couple of times recently to discuss some of the waste water issues
and effluent disposal and related matters. So what we wanted to do
today is we're attempting to back up a little bit and give you some
history and talk about a little bit more of the bigger picture. And
once we finish that up, hopefully we can start discussing some of the
specifics of the south plant and north plant and improvements and
such.
In order to do that, I think it's important that we
start to understand what are some of the areas that currently have
water demands, and we've listed on the first exhibit the potable water
as a primary responsibility. And you see the first two of those items
having stars next to them. Those are the items that we're really
going to discuss in most detail today. Hopefully it's something we
can get our arms around. So that's going to be the major focus of the
discussion.
But you do have a primary responsibility in the county
to provide potable water to the customers of the county water sewer
district. In addition to that, you are currently a large irrigation
water provider. You provide irrigation water to golf courses, not all
of the golf courses. Some have their own on site facilities, but you
are providing water to many of the golf courses today. You also
provide irrigation water to the vast majority of residential customers
within the water sewer district.
In addition, a large water user within our county is the
agricultural entities and their operations primarily those
agricultural entities are further to the northeast of the county water
sewer district, but they are a large water user.
In addition, the environment is a large water user. It
demands water and that's related to some of the drainage improvements
and various facilities that you discuss in your normal business
practice. It's not directly related to the county water sewer
district operations, but you're going to see more interface I think
over time between potable water, irrigation water, drainage, and canal
water and things such as that.
The first of those items is the potable water supply.
Four areas or four primary sources of existing and potential future
water resources for potable use. Currently the fresh water well
fields, you and the City of Naples both have fresh water well fields.
That is the only supply to the City of Naples and to Collier County's
utility system today. The primary well fields are located in east
Golden Gate. The City also does operate a well field along
Goodlette-Frank Road.
In addition, fresh water surface supply is used for
potable water, and Commissioner Norris pointed out last week that
Marco Island does have a burrow pit, an old burrow pit that is used as
a fresh water surface supply that has been used for many years.
Historically it's been used, I guess, probably 20-plus years for Marco
Island. That in comparison to fresh water well fields, it's somewhat
susceptible to -- more susceptible to contamination from surface
runoff and even someone intentionally trying to contaminate it, but it
has been a pretty good source for them.
Currently you provide a supplemental water supply out of
your county system to supplement that water supply to Marco Island.
In addition, back in some of our dryer years probably
four and five and six years ago, they had had some problems with salt
water intrusion during our dryer years and during dry season. As that
water supply begins to recede from ground water moving down, they were
having salt water intrusion. As a result of that, they went to the
next level of potential future supply and that's our brack -- that's
brackish water. They currently do have a brackish water well field
that's located on the island itself. They constructed a low pressure
reverse osmosis treatment facility in order to make up that additional
water for their needs. That's a more expensive process than utilizing
either the surface water or fresh water well fields that you and the
City of Naples are primarily based on.
Last but not least is we do have the opportunity to get
into more salty water, what I'll call above brackish water, and you
can go all the way up to seawater treatment. The more salt content,
the higher the construction and capital investment costs have to go
into the treatment facility itself. Not only capital, operation and
maintenance costs go up proportionately to those capital costs.
That gives you a pretty good idea I think of what kind
of resources we have available to us. Fresh water supplies are by far
-- are least expensive. That's what has been historically used by
our larger utility providers here. Marco has made the first step into
the brackish water supply. Part of that is because of their somewhat
isolated location and a lack of larger drinking water supplies or
fresh water supplies in that geographical area of the county.
Getting into a little bit of discussion on irrigation
water supply, again, probably our irrigation water, our largest
irrigation supplier excluding golf courses at this point is from our
potable water system. The majority of our residents do not have
on-site wells. The potable -- our potable supplies are being used not
only in-house but they're used for out-house purposes and irrigating
lawns and ornamentals. It's estimated by your staff that 50 to 60
percent of our peak season demands are used for irrigation purposes.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: That's a scary figure.
COHHISSIONER HAC'KIE: Shocking.
MR. TAYLOR: It's a big number. There's no doubt about
it. Going beyond that, you've got reclaimed water as an irrigation
water supply. Primarily the county is currently providing that to
golf courses. You do have some residential customer. The primary --
the largest area of that is Pelican Bay. They have -- do have a
complete dual-use system where they're not only their irrigation
system but their fire protection is also provided off of their
reclaimed water system.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Hay I ask you a question?
MR. TAYLOR: Sure.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I don't know if it's a staff
question or you. I know Pelican Harsh is set up to do that too. Do
we have any ordinances or do we have any regulations that encourage,
give some benefit, require those kinds of systems from new
developments? I mean, just a shake of the head no will do. I can see
you saying no.
MR. CLEHONS: No.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I see.
MR. MCNEES: No. We don't require that at this point.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And we give no incentives for
doing that? I mean, there's nothing?
MR. MCNEES: No.
MR. DORRILL: It has been a first-come first-serve type
issue because we do not currently have the ability to meet peak demand
during the dry season, especially if we were to take into account all
of the residential. We have entered into some agreements. I guess
the only recent one has been the Pelican Marsh agreement which is
fairly innovative for us, but we've got to be able to deliver the
treated effluent and provide it within the commodity amounts that are
needed and take into account all of the pre-existing golf course
agreements, but the only extent that we are currently working on, that
is Pelican Marsh. We're not working on any other agreements.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: So, in essence, in the dry
season, we just can't produce enough. In the wet season, we're trying
to find a place to dump it.
MR. DORRILL: The current agreements don't allow us to
compel them to take it and it becomes a real juggling problem at times
which is the storage issues that are especially affecting the South
County area.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Do we charge the golf courses
for that effluent?
MR. DORRILL: We do and I don't honestly know what the
current per thousand charges are, but it ranges based on the age.
MR. CLEMONS: Right. The original agreements were sent
at just two-cent per thousand gallons. The agreements we're entering
into today are at 13-cent per thousand gallons. And so as each of them
come in for successive renewals, they'll be bumped up, and that was
done as part of a rate study about two years ago.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I wonder if we could be a little
innovative in what we're doing and charge more in the dry season and
virtually nothing in the wet season and just -- just to get it out the
door.
MR. CLEHONS: To be honest with you, from that we've
learned during that wet season, golf course superintendents get very,
very antsy about putting any more water on those golf courses than is
already there. Theywre more concerned with the cost of that turf
grass than they are -- The agreements today are structured in such a
way that whatever we agree on you pay for. Even if you donwt use it,
you pay for it, and they would still rather pay and not use it than to
put additional water on those golf courses during the rain.
COMMISSIONER MACwKIE: Mr. McNees, in the planning
overview that you gave us at the beginning, the county utility plan is
potable water and then therews the south and north waste water. If we
wanted to look at this issue of how to get less potable water used for
irrigation and more reclaimed water use for residential irrigation,
what segment -- under what plan would that issue arise?
MR. MCNEES: Under the waste water side where we try to
determine what wewre going to do with our effluent because the more we
can replace the potable with the effluent or some supplemental
irrigation use, then that will go over to the water side and has a
reduced demand eventually to meet so itws on the waste water side.
COMMISSIONER MACIKIE: So the north and the south plans?
MR. MCNEES: Yes, malam.
COMMISSIONER MACIKIE: Okay. Thanks.
MR. TAYLOR: To carry on, one of the comments that Mr.
Dotrill made relative to the provision of irrigation water, you have
to be a reliable provider. And if you arenlt, the user has to have an
alternative source to make up their needs. Fortunately golf courses
for the most part do have on-site wells where they have the ability to
withdraw from lakes or something of that manner. The water management
district currently does allow for consumptive use allocation or water
use allocations for golf courses for primary and backup water supply
sources.
So fortunately when you do have some limitations or if
you have some limitations on supply of effluent to some of these golf
courses, many of them and most of them do have alternate source and
supply on site. Thatls different than if you get into a larger
residential reuse system. If the direction is to proceed into that,
most homeowners are not going to have a supplemental or alternative
supply available to them. So that is a big distinction between when
you use these golf courses as a bulk user versus being a residential
utility service provider.
COMMISSIONER MACIKIE: How does Pelican Bay and Pelican
Marsh address that?
MR. TAYLOR: At this time, Pelican Bay and Pelican
Marsh, they have -- at this time, the county has more effluent and
theylre able to pretty much give it to them all the time, but the way
that was originally addressed with them is an off-site well field.
There is a well field that extends up adjacent -- itls pretty close to
the northern extension or proposed northern extension of Livingston
Road, north of Immokalee Road. There is an off-site well field there.
Therels a pipeline that runs from that location all the way to
Pelican Bay. So they have always had that supplemental source, and
they have used it I think pretty much up until the time the county
really connected them to the county system and still uses it
occasionally.
The fourth supply source is surface supply, and that can
be either lakes as I had mentioned earlier the golf courses can pull
from. Most of the time those lakes are recharged through a well
system but, you know, it's just kind of an indirect method of pulling
ground water. And then you also have the canals, and that's something
that we were discussing last week with the reservoir issue and the
potential of doing some withdrawals and whatever storage mechanisms
are appropriate to supplement effluent.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: If I may, Mr. Taylor --
MR. TAYLOR: Sure.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- In a nutshell, basically in
the dry season we're not producing enough effluent to even sponsor
some type of residential reuse program? We're basically using
everything we have in the dry season right now; is that correct?
MR. TAYLOR: On a daily basis, there are occasions, yes,
when that's the case. We'll show you some graphics as we get later on
that will show you the magnitude of what you're short and what's
excess and so on.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Like the wet season, we had two
to four million gallons a day excess that if we could find a way to
store it could sponsor some type of residential reuse program in the
dry season.
MR. TAYLOR: That's correct. That's correct. To
outline really what our current situation is and that's probably the
next step here and that's that we have a large and growing residential
potable supply that is used for irrigation. That's that big 50 to 60
percent number. We keep growing. We're putting more and more out of
it on the ground.
As been discussed and Commissioner Hancock just pointed
out, we have a limited reclaimed water pumping transmission, slash,
distribution system. That fits directly into the discussion that Mr.
Shebani is going to be talking about with the North County Plant, some
limitations with actual delivery, physical facilities to deliver
water. At the same time, we have an excess of effluent during the wet
season, and we have that limited dry season availability because the
golf courses are taking it at that point.
In addition, along with the current situation that may
fit into this picture should you decide to go into a more aggressive
reuse direction is the 500-plus million gallons a day of canal
drainage water that's going right to the bays and estuaries during the
wet season.
This is taken a step back probably about a year. We had
worked with the Big Cypress Basin with Mike Slaten and with your staff
and trying to develop -- and with Missimer International at the time
trying to develop a concept where we felt like we could make better
utilization of that, of the effluent problem and the wet season and
take some advantage of it for use during dry season.
In order to do that, what you will have to do is to
expand your reuse pumping and transmission, slash, distribution system
and in order to expand your bulk and/or residential customer base.
One of the things that's important, as we pointed out, is to consider
the reliability and the resource conservation aspects of residential
users as opposed to some of these bulk users like golf courses. The
golf courses, as I had mentioned earlier, withdrawing water -- if
you're not providing effluent, they're withdrawing water from
basically directly beneath them. That is not where we get the
majority of our potable water today. The majority of our potable
water comes from further east in Golden Gate Estates. For us to
really save in any significant degree of potable water resources, we
need to try and limit the amount of irrigation water that's going on
the ground out of our potable system, and that is through the
residential customers. So I think that should be -- that needs to be
considered in the overall analysis because not only are you saving the
resource but you also are hopefully limiting or at least curbing some
of the capital investment that will have to go into well fields and
treatment plants for use in irrigating.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Am I getting this, Tom, that what
you're saying is while it is a good thing to be using this effluent on
the golf courses, it isn't contributing significantly to preserving
our potable water supply because that isn't where the golf courses get
their potable water -- get their irrigation water anyway. MR. TAYLOR: That's correct.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Okay. So if we want to
contribute significantly to our potable water supply, it's a residence
tense system that would contribute to that.
MR. TAYLOR: That's correct.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Okay.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I may have missed something. Is
that because the golf courses when they're drawing from the lakes are
from the upper aquifer which is not where potable water is coming
from?
MR. TAYLOR: For the most part, that's true, and there
are more along the coast line which is not where we get our -- most of
our potable supply. The City of Naples does get some wet season or
summertime withdrawals along their Goodlette Road corridor. But when
it gets dry, dry season, they automatically switch their entire load
over to the east Golden Gate area. So if we can curb that growth at
least of withdrawals from that east Golden Gate area, that cheapest
water, fresh water supplies, and use in-house rather than putting it
back on the lawns, I think, you know, that's much better use of the
resource. We'll talk about some of the negatives of that a little
later on.
If you were to do that as we pointed out, you will get
into that larger residential tense system, you will probably have some
days and even maybe some entire months that you will be short of
irrigation water, and we talked about this last week and I think even
a week or two before that is the possibility of supplementing that
reclaimed water with canal water. If you're to do that and you agree
with proceeding in that general direction, you must come up with a
mechanism to store the effluent and the canal surplus from wet season
for use during dry season. That's the only mechanism that would allow
us to be able to meet those peak dry season months which primarily is
April, Hay, June.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: In other words, you don't need
the canal water when it's gushing through at a half a million gallons
a day. That's when we have more water than we can use anyway. We
need to find somewhere to put that so that we can cap it and use it
when it's dry.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: A couple of flip charts before
that you pointed out that there's over 500 million gallons a day going
out the Golden Gate Canal, and I believe that's probably not
environmentally the best thing to happen to Naples Bay. And then on
the previous flip chart, talking about using some canal water for
irrigation purposes and supplement the reclaimed water. Number four
and number five, store the effluent or canal surplus from wet season
for use in dry season. If we could intercept some of that water that's
going out the Golden Gate Canal and move it out east and store it
somewhere for some period and start using that more for irrigation,
wouldn't that help our situation overall? MR. TAYLOR: Yes. I think it would.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Am I correct in assuming that
that water that we're talking about is basically floating along and
above the water table? In other words, it never has the opportunity
to recharge the water table. It's basically an upper sheet that is
flowing --
MR. TAYLOR: That 500 million gallons that is stated
here, yes, that's lost. That's going -- That's what's actually going
out over the weirs. You can curb some of that if you were to continue
to build your weirs higher and higher.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Build your house higher and
higher.
MR. TAYLOR: Yes. Then you get into the issue of how
high do you go.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: We can be in a lake eventually.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: It's a delicate balance now.
MR. TAYLOR: That's right. That's that balance, and
that's where you start seeing drainage. Now that the county is
evolving into this more comprehensive look at how water resources and
irrigation -- potable water, irrigation water, waste water effluent
and storm water all interrelate.
To outline really what some of the advantages of the
irrigation utility are and we've talked about several of them and
maybe all of them, but first it gives us a mechanism to dispose of our
effluent without having to do large alternative disposal mechanisms.
It also will serve to reduce our potable water demands. As a result
of reducing our potable water demands, it will reduce our capital
investments in supply well fields and treatment plants and the like.
It will reduce to some degree canal discharges to the bays and
estuaries, and Commissioner Norris just pointed out that I think all
of the environmental entities have agreed that this slug discharge
that we get at one point source is a negative to the bays and our
estuarine systems. It does make the best use of our available
resources if we can use this effluent, if we can use canal water and
quit putting our potable water on our lawns.
As a result of that, you can create an enterprise fund,
a third enterprise fund, and I think one of the things that has
happened thus far in this first ten years really of county
infrastructure development is that our irrigation or reclaimed water
system has kind of been the stepchild in comparison to our potable
water systems and our waste water collection treatment systems. It
does give you the opportunity to create a third utility and charge
that -- charge it as an ongoing service.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's what you mean by an
enterprise fund, is it's one more service to be provided and paid for.
MR. TAYLOR: That's correct. Now, disadvantages of an
irrigation utility, it will take a large capital investment to do it.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: That's a discouraging number one
right there.
MR. TAYLOR: Yeah. Well --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: But you have to look back.
MR. TAYLOR: -- Number two isn't too far off either.
Along with that and Commissioner Matthews has pointed out many times
in the past that to evaluate these things, its present worth analysis.
Not only is it your capital cost but you have a large ongoing
operation of maintenance cost associated with the facility like this.
If you get into that and you get into a residential system, for
example, you've got meter installations. You've got meter
maintenance. You've got line repairs. You've got all the ongoing
things that you currently have with your potable water system and
maintaining and operating that kind of system. I'm not going to stand
here and say that it's a complete doubling because I don't think
that's the case, but it is a large capital investment, a large O and H
expenditure that would be associated.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I've forgotten but on the page
before there was an advantage which was reduced capital expenditures
for expanding to different well fields. I mean, is there any
reasonable way to compare the --
MR. TAYLOR: Yeah. There's a reasonable way to do that
analysis. We're not into it deep enough to be able to do that at this
point.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: You have to take the population
projections that our studies tell us -- have said we're going to have
and we know how many gallons per day per person, and we can work the
numbers and bring them to 1995 dollars.
MR. TAYLOR: In order to realistically do it, you have
to develop a plan. There's discussion right now about a storage
reservoir. Depending on where the storage reservoir is will affect
what the total cost is. If it's too far east, you have to build a
large pipeline to bring it to you. If it's closer in to town and it's
readily available and adjacent to your existing pipeline system,
you're saving probably several million dollars in pipeline costs.
you really have to start looking at the specifics of a plan to come up
with the details in order to really give you a good analysis. An
example of that even was the Malcolm Perney report previously that
some of you are quite intimately familiar with that showed a treatment
facility way out the East Trail. There's a component and a large cost
associated with taking it in one direction and bringing it back.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: It was $90 million?
MR. TAYLOR: I don't remember what the numbers were but
big numbers. So in order to really develop the concept, you have to
really get into some detail of some planning. We can give you some
numbers associated with some of the alternative disposal items. I
think what you've seen here and what we've tried to do is back up to
where we were really about a year ago, give you a little bit different
look or another look in some cases here at this concept of doing a
larger tense and reclaimed water system. If the direction and desires
of the county is to proceed into this reclaimed water irrigation
system, you'll be looking both I think at bulk users and at
residential users. I think in order to really get a good immediate
and long-term grip on effluent disposal, I think it's going to look to
some extent at residential users. In the longer term, I think you're
going to rely much greater on residential users than these bulk users.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: It seems to me that the
residential users gives us a full swing of, you know, reduction in the
potable use and an increase in the tense use. And so, you know, we
get the full swing of benefit for spending the dollars.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: A bang for your buck.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: To use a term, yeah.
MR. TAYLOR: Well, I think you'll get -- from the
resource perspective, I would suspect that you're absolutely correct,
that you will get a lot of benefit through a residential tense system
from the resource perspective. I do believe still that it will be the
largest capital cost. It will probably still be the largest operation
and maintenance cost.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: For one of the smaller gains --
MR. TAYLOR: That in comparison to maybe these other two
alternative disposal methods. Those two don't lend themselves near
the resource use or resource conservation aspects that item number one
has, but they are probably significantly less expensive to construct
and to operate and maintain.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: If we were to look at residential
use again for the reclaimed, when you lay those lines, is your
necessary pressure for irrigation significantly less than that of
potable drinking water?
MR. TAYLOR: It's probably somewhat less. Right now I
think you're pumping out of the treatment facility somewhere around 80
to 90 psi, Hike? 80 leaving the plant.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Residential is for potable? What
s it leaving the plant?
UNKNOWN VOICE: 80.
MR. TAYLOR: I think it's probably somewhat less. Again,
it depends on how the system is planned and what kind of pressure
losses you have and the sizing of your pipelines.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm just trying to get an idea of
materials and eventual wear based on what pressures leaving the plant
at and if it -- anyway, so that answers my question.
MR. TAYLOR: For the most part, I think the facilities
can be constructed using PVC.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Tom, you were saying that even
though the first choice there is probably the best use of the
resource, it's also probably the most expensive when you say that I
assume, but are you also taking into consideration the enterprise fund
that you were describing that could come from choice number one there
even considering that?
MR. TAYLOR: That is a -- That's directly related to
what you feel that you can charge.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I guess that makes sense.
MR. TAYLOR: When you look back at, for example, the
bulk users. I can give you some experience in talking to a lot of
people about bulk use and golf course uses and such. The east coast,
for example, the people over there are fighting the issue of tense at
these golf courses and residential for that matter. The reason is, is
the water management district isn't standing out there and saying,
"Golf course, you have to take this effluent," because the golf
courses right now are taking water from right underneath them for a
penny a thousand or whatever it costs them to operate and maintain
their own pumps and wells, not very expensive. They don't have to
pump it very far. It's right there on site. When you start trying to
sell them and say you're going to charge them 50 cents a thousand
gallons and they use half a million gallons a day, you know, they
start balking saying, "Wait a minute. Why should I take 50 cents a
thousand gallons when I can get something for one cent a thousand in
my own operation?"
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: If the water district says you
can't have a consumption permit anymore, then the 50 cents per
thousand gallons becomes attractive.
MR. TAYLOR: And that starts getting real shaky because
the water management district says, well, we're a regulatory entity.
We're not going to mandate anything. If they can demonstrate that
they can take water out from underneath themselves without causing a
harm to our aquifer system or some kind of significant concern about
salt water intrusion or something like that, the State says that they
have a right to take the water and to use it. So you get into a kind
of a trade-off there. Now, on the residential side I think it's a
completely different picture. The residential -- Your customers today
are spending -- What is it? A buck fifty a thousand gallons? MR. MCNEES: A dollar 75 is the lowest rate.
MR. TAYLOR: A dollar 75 a thousand gallons, put it on
their lawn. You know, to me I think there's some economics when you
start looking at it maybe on a subdivision per subdivision basis and
say what is it -- what would it cost me to do an assessment district
to install these pipelines and what's my payback period and then, you
know, do I benefit from this in the long-term. Yeah. Then you can
start looking at what's it going to cost and what can you
realistically charge for it, and that's going to take some specific
analysis.
MR. MCNEES: Tom, if I may add, we can confuse this a
little bit by throwing this irrigation enterprise fund concept in.
Really it's fairly simple. We're going to recover the cost of waste
water treatment and effluent disposal from all the waste water
customers however we do it.
Now, the question becomes, if we're going to go to the
capital expense to go to residential reuse, will we then eventually
want to go to a system to allocate those costs between the effluent
customer or the irrigation customer and the sewer customer separately.
We're going to recover all the money under an enterprise fund
concept either way. So it's just a question of whether we would
eventually get to the point where we try to cost allocate irrigation
versus waste water and so it's -- there's not any new revenue to the
system from an effluent or irrigation utility as you'd call it. It's
just a question of whether you want to split it up into three pieces
instead of two.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But aren't you saying that if we
went to a reclaimed water irrigation program, we wouldn't do it unless
we could recoup all of the costs? Is that what you're saying?
MR. HCNEES: What I'm saying is we're going to recoup
the costs either way and --
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: That troubles me a little bit, I
mean, as much as I like the idea. Of course, everybody pays for what
they get. Sometimes maybe the global benefit is great enough that we
don't get a dollar for dollar return. I mean, if it's the best use of
the resource.
MR. HCNEES: The question would be is it cost-effective
for us to make that allocation individually to the customers and -- or
is that going to cost us more than it's worth. I think in terms of
eventually the demand curve and raising the cost of or putting the
cost of effluent such that using effluent saves people money, I think
that may be an overriding concern in terms of actually trying to
recover all the costs of producing and distributing the effluent, but
that's a question for further down the road. I just didn't want the
discussion to get confused here and that somehow an effluent or an
irrigation utility would be somehow a revenue-generator. We're going
to recover our costs either way we have to.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I've seen the potential for some
type of creative solution, and I'm going to pick up where you left
off. If we want a deep-well injection, we take $9 million and we put
it in a hole. We spent $9 million. We're pumping extra effluent so
the effluent's gone away but there's no real tense program in that.
So that or even the perc ponds -- perc ponds to a lesser extent, we're
throwing money away and not really involved in a tense system.
However, if they're paying a buck 75 a thousand gallons for potable
water and we bring in effluent and charge a buck 70 a thousand gallons
and under that we will recoup the cost of installing that system in a
period of ten or fifteen years, we're on the plus and we're in a tense
program and may even be a way to float a bond issue if we can do it
for a buck 50 and the bond issue pays back at a buck 60 and we pay it
off in ten years so --
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I think now we're thinking
alike.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Now we're thinking. This is
good.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm just starting to see how
these things can all work together. In other words, this workshop is
starting to pay off.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I think the economics are not
going to hold up here.
MR. HCNEES: The economics aren't nearly that simple.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, it beats throwing nine
million down the tubes. If we can throw seven million down the tubes
and have a tense system, I'm all for that rather than nine million and
dumping --
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Commissioner.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Yes.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Let me make a couple of points
here, and I want to preface this with the statement that by no means
am I proposing this, but I just want to point out that there's no
particular reason why we need to use tense water for irrigation
purposes at all. I mean, if we lived in the desert, fine. Then
there's an overriding reason why we need to do that, but we don't need
to do that here. We have 55 inches of rainfall a year. We can supply
all the water that anybody wants as long as they're willing to pay for
it. If they're willing to pay a dollar 75 or $2 a gallon a thousand
and put it on their lawns, we can supply that. That's not a problem.
The only problem would be to find a method to collect this rain water
and treat it and deliver it and that will cost money. But the
discussion seems to going on the point that we need for some sort of
supply-sided reasons to use tense water for irrigation and that's just
simply not the case. So let's don't get hung up on the notion that we
must use tense water for irrigation. In the end result, we have far
too much water around here in the wet season, and whether it's tense
water that's going on someone's yard or water out of some other source
that's going on someone's yard, it really doesn't -- in the net -- if
you look at the loop, as long as we're disposing of our treated waste
water in an environmentally responsible way, it really doesn't
necessarily mean that we have to put it out for irrigation.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: But I think part of the question
here though is that if 50 to 60 percent of the water being used in dry
season is used for irrigation purposes and if in the end in order not
to continue to treat so much water for potable use we do decide to put
in a secondary distribution system, whether we supply that system with
canal water or tense water matters not. The capital infrastructure is
still expensive.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: No. I agree with you, and I'm
just -- it just seemed to me that the conversation was being centered
on the fact that we must -- we must use our tense water for
irrigation.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: No. I think what we're trying
to do is to look at a way to tense the effluent without possibly
having to do -- what did we say? Six to 900 acres of perc ponds or to
have to develop three or four deep injection wells at four or $5
million a piece --
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Nine.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: -- $9 million a piece and still
not really have a good solid feeling that the technology of the
deep-injection well is the way that we want to go.
MR. HCNEES: One item I'd like to clarify if I could for
Commissioner Hancock's benefit and something you said makes me want to
say this. Staff has not now and it has never and will not propose an
injection well or perc ponds, for that matter, as anything but a wet
weather backup when nobody else wants the water disposal method. We
do not and have not ever proposed that or considered that as a primary
means of disposal so --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: If something I said sounded like
finger-pointing, it certainly wasn't meant to be.
MR. HCNEES: No. I just want to make sure that you
understand why staff is not proposing that as a primary --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: No. I see it as something you've
offered as one of many options and one for our consideration. That's
how I understand it to rest.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And I need to -- just to be sure
I'm framing the discussion in the right way too, I'm not coming at
this from the perspective of that we don't have enough water. I
understand that we do. I'm coming at it from a stewardship
perspective, how do we use what we have in the most efficient way, and
50 to 60 percent of the potable water going on the grass is not good
stewardship. So that's primarily what is so attractive to me about
the reclaimed water irrigation idea.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Taylor may have an answer on
this. I mean, we're a little different than the State of Texas which
has seen their actual ground elevation drop nine feet over the last
hundred years because of the reduction of the water table beneath it
and the settling. We're not experiencing that kind of problem, to my
knowledge, in Collier County, that we're drawing out so much water --
nine feet, we're in a lot of trouble, folks.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We're under water.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: But we're not seeing a problem
that --, as I understand it, that the ground water table right now is
dropping and not being recharged to a similar or close level. Now, 30
years from now that may not be the case. We may be drawing out more
than we can recharge in time to use it again. I mean, we may not have
enough time frame in the cycle there, and that's where the reuse or
the 500 million gallons that's heading off into the bay comes into
play for me, is it lets us leave a little more of that in the ground,
increase that cycle time so that we don't have a continual drop in the
water table.
MR. TAYLOR: I would say that to take that, you know, a
little bit further, that we really aren't overutilizing our resources
today our, fresh water resources. We have not at this point created
any significance or even measurable damage to our aquifer systems here
in Collier County. Now, that's different than the City of Cape Coral.
The City of Cape Coral overpumped their system, and they began to
have some significant salt water intrusion as a result. We have not
done that. You're at the point now where you're looking at what are
these future things so we don't get to a point we're overpumping.
The report that was brought up earlier, that lower west
coast water supply plan is -- and the responsibilities with that as
opposed to Collier County's responsibilities, the water management
district and an advisory board that was made up of citizens of that
whole lower west coast area, I was on that committee, you were really
looking at things on a macro basis. You were doing macro planning, and
you as a planner I'm sure will understand what I'm talking about.
They were looking at what kind of resources are available. They did
look at some of the specifics on areas that may start having some
future problems or even might have had some existing measurable
problems with wetlands. We have maybe caused some problems with some
of the wetlands areas with water table drawdowns and lowering it too
far, but those are very seasonal. So the water management district
has taken that plan and they're now proposing to develop regulations
by which Collier County must do its microplanning under. So once
they've developed those regulations and they say you cannot lower the
water table during the dry season any further than this far, you have
to develop a plan that will accommodate meeting that regulation. When
you go in and you do your waste -- your well field modeling, for
example, you're doing it on modeling grids of 200 feet apart between
your model -- between your grid points. The district looked at that
plan and did it on one square mile grid points. So you see the
difference? So they're not -- You know, so they're developing a
regulation based on what they see from a larger scale basis. Now, you
need to come back and see how you can fit your plan within that and
start looking at the specifics. If I put a well field out here or if
I wanted to expand the Golden Gate well field and we modeled it on
200-foot grids, will that meet the regulations that were developed as
a result of that macro planning. That's where your planning
interfaces with theirs. You're just doing it in a much more
site-specific program.
What I would like to do is invite Dr. Harley Young.
He's a representative of the Florida Department of Environmental
Protection. He spent all afternoon here, and I really would like him
to get up, and you might have some questions for him regarding these
alternative methods and what they're experience has been on any of
these methods as applied here in Southwest Florida.
MR. MCNEES: Dollars. We talked about the relative
dollars per million. You may want to throw those in. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Please.
MR. TAYLOR: Okay. Yeah. We did attempt to get some
relative cost numbers, the capital. Now, bear in mind we're not
addressing the operation and maintenance cost. We're not addressing
the trade-offs by delaying infrastructure, improvements with well
fields and treatment plants and those kinds of things on the potable
side, and we're also not evaluating the revenue-generating potential.
But at the reclaimed water system, what we had done
through the City of Naples and that was supported with similar numbers
with the City of Cape Coral and the City of Fort Myers done by another
consultant, you're talking roughly three to $5 million of capital
investment per million gallons of irrigation disposal. Okay. That's
a ballpark.
The deep-well injection system is approximately half a
million dollars per million gallons per day of disposal capacity.
And then the percolation ponds are in the order of one
million plus dollars per million gallons of disposal. The big key to
that is how much does the land cost. If you're buying it for $2,000
an acre and you need "X" hundred acres and you're buying it for
$20,000 an acre, it's ten times as much.
So that gives you maybe some relative numbers. You can
see the reuse system as we said is a much larger capital investment,
but there are other trade-offs and things that have to be looked at
also.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: There's things by which we can
recover some of that capital and it's not been weighed yet. MR. TAYLOR: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: When something were to be
proposed to us, that those factors would be made available; is that
correct?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Unfortunately there's also an
expense of continual maintenance that hasn't been factored into. So I
see a potential question forming there.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Oh, yeah.
MR. TAYLOR: A lot of questions, but I think we're
getting a lot of the issues out there, making some progress.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thank you, Tom.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: And beforehand, sir, we'd like to
thank you for your patience today, and you probably know a lot more
about street lighting than you wanted to know.
DR. YOUNG: Well, I'm glad to be here, and I hope I'm
able to answer your questions. Let me say right off the top that --
My name is Dr. Harley Young. I'm with the Florida Department of
Environmental Protection. The department cannot compel you as you
already know to adopt one method over another, Tom. I guess the board
asked me to be here to try and ask or answer some questions and
address your concerns.
I might make some real brief comments. The State water
policy is to promote tense, and that is our preferred avenue as you've
been discussing here today. The other alternatives, percolation ponds
and the deep-well injection are permittable. There are deep wells in
this region that are functioning adequately. I might comment that if
it's a primary means of disposal, will require two deep wells for a
backup disposal. For a wet weather discharge, for instance, one well
is sufficient. So that concerns deep wells.
Percolation ponds, our experience has been -- again is
permittable. Our experience has been with high ground water tables in
this part of Florida that the larger the pond is, the lower the
application rate must be. The more land you have to have, the less
efficient way it is of disposing of the effluent. We do consider perc
ponds to be another tense. We do not consider deep wells to be tense.
And if I can answer any questions.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I don't have any questions.
Does anybody have any questions?
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: This might be an appropriate time
and perhaps we could get Mr. Young to give us a comment. This might be
an appropriate time to bring forward this little item I saw in a
magazine here. I think I supplied each one of you a copy. Dr. Brian
LaPoint (phonetic) was doing some research on a reef outside of Palm
Beach and was trying to find the source of algae blooms that were
killing the reef, smothering the reef, and he noticed lowering of
salinity and an increase in some nutrients, nitrogen and phosphorus,
and he went -- spent some time on this reef and doing some studies,
and his theory is -- and it's just a theory. He's trying to prove it
-- and I'll quote here from the magazine article.
"It's possible that ground water enriched with nutrients
from injection wells owned by the City of Palm Beach and private
individuals may be seeping through the reef's surface. Injection
wells send nutrient-rich waste water hundreds of feet down below the
surface of the ground. Over time the waste water seeps out and mixes
with ground water which eventually seeps into in-shore waters. In
this case, if Dr. LaPoint's theory is correct, waste water is also
flowing up from the ground and onto off-shore reefs. In turn, the
nutrients stimulate algae blooms which cover, choke, and destroy
everything in its path."
As you board members know, I've expressed some concerns
about unintended and unknown future possible environmental concerns
with a deep-well injection and, of course, this is just --
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: One of them.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: -- A wild theory that has no basis
in fact at this moment. But this is the kind of thing that I've been
trying to get across and why I have not been a supporter of the
deep-well injection for some time. If this turns out, in fact, to be
the case, well, you know, as far as I'm concerned, I really don't want
to get into deep-well injections. So I just wanted to throw that out
for a little discussion.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Let me ask on a slightly
different subject a little more poignant question of you. It was my
understanding that the DEP has taken somewhat of a position on the use
of reservoirs, that it's not really a prescribed or recommended method
of storage of excess surficial runoff. Is that a correct statement on
my part?
DR. YOUNG: I'm not quite sure what it is you're asking
me.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay.
DR. YOUNG: Require a certain amount of storage for --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. I'm talking about
above-ground lined reservoirs. We recently -- this board voted to
pursue a study on whether or not they're feasible in the area and what
their impact is or isn't to get more information on them. As a part
of that -- and the "Naples Daily News" printed an article and it had
some statements by a DEP representative that they did not necessarily
endorse or approve the method of reservoirs. Pardon me? Was that
water management? There was no reference to DEP? In that case, sir,
never mind.
DR. YOUNG: Might I say, on that point, I think Tom
mentioned something about the possibility of storage in the Golden
Gate Canal of effluent water, and I might say that that right now is
not an option that I think is possible. With regard to storage
though, we're all for it. It would be certainly beneficial.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Thank you for being here, Emma.
Keep me from sticking my foot further in my mouth.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Was it the district or the state
who at one time had -- I seem to remember a couple hundred thousand
dollar check that was being waved around in the air that they would
contribute toward ASR.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS:
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE:
money gone away --
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS:
COHMISSIONER NORRIS:
The district.
That was the district? Has that
Yeah. It's gone away.
But you came down here to get
blamed for a lot of the things that the district is up to.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Isn't it nice to know it wasn't
your fault?
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Any further questions of Mr.
Young? Thank you, Mr. Young.
MR. NEWMAN: Mike Newman, county water director. South
Florida is doing some aquifer investigation in the location of Golden
Gate, the Golden Gate Canal where 1-75 crosses over to investigate the
feasibility for ASR in that area.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Potable though. Am I right?
MR. NEWMAN: For either.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: For either. Great. Thank you.
MR. TAYLOR: I did ask that Dr. Young add one more issue
relative to trying to move forward on some solution to the South
County issue. Currently, as you know, you've had some overflows of
ponds and the like. Something needs to be done. You know, there's a
regulatory entity that would be back before you with whatever so --
MR. CLEMONS: We'll be back before them because they've
already told us in a meeting that we did have an overflow this year,
and then we had some problems when Tropical Storm Gordon came through
where the ponds just were not capable of holding. They were
absolutely full. So with the operators, it's a big bucket. So much
comes in and then it starts to spill over. We met with Dr. Young and
the staff at DEP, and they want us to come back, and that's why we're
here today. They wanted direction as to where we're going before this
happens again, and I'm facing this again next rainy season. So that's
what we're here for today, and I think Dr. Young can let you know
that, that, you know, they're looking at us for a decision quickly.
DR. YOUNG: That's one of the regrettable parts of my
job and --
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Do you want to come forward and
get it on the --
DR. YOUNG: I'm sorry. That's one of the more
regrettable parts of my job, that if there are significant further
delays, we probably are looking at enforcement action.
MR. CLEMONS: And that's one of the more regrettable
parts of mine if I have to come back here before you with it.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Even if we ask you real nice not
to?
MR. CLEMONS: I tried that, sir. I begged but it
doesn't work.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: What are the enforcement
mechanisms that DEP has?
MR. CLEMONS: It's generally in the form of a civil
penalty and then improvements to the system that are done through
consent order and we're trying to avoid that consent order mechanism
if possible.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Consent order means they do it
and we pay for it?
MR. CLEMONS: Consent order means we do it and we pay
for it and we pay them a civil penalty on top of it for having allowed
it to happen to begin with.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And do we still get to choose our
solution, or do they tell us what to do?
MR. CLEMONS: Generally we can choose one of their
approved solutions.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: One of them.
MR. CLEMONS: Yes, ma'am.
DR. YOUNG: A consent order is a mutual agreement.
MR. CLEMONS: It's mutual in that we both finally agree.
It's not mutual that we go into it together. The last one I did
with them, it was more mutual on their end than mine so -- but we did
it nonetheless.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We mutually agreed to agree with
them.
MR. CLEHONS: Yes, ma'am. They mutually hold our
permits so --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thank you for coming though.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Thank you very much.
MR. CLEMONS: I do need to stress the importance that we
get a decision from the board quickly so that I can avoid being back
in here next year on the same issue. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Okay.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: No offense, Mr. Clemons, but we
don't want to see you next year either.
MR. CLEHONS: None taken, sir. Absolutely none taken.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Commissioner Norris.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I have a couple of questions for
Mr. Taylor. On our South County Plant, we do have effluent storage
ponds at this point.
MR. TAYLOR: Yes. You do have some existing effluent
storage, slash, percolation ponds.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. And they will handle how
many gallons a day?
MR. TAYLOR: Right now they're --
MR. CLEHONS: There's two sets of off-site percolation
ponds that hold a total capacity of 50 million.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: 50 million a day?
MR. CLEHONS: 50 million total.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: How much per day?
MR. CLEHONS: It varies on how saturated they are. It
varies on how long we've been going on those ponds.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: If we were sizing those --
MR. CLEHONS: One set of ponds is a -- one set of ponds
is a set that was purchased through the East Naples acquisition, and
at the time we purchased it they had approved those ponds for a
million and a half gallons a day, I believe --
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. One and a half.
MR. CLEHONS: -- Based on the plant that was there. The
other set was purchased through the Lely purchase, and the figure was
the same.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: So we've got two one and a halfs
for a three-million-gallon-a-day capacity.
MR. CLEMONS: At the absolute most but --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: You're saying at peak
percolation?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Excuse me. Excuse me.
MR. CLEMONS: The ponds that are being used today are
not structured in such a way that we can take them down, dry them,
disk them, keep them cleaned.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: That's not the issue. I'm just
getting to capacity.
MR. CLEMONS: The absolute most.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. The absolute most is three
million a day. And what acreage do those encompass in total to handle
that three million gallons a day?
MR. CLEMONS: 60 to 70 acres perhaps.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: 60 to 70 acres. So if we --
MR. CLEMONS: But the ponds -- I have to stress, again
the ponds don't work well.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: That's fine. But if we had 600 to
900 acres, it seems to me that that's 20 to 30 times what we have now.
MR. CLEMONS: Well, what we have now doesn't work
though. That's what I want you to be aware of. What we have today is
not working well. That's part of why we're here.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. It may not work well, but
if you doubled the size I bet it would. MR. CLEHONS: Not necessarily.
MR. TAYLOR: I think maybe what we ought to do is take a
look at the handout if you don't mind, the first page. Again, it's a
representation and the bar graph associated with the South County
system over the past -- the last fiscal year. The top of the graph is
the total flow going through the plant on an average day basis during
each calendar -- each month of the calendar year. The blue portion is
the amount that is being sent out today or was sent out that last
fiscal year to your tense system. The red is the portion that has
been going to your percolation ponds. Percolation, slash, storage
ponds. So looking at that, it looks like maybe something in the order
of about two million gallons per day plus or minus is going to the
percolation, slash, storage ponds.
Dr. Young's office does require that percolation ponds
be designed in accordance with State standards. The standards say
that you must maintain three foot of free board between your design
water level and the top of the berm. Obviously you're flowing out the
top because during wet season you had some overflows of your system.
So you're not maintaining your three foot of free board and you're not
-- and a couple of instances hadn't maintained any free board.
the disposal capacity of those facilities is somewhat limited. I
think the current permitted capacity of those is probably overstated
based on historical operation. You know, it hasn't been able to
handle two million. If you wish to look at them more in the form of a
storage pond as opposed to a disposal pond, you're probably more
amenable to that. You know, that's where I think Mr. Clemons came out
with the 50 million gallons of storage potential. So the greater --
the more flow you have going through the facility as the area
continues to develop, the more difficult it's going to be to dispose
of effluent with the system as it is today. We have opportunity to
expand to some bulk users, some golf courses that aren't served in the
south county today, some of the golf courses, the county park for
example, maybe even a couple of the median strip areas, in order --
and the longer term as this system continues to grow and flows
continue to grow in that south area, you're probably going to look at
some alternative disposal method. Today Mr. Clemons has a problem
that he's asking for some guidance from the board on which direction
to go and --
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: And my preference to that because
of my objection to deep-well injection systems is to go with
additional perc ponds.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Correct me if I'm wrong here, Mr.
Clemons, but when a perc pond is designed, the percolation tests are
done to measure soil infiltration; is that correct?
MR. CLEHONS: Under today's standards, yes.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Under today's standards.
So we know what infiltration rate we have initially. As the perc ponds
are utilized, there tends to be small amounts of sediment that get
down into the soil and begin to reduce the infiltration; is that
correct?
MR. CLEHONS: As the bottom of the lakes or ponds get
saturated, it reduces that also, yes.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. And typically they will go
dry at a time in which we come back in and clean them.
MR. CLEMONS: They need to be drained and dried on a
regular basis, cleaned and disked of any weeds, algae, et cetera.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: And we've been unable to do that
our existing --
MR. CLEMONS: Well, now the ponds we're using on the
south end today were not constructed in that manner. Basically both
sets are a bermed-up area around a wooded area. They were never
cleared, stripped. They didn't have new fill brought in. They are
basically just a bermed-up area with trees, and we've just been
flooding those areas. So there's never been the opportunity on a
regular basis to take them down, dry them, clean them.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: So we didn't do it right but if
we did? You know -- MR. CLEMONS: It's not that we didn't do it right. You
can't the way they're constructed.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, when they were built, they
weren't built -- MR. CLEMONS: We didn't build them. We bought them from
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm not blaming you, Mr. Clemons.
I'm just asking.
MR. CLEMONS: They weren't constructed to today's
standards, no.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm not trying to blame you. I'm
just trying to understand.
MR. CLEMONS: I understand. I just want you to be aware
of what it is that's out there.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Mr. Dotrill, you and I talked a
little bit about this perc pond problem and the effluent problem I
guess a couple of months ago, three months ago, and you were
investigating some additional storage space at Lely.
MR. DORRILL: We have been in both in similar wooded
area or what is an old farm field that's within the Lely Resort, and
I'll let Mr. Clemons give you an update on that.
MR. CLEMONS: We have discussed with Lely several
different areas to potentially lease. The only -- the snag we run
into at this point is they do not want us to necessarily go in and
strip that ground completely as would have to be done. We were hoping
to be able to talk to DEP about similarly for temporary purposes at
least expanding on our system that's there today, berming up an area
and flooding it. DEP has said, no, you must maintain three feet of --
not only do you have to maintain three feet of free board on the top
end, you've got to have three feet of separation between ground water
and the bottom of your pond. So we're going to end up having -- if we
do that, we're going to have to go in and clear the area completely,
fill the area at least three feet above existing water table and then
go up from there with side-wall berm so it's going to get very, very
expensive. Lely doesn't really want us to do that. They're not as
favorable about leasing the property for those reasons, though, you
know, they have not ruled it out completely at this point.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: My last discussion with Mr.
McNaly (phonetic) was that they were still open to the idea and this
was ten days ago or so.
MR. DORRILL: But I think they are open. They are
agreeable. They were cooperating. The issue will become one of
economics and whether or not if we enter into, say, five-year or
seven-year agreements for them to be interim, will we get the
necessary return because of the capital cost that we have to incur on
top of that.
MR. CLEMONS: The area that he showed us the last time
was a future golf course for them. So, you know, it would be a matter
of, as the county manager said, how long can we use it.
MR. DORRILL: I will say conclusion on that, the perc
ponds at the North County facility do work better by comparison to the
South County ponds, but they were constructed and the bottoms of them
backfilled with a very high quality type sand that came from the
Ortona sand pits, you know, north of the Caloosahatchee River, but
they were specifically constructed to be perc ponds. We do have a
rotation schedule. They're almost the way a farmer would rotate crops
in fields in order to rest them and try to rehabilitate them, and they
work much better by comparison than the other ponds.
MR. CLEMONS: We didn't have a problem with them this
year. There's five different ponds up there.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Are there other questions
regarding the South County Waste Water? I guess we're ready to move
forward to the North County.
MR. SHEBANI: Good afternoon. My name is Saadeh
Shebani. I'm a partner with Hazen and Sawyer. This will be a little
more pleasant topic to talk about. We're going to do reuse.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thank God.
MR. SHEBANI: When we were brought on board to do the
expansion for the North County Waste Water Treatment Plant basically
expanding the facility from a four and a half MGD facility to a seven
and a half MGD facility, the original intent was to use the existing
believe it or not percolation ponds as a main effluent management or
effluent disposal option. During the design process and the
permitting process and through discussion with DEP, there was a
requirement from DEP to update or provide DEP with a regular
feasibility study which is a Florida statute requirement on any new
permit. That was not part of the scope originally, but as we went
along that became part of the Florida statutes, and we were required
to update reuse feasibility reports for DEP.
In that reuse feasibility report, what we did is
provided a planning period for the North County facility through the
year 2010 and looked at the facility as 100 percent or at the maximum
reuse -- maximum reuse facility, and I will define those in a minute.
DEP basically defined reuse in three areas; what's
called a minimum reuse, a reuse which is less than 40 percent of your
average daily flow; a maximum reuse which is between 40 and 75 percent
of your average daily flow; and maximum reuse which is greater than 75
percent. Now, in reality the demand for the North Plant puts you in
the maximum reuse category. You have demands on books and that will
become apparent as we talk through the -- proceed through this
presentation here. In reality you have 75 percent reuse category and
maximum reuse category; however, on the ground you're at a minimum
less than 40 percent tense category. Yes.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Is what you're saying that the
demand is for maximum but we are actually delivering minimum?
MR. SHEBANI: That's right. And I want to qualify what
I say here because we're going to use the word "100 percent tense,"
and that's a misleading term. What I mean by 100 percent, 100 percent
demand, not necessarily 100 percent delivery, and you have on the
books commitment to use all the effluent you can produce in that
facility; however, in reality you are not delivering 100 percent, and
we'll talk about why that's happening.
Now, in the 40 percent scenario or the minimal tense
scenario, you will see that your supply far exceeds your demand and
will show in two seasons, a dry season and a wet season, and the
variation becomes apparent. In the wet season nobody wants the
effluent and your demands drops drastically. So you do need an
ultimate method of disposal when you're in that category, that being a
deep-well or a pond or -- those two options, I guess.
The next category which is between the 40 and 75, in the
dry season you're supply and demand kind of match, and this is kind of
a little hopeful there, but you assume they do match. And then the
wet season you still have a discrepancy between supply and demand in
that green area in between. In that wet season portion, you do need a
another alternative method of disposal. So you do have the same
problem in both of those categories, a minimum and a medium tense
categories.
Now, in the maximum tense category, like I said earlier,
as far as commitment in North Plant, you do qualify as a maximum tense
category.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: By that, you mean we're committed
to -- we have contracts for it, is what they were talking about
before?
MR. SHEBANI: Yes. The next will make that point a
little more apparent. What you see here is during the dry season, you
have a higher demand than you can really supply. And during the wet
season, you have supply and demand kind of match. And this is kind of
in a hopeful scenario here. And what you see here, you need to find
some kind of storage or some way to optimize how you deliver your
tense to your customer or optimize the effluent management at that
facility.
Now, what we're here about today is to build that pump
station that provides the optimization. That's why we're in front of
you. And the next flip is going to answer some of the questions about
a maximum tense system. We call it the 100 percent, but it's a
maximum tense system. What DEP says to you, in order to qualify as a
maximum tense system, you have to prove and show DEP that you have 100
percent commitment or a signed contract with golf courses, bulk or
residential customers, showing that you can get rid of 100 percent of
your tense. In addition to that, they would like you to prove that
you have a one-day storage volume for reject water and a three-day
minimum storage volume for wet weather. What happened during Gordon
or storm events. Yes.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Is DEP satisfied that you have a
commitment for a 100 percent ADF users even though our contracts say,
as long as you pay for it, you don't actually have to take it?
MR. SHEBANI: DEP is not concerned if you deliver or not
because they have the -- you have to provide the --
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: There's something wrong with
that.
MR. HANCOCK: He's out of the room. We can talk about
him.
MR. SHEBANI: Let me backtrack a little bit. Let me
backtrack a little bit. DEP is concerned because they always ask you
to provide the backup, the three-day storage, and that's why they ask
for the belt and suspenders type of things.
On the next flip we're going to talk about commitment
versus what we use. If you look at your existing tense customers on
the North Plant, on the books you have a commitment for 8.8 HGD.
Those numbers I want to qualify are conservative numbers, in reality
has shown to be a little different, and the next flip will demonstrate
that. The next one does not demonstrate that.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Does this come with a magnifying
glass, sir?
MR. SHEBANI: Let me pass the books out. That's it.
What we're trying to show you here, in reality while using 2.76 HGD
versus your committed 8.8. HGD -- let me go back to the original
capacity here. You have a four and a half HGD facility being expanded
to a seven and a half HGD facility. In a perfect world, if they take
all the 8.8 HGD, you do highly qualify as more than 100 percent tense
facility here. In reality you can see that you're only delivering
2.76 HGD. The question is why. The answer is because the way the
system was built and because the biomechanical or physical facility
that was not built, that physical facility being the pump station.
The next flip -- Let's go to the next flip before we go
to the -- Yeah. That's the one. Basically why do we have such a
discrepancy. You have a lack of available storage. The ponds on site
were not designed to be a storage pond. They were designed as a main
method of disposal. That was the option back when the plant was
designed. The intentions was to go to those percolation pond and get
rid of the water. Now, tense became a second or an afterthought at
the time and tense was a secondary option. Now tense has moved
forward to be the primary method of disposal and, therefore, you never
accommodated that with a pumping station initially. So the pump
station that was there was for a minimum tense system, not a maximum
tense system, and the next flip will talk about that a little bit, I
believe.
As you can see, the effluent disposal was to go to the
percolation pond with a pump that pumps it to a minimum tense system.
What we're taking with this pump station, what we're doing is
basically go from the plant to the storage pond to the percolation
pond, call them a storage pond, using them as an equalization, as
someplace that you can dampen the impact of the variation and
basically use that storage and deliver from that storage. So that's
where the new pump station sits at the end of that storage pond. I
guess I confused everybody.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No. I'm almost getting it. What
we currently do -- This is the part we're stuck is the current system
you see influent. That's a new word. What is WWTF? Waste Water
Treatment Facility.
MR. SHEBANI: That's a Waste Water Treatment Facility.
Yes.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Then before it gets to the pump
station, it's going into the perc ponds and then you pump it back up
and out of the perc ponds?
MR. SHEBANI: No. Two ways you can do it the way it is
right now. The top is the current system. When it comes out of the
facility on the top, it has two ways to go. The primary way to go was
to the percolation pond. In addition, there was some pumps -- there
are some pumps out there sitting at the end of the facility that can
pump with a limited capacity to certain tense customers. That's one
of the main reasons why you have an 8.8. HGD capacity with a limited
pumping capacity of two or three HGD. So basically what we're saying
in order to optimize your pumping capacity, you need to take the pump
station, basically put it in the order it should be in which is at the
end of that pond and use the pond as your storage not as a percolation
pond, and from that pond pump your tense. Yes.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: It seems to me that if we took
the top system and increased our pump station to a maximum pump
station, we'd be achieving the same thing, wouldn't we?
MR. SHEBANI: The pump is in the wrong location and
sitting next to a chlorine tank now and that doesn't have the volume
you're looking for. You do need the volume, and the volume is -- the
only place you can get the volume --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: The rate at which it's coming out
of the treatment facility is not sufficient for the pump station to
draw directly from that --
MR. SHEBANI: You need to take it and put a storage
somewhere and then pump it, and that's where the problem is.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. That makes sense.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: God. I think we got that.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: You know, I mean, it's like any
water system or --
MR. SHEBANI: Absolutely. Like your ground water
storage tank, and that's basically the same concept.
Let's go back to the fuller picture now since I got
ahead of myself there. The next one takes a -- you need a magnifying
glass, but I have books I was going to pass out. That takes the full
picture basically, what's going to happen in the future, and these
numbers came out of a master plan that Mr. HcNees alluded to earlier,
and the master plan basically show that in the north part of the
county at least you will always have a supply -- you will always have
a demand higher than your supply. So you're always going to have an
effluent management problem. In theory now, you're going to have more
demand in the north county than you have supply from effluent.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Regardless of season?
MR. SHEBANI: Regardless of season because of the
development and the golf courses that surround the community if you do
the infrastructure.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I knew there had to be a
qualifier in there somewhere.
MR. SHEBANI: If you do a tense system -- let's say you
do a full-blown tense system, you have more demand than you have
supply basically. It's just a point the master plan made.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Go ahead. Burst our bubble, Tom.
I hate when facts get in the way of a good idea.
MR. SHEBANI: Now, the tense master plan we talked
about, that's -- your staff has to be commended because this was done
back in '89 and tense was on their mind, and they had a phased
approach. We're in phase one now, and we're at the tail end of that.
That's not completed yet, and I just provided that for your
information. You can see a phased approach in there fo your tense
system. So the original master plan that was done by our associates,
Hole, Hontes, addressed tense back in '89 as a way to dispose of
effluent.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And this master plan is a goal?
I mean, how is -- what's the mechanism for implementing that?
MR. HCNEES: This is the North Waste Water master plan
that the consultants completed and you saw and adopted in 1989 so it's
in place and we're operating under its guidelines now.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: So that's why Pelican Harsh came
in with the tense plan that they -- dual water system, and Regency
Village and Bentley Village and Sterling Oaks will be required to do
that by 19987
MR. HCNEES: I don't think that -- the plan doesn't
require those connections. Those were the customers that were
identified as the most likely in the next phase. MR. SHEBANI: Potential customers, yes.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Can you answer for me real quick,
Mr. HcNees, why South Hampton and Quail Creek are yet to be completed
under phase one? Is it the distribution problem?
MR. HCNEES: Yes with Quail Creek. South Hampton is --
we have had discussions with them at this point about getting
connected. We're working on towards connecting them. They are not
because they went dormant for a period.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I just noticed phase two starts
in 1994 and we have two projects before that that haven't been served
so we are a little bit behind in that.
MR. CLEHONS: We've got the line run out to Quail Creek.
We've just not finalized that issue as far as storage and who is
going to use what and how much, but the line is run to the entrance to
Quail Creek.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Under way but not done.
MR. CLEHONS: Not yet complete.
MR. HCNEES: And it's not always that we're behind as in
the case of South Hampton, they died for a while so they're behind.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: We can blame them. That's fine
too.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: If the mechanism for
implementation is what I'm trying to understand, what are we doing to
cause Bentley Village or Sterling Oaks to be a part of our tense
distribution system by 19987 We're putting lines out accessible to
them or --
MR. HCNEES: I think a lot depends on what happens with
this discussion item we're here to talk about today. If we get the
pumping capacity to actually serve all these people, then we're going
to have to get on our horse and get to work and get them connected.
And we talked about the new engineering position that's coming on
board in Utilities Division, and one of the items that that person
will be assigned to is helping develop these reuse customers.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: But right now it's a moot point
because we don't have the ability to get there anyway.
MR. MCNEES: At this point, as they come to us they're
first-come first-served, and we're meeting and serving the ones that
we can in the right location and getting connected.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So how much does this pump cost?
I'm already wanting the bottom line. I'll wait. I'll be patient.
MR. SHEBANI: I can tell you what the overall cost is.
The estimated cost for this pump station is less than two million
bucks.
MR. MCNEES: Commissioner, to answer one of your -- I'm
not sure this was your question, but it's certainly germane to the
discussion. In some cases, people aren't right on our reuse system
and there's a cost incurred in getting effluent from our system to
where they might be. In the past, it's been the board's consistent
position that to get it from where we are to where either the golf
course or the bulk user is is their cost, and that may be something as
a policy you want to begin to reconsider as we try a little harder to
find effluent customers whether we're going to participate or be
willing to pay in terms of gaining the disposal capacity. That's a
policy of yours that you may want to reconsider and that we may want
to talk about.
MR. SHEBANI: The issue in front of us today is really
meeting the commitment already on the books and the overall policy
where you go next, and I think that will become board policy is going
to be consistent what you do up north versus what you do down south,
and I'm sure the staff will be more than happy to accommodate.
The next flip basically graphically attempts to show the
overall reuse demand versus supply from the facility and that goes --
we tried to show this just to reinforce the point Tom made earlier.
The comprehensive look -- you really need to look at the system as a
system. You can't look at one facility. The north end happened to be
a lucky facility to have higher demand than supply. We already talked
about that one. Next.
So in summary, basically the north facility is
proceeding, and it's been under construction for over a year right
now, and we're happy to report to you that it's on time and basically
on budget. We're happy with the progress of the facility. The
scheduled completion for that facility was October '95. We're still
planning on finishing that facility in October of '95, but that
becomes the problem for us because in October of '95, if we don't show
DEP that we have a way of getting rid of our effluent, we are going to
be restricted to our present four and a half MGD effluent disposal.
In order to accommodate and get the operating permit for the seven and
a half MGD, we need to prove to DEP that we can deliver this seven and
a half MGD to the customers.
Looking at recent flows before we came to our meeting in
the past week or so, we visited the flows at the facility, and I
believe they were running around five or six MGD this season already
which makes us believe by late '95 you will be in violation of your
present permit. That's why this is important. We estimate this pump
station to take about 11 months to construct. COHHISSIONER HAC'KIE: How many? I'm sorry.
MR. SHEBANI: 11 months. We estimate out of the 11
months we'll have -- I guess 11 months of the whole program. Out of
the 11 months, about two and a half to three months between permitting
and design, and we'll probably put it on the fast track with the
contractor to build it in eight months.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Let me cut to the chase here, Mr.
HcNees. Where is the less than two million coming from?
MR. HCNEES: Available capital reserves.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. We do have it available in
capital reserves non-committed?
MR. HCNEES: Yes.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Too bad we can't vote. Sorry.
MR. HCNEES: Unless you have further questions, we'll be
back in two weeks apparently on your next meeting, and we'll have
these packaged up for some decisions. I'll probably put your master
plan adoption on the consent agenda so we don't have to discuss that
again. I think we understand what you want, and it's consistent with
our executive summary anyway. So if you have further questions, we'll
be happy to answer them. Otherwise, we will see you in two weeks.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Are there further questions? We
want to give staff direction then to bring the master plan back on the
consent agenda to bring the North County effluent tense. Is this what
you're talking about, the master plan? This master plan?
MR. SHEBANI: The pump station.
MR. HCNEES: Yes.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Okay. We need to get the pump
station in two weeks. Can we see that? MR. HCNEES: Yes, ma'am.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: And I guess the Malcolm Perney
report -- I guess we need to accept that whether we want to or not and
the one for the South Plant.
MR. HCNEES: For the question for the South Plant, we'll
have to be back in a regular agenda item because we need some
decisions on whether to go after perc ponds or some formal decision by
the board what direction we're headed.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I assume we'll have a little more
information from Lely Development Corporation as to the possibility of
storage capacity, the terms?
MR. HCNEES: We'll bring you every bit of information
that we have as of that date.
MR. SHEBANI: I meant to share a story with the board
before I left today, and one of our clients in Jupiter which is on the
east coast has had one of the first tense systems in the State of
Florida, 100 percent tense systems. Jupiter is one of those lucky, a
lot of golf courses, a lot of people own their tense system, and they
have a combination in their effluent management -- effluent disposal
of deep wells. They have ponds, and they have tense. Although they
are 100 percent tense system, they have -- occasion they have used a
deep well, and one of those occasion has been the Gordon storm event
that happened, what, three or four weeks ago. What happened is this.
All the golf courses flooded like Mr. Clemons talked about, the golf
courses down here, they flooded, and they said, "We don't want any of
your water for a week. Don't send us any water for a week." And he
had to do something with his water. His storage was full, and the
only place he could go was a deep well, and just a story I wanted to
share just because the answer may be a combination. It may not be one
or the other way. On a day-to-day basis he doesn't use his deep well.
They don't use the deep well at all. It's just sitting there for a
back-up disposal. So I just wanted to share that story with you.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: For the interest of the board,
there is another proposal that probably will be coming to us also on
the third, and that is that I had a conversation a couple of weeks ago
with Mr. Hubschman and he had some property that he wants us to look
at also for perc ponds down off of 951, and I think it would be
advantageous for us to get all that information at one time. Mr.
Norris.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: One thing that we did not discuss
today that I would like to discuss and see if there's any reason for
us to continue to discuss it, and that is the possibility of
installing advanced waste water treatment at the South County Plant
and being able to eventually discharge the supertreated water into the
canal system. Is that a possibility or not?
MR. SHEBANI: DEP will have to answer to that. It is a
possibility but it's a costly one.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Naples certainly does that.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: We were informed at the last
meeting that we had similar to this, on this subject anyway, that the
cost of that would be about $6 million. Is that correct, Mr. McNees?
MR. SHEBANI: Yeah. That's I believe what our number
Was.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Something to that effect, and that
seems to me to be about at least comparable or even better to
deep-well injection costs.
MR. MCNEES: I would hesitate to represent that as a
certainty. I'm not sure DEP was quite so forthcoming in saying they
would permit that.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: The point is I understand that we
don't have complete information on that, and we haven't been
concentrating on that but that is -- it certainly sounds like to me
that it's not only a viable option but potentially a very
cost-effective option that we ought to take a look at.
MR. MCNEES: We'll certainly find out is it viable.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Again, that advanced treatment
though is an ongoing operation.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: That's fine if it solves all your
problems if the water is clean enough to go into the canal system.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: It also could work in conjunction
with an ASR system if I'm not mistaken, that once we do the AWT on it,
it can be dropped into an aquifer.
MR. MCNEES: I need to state here DEP has told us --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: That's why I prefaced it with "I
understand" because I'm pretty stupid on these things.
COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: We are all learning.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Can we have any kind of decent
information?
MR. HCNEES: We'll give you whatever information there
is, but I'll tell you, as of our last meeting face to face with DEP in
Fort Myers, they are telling us surface water discharge is not
permittable as of this time.
MR. TAYLOR: They were hedging. They were hedging.
MR. HCNEES: Yeah. Well, I wish we had asked the fellow
while he was here, and I think I know what his answer would have been.
We'll ask them again, and if we can get something in writing we
will, but I don't want to mislead you and that we go away from here
thinking that that's going to be an easy option. They're telling us,
no, it's not permittable, but we'll ask again.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I just want to make sure that we
put this option into the discussion. I think there's something here
we could at least discuss and develop.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I agree with that.
MR. DORRILL: It has been an option in Orange County.
Orange County, Florida, it has been an option. There's a very
elaborate surface water and wetland disposal system.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: What is their geology though?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: They have a lobbiest.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: We're going to also in a short
while. But is their geology substantially different than ours?
MR. DORRILL: I don't know. We might explore that.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And, Mr. HcNees, just while Mr.
Hissimer is coming up, as we look at these alternatives for the South
County plant, you're going to give us dollar per gallon analysis?
MR. HCNEES: We'll put together the best matrix we can
of cost versus other factors and have that for you, yes. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thank you.
MR. HISSIHER: My name is Tom Hissimer. There was a
question regarding the geology of the Jupiter area versus the geology
of Collier County in terms of deep-well injection -- COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: It was Orange County.
MR. HISSIHER: Orange County? Like Orange County,
California?
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: No. Like Orange County,
Florida.
MR. HISSIHER: Okay. Well, yes, there's a substantial
difference between Orange County in central Florida. The water
percolates directly into the upper part of the Floridan aquifer into
the ridge area, but there's a free board position between land surface
and the top of the water table that often is on the order of tens of
feet rather than having the water table right at three feet below the
surface, so there's more storage available. And when you talk about
true percolation, that's percolation.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I've measured tests in that area
of 24 inches per hour percolation ability in Orlando.
MR. HISSIHER: Right. There's a very big difference
there. See, our problem here with percolation ponds is, one,
everything is saturated from the top of the lake down to the aquifer
system immediately, and that's why you have to build the bottom up.
So the only -- where the water goes is out the sides. It doesn't
percolate vertically. It's going out the sides. That's why when you
talk about areas of percolation ponds, you have to design them real
long and skinny because the ratio of the perimeter to the area has to
be very great. That's why when you're talking about 600 acres, you're
not talking about a square block because since the water can only go
out the sides, you have all that unnecessary bottom area that doesn't
percolate anything. Essentially you've eliminated the storage. That's
the primary problem with the design. So, I mean, that's the real
issue on that.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Okay.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thank you.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And right before Commissioner
Matthews slaps that gavel down, in light of the Malcolm Perney report,
I want to thank you for your presentation today. It helped us a lot.
And thank you to Hole, Hontes for your work today, Tom.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Yeah. I want to thank everybody
who was here today. I think we had a good workshop.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Oh, yeah, and staff too. We're
always taking you guys for granted. I thought you were used to it.
MR. SHEBANI: On behalf of everybody, thank you for your
time.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yes, sir.
COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: We had a lot of useful
information today. With that, we'll close this workshop. Let's go
home and Merry Christmas.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Ho, ho, ho.
There being no further business for the Good of the County, the
meeting was adjourned by Order of the Chair at 5 p.m.
BOARD OF COUNTY COHMISSIONERS
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX
OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF
SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS
CONTROL
ATTEST:
DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK
TIHOTHY J. CONSTANTINE, CHAIRMAN
These minutes approved by the Board on
as presented or as corrected
TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF DONOVAN COURT
REPORTING BY: Shelly Semmler and Christine E. Whitfield