Loading...
BCC Minutes 03/30/2001 E (Wastewater) March 30, 2001 TRANSCRIPT OF THE EMERGENCY MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Naples, Florida, March 30, 2001 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, 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 2:00 p.m. in EMERGENCY SESSION in Building "F" of the Collier County Government Center, Administration Building, Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: James D. Carter, Ph.D. (Via Telephone) Pamela S. Mac'Kie Donna Fiala Tom Henning Jim Coletta ALSO PRESENT: David C. Weigel, County Attorney Mike McNees, Assistant County Administrator James V. Mudd, Public Utilities Administrator Page I NOTICE OF EMERGENCY MEETING Notice is hereby given that the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, will hold an emergency meeting on FRIDAY, MARCH 30, 2000, at 2:00 P.M. in the Boardroom, 3rd Floor, W. Harmon Turner Building, Collier County Government Center, 3301 East Tamiami Trail, Naples, Florida. The Board's agenda will include: A. Discussion and approval of the terms and conditions .of the Florida Department of Environmental Protection Consent Order relating to wastewater. All interested parties are invited to attend, to register to speak and to submit their objections, if any, in writing, to the Board prior to the emergency meeting. All registered public speakers will be limited to five (5) minutes unless permission for additional time is granted by the Chairman. Any person who decides to appeal a decision of the Board will need a record of the proceedings pertaining thereto, and therefore, may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based. Collier County Ordinance No. 99-22 requires that all lobbyists shall, before engaging in any lobbying activities (including, but not limited to, addressing the Board of County Commissioners), register with the Clerk to the Board at the Board Minutes and Records Department. If you are a person with a disability who needs any accommodation in order to participate in this proceeding, you are entitled, at no cost to you, to the provision of certain assistance. Please contact the Collier County Facilities Management Department located at 3301 East Tamiami Trail, Naples, Florida, 34112, (941) 774-8380; assisted listening devices for the hearing impaired are available in the County Commissioners' Office. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COLL1F~R COUNTY, FLORIDA JAMES D. CARTER, Ph.D., CHAIRMAN DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK By:/s/Maureen Kenyon Deputy Clerk (SEAL) March 30, 2001 MR. WEIGEL: Chairman Carter, this is David Weigel. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Yes. MR. WEIGEL: And for the information of the Board that is present and the public that is either watching or in the audience, this special emergency Board meeting may be conducted by the chairman, Mr. Carter, and -- Dr. Carter, even as he is attending per telephone hookup. Ms. Mac'Kie is not here, the vice chairman. And, Mr. Chairman, if you would like to go forward, you'll have, obviously, the full assistance of Mr. Mudd, Mr. McNees and myself, as well as your colleague Board members, if we go forward with the item. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Well, thank you very much, Mr. Weigel. I believe we need to go forward with the item. If it's appropriate, I would call the meeting to order. I would ask everyone to stand for the pledge of Allegiance to the flag, and then I will turn the meeting over to Mr. McNees and Mr. Mudd. (The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) MR. McNEES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. For the record, Mike McNees, assistant county manager. We're here today to further discuss an item that we talked about on your Tuesday agenda regarding appending a consent order with the Florida Department of Environmental Protection regarding some issues with our north wastewater treatment plant expansion. I'll spare you the back detail, since we discussed all of that on Tuesday, and bring you just up to date that you had approved in concept all of the terms of the consent order with one exception; and that was the fines that the DEP wanted to institute of $10,000 a day if we could not meet the construction schedule deadline of December the 1st. Mr. Mudd has been working with the contractor to get whatever assurance or accelerations we could get to make us feel good about being able to meet that date. He has a report on that and then we'll walk through, then, what we want you to approve when he's finished giving his report. He may have a couple other new variables to throw in there, but I'll turn the presentation over to Jim Mudd to tell you where we are. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you, Mr. McNees. MR. MUDD: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, I'm Jim Mudd, Page 2 March 30, 2001 public utilities administrator, for the record. Today we'll talk about two subjects; one, the negotiations with project integration that I've just gone through the last two days and a little bit before that and then we'll talk a little bit about the consent order. We're going to ask the Board to do three actions, three votes. And when I'm done with the negotiations, we're going to ask if we can have authority through the public utilities engineering director to execute a change order with project integration and then we're going to ask for a budget amendment to transfer money from one fund to another so that we can do that. And then I'll specify the funds. And then the last thing would be to ask the Board to vote again on authorizing the Chairman to sign the consent order. CHAIRMAN CARTER: That's clear to me, Mr. Mudd. And we have to have the change order, the budget transfer and the vote to approve the consent order. MR. MUDD: Okay. The slide on your screens right now talks about the expansion and acceleration and physical impact of the five million gallon expansion that project integration is doing for us. I put at your tables a letter and it's all tentative based on the Commission's approval to lay the process out. The initial proposal came from project integration when I said we needed to speed up the project and they basically said, "Yes, we'll do overtime, but you are going to have an open checkbook. You're just going to write checks for all my overtime." And I took a deep gulp. Then they said, "Guess what? And no guarantees on schedule change. Our completion date stands at 23 November. And, oh, by the way, we want our retainage, which is at 9.5 percent of a $19 million contract to go to five percent now, and then we want it to go to two percent at substantial completion once the liquid train comes on board." I didn't like that too much. It's basically, you let the fox in the hen house. And I know we've got a problem and an issue, but you've still got to worry about the taxpayers of Collier County and make sure we're good stewards and that we're not being held up. What I was able to do was talk to them about thirty days of overtime. We talked about an eight-hour Saturday event. And Page 3 March 30, 2001 when you looked at their -- their costs per manpower for equipment and we went through that whole process, that basically comes out to about $19,000 and change per day. Multiply that by thirty days and you come up with $580,000 for those three days. I put that on the table. I talked to them about buying back -- out of those thirty days, buying back the seventeen days that they have, to the good, because of site condition change and things like that that has gone on over the last year and a half to bring them back to their November 6 completion date on the liquid train. That went with some silence as far as they were concerned, but I'm trying to get to the point in time -- they were not guaranteeing any schedule, so I'm trying to get some movement there. Then we went over -- last night we went -- they asked us to take a look at retainage. I didn't want to put it on the table. We got back this morning and we talked about partnering and the intent of partnering and what it's all about, and it's not a one-way street where it's all give and no take. And I basically asked the question, "Well, what's the county going to get out of this?" Because it's really bothering me a lot. So I got them to agree to the 580 as a top figure for overtime. It will not be a carte blanche thing where they just get that money. It will be a vouchered system, where they will have to show us the vouchers for the overtime and show us what they are claiming. If they come in before I November, the difference between their vouchered amount that they give us and the 580, the difference will be divided in half. Half will go to the contractor as an incentive and the other half will come back to the county. The completion date, I got him to agree to a November 6th or sooner. I put about 4.5 percent of the retainage on the table. We still retain about five percent, which is about a million dollars on a $19 million contract, so we feel we still have enough leverage there to make sure the job gets done, and that we're holding enough dollars there so when we get to the punch list items we get our product at the end. And again, we're trying to make sure November 6, 2001 or sooner, so that we can meet the I December time line. If he Page 4 March 30, 2001 does not meet the November 6 deadline, he still has liquidated damages in the tune of $2,025 a day. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Questions by members of the Board? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Chairman, so he has liquid damages of $2,250? MR. MUDD: $2,025. COMMISSIONER HENNING: $25. So what happens after December 1st -- MR. MUDD: We start paying $10,000 and he pays $2,000. That's why I tried to push this completion as far forward as I could in time. Now, what we will try to do on Monday when we meet with the Florida Department of Environmental Protection is try to soften their language a little bit and say instead of will they give us a $10,000 fine, get them to try to say they may give us a $10,000 fine. That gives us a little latitude in case we have a natural disaster or something. We get a hurricane this summer and we got to work through that process, that those days are there and there could be some leeway as far as they are concerned. We want to talk to them on Monday about a nanofilter package plant that we could bring in a little bit early, where the county could buy it and give us some flex movement between north, south and in the future years out to Orange Tree. And we want to see if that would help us maybe extend that time frame out past I December a little bit, if we could have that installed by I October up at the north plant and give us another 1.25 right on the button. That period of time, if you think about the average permit hookups in a given year, at least over the last three, the north plant they have been about .7 million gallons a day kind of capacity that you hook up to. If we had a half a million gallon capacity extra up there this year, we wouldn't have had the problems with -- with the high organic loads. So I think that would -- that would be just enough to get us by in the north plant, and I think enough insurance for the -- for the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, but I have to run that by them. Joe Cheatham and Carl Boyer. Joe, you know who he is. Carl Boyer is my interim director of engineering. They went up to Page 5 March 30, 2001 Lehigh Acres yesterday to look at one of those nanofilter plants to see if it would work for us. They came back with some pretty good things to say. And we've been in contact with the vendor to try to figure out what his price is going to be. We got him down from about $5 a gallon to about $3.50 a gallon. If you figure, if we buy it, it's cheaper -- it's cheaper to buy it than it is to lease it. By the time you lease it for two years, you own it. And we're going to need it for that two years. So it comes in at around 4.8 and that's ballpark figures right now. They want to give us some more details on Tuesday. COMMISSIONER HENNING: What's 4.8? MR. MUDD: 4.8 million, sir. CHAIRMAN CARTER: And would that be paid for out of user and -- user fees, Mr. Mudd? MR. MUDD: No. That would come out of impact fees because that would have to deal with the growth and the hookups that would be happening this year, sir. MR. McNEES: Let me clarify, if I may, exactly what we would be asking for from you. You have already approved the major items that the DEP asked to be in the consent order with one exception. So we are asking you to also approve the language that they will fine us $10,000 a day, with the assumption that we will try to negotiate for a may instead of a will and authorization to sign if we can get that. The second thing we're asking you to add to it is to give us the leeway to negotiate over the possible addition to the consent order of this, what is essentially a portable package treatment plan. That if we can get them to agree that that allows us to extend the deadline somewhat if we can put that in place, to give the Chairman the authorization to include that in the terms of the consent order if we can negotiate it. We're trying to get as much flexibility here, but also have your authorization to put this thing to bed once the DEP signed off. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I think both of these things are great. Along with that may instead of will, which is a great word to change, I was wondering if there was any way that we could actually incorporate some kind of provision just in case we were hit with some kind of a natural disaster and that may wouldn't hold up enough. Is there a way to incorporate the verbiage of, Page 6 March 30, 2001 you know, renegotiating in case of a major natural -- MR. MUDD: Yes, ma'am. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: We want to be careful we don't give them exact language and bind them to the point where this thing keeps dragging out week after week, and we get to the point where we lose the incentive. I got a feeling that we're going to be talking down to about days when we get down to the end part; is that correct, Mr. Mudd? MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: A span of maybe just days as far as getting it completed and being on line to avoid the fees from the State if they so choose to put them on us. MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. MR. McNEES: And the one thing I will make clear -- and I think it would be fair for me to represent the DEP's position a little bit because I've had enough conversation with them. They are likely to say that a natural disaster in August that takes us three or four or five days to recover from will not impact wastewater treatment flows in February and March and January. So they may be somewhat sympathetic to this issue of leeway to take into account those types of issues; then again, they may not. So we'll do the best we can. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I would say we leave it up to Mr. Mudd to try to do the very best he could on that because if we keep bringing this back -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- we're just going to lose that advantage. I do have a couple questions. This portable unit can be moved again as need be, right? We can use that in another part of the county, so it's going to be something that won't be going out of inventory? MR. MUDD: No, sir. What the plan is right now, we have had discussions with the Florida Department of Environmental Protection about the read rate at the south plant -- and right now they're -- we go up on Monday and talk about that in detail. But it is becoming clearer that they are going to want a demonstration on that plant before they will go that route. Now, that will take several months to do. I think that this -- that this nanofilter plant from Zeon (phonetic), when we get it in, we can move it from the north Page 7 March 30, 2001 when the five comes online and you could move it down to the south and hook it in, and you could increase the capacity down there by a million .25. It could be in that -- it could be in that arrangement until the expansion at the south plant comes online in December of 2003. One of the things I told Mr. Cheatham today is, I said, "If you lease that thing, we want to go until June of 2004 to make sure that the expansion down in the south doesn't slip and we've got that capacity online." We just didn't give it away in December and then we missed the high season. And then you've got it. And by about that time we're going to have to talk about Orange Tree and exactly what we want to do with that because, again, the contractual stipulations there is, we take it over in 2011. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I appreciate the fact that you're thinking ahead. Just a couple things. I want to make sure I understand the carrot and the stick on this. That of this $580,000 for overtime, one of the incentives is, if you finish early and you don't use all that, we'll give them half the funds at that time; is that correct. MR. MUDD: That are left. That's left. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: In other words, as a further incentive to move forward. If they exceed the date, then at that point in time they are paying us $2,025 a day for each additional day and that date is from November; is that correct? MR. MUDD: November 6th. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And not the December 1st that has been placed on to us by-- MR. MUDD: That's right. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So we've got a little leeway there as far as recouping funds from them to help pay for the overage we may run into at the end. MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I would say for the most part you worked out the very best of all possibilities into this deal. How do you feel, Tom? COMMISSIONER FIALA: I agree. COMMISSIONER HENNING.' I have some more questions. I just don't understand this nanofilter. We're going to spend $4.3 million for this nanofilter? Page 8 March 30, 2001 MR. MUDD: We're talking about it. And if FDEP doesn't -- if it doesn't -- if their eyebrows don't raise in this one, there's no sense going down that road. But we've done our homework and we are talking about it. And it's basically bringing a portable package plant into Collier County. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I thought we had capacity if we borrow that capacity from the City of Naples? MR. MUDD: Yes, sir, but that's a ninety-day agreement. And we have to -- and we have to go back to them and ask them to extend that past the ninety days. There were some -- there were some councilmen and councilwomen that were reluctant to extend it past the ninety days, sir. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Do we even need it after the ninety days, being that we'll be out of season and our water -- our sewage use is so much less? MR. MUDD: That's right, ma'am. What we're going to do is, we're going to hook it up. We're going to try it. We're going to make sure it works. And then we're going to ask them to extend that. One of the things that the city council asked their staff to do was to come back with a longer range agreement and they were talking about in a year time frame. And then to also address the north/south interconnect using their system as a force main. And those things have to be -- they have to be brought back to the city -- the city council in order for them to vote on those particular items. (Commissioner Mac'kie Enters the commission chambers.) COMMISSIONER FIALA: I meant this web thing. Do we even need that if indeed we're going to be -- that you were just bringing up? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I think what she's saying, if I may -- and I apologize, traffic is worse than it should be -- the reality is, we will have capacity after Easter, but that's not what matters to the DEP, if I understand you. We got to have redundant, redundant. Even though we really won't need this -- MR. McNEES: The DEP's concern is January, February and March of 2002. What this additional 1.5 million gallons of an essentially portable wastewater plant would give us is that back stop safety factor to relieve their concern that if anything were to happen with the construction, whether or not we can treat Page 9 March 30, 2001 this sewage that's going to come. So it gives us that much more flexibility. The other thing about it, it's not just $4.5 million worth of lost expense because that really on a per gallon basis, Joe Cheatham tells me, is just about what you pay for a sewer plant. So it remains a viable treatment process for us. In fact, their plan would be to use it at the south plant to help deal with peaks down there, once it's exhausted its usefulness at the north plant until that construction can be finished at the south plant. So there's more advantage to that other than just this immediate issue at the north plant. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Well, in my understanding, Mr. McNees, that also could be used at Orange Tree. I see the nano plan as a good part of a strategic, long-range plan that affords you a lot of opportunity not only in the expansion of plants, but in an emergency situation we would be much better off and better prepared to deal with the issues. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Commissioner Carter, this is Commissioner Mac'Kie. I had, you know -- this is something that the old Board has talked about before, is our preparation in the event of a disaster, a hurricane or, God forbid, you know, something awful happening. This would be a redundancy, if you will, available to us that in the event of an emergency that maybe we should already have that we don't have. MR. McNEES: We don't want to get lost on a side rail here. I understand that DEP may say, no, that we are not interested in including this nano filtration plant as a part of this consent order process, in which case we'll proceed with what we have. But we want you to know about it so we can have the additional flexibility that will allow us to make that a part of the equation. We can fold that into the agreement. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I just need to understand because that's a big chunk of change. MR. MUDD: And it doesn't preclude us from selling it either after we're done with it for two or three years. If the Board so chooses, we can put that out in the net and you can sell that package plant to other communities. Like Lehigh Acres has one, okay, and they are starting to sprout up in several different places in Florida. It is a -- it is a way to treat sewage and it works pretty well. Page10 March 30, 2001 And oh, by the way, this is a filtration system that pretty much brings the water in, and when it leaves, it could go to your tap. I won't do that to you. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thank you. MR. MUDD: But that's the kind of technology that this plant has. CHAIRMAN CARTER: I might say, regardless of whether the DEP wants this or not, that, Mr. Mudd, you think about incorporating that into our strategic plan and perhaps bring that back to the Board. Even if we don't need to know it now. If there is sentiment on the Board to do that, I would think that that would be a positive direction. I'm not there. I can't see nodding heads or shaking heads, but I would be in favor of incorporation into our long-range plan. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I would love to hear if it is a viable alternative. The concern that I have had is, I have heard in the past that in the event of a natural disaster because we have lift stations and they have run off of electricity, that we might not have adequate generators to deal with an emergency problem. And if that's the case and if this is a solution that could be available, then I would like to hear more about this. MR. MUDD: This still needs electricity. There's just about nothing in our business that doesn't need electricity to work the process. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So we are apparently getting off on a side light and we need to come back to the main track. But the heads-up there from staff is that the Board is wanting to hear something from you. If it's generators, what is it in the event of an emergency that we need to have that we don't? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: To try to focus on where we're trying to go today, we're not really approving a nano plant for $1.5 million. Maybe we can come back to where we are trying to go. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Good. MR. MUDD: Do I have any more questions on the negotiations and what we went through? Okay. What I need the Board to do via resolution and vote is to approve and authorize the public utilities engineer director or myself, whichever you choose, to execute this change order with project integration, which has a Page 11 March 30, 2001 contract number of 99-2908. COMMISSIONER HENNING.' I would like to hear about the transfers of monies. MR. MUDD: Okay. There is another issue that you have to talk about and it's an approval that a necessary budget amendment to transfer $600,000 from the project 73948, which is the north Collier sewer treatment deep injection well, to the project 73031, which is the north sewer plant five million gallon a day expansion. Source of the funds is impact fees. COMMISSIONER FIALA.' But that's the second portion of that, isn't it? COLETTA: That's the second. FIALA: You just wanted a motion on this, COMMISSIONER COMMISSIONER right? COMMISSIONER COMMISSIONER COMMISSIONER COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Right. FIALA: And Jim has already motioned? COLETTA.' I made it. FIALA: And I'll second that. MR. McNEES: And I think before you pass that, Mr. Weigel will be much happier if I bullet through the main points of that change order. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I would like to hear the math and maybe you guys -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, we weren't in math yet. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I want to hear the math before we pass -- MR. McNEES: You're authorizing an overtime work budget not to exceed $580,000. You're authorizing a change in the substantial completion date to November 6th of 2001. You are trading seventeen days that we owe the contractor on some other contract conditions for the movement up to November 6th of the substantial completion date. You are reducing the retainage that we hold from this contractor from 9.5 to five percent. You're also agreeing that, given however many days prior to November 6th the contractor can finish, whatever unspent overtime there is of that $580,000, the contractor would get fifty percent as an early completion bonus. Those are the terms that we're asking you to approve as the change order to the contract. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And then if they should fail to Page 12 March 30, 2001 complete in time, for -- so that the $10,000 a day starts kicking in for us -- MR. MUDD: Liquidated damages start on 7 November for them at the tune of $2,025. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And I guess -- MR. MUDD: A day. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And we're going to, though, be paying $10,000 a day. MR. McNEES: That's not until December 1st. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So just help me think it through. Because this is a contractor that we got behind with already, right? I mean, they are behind, aren't they, on the contract performance today? Do we have confidence that they will be able to meet -- if these financial incentives are such, that they will get it done? MR. MUDD: I think so. They moved up some of their pipe work to get it back online to gather the twenty days that they have on this particular -- that they are behind on this particular part of the project. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: What caused that twenty days? What was the cause of that twenty days; do we know? MR. MUDD: All the slack slipped out of their schedule, shortage of manpower. There are sundry reasons -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And what will keep that from happening again? MR. MUDD: They are going to start working overtime. And so everybody is short. I don't think there is a construction outfit out there that isn't short people right now, especially in this county. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: What you got in here, Pam, speaking from the contractor, where he's standing, you got a carrot and a stick. There's every incentive in the world for him to finish early. And the fact that he's going to be able to pick up the balance of the money that would be left if we're allowing for the overtime. And if he doesn't finish early, then he's going to have to start paying -- before we have to pay our $10,000 a day, he's going to have to start paying $2,025. What is that, about twenty-eight days before we start paying? MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And somebody do the math on Page 13 March 30, 2001 that. MR. MUDD: COMMISSIONER COLETTA: COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: COMMISSIONER COLETTA: COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: More like twenty-four. Twenty-four days. So we would have -- 48,000. So we could pay five days' worth of his failure out of his penalty money. But in the contract -- and I'm going for this. Don't hear me saying I'm not going to go for this. I'm going to go for this. I just want to understand every piece of this as much as I can. If in his current contract before the change he had this $2,000 a day penalty, didn't he? MR. MUDD: Yes, ma'am. He also had seventeen days good days as far as the liquid train was concerned. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Tell me what that means. MR. MUDD: Change of condition. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: He had seventeen grace days? MR. MUDD: That's right. Because he ran into sites that we didn't have in the contract. He had the conduits -- the electrical conduits were all messed up. They were all filled in. They were crumbled from the last time. He had to go back and rebuild those processes from the original contractor that came in. And as he worked through it, they basically assembled -- they call them good days that you get. And if they are late on their date when they are supposed to, then they hit in with the good days so they can avoid the liquidated damages. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Got you. MR. MUDD: The contract specifies right now, completion of the liquid train 6 November. There is a change order out there that I have not executed that gives them these seventeen days. And I told him in negotiations -- because they didn't want to give my any guarantees, even though they are doing overtime. I said, "Hey, look. I'm giving you a lot of stuff. You got to give me something besides nothing and an open checkbook." So I told them, I'm going to buy the seventeen days back and I am not Okay. No, Can everybody see it perfectly Those are my days now and Am I the only one being going to execute that change order. you're back to 6 November." COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: dense here? COMMISSIONER HENNING: COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Page 14 March 30, 2001 clear as to why they would have this motivation now? It's because the pot of money is so big, the overtime money is so -- such a big pot of money that that will be their motivation to do whatever it takes to get this ]ob done. MR. MUDD: What I agreed to is not to give them that 580 off the bat. I said, "You have to voucher that back to me. You have to show me the time, when it's done. Who worked the overtime. What they did, that process. The equipment that was used. Materials that were used. And then we'll take that money out of the 580." And once it's vouchered, whatever is left on that difference is that incentive amount. Now, if he comes in on the -- if he comes in on the 5th of November and he's at $577,000, his incentive is going to turn out to be about $1500. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Not much. MR. MUDD: But if he comes in early, okay, and comes in at that 5 November date and he's only spent $250,000 on overtime, then he's going to have a $125,000 incentive for being there at that date. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And there must be -- or is there some sort of a standard, we can expect this project would take blank amount of days or hours, and so we know what percentage of overtime is going to be necessary for them to meet the new deadline? MR. MUDD: Yes, ma'am. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: About how much overtime? I mean, they will have to do their regular work plus how many -- MR. MUDD: That's these thirty days that you are looking at, which their overtime -- their time and a half for their crew and their equipment is about $19,000. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So they are getting thirty days worth of straight time paid in overtime in order to do it earlier? MR. McNEES: Thirty Saturdays between now and November 6th. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. All right. That makes sense. And what about the labor shortages that kept them from staying on track to date? Are they -- is CBIA going to provide them some labor if they -- MR. MUDD: CBIA has given them references for pipe fitters and for supervisors because that's really where they are short Page 15 March 30, 2001 about three people. Part of -- part of their acceleration is to -- and that they put on their CPM is to bring on another crew to do some pipe laying, to bring them back into compliance with their perc. chart. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And I guess the people who are in this business in the county are going to make employees available if there is a labor shortage? Is there some understanding about that or might we run into a labor shortage again that would cause us -- MR. MUDD: Ma'am, when that superintendent on the ]ob walks up to me or walks up to Joe and says he needs something, we'll try to make it available for him. COMMISSIONER HENNING: And I can tell you, I have been trained on a shovel if you need some help. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I hadn't been, but I'm willing to be. MR. McNEES: I'm shovel qualified as well, so who knows who will be out there working. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So if you had to say the percentage of optimism that you have that this deal will make it on November 6, what percentage are you? Don't you love these questions? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Good question, Pam. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's the kind of question a lawyer gets asked all the time. What are my odds of winning this case? Are they fifty/fifty? Are they eighty/twenty? MR. MUDD: Ma'am, I would say that we've got probably a ninety, ninety-five percent. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Great percentage. Good question. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So can a -- MR. MUDD: The only thing that's going to get in our way on this one is a hurricane, okay, and that's what really bothers me. And knock on wood, that's not going to happen. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Knock on wood and knock on your knees to the floor. MR. McNEES: And I think it's important here that we ask the right question. If you ask us, is this standing by itself a fantastic business deal for the sewer system? We're going to go, "No, it probably isn't." If you ask us, "Is this preferable to no consent order and the continued prohibition for additional connections to the north Page 16 March 30, 2001 wastewater treatment plant, including construction that's already underway and waiting for a CO," we're going to tell you, "Relative to that, yes, we think it's the right thing to do." COMMISSIONER FIALA: Good point, Mike. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And for me to make that -- I'm ninety-nine percent sure I am going to agree with you on that. What I would like to know is, what is the total financial cost of this mess, including -- is it 580 plus 200? MR. MUDD: Are you talking -- MR. McNEES: Top side. MR. MUDD: Are you talking about this particular project integration or the whole issue that we've been going through right now? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I guess what I'm talking about -- MR. McNEES: Top side, yes. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- what does it cost us to get out of the no wet permits? Not what's the solution -- not what's the solution to our whole problem, but what's the cost of getting us out of this stop work order from the DEP? MR. McNEES: $580,000. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Plus 200 for penalties? We're paying those no matter what? MR. McNEES: We're paying that no matter what. Whether you get out of it or don't get out of it, we're paying that. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So it's cost us 200. Do we know yet what we're going to spend that on, the projects -- MR. MUDD: Well, we've got some projects. The one that we would really like to do is, there is a project down in Port-au-Prince, their sewer system. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. MR. MUDD: The Florida Department of Environmental Protection was pretty adamant about us taking that into our sewer system. We took it in and it has been -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: A disaster. MR. MUDD: -- nothing but problems. And we really need to do some work down there to get it back up to standard. And it's sitting in a pretty -- and it's sitting in a pretty environmentally sensitive area and we don't want to have sewer leaks going out into the bay and that kind of thing. And I think we can convince the Florida Department of Environmental Protection to let us use Page17 March 30, 2001 those dollars to fix that system. MR. McNEES: So that $200,000 you are looking at as a cost is -- would get you a replaced collection system probably in that area that we all know has been a problem for twenty years. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Whoever thought of that, as a costing (sic) being an advantage. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That should have been done anyway. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Commissioners, may I raise this question to Mr. Weigel and also to Mr. McNees and Mr. Mudd, that to get where we need to be, of course what we want to do and need to do, there's significant economic impact to this community if we can't accomplish that and spend these dollars to be there. I would wonder if some of the larger -- and I don't know how to fit -- work a formula that some sort of surcharge can be added through this crunch-down period. You know, they want to get there. They want the wet connections. And everybody wants to win. But is there some way they can help us in cost sharing with this $580,000 we're looking down the gun barrel at? MR. MUDD: David, I'll address that. Sir, we're going to come to you sometime this summer with an impact fee adjustment and that will get -- that will get at those impact fees that we've had to use to work this process. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you very much. If the Board agrees, I think that would be one I would be very interested in pursuing. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes, I think we need to take a look at the impact fee and adjust it on a regular basis, whether it's sewer, water or roads or whatever. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Are we saying that our impact fees might go up as a result of this? I thought the deal was -- MR. MUDD: Ma'am, I can't address that until I get somebody to take a look at the entire process. MR. McNEES: I can tell you absolutely, no, we are not saying the impact fees might go up because of this. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I can't imagine that that would happen. MR. McNEES: No. They may go up. They may not go up. That is an independent issue as to this particular acute situation. Page 18 March 30, 2001 COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. And the other question that we get asked is -- or that I'm getting asked anyway is, this 580, which is all impact fees, is any of that money -- okay, we know the 200,000 is money that we would not otherwise be spending. In the 580, how much of that is money that we would not otherwise be spending; all of it? Because we would be able to wait and let this contract, you know, complete its normal life. But that 580 is all coming out of impact fee money, so it's not rate payor related. MR. MUDD: That's right. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So it's purely impact fees, which is appropriate because we're talking about growth here. MR. WEIGEL: Right. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We're talking about growth-related problems. So I just wanted to be sure that there wasn't any -- there's no rate increase or anything connected to this. Okay. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I think Commissioner Coletta made a motion. I'm not sure if we have any public speakers. MR. McNEES: You have two. Dave Brooks. MR. WEIGEL: He may waive. MR. McNEES: And David Ellis, I think, only wanted to speak if it looked like we were going a different direction. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I had a question for David just on that issue of having labor available. I just wanted to hear you say that CBIA is committed to having labor available. MR. ELLIS: CBIA, as well as the ASCF, the subcontractors have met with your county and we've offered some resource ideas to the contractor. Of course, because -- we don't control the contractor, but yet I will tell you that we have enough interested parties -- and believe you me, we have those interested parties -- that, if it comes to that, we will do everything possible to make sure that that's there. COMMISSIONER HENNING: And you know -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: So the contractor can never claim he's not -- he can't keep up with the schedule because he can't find labor because you will have it, right? And Jim's got that as a weapon to use. MR. ELLIS: Yes, we've discussed that at some length in some meetings. And again, our hope is that with the incentives -- and again, I'll compliment you on the way you've structured this. Page 19 March 30, 2001 You've given that contractor every reason to move ahead with it as expeditiously as possible and yet at the same time you've created an incentive like you've said, Commissioner Coletta, and COMMISSIONER COLETTA: A carrot and a stick. MR. ELLIS: Yes, carrot and a stick is a nice way of saying it. And I think the folks that I represent at least will be satisfied that you've done a nice job of structuring that contract. And I think they would agree that that probably creates that kind of incentive for that contractor. But again, to your question, Commissioner Mac'Kie. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: You're there? MR. ELLIS: Yes, we are there. And I promise you, we didn't -- I didn't always used to drive by that plant and wonder what was going on over there. I drive by slow now and we keep a close eye on it. And again, we are not going to -- like we said last Tuesday, we're not going to walk out of this room today and say, "Well, this is solved." This is a challenge that we're all going to share until this is resolved. And I promise you we will be there pushing as best we can. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Appreciate hearing that. MR. McNEES: Commissioner Mac'Kie, I'll answer your question this way. I think Mr. Mudd would probably agree. Since this issue came to the forefront, there's only one thing I've heard more of than advice and that would be promises to help if we need help. And we've been paying attention. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. And I guess -- I hate to keep thinking of questions. But Mr. Weigel, do we have the right under the contract if the contractor fails to perform that we can substitute ourselves? I mean, if he should default, failure to perform, can we finish the job? MR. WEIGEL: Well, this is a standard form contract which provides for-- it has -- it's bonded and so -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But that's so slow. MR. WEIGEL: That's very slow. And we have the ability to unilaterally suspend, to terminate without cause or terminate with cause. All of those things, though, don't automatically allow for bringing in someone else in its place. That's a significant manpower and logistical and contractual operation to do. Page 20 March 30, 2001 There are those called fail safe or protective elements in this contract, as we have in all ma]or capital improvement contracts. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Would that just be too much to consider talking to this contractor about? MR. MUDD: This is not a bad contract. You have to understand, this is not a bad contract. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. MR. MUDD: And we're not trying to whip him to do his job. We are asking him to speed it up. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. MR. MUDD: And we have been asking him to speed it up. The way we changed his perk chart around to move the sludge drawing facility to the back end to get that out of the way, to keep the liquid train on board. We've crashed his CPM, so we've taken the slack out of it for him. We've helped him and he's been willing to do that. MR. McNEES: What he's saying is, please doesn't make us change horses. We're ready to roll. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Commissioner Carter, would you like me to call the questions since I can see the faces down here? CHAIRMAN CARTER: Well, you can see everyone there. I would say call the question. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I know Commissioner Coletta made a motion. There was a second to it, Commissioner Fiala. Is there further discussion on the motion? And this is for the resolution that Mr. Mudd outlined. MR. MUDD: That's right. So that the public utilities engineering director can execute the change order with project integration under Contract 99-2908. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: All in favor of that motion please say aye. Opposed? (No response.) COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That passes unanimously. MR. MUDD: The second motion that I need is to approve the necessary budget amendment to transfer $600,000 from the project 73948, which is the north sewer deep injection well, to this project, which is 73031, the north sewer five million gallon a day expansion. Source of the funds is impact fees. Page 21 March 30, 2001 COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Is there a motion? COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'll make that motion. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Is there a second? CHAIRMAN CARTER: I'll second. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thank you. Is there discussion on that motion? If not, all in favor please say aye. Opposed? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That passes unanimously. MR. MUDD: Before you you see the Florida Department of Environmental Protection consent order and we hit the major points. We will meet them on Monday to talk to them about the south plant extension for the -- excuse me -- for the re-rate of the south plant. We will talk to them about softening their language on the penalties of 10K per day from a will to maybe a may or to a limit of 10K. So that if we do get ourselves in some kind of a natural disaster or whatever, that they would at least be amenable to consider that process in those days. We will also talk to them about a package plant to see if we can get any leverage with that. Maybe we could get a thirty day push back off of the five million gallon a day plant to push that penalty issue off. We're going to try all of those different things with them to see if we can go anywhere with it. And if they are not willing to go with it, then we'll take that piece off the table. But there -- and you've seen these items before, as far as the consent order is concerned. And the only piece was the penalties that the Commission said, "We don't want to put that on the table yet because we don't want the negotiations with project integration to be held hostage on a 10K per day basis." And I think we were pretty successful to keep that out of there. But at this particular form we are going to need to go back to FDEP. We've asked them -- I've talked to Director Cantrell (phonetic). The other night we had a water symposium here with NBC 2 News. And he was one of the panelists and I talked to him at great length about that. And they aren't very receptive of coming off that penalty. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But, you know, if they could at least give themselves the flexibility to not charge us the ten Page 22 March 30, 2001 grand a day if there were, God forbid, a natural disaster, that would be a logical place for them to go. MR. MUDD: Yes, ma'am. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That could still be totally in their discretion if they wanted to. CHAIRMAN CARTER: I think that's why Mr. Mudd is trying to get the word changed to may versus will so that we do have some flexibility there, Commissioner Mac'Kie. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yes, may in their discretion, if that's the best we can get. So do you need a motion from us on the consent order terms? MR. MUDD: We're basically saying, these are the consent order terms that they have laid out. And as far as -- as far as I and Mr. McNees are concerned, these are the worst possible things that could happen to us. This is the upper limit. We would like to have the ability to have the chairman be able to sign that consent order when we get it in to -- over the county line, so that we don't have to waste any time or wait two weeks before the Board meets in order to get that done. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And you'll report back to us at the next Board meeting if we were able to get anything a little bit more, a little bit better? MR. MUDD: Yes, ma'am. MR. McNEES: The only other wrinkle we need to fill in there is for you to authorize, if we get the consent order into final form before the Chairman comes back into town -- which I understand is going to be April the 8th, that if we can get it authorized prior to that, that you authorize the vice chairman to execute it. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So would someone be willing to make a motion to that effect? CHAIRMAN CARTER: I will make that motion, Commissioner Mac'Kie, and authorize you to sign in my absence if it is necessary to do prior to my return to Naples. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Gosh, we hope it is, don't we? Is there a second? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second by Commissioner Fiala. Is there any further discussion on the consent form motion? If not, all in favor please say aye. Page 23 March 30, 2001 Opposed? (No response.) COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That passes unanimously. Are you done with us, Mr. Mudd? MR. MUDD: Yes, ma'am. I am done. Thank you very much. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thank you very much for continued outstanding work. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Great negotiations with that contract. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you. CHAIRMAN CARTER: I would also like to say to the Commissioners, in visiting with Dudley Goodlette in Tallahassee, I thanked him again for all his support and efforts in working through this with us at the state level. I believe we have done everything so that it is possible for us to be where we are this afternoon. So he is there, again, saying to us that if at any point in time he can be of assistance in any and all of these matters, he is there to do so. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: All right. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you for being up there and representing us, Commissioner Carter. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Well, it was an experience. And I will have a lot of things to share with the Commission when I return. And also the next two days in April that we spend there, the latter part of April, that we'll be having conversations with staff and the Board on how we can be more effective. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Excellent. Is there anything further to come before this Board? CHAIRMAN CARTER: One other thing I would like to raise, Commissioner Mac'Kie. I have received an enormous amount of E-mails from Vanderbilt Beach Group, the beach association. And I have developed some response with Mr. Weigel and community development. And any of you who would like to see any of that feel free. I am continuing to work with those on the opportunities that -- whatever opportunities that we have prior to the Land Development Code presentations in June. They are most upset because we didn't listen to everyone on Tuesday. And I've tried to explain that the feeling in the Board was that -- I believe I read that correctly -- that legal counsel speaking for them gave us an opportunity to clearly understand Page 24 March 30, 2001 their concerns. And while we empathize totally with their position and wished that we could do it differently, we have to stay within the Land Development Codes as it is law and try to work out things to the best of our abilities through the legislative side. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. I know they will appreciate that. And I appreciate the research because I could use some help responding to all those E-mails myself. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. Well, there's some information there that you all may want to look at it. It's an FYI. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Appreciate that. Anything else? COMMISSIONER HENNING.' I just have one thing. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Commissioner Carter, we all know that you're up in Tallahassee working for us here in Collier County and I hope that you find some time for family while you're -- in your absence. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Well, I'm planning to do that. And thank you, Commissioner Henning. I am going to be in Atlanta for a couple days helping my youngest son celebrate his 30th birthday. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh my goodness. CHAIRMAN CARTER: You know, that seems pretty young to all of us. But I will tell you, he is saying, "Gee, am I getting old, Dad?" And I said, "No. You've got a long way to go." COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: A mere babe. Thank you, everybody. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you all. I think it was a great afternoon. And again, my appreciation to Mr. Mudd and Mr. McNees. We have got a wonderful group of people working for us and there is not anything that we can't get done. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: All right. We'll stand adjourned. Thank you. There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned at 2:55 p.m. Page 25 March 30, 2001 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS JAMES D,./~ARTER, Ph.D., CHAIRMAN ,.,'ATTEST: ~'~', /* .DWIGHT E~'...BROCK, CLERK $tg~t~re*'~nl$. s These minute approved by the Board on ~~-~;~/as presented ~ or as corrected · TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF _G _R E G_ O_ ~(~ CROpURRT REPORTING SERVICE BY: ELIZABETH M. UHuu , Page 26